What is Legal Ethics?

1. Branch of moral science which treats the duties which an attorney owes to the court,
to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
2. It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should govern
the conduct of every member of the bar.

I. ADMISSION TO THE BAR

A. 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5 (5)
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to
the practice of law in the Philippines and any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing
may practice law anywhere and before any entity in the Philippines. SEC. 5, ART. VIII of the
1987 Constitution.

The IBP is the national organization of lawyers mandated to elevate the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Philippine Bar to
discharge its public responsibilities more effectively.

➢ In Re: Cunanan , March 18, 1954; 94 Phil. 534 (1954)

SUMMARY OF
THE CASE: R. .A. 972 popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers Act of 1953” states
that so that a candidate(for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to
have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a
general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below
50 per cent in any subject. Examinees who got an average 72
percent to 75 percent should be passed and be admitted to the bar.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed
petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others
whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were still
pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for
admission. There are also others who have simply sought the
reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the
law in question. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners,
the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration,
irrespective of whether they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.
Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their grades. If
they are to be admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic
Act No. 972 which, if declared valid, should be applied equally to all
concerned whether they have filed petitions or not.

HIGHLIGHT OF
THE CASE: We should not lose sight of the fact that after every bar examinations,
the Supreme Court passes the corresponding resolution not only
admitting to the Bar those who have obtained a passing general

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 1
 average grade, but also rejecting and denying the petitions for
reconsideration of those who have failed. The present amendment
would have the effect of repudiating, reversing, and revoking the
Supreme Court's resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of
those who may have obtained an average of 70 percent or more but
less than the general passing average fixed for that year. It is clear
that this question involves legal implications, and this phase of the
amendment if finally enacted into law might have to go through a
legal test. As one member of the Court remarked during the
discussion, when a court renders a decision or promulgate a
resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain
law or rule then in force, the subsequent amendment or even repeal
of said law or rule may not affect the final decision, order, or
resolution already promulgated, in the sense of revoking or rendering
it void and of no effect.

Another aspect of this question to be considered is the fact that

members of the bar are officers of the courts, including the Supreme
Court. When a Bar candidate is admitted to the Bar, the Supreme
Court impliedly regards him as a person fit, competent and qualified
to be its officer.

➢ In Re: Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, August 3, 1978

SUMMARY OF
THE CASE: Attorney Marcial A. Edillon faces a recommendation for removal from
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for refusal to pay
membership dues. The IBP Board of Governors, through Resolution
No. 75-65, urges the Supreme Court to remove Edillon's name from
the Roll of Attorneys due to persistent non-payment. Edillon objects,
citing an infringement on his constitutional rights, asserting that
compulsory membership and dues payment violate his liberty and
property rights. He challenges the Court's jurisdiction, deeming the
matter administrative rather than justiciable. The case revolves
around the integration of the Bar and the obligations it imposes on
lawyers.

HIGHLIGHT OF
THE CASE: Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The
only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual
dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may
require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be
shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program —
the lawyers.

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 2
 ➢ Tajan vs. Cusi, Jr., G.R. No. L-28899, May 30, 1974

B. Qualifications for Admission to the Bar (Bar Matter No. 1153)

RULE 138 of the RULES OF COURT

Section 1. Who may practice law. — the person admitted must be a member of the bar
and must remain in good and regular standing to practice law.

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — the basic
requirements for the admission for the Bar are:
● Citizen of the Philippines ● Resident of the Philippines
● At least 21 years old ● No charges involving moral
● Possesses good moral character turpitude filed or pending.

Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — no person shall be admitted

to the bar examinations, passing, unless they have completed in a duly recognized
lawschool the following courses: civil, commercial, remedial, criminal, private and public
international, political, labor and social, medical, taxation and legal ethics.

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar
examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing:
● completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent
degree;
● recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and
● completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program
in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.

Section 6. Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a
certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of
law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized
university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high
school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences.

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its
equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a separate
bachelor's degree course.

Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. And Section 8. Notice of Applications.
— details indicating the procedure for the Filing of the Application for bar examination are
promulgated by the Supreme Court every year.

Section 9. Examination; subjects. — details about the bar subjects: Political and
International Law, Labor and Social Legislation, Civil Law, Taxation, Mercantile Law, Criminal
Law, Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics.

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 3
Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. — answers to
the bar questions are handwritten, but the supreme court may allow the use of typewriter in
meritorious circumstances.

Section 11. Annual examination, Section 12. Committee of examiners, Section 13.
Disciplinary measures, Section 14. Passing average, Section 15. Report of the
committee; filing of examination papers. — enumerates the details about the bar
examination: the examiners, period when it is taken, and its results, the passing percentage,
and the corresponding weight of the different subjects.

Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — candidates who failed the bar
exam for 3 times shall be disqualified from taking another exam unless the candidates have
compiled with the conditions provided. They may take a 4th and 5th test if they have
successfully completed a 1 year refresher course for each exam.

Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants, Section 18. Certificate,
Section 19. Attorney's roll. — Those who are successful in the bar exam must take the
Lawyer's Oath and sign into the Roll of attorneys to be considered as a lawyer.

Bar Matter 1153 (THE LETTER OF ATTY MENDOZA PROPOSING REFORMS IN THE
BAR EXAMINATION THROUGH AMENDMENTS TO RULE 138) - It amended Section 5 of
the Rule 138, stating that a Filipino citizen who completed and obtained their degree in law
must also present proof of completion of a separate bachelor's degree.

Ui v. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319, June 8, 2000

➢
Cui vs. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, August 31, 1964
➢
Bacarro vs. Pinatacan, Adm. Case No. 559-SBC, January 31, 1984
➢
Diao vs. Martinez, A.C. No. 244, March 29, 1963
➢
Re: Argosino, B.M. No. 712, March 19, 1997
➢
In Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, A.C. No. 1162, August 29, 1975
➢
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949
➢
Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997
➢
Pangan v. Ramos, Adm. Case No. 1053 (Resolution), September
➢
7, 1979
➢ Re: 2003 Bar Examination, Bar Matter No. 1222, February 4, 2004
C. Continuing Requirements for Membership in the Bar
➢ Deles vs. Aragona, Jr., Adm. Case No. 598, March 28, 1969
➢ Blanza vs. Arcangel, A.C. No. 492 . September 5, 1967
➢ Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004
➢ Alcala vs. de Vera, A.C. No. 620, March 21, 1974

D. Appearance of Non-Lawyers

Qualification for a student of law to appear before the courts as stated in Rule 138-A
➢ Have successfully completed the third year of the regular prescribed
4-year curriculum.

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 4
 ➢ Enrolled in a recognized law school's clinic legal education program
approved by the Supreme Court.
➢ Appears without compensation
➢ Represents indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.
➢ The Appearance of the student must be under direct supervision of a
member of the Bar.
➢ Communications between lawyer-client apply to the law student as
well
➢ Comply with the standards of professional conduct governing the
members of the Bar.

Clinical Legal Education Program (CLEP)

OBJECTIVE

The CLEP provides students with the necessary skills for their eventual practice of law and
socially conscious values for their role in the community. It supplements the knowledge
accumulated through three (3) years of “teaching-learning” experiences in the College.
Through the program, students are given actual and practical understanding of the practice
of law by being “directly and personally” involved in addressing legal problems and
situations.

STRUCTURE AND CLINICS

● OLA – The Office of Legal Aid (OLA) is the public service unit of the College where
all students are required to undergo 60 hours of service. OLA provides legal
assistance and services to indigent members of the community within the National
Capital Judicial Region.
● Law Firm Practice – The Law Internship Center provides students with practical
knowledge in fee-based practice in litigation, appellate work, corporate
documentation, corporate structuring, taxation, estate settlement, property, contract
review, and other areas of the practice of law.
● Environment – The Environment clinic immerses students in environmental issues
and familiarizes them with procedures relating to filing of environmental cases and
enforcement of pertinent laws and decisions on environmental cases. Work for the
Clinic includes policy research and formulation in matters relating to environmental
protection.
● Civil and Political Rights – With FLAG as partner, students are exposed to handling
cases relating to civil and political rights that address basic freedoms, governmental
actions interfering with citizens’ rights, and political issues. Work includes pleading
writing, assistance in court cases and argumentation, client handling, and
constitutional law research.
● Government Practice – Students are given an externship under the Republic’s only
law firm — the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) — and are exposed to various
issues and matters in which the protection of State interest is vital. It is expected that
students will be made to work on pleadings, attend hearings, and participate in
classroom-style learning experiences.

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 5
 ● Competition Law – Starting second semester of AY 2019-2020, students are now
able to gain direct and practical experience in legal issues and matters concerning
competition law through a partnership with the Philippine Competition Commission
(PCC). Work for the Clinic includes both support in relation to the Commission’s
adjudicatory function, and as a legislative liaison, specifically reviewing of competition
laws and lobbying with Congress.

PERSONS WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS MAY APPEAR IN COURTS:

a. A party to a litigation in person or through the aid of an agent or friend bt him
for that purpose in cases which the MTC has jurisdiction
b. A party to any litigation before any other court
c. In criminal case before the MTC where a duly licensed member of the Bar is
not available, the court may appoint any person in good repute for probity and
ability in the province to defend the accused
d. Those who appear in the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter only if they:
i. Represent themselves,
ii. Represent a legitimate labor org that is a party to the case,
iii. Represent a member of the labor org that is existing within the
employer's establishment, who are parties to the case,
iv. Duly-accredited members of any legal aid office recognized by the
DOJ or IBP,
v. Owner or authorized person of a corporation/establishment, which is
party to the case.
e. Any person can represent himself or any claimant before the Cadastral Court
f. Any person appointed to appear for the government in accordance with law.

1. Cantimbuhan vs. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. L-51813-14, November 29,

1983
E. Prohibited Practice of Non-Lawyers and Appearance without Authority

Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing. These proceedings are the
Following:
● Katarungang Pambarangay Proceedings - the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors or
incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin that are non-lawyers,
● Small Claims Cases - No attorneys shall appear on behalf of or represent a party at
the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.

Sanctions imposed on nonlawyers who acts as such or lawyers who acts without the
latter's consent are the following:
● Indirect Contempt - persons assuming to be officer of the court acting
without authority, as well as lawyers who are temporarily suspended are liable
for indirect contempt,
● Estafa - Persons who assume to be an attorney and cause damage to a party
are liable for estafa.
● Violation of RA 6713 - Lawyers in the government service prohibited to
exercise their profession who engaged in the private practice of law are liable

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 6
 for violation of the code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials
and employees,
● Administrative Liability - lawyers who knowingly engaged in unauthorized
oractice of law violates Canon 9 of the CPR.

➢ In Re: Abad, B. M. No. 139, March 28, 1983

F. Public Officials and the Practice of Law; Prohibitions and

Disqualifications
a) Absolutely disqualified to engaged in the private practice
of law:
(1) Judges and other officials and employees of the court,
(2) Officials and employees of the Solicitor General,
(3) President, VP, and members of the cabinet and their
deputies and asst.
(4) Members of the Constitutional Commission,
(5) Ombudsman and his deputies,
(6) Governors, city and municipal mayors,
(7) Government Prosecutors,
(8) Civil Service Officers or employees whose duties and
responsibilities require that their entire time be at the
disposal of the government,
(9) Judges are prohibited from practicing private law
(10) Those prohibited by special laws.
b) Conditionally allowed to engaged in the private practice of
law and their restrictions:
● Members of the Legislature are prohibited from appearing as
counsel before any court or quasi-judicial and administrative
bodies,
● Members of the sangunian (all members) may engage in the
practice of law except in the following:
○ They shall not appear as counsel in any civil case
wherein a part of the government is the adverse party,
○ Counsel in any criminal case where in an officer or
employee of the government is accused of an offense
committed in relation to his office,
○ They shall not collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the local
government of which he is an official,
○ They shall not use the property and personnel of the
Government except when the sangunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
● Civil Service Officers or employees whose duties and
responsibilities do not require their entire time to be at the
disposal of the government provided they can secure a written
permit from the head of the department concerned.

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 7
 ➢ Omico Mining & Industrial Corp. vs. Vallejos, G.R. No. L-38974,
March 25, 1975; 63 SCRA 285 (1975)

Case Title:
Omico Mining v. Vallejos

Facts of the
● The case involves a complaint filed by Judge
Case:
Catolico against Omico Mining and Industrial
Corporation and Frederick G. Webber for the
return of stock certificates and payment for legal
services.
● Under the first cause of action, judge owned 30
stocks certificates, Frederick Webber pleaded with
him to allow 10 certificates to stay with him to
use these certificate as collaterals for a loan but
when the transaction failed he asked for the 10
certificates but to no avail.
● Under the second cause of action, he is a judge of
the Court of First Instance of Cavite, further
alleged that on October 13, 1968, defendants
entered into a contract of personal and
professional services with him under the terms of
which he was to head defendant corporation's
legal department with the condition that he
should render such services only after his office
hours, "even into the dead wee hours of the night
and wherever such services would not run in
conflict with his duties as Judge"; that in
consideration of such services, the defendants
undertook to pay him a yearly salary of
P35,000.00 from the date of the contract, but
where a case shall have been settled in and out of
court, and defendants shall have won or saved
money because of such settlement, he shall be
paid by way of commission ten percent (10%) of
the amount involved in the litigation and/or
settlement; that, pursuant to said contract, he
has rendered legal services as head of the legal
department of defendant Omico and has attended
to the personal consultation of defendant
Frederick G. Webber.

Issue/s:
W/N the contract for professional services between Judge
Catolico and the defendants was void because it constituted
private practice of law, which is prohibited for judges

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 8
 Ruling:
The contract between them is void because it
constituted private practice of law.

● The contract of professional services entered into

between private respondent and the petitioners, while
the former was still a judge of the Court of First Instance,
constituted private practice of law and in contravention of
the express provision of Section 35 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court. The aforecited Rule was
promulgated by this Court, pursuant to its constitutional
power to regulate the practice of law.
● It is based on sound reasons of public policy, for there is
no question that the rights, duties, privileges and
functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are so
inherently incompatible with the high official functions,
duties, powers, discretions and privileges of a judge of
the Court of First Instance.
● This inhibitory rule makes it obligatory upon the judicial
officers concerned to give their full time and attention to
their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special
favors to their own private interests and assure the
public of their impartiality in the performance of their
functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of
moral decency and the desire to promote the public
interest

Elevation to the bench of the court of first instance suspended

his private practice of law

● Private respondent should have known or ought to know,

that when he was elevated to the Bench of the Court of
First Instance as a judge thereof, his right to practice law
as an attorney was suspended and continued to be
suspended as long as he occupied the judicial position

The contract is void from the very beginning

● It is evident, therefore, that the aforesaid contract is void

because a contract, whose cause, object or purpose is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy, is considered inexistent and void from the
beginning.

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 9
 ➢ People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450, May 27, 1965

Case Title:
People v Villanueva

Facts of the ● On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of

Case: Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with
the crime of Malicious Mischief, before the Justice of
the Peace Court of said municipality.
● The accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but
later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant
in the same case was represented by City Attomey
Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his
appearance as private-prosecutor, after securing the
permission of the Secretary of Justice.
● The condition of his appearance as such, was that
every time he would appear at the trial of the case, he
would be considered on official leave of absence, and
that he would not receive any payment for his
services.
● The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private
prosecutor was questioned by the counsel for the
accused.

Issue/s: Whether or not the isolated appearance of Atty. Fule as

private prosecutor constitutes practice of law.

Ruling: No. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice of

the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended party.
It does not appear that he was being paid for his services or
that his appearance was in a professional capacity. As
Assistant City Attorney of Sail Pablo he had no control or
intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes
committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because
the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are
handled by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the
City Attorney of San Pablo. As such, there could be no
possible conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney Fule
us Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private
prosecutor in this criminal case.

Furthermore, the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule

did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and
contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated
appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is
frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the
prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or
habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer
and demanding payment for such services. Thus, the

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 10
 appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as
determinative of engagement in the private practice of law.
And, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had
been given permission by his immediate supervisor, the
Secretary of Justice, to represent the complaint in the case
at bar who is a relative.

Dispositive:
CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision
appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed, in all
respects, with costs against appellant

➢ Villegas vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 53869. March 25, 1982

➢ Enriquez vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-12817. April 29, 1960

SUMMARY OF
THE CASE: ● RA 1383 created National Waterworks and Sewage Authority
and vesting in it the ownership, jurisdiction, supervision and
control over all territory embraced by the Metropolitan Water
District as well as all areas served by existing
government-owned waterworks and sewerage and drainage
systems within the boundaries of cities, municipalities, and
municipal districts in the Philippines
● EO 127 ordered the transfer of all government-owned
equipment, machinery, etc to NAWASA.
● On 31 March 1956 the municipal council of Bauan, Batangas,
adopted a resolution stating "that it is the desire of this
municipality in this present administration not to submit our
local Waterworks to the provisions of the said Republic Act
No. 1383."
● the municipal mayor transmitted a copy of the resolution to
the Provincial Fiscal through the Provincial Board requesting
him to render an opinion on the matter treated therein and to
inform the municipal council whether he would handle and
prosecute its case in court should the council decide to
question and test judicially the legality of Republic Act No.
1383 and to prevent the NAWASA from exercising its
authority over the waterworks system of the municipality.
● The provincial fiscal rendered an opinion holding that RA
1383 is valid and constitutional and declined to represent the
municipality of Bauan in questioning the legality.
● The municipal mayor wrote a letter to the petitioner engaging
his services as counsel for the municipality in its
contemplated action against NAWASA which the petitioner
agreed to along with the terms and conditions:
○ that his professional services shall commence from
the filing of the complaint up to and including the
appeal, if any, to the appellate courts;

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 11
 ○ that his professional fee shall be P1,500 and payable
as follows:
■ P500 upon the filing of the complaint,
■ P500 upon the termination of the hearing of
the case in the Court of First Instance
■ P500 after judgment shall have become final
or, should the judgment be appealed, after the
appeal shall have been submitted for judgment
to the appellate court;
○ that the municipality shall defray all reasonable and
necessary expenses for the prosecution of the case in
the trial and appellate courts including court and
sheriff fees, transportation and subsistence of counsel
and witnesses and cost of transcripts of stenographic
notes and other documents
● The petitioner has billed the necessary expenses to the
municipal auditor, which was forwarded to the auditor general
for pre-audits.
● The auditor general disallowed in audit the claim of petitioner
stating that “it was the opinion of the Secretary of Justice
who held that the Provincial Fiscal was not disqualified
to handle and prosecute in court the case of the
municipality of Bauan and that its municipal council had
no authority to engage the services of a special counsel”
● Par. 2 of Sec. 1683 of the RAC states that When the
provincial fiscal is disqualified to serve any municipality or
other political subdivision of a province, a special attorney
may be employed by its council.
● Bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility on the part of a
fiscal not based on any of the conditions enumerated in the
law and the Rules of Court do not constitute a legal and valid
excuse for inhibition or disqualification.
● a fiscal cannot refuse the performance of his functions on
grounds not provided for by law without violating his oath of
office, where he swore, among others, "that he will well and
faithfully discharge to the best of his ability the duties of the
office or position upon which he is about to enter. . . ."
● The fact that the Secretary of Justice had, on several
occasions, upheld the validity and constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 1383 does not exempt the municipal council of Bauan
from requesting the Secretary of Justice to detail a provincial
fiscal to prosecute its case.

HIGHLIGHT OF
THE CASE: Bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility on the part of a fiscal not
based on any of the conditions enumerated in the law and the Rules
of Court do not constitute a legal and valid excuse for inhibition or
disqualification.

a fiscal cannot refuse the performance of his functions on grounds

not provided for by law without violating his oath of office, where he
swore, among others, "that he will well and faithfully discharge to the
best of his ability the duties of the office or position upon which he is

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 12
 about to enter. . . ."

II. REVISED LAWYER'S OATH

It is the source of obligations and duties of every lawyer, and any violation is a ground for
disbarment, suspension or disciplinary action.

"I (name) do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility
of practicing law in the Philippines as an officer of the court in the interest of our
people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. In so
doing, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law in a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, and peace. I shall conscientiously and courageously work for
justice as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons,
identities, and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I
shall do no falsehood, nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor or prejudice anyone.
I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability,
with integrity and utmost civility. I impose upon myself without mental reservation nor
purpose of evasion so help me God.”

A. Collantes vs. Renomeron, A.C. No. 3056, August 16, 1991

DOCTRINE: The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court; People vs.
De Luna, 102 Phil. 968), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to
delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source
of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action (Legal
Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-67).

SUMMARY OF
THE CASE: V & G had requested the respondent Register of Deeds to register
some 163 deeds of sale with assignment of lots of the V & G
mortgaged to GSIS by the lot buyers. There was no action from the
respondent. Although V & G complied with the desired requirements,
respondent Renomeron suspended the registration of the documents
pending compliance by V & G with a certain “special arrangement”
between them. Fed up with the respondent’s extortionate tactics, the
complainant wrote him a letter on May 20, 1987 challenging him to
act on all pending applications for registration of V & G within
twenty-four (24) hours. On May 22, 1987, respondent formally denied
registration of the transfer of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on
the uniform ground that the deeds of absolute sale with assignment
were ambiguous as to parties and subject matter. On May 27, 1987,
respondent elevated the matter en consulta to the Administrator,
Land Registration Authority [LRA]. Exasperated by respondent’s
conduct, the complainant filed with the NLTDRA on June 4, 1987
administrative charges against respondent Register of Deeds. LRA
Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 22, 1988,
recommended to Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoñez that the

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 13
 respondent: (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of duty: (2) be
reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for
registration; and (3) be warned that a repetition of similar infraction
will be dealt with more severely. After due investigation of the
charges, Secretary Ordoñez found respondent guilty of grave
misconduct, recommended to President Corazon C. Aquino that
Renomeron be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave
credits and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment
in the government service, effective immediately. Less than two
weeks after filing his complaint against Renomeron in the NLTDRA,
Attorney Collantes also filed in this Court on June 16, 1987, a
disbarment complaint against said respondent.

HIGHLIGHT OF
THE CASE: As the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro said:

A person takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which is

designed to impress upon him his responsibilities. He thereby
becomes an "officer of the court" on whose shoulders rests the grave
responsibility of assisting the courts in the proper. fair, speedy, and
efficient administration of justice. As an officer of the court he is
subject to a rigid discipline that demands that in his every exertion
the only criterion is that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is
what has given the law profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted
place. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are
expected those qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full
candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary
responsibility— all of which, throughout the centuries, have been
compendiously described as moral character.

Membership in the Bar is in the category of a mandate to public

service of the highest order.1âwphi1 A lawyer is an oath-bound
servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by
inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the
advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for which he has
sworn to be a fearless crusader. (Apostasy in the Legal Profession,
64 SCRA 784, 789- 790; emphasis supplied.)

B. A-1 Financial Services, Inc. vs. Valerio, A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010

DOCTRINE:

SUMMARY OF
THE CASE:

HIGHLIGHT OF
THE CASE:

Legal Ethics
Class Notes 1JD 3 14