MIDTERMS
CPR
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CPRA JRR OPINIONS
CANON 1
Canon III, Sec. 2, par. 1 - A lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land, promote respect for
laws and legal processes, safeguard
human rights, and at all times advance
the honor and integrity of the legal
profession.
Canon II, Sec. 1 - Identical provision
CASE DOCTRINES
Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil 350 (1933)
Atty. Abordo bought fake opium. When the
vendors were reported for estafa, Atty. Abordo
said that the acts he committed were not
committed in the exercise of his profession.
Atty. Abordo was suspended. The general rule
is that the Court will not assume jurisdiction to
discipline an officer for acts committed in his
private capacity. However, the exception to the
rule is that the Court will take action when the
attorney commits acts that will constitute to
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession,
but also for gross misconduct outside his
duties which will show him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges.
The court adopted a US case doctrine which
emphasized that a lawyer is the one who
should be most sacredly bound to uphold
the laws as compared to other classes and
professions.
Narciso L. Hipolito v. Atty. Ma. Carmina M.
Alejandro-Abbas and Atty. Joseph
Anthony M. Alejandro, A.C. No. 12485,
December 10, 2019
Atty. siblings forcibly entered a property,
demolished stuff, cursed and threatened
possessors. They did not resort to legal
remedies to eject possessors.

Also violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of old CPR

(lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects…) for taunting possessors to
file a case. Suspended for 6 months.

Alfred Lehnert v. Atty. Dennis Diño, A.C.

No. 12174 (2018)
Atty. Diño issued bouncing checks to petitioner,
Lehnert, in violation of BP 22.

Atty. Diño was suspended for two years. If he

only displayed a cavalier attitude toward
incurring debts then he will be suspended only
for one year. However, since he issued
bouncing checks, then two years. A lawyer
must faithfully execute their duties, including
their financial obligations. Issuing worthless
checks, unmindful of the deleterious effects of
such act to public interest and public order is a
ground for suspension.

In re: Gutierrez, A.C. No. 363, July 31,

1962

Absolute pardon for a crime bars any

disbarment case filed after the pardon was
granted.

But here, Gutierrez committed murder and was

only granted a conditional pardon and so only
the unexpired portion of the penalty was wiped
out. Gutierrez was still tainted with moral
turpitude Hence, he was disbarred and had his
name stricken out of the roll of Attorneys..

The case also defined moral turpitude as a

term that includes everything which is done in
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals. In re: Basa, the Supreme Court used
moral turpitude in the context of disbarment
status as an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes to his fellow men or to
 society in general, contrary to the accepted
rule of right and duty between man and man.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June 16,
counsel or abet activities aimed at 2009
defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system. Keld Stemmerick, a citizen and resident of
Denmark, was led to believe by Atty.
Leonuel Mas that he can legally
acquire real properties in the Philippines.
Stemmerick agreed to purchase the property
through Atty. Mas as his representative or
attorney-in-fact. He also engaged the services
of Atty. Mas for the preparation of the
necessary documents. Atty. Mas ran away
with the P400K fee and P3.8M payment for the
property. away with the 400,000 payment and
3.8 million payment.

Ruling:
Lawyers are servants of the law and the law is
their master. They should not simply obey the
laws, they should also inspire respect for and
obedience thereto by serving as exemplars
worthy of emulation.

A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to

circumvent the law and uses his legal
knowledge to further his selfish ends to the
great prejudice of others, poses a clear and
present danger to the rule of law and to the
legal system. He does not only tarnish the
image of the bar and degrade the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays
everything that the legal profession stands for.

Atty. Mas is hereby DISBARRED.

Atty. Mas blatantly disregarded the law,

specifically the constitution, when 1.) he tried
to sell land in the philippines to a foreigner 2.)
he offered for sale non alienable public land

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for Canon II, Sec. 23, par. 2 - A lawyer Note that not all old CPR provisions Caspe v. Meijica
any corrupt motive or interest, shall not institute or advise the were transferred verbatim. Rule
encourage any suit or proceeding client to institute multiple cases to 1.03 is one such example. Atty. Mejica threatened Caspe that the former
or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end
or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.
gain leverage in a case, to harass a
party, to delay the proceedings, or
to increase the cost of litigation.
Canon III, Sec. 7. Prohibition Against
Frivolous Suits and Abuse of Court
Processes. — A lawyer shall not:
(a) file or encourage the filing of any
suit or proceeding not authorized by
law or jurisprudence and without any
evidentiary support;
(b) unduly impede the execution of an
order or judgment which is warranted;
or
(c) abuse court processes.
Canon III, Section 8. Lawyer's Duty to
Encourage Settlement. — A lawyer
shall encourage the client to avoid, end
or settle a controversy, whether
pending or not, in order to reach a
settlement or a compromise if the
matter can be compromised under the
law and will admit of a fair settlement.
To this end, the lawyer shall actively
assist the parties and the court,
tribunal, or other government agency
to effect mediation and/or dispute
resolution.
will file cases after cases against the latter, and
acted on such threat when he induced
Guadena, a barangay tanod, to file a complaint
for slander by deed against Caspe. The slander
case is based on an incident where Guadena
harassed two passersby with a gun, to which
Caspe responded and brought Guadena to the
police station. Thus, Caspe filed a disbarment
suit against Atty. Mejica.
Ruling: In disciplinary proceedings against
members of the bar, only clear preponderance
of evidence is required to establish liability.
This quantum of evidence was met by the
complainant in this case. Atty. Mejica was
found guilty of violating Rules 1.03, 1.04 and
10.01 for, among others, encouraging Guade
to file a suit against Caspe.
SUSPENDED for 2 years.
See doctrines of Cabildo v. Navarro, 54
SCRA 26 (1973) only insofar as what
happens to lawyer’s fees when clients
decide to settle
Landowner struck a compromise agreement
with buyer where both parties agreed to
donate land in dispute. However, there was a
previous agreement b/w landowner and its
Atty. where the latter would receive a
percentage (contingent fee) from the
properties recovered. Since land is already
donated and not recovered, landowner refuses
to pay Atty.
SC said compromise will push through. But
Atty. must still be paid (on quantum meruit
basis) since he already rendered legal services.
And to enforce this, a lien is constituted in
favor of Atty on the hectares retained by
landowner.
Jeselva v. Bautista, 105 Phil 348 (1959) –
only insofar as what happens to lawyer’s
 fees when clients decide to settle

A compromise agreement between a

Corporation and a Union would decrease the
attorney’s fees. So, petitioners are assailing
that the compromise agreement is invalid
because it would affect the attorney’s fees.

The rights of lawyers to the fees due them for

services in a litigation cannot have a higher
standing than the rights of the clients or the
parties themselves. Lawyers' rights may not be
invoked by some of the parties as a ground for
disapproving the compromise. The lawyer
affected can enforce his rights in a proper
proceeding in accordance with the Rules, but
said rights may not be used to prevent the
approval of the compromise.

Larry Sevilla v. Atty. Marcelo Millo, A.C.

No. 10697 (2019)

There was a controversy between Sevilla and

Atty Millo’s clients, regarding a publication fee
that Atty. Millo found exorbitant and shocking.
Despite the initiative of his clients to have a
fair settlement with Sevilla, Atty Millo
prevented this by forbidding them from
paying.

The SC held that this was a violation of Rule

1.04 of Canon 1, given that he not only failed
to encourage his clients to avoid, end, or settle
the controversy, instead he was the whole
reason as to why the settlement was
prevented when he forbade his clients to pay.

Suspended for 1 month

CANON 2
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE Canon I, SECTION 1. Independent,
HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE Accessible, Efficient, and Effective
IN AN EFFICIENT AND Legal Service. — A lawyer shall make
CONVENIENT MANNER legal services accessible in an efficient
COMPATIBLE WITH THE and effective manner. In performing
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND this duty, a lawyer shall maintain
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE independence, act with integrity, and
PROFESSION. at all times ensure the efficient and
effective delivery of justice.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not

reject, except for valid reasons, the
cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if
the lawyer does not accept a case,
he shall not refuse to render legal
advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to
safeguard the latter's rights.
Canon III, Sec. 36, par. 2 - In any
case, the lawyer may not refuse to
render such pro bono legal services to
the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s fundamental rights and not to
deprive such person of remedies
available under the law or rules.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or
permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Canon II, SECTION 17. Non-Solicitation
and Impermissible Advertisement. — A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
solicit, or appear to solicit, legal
business.
A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, advertise legal services on
any platform or media except with the
use of dignified, verifiable, and factual
information, including biographical
data, contact details, fields of practice,
services offered, and the like, so as to
allow a potential client to make an
informed choice. In no case shall the
permissible advertisement be self-
laudatory.
If your main interest is to make
money then it erodes the legal
profession. The interest of justice
should be primary rather than the
interest of monetary gain.
Prohibition of ambulance chasing
because ambulance chasing is
champerty and barratry.
Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, A.C. No.
6672, September 4, 2009
Respondent lawyer advertised his services by
issuing calling cards that stated he was also
providing financial assistance. He also solicited
from the clients of his fellow practitioner.
Ruling: To allow lawyers to advertise his talent
or skill is to commercialize the practice of law,
degrade the profession in the public’s
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently
render that high character of service to which
every member of the bar is called.

A lawyer, law firm, or any of their

representatives shall not pay or give
any benefit or consideration to any
media practitioner, award-giving body,
professional organization, or
personality, in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity or recognition, to
attract legal representation, service, or
retainership.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not
charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING
KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES
SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST,
FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.
CANON 3
SECTION 17. Non-Solicitation and
Impermissible Advertisement. — A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
solicit, or appear to solicit, legal
business.
A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, advertise legal services on
any platform or media except with the
use of dignified, verifiable, and factual
information, including biographical
data, contact details, fields of practice,
services offered, and the like, so as to
allow a potential client to make an
informed choice. In no case shall the
permissible advertisement be self
laudatory.
A lawyer, law firm, or any of their
representatives shall not pay or give
any benefit or consideration to any
media practitioner, award-giving body,
professional organization, or
personality, in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity or recognition, to
attract legal representation, service, or
retainership.
SECTION 18. Prohibition Against
Self-Promotion . — A lawyer shall not
make public appearances and
statements in relation to a terminated
case or legal matter for the purpose of
self-promotion, self-aggrandizement,
or to seek public sympathy.
SECTION 26. Definition of a Law Firm;
Choice of Firm Name. — A law firm is
any private office, partnership, or
Pedro L. Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino, A.C. 6672, September 4, 2009
Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed a complaint of
disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
for solicitation of clients and encroachment of
professional services alleging that Atty.
Tolentino convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation with the promise of financial
assistance and expeditious collection of their
claims. To induce them to hire his services, he
persistently called them and sent them text
messages.
Ruling:
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded
that the practice of law is a profession and not
a business; lawyers should not advertise their
talents as merchants advertise their wares. To
allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is
to commercialize the practice of law, degrade
the profession in the public's estimation and
impair its ability to efficiently render that high
character of service to which every member of
the bar is called.
Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for
the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation
constitutes malpractice, a ground for
disbarment.
Ambulance Chasing - The solicitation of almost
any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent in order to gain
employment.
Atty. Tolentino is SUSPENDED for 1 year.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use
or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm
name, no false, misleading or
assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a
deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in
all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
association, exclusively comprised of a
lawyer or lawyers engaged to practice
law, and who hold themselves out as
such to the public.
In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading, or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name
of a deceased, incapacitated, or retired
partner is permissible provided that the
firm indicates in all its communications
that said partner is deceased,
incapacitated, or retired.
PROPRIETY - CANON II, Sec. 17, par. 2
A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, advertise legal services on
any platform or media except with the
use of dignified, verifiable, and factual
information, including biographical
data, contact details, fields of practice,
services offered, and the like, so as to
allow a potential client to make an
informed choice. In no case shall the
permissible advertisement be self-
laudatory.
Canon II, SECTION 26. Definition of a
Law Firm; Choice of Firm Name. — A
law firm is any private office,
partnership, or association, exclusively
comprised of a lawyer or lawyers
engaged to practice law, and who hold
themselves out as such to the public.
In the choice of a firm name, no
false, misleading, or assumed
name shall be used. The continued
use of the name of a deceased,
incapacitated, or retired partner is
permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications
that said partner is deceased,
incapacitated, or retired.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner
accepts public office, he shall
withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the
firm name unless the law allows
him to practice law currently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay
or give anything of value to
representatives of the mass media
in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL
PARTICIPATE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL
SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR
SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW
REFORM AND IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Canon II, SECTION 27. Partner Who
Assumes Public Office. — When a
partner assumes public office, such
partner shall withdraw from the firm
and such partner's name shall be
removed from the firm name, unless
allowed by law to practice concurrently.
Canon II, SECTION 17. Non-Solicitation Canon II, Sec. 18 - A lawyer shall
and Impermissible Advertisement. — A not
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
solicit, or appear to solicit, legal
business.elf-
A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, advertise legal services on
any platform or media except with the
use of dignified, verifiable, and factual
information, including biographical
data, contact details, fields of practice,
services offered, and the like, so as to
allow a potential client to make an
informed choice. In no case shall the
permissible advertisement be self-
laudatory.
A lawyer, law firm, or any of their
representatives shall not pay or give
any benefit or consideration to any
media practitioner, award-giving body,
professional organization, or
personality, in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity or recognition, to
attract legal representation, service, or
retainership.
CANON 4
Canon III, SECTION 34. Active NOTE: JRR did not focus on this
Participation in the Development of the provision, went straight to Canon 5
Legal Profession. — A lawyer shall
participate in the development of the
legal system by initiating or supporting
efforts in law reform, the improvement
of the administration of justice,
strengthening the judicial and legal
 system, and advocacies in areas of
special concern such as the
environment, indigenous peoples'
rights, human rights, access to justice,
and good governance.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP
ABREAST OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO
ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN
LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN
DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 5
Canon IV, SECTION 8. Lifelong Canon III, Section 23. Amicus
Learning. — A competent lawyer curiae. — A lawyer shall not decline,
engages in lifelong learning through without just cause, a request by any
the continued development of court, tribunal, or other government
professional skills. agency to act as amicus curiae in
any proceeding relating to the
Canon III, SECTION 24. Active lawyer's expertise or field of
Involvement in Legal Education. — A specialization.
lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing Canon III, Sec. 25. Support for legal
legal education programs, and support internship, apprenticeship and
efforts to achieve standards of training. — To prepare the next
excellence in law schools as well as in generation of lawyers for ethical
the practical training of law students. practice, lawyers shall support legal
In addition, a lawyer shall assist the internship and apprenticeship
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), programs and accept law students
law schools, law alumni associations, for training.
law associations, or civic organizations,
in educating the public on the law and The lawyer shall treat the
jurisprudence. apprentices as junior colleagues and
The IBP Chapters shall provide future counsels, and shall
supervising lawyers to the legal aid conscientiously supervise them. (n)
clinics in their jurisdiction.
JRR Comment: Lawyers are not
barred from sharing their own legal
opinions to the public but they need
to be careful in doing so because of
factors such as sub judice rule,
responsible socmed use, etc.; +++
these actions are not what is being
contemplated under this
canon/provision

CANON 6
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL Canon 2, SECTION 28. Dignified The basis for determining if a lawyer OCA v. Ladaga
APPLY TO LAWYERS IN Government Service. — Lawyers in is engaged in adverse practice
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE government service shall observe the against the government is if the
DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS. standard of conduct under the CPRA,
the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, and other related laws and
issuances in the performance of their
duties.
Any violation of the CPRA by lawyers in
government service shall be subject to
disciplinary action, separate and
distinct from liability under pertinent
laws or rules.
Canon 3, SECTION 21. Lawyers in
Government Service; conflict of
interest. – A lawyer currently serving in
the government shall not practice law
privately, unless otherwise permitted
by law or applicable Civil Service rules
or regulations. If allowed, private
practice shall be upon the express
authority of the lawyer’s supervisor, for
a stated specified purpose or
engagement, and only during an
approved leave of absence. However,
the lawyer shall not represent an
adverse interest to the government
government is a party in the case or
not.
Respondent, a clerk of court in a Makati RTC,
represented pro bono his cousin in a criminal
case filed against her in a QC MTC.
Investigation commissioner found him liable
for violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees
for unlawful private practice.
“[P]rivate practice” of a profession, specifically
the law profession in this case, which is
prohibited, does not pertain to an isolated
court appearance; rather, it contemplates a
succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding one’s self to
the public as a lawyer.
Hence, Ladaga did not commit private practice
by defending his cousin, but failed to get
writing permission from the Department (CJ of
SC?). Signature of presiding judge of the court
Ladaga is assigned to is not the head of the
Department as contemplated by law
Reprimanded
Mike Fermin v. Lintang Bedol, A.C. No.
6560 (2019)
Atty. Bedol, a Provincial Election Supervisor III
of Maguindanao and also a candidate for the
elections, issued notices of special election
before the COMELEC declared a failure of
election.
Atty. Bedol was suspended for 1 year. As
servants of the law and officers of the court,
lawyers are required to be at the forefront of
observing and maintaining the rule of law.
They are expected to make themselves
exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is
what a lawyer's obligation to promote respect
for law and legal processes entails. Moreso, a
lawyer who is occupying a public office.
Aquilino Pimentel Jr. v. Attys. Antonio
Llorente and Ligaya Salayon, A.C. No.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a
lawyer engaged in public
prosecution is not to convict but to
see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable
of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and
is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the
government service shall not use
his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Canon 2, SECTION 31. Prosecution of
Criminal Cases. — The primary duty of
a public prosecutor is not to convict but
to see that justice is done.
Suppressing facts, concealing of,
tampering with or destroying evidence,
coaching a witness, or offering false
testimony is cause for disciplinary
action.
The obligations of a public prosecutor
shall also be imposed upon lawyers in
the private practice who are authorized
to prosecute under the direct
supervision and control of the public
prosecutor.
Canon 2, SECTION 30. No Financial
Interest in Transactions; No Gifts. — A
lawyer in government shall not,
directly or indirectly, promote or
advance his or her private or financial
interest or that of another, in any
transaction requiring the approval of
his or her office. Neither shall such
lawyer solicit gifts or receive anything
See Canon 3, Section 21
Q: What do lawyers in
government service follow? CPRA
or the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees?
A: BOTH. Canon II, SECTION 28.
Dignified Government Service. —
4680, August 29, 2000
Attys. are election officers part of the Board of
Canvassers. They got involved in the padding
of votes for certain candidates through the
Statements of Votes. They also certified that
these Statements were true and correct when
in fact they were not. As a result, they also
violated 1.01 (unlawful, dishonest, immoral).
Generally, government lawyers cannot be
disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in his government duties. But if
this misconduct also constitutes a violation of
CPRA, he may be disciplined by SC.
Guilty of misconduct. Fined 10K each +
warning.
Huyssen v. Gutierrez
When Atty. Gutierrez was still connected with
the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation,
the complainant and her sons applied for
Philippine Visas. Respondent told complainant
that in order that their visa applications will be
favorably acted upon by the BID they needed
to deposit a certain sum of money, to which

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after
leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in
said service.
of value in relation to such interest.
Such lawyer in government shall not
give anything of value to, or otherwise
unduly favor, any person transacting
with his or her office, with the
expectation of any benefit in return.
Canon 2, SECTION 18. Prohibition
Against Self-Promotion. — A lawyer
shall not make public appearances and
statements in relation to a terminated
case or legal matter for the purpose of
self-promotion, self-aggrandizement,
or to seek public sympathy.
Canon 2, SECTION 29. Lawyers
Formerly in Government Service. — A
lawyer who has left government
service shall not engage in private
practice pertaining to any matter
before the office where he or she used
to be connected within a period of one
(1) year from his or her separation
from such office. Justices, judges,
clerks of court, city, provincial, and
regional prosecutors shall not appear
before any court within the territorial
jurisdiction where they previously
served within the same period.
After leaving government service, a
lawyer shall not accept an engagement
which could improperly influence the
outcome of the proceedings which the
lawyer handled or intervened in, or
over which the lawyer previously
exercised authority, while in said
service.
Lawyers in government service shall
observe the standard of conduct
under the CPRA, the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, and
other related laws and issuances in
the performance of their Duties.
Any violation of the CPRA by lawyers
in government service shall be
subject to disciplinary action,
separate and distinct from liability
under pertinent laws or rules.
complainant complied. When complainant
demanded the return of the money,
respondent promised he will return the same
but failed. Thus, complainant filed a
disbarment complaint.
Ruling: When respondent issued the postdated
checks as his moral obligation, he indirectly
admitted the charge. Lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official task
have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Not only did he misappropriate
the money of complainant; worse, he had the
gall to prepare receipts with the letterhead of
the BID and issued checks to cover up his
misdeeds.
He was found guilty of violating Rule 6.02 and
was DISBARRED.
Catu v. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, February
19, 2008
Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building
thereon. His mother and brother initiated a
complaint against Elizabeth over a unit in the
building with the Lupong Tagapamayapa.
Respondent, as punong barangay, presided
over the conciliation proceedings. An
ejectment case was filed against Elizabeth with
the MTC, in which Respondent appeared as
counsel for Antonio and her. Thus, complainant
filed the present administrative complaint,
claiming that respondent committed an act of
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer
when he stood as counsel for the defendants
despite the fact that he presided over the
conciliation proceedings between the litigants
as punong barangay.
Ruling: Respondent cannot be found liable for
violation of Rule 6.03 because said rule only
applies to a lawyer who has left government
service and in connection "with any matter
in which he intervened while in said service."
Since respondent is still an incumbent punong
barangay at the time, the Rule is not
applicable to him. However, respondent should
have obtained prior permission from the DILG
Secretary. In so failing, he is guilty of violating
Rule 1.01.

SUSPENDED for 6 months.

Presidential Commission on Good

Governance v. Sandiganbayan
and Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April
12, 2005

General Bank and Trust Company (GenBank)

encountered financial difficulties. Because of
this, Central Bank declared it insolvent and
ordered its liquidation. Then-Solicitor General
Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI
praying for the assistance and supervision of
the court in GenBank’s liquidation.

A public bidding of GenBank’s assets was held

and the Lucio Tan group submitted the winning
bid. GenBank later became Allied Banking
Corporation.

The PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a

complaint for "reversion, reconveyance,
restitution, accounting and damages" against
Lucio Tan and Allied Baking Corporation. It also
filed motions to disqualify Atty. Mendoza, who
appeared as counsel for Lucio Tan, et al.

Ruling:
Re: Matter
The "matter" or the act of Atty. Mendoza as
Solicitor General involved advising the Central
Bank on how to proceed with GenBank’s
liquidation, and filing the petition for its
liquidation with the CFI of Manila. The advise
he gave is already provided in the Republic Act
No. 265. Additionally, the PCGG cases are
concerned with the sequestration of the stocks,
while the GenBank case was concerned with
the liquidation of the said bank.

RULE 139-A, Section 9. Every
member of the Integrated Bar shall
pay such annual dues as the Board
of Governor shall determine with
the approval of the Supreme Court.
A fixed sum equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the collections
from each Chapter shall be set
aside as a Welfare Fund for
disabled members of the Chapter
and the compulsory heirs of
deceased members thereof.
RULE 139-A, Section 10. Subject to
the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of
annual dues for six months shall
warrant suspension of membership
in the Integrated Bar, and default in
such payment for one year shall be
a ground for the removal of the
name of the delinquent member
from the Roll of Attorneys.
[For 1989 IBP Elections]
OLD CANON 1
A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law
and legal process.
Re: Intervention
The petition filed merely seeks the assistance
of the court in the liquidation of GenBank. The
role of the court is not strictly as a court of
justice but as an agent to assist the Central
Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In
such a proceeding, the participation of the
Office of the Solicitor General is not that of the
usual court litigator protecting the interest of
government.
The petition is denied.
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
[For 1989 IBP Elections] In re 1989 Elections of the IBP, In re: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, A.C. No.
*Possible counterparts 178 SCRA 398 (1989) 1928, August 3, 1978
CANON 2 Emphasized the ff: Atty. does not want to pay IBP dues and
A lawyer shall, at all times, act with Atty Tiu (running EVP under Drilon’s argues that being forced to pay is
propriety and maintain the appearance group) went to DENR to follow up unconstitutional.
of propriety in personal and papers. There he learned that Asst
professional dealings, observe honesty, Sec Tony Tria will be going to Bicol Court held that payment of membership fees
respect and courtesy, and uphold the for business for DENR Sec Factoran in IBP is constitutional. Court has the power to
dignity of the legal profession & will be using a PNB plane to get promulgate rules in the integration of the
consistent with the highest standards there. Since Atty Tiu & Asst Sec Tria Philippine Bar, including requiring members to
of ethical behavior. were frat brothers, Tiu asked Tria if pay. This is for raising funds to achieve
he & the Drilon group can hitch a objectives of the bar. This is also justified by
SEC. 1. Proper Conduct. ride to Bicol so they can assess their police power.
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, chances in the IBP elections.
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful Integration does not make a lawyer a member
conduct. DOLE Asst Sec took leave to attend of any group of which he is not already a
IBP convention & he allegedly member. Lawyer becomes a member upon
SEC. 2. Dignified Conduct. stayed in Drilon group’s hotel just to passing bar exams. Bar integration does not
A lawyer shall respect the law, the give “some moral assistance”. compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
courts, tribunals, and other ● Violated prohibition against He is free to attend or not attend the meetings
government agencies, their officials, campaigning for/against a or vote or refuse to vote in elections.
employees, and processes, and act candidate while holding govt
with courtesy, civility, fairness, and office. Atty. disbarred and name stricken from Roll.
candor towards fellow members of the
bar. Santos, Jr. v Llamas, A.C. No. 4749,
January 20, 2000
SEC. 15. Improper Claim of
Influence or Familiarity. For 3 years, Atty. Llamas only indicated “IBP
A lawyer shall observe propriety in all Rizal 259060” in his pleadings. He never
dealings with officers and personnel of indicated the proper PTR (Professional Tax
RULE 1.02
A lawyer SHALL NOT counsel/abet
activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in
the legal profession.
any court, tribunal, or other
government agency, whether personal
or professional. Familiarity with such
officers and personnel that will give
rise to an appearance of impropriety,
influence, or favor shall be avoided.
A lawyer shall not make claims of
power, influence, or relationship with
any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
SEC. 21. Prohibition Against
Go-Giving & Donations.
A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, give gifts, donations,
contributions of any value or sort, on
any occasion, to any court, tribunal or
government agency, or any of its
officers and personnel.
Receipt) and IBP Or Nos. In reality, he never
paid his dues since 1992 because he only
engaged in limited practice of law and he’s a
senior citizen.
Atty. Llamas was suspended for one year or
until he has paid his dues, whichever is later.
All members of the IBP should pay the dues
regardless if they’re only engaging in “limited”
practice of law. Section 4 of RA 7432 only
grants exemption from individual income
taxes, not membership dues. Moreover, By
indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings,
misrepresenting the public the public and the
court, he was in violation of the CPR (Rule
1.01, Canon 7, Canon 10, Rule 10.01)
Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo, requesting
exemption, B.M. No. 1370, May 9, 2005
Atty. Arevalo wrote a letter requesting
exemption from payment of IBP dues
amounting to P12,035 for the years 1977-2005
during which he worked for the Civil Service,
and thereafter migrated and worked in the US,
up until his retirement in 2003.
IBP in their Reply said that membership in the
IBP is not based on the actual practice of law,
and that a lawyer continues to be in the Roll as
long as he continues to be a member. What
Atty. Arevalo could have done was, to inform
the IBP secretary of his intention to stay
abroad so that his membership could have
been terminated.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Atty. Arevalo was not
exempted from payment of dues despite being
inactive. Payment of dues is a necessary
consequence of membership in the IBP and no
one is exempt. A lawyer remains to be a
member regardless of lack of practice or type
of practice he/she is engaged in.
In re 1989 Elections of the IBP, 178 SCRA

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT
ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
CANON 7
Canon 2 - A lawyer shall, at all times,
act with propriety and maintain the
appearance of propriety in personal
and professional dealings, observe
honesty, respect and courtesy, and
uphold the dignity of the legal
profession consistent with the highest
On Fernandez v. Grecia, A.C. No.
3694, June 17, 1993
Even if it is something that is done
outside of a lawyer’s job, as long
as it puts into question the
398 (1989)
Candidates of the IBP elections engaged in
electioneering; they did things prohibited by
Sec. 14 of the IBP by-laws and more:
Prohibited acts:
(a) Distribution, except on election day, of
election campaign material;
(b) Distribution, on election day, of election
campaign material other than a statement of
the biodata of a candidate on not more than
one page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or
causing distribution of such statement to be
done by persons other than those authorized
by the officer presiding at the elections;
(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate,
while holding an elective, judicial,
quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof;
(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or
combinations of candidates, as well as the
advertisement thereof;
(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a
member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or
against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues
or other indebtedness of any member; (2)
giving of food, drink, entertainment,
transportation or any article of value, or any
similar consideration to any person; or (3)
making a promise or causing an expenditure to
be made, offered or promised to any person."
The IBP is strictly non-political. The IBP
elections were annulled.
Fernandez v. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, June
17, 1993
Atty. is representing a husband who wants to
file damages against doctors who were not
able to save his wife and unborn child. Atty.
acquired the medical chart (material evidence)
 standards of ethical behavior.
Canon 2, Responsible Use of Social
Media - A lawyer shall uphold the
dignity of the legal profession in all
social media interactions in a manner
that enhances the people's confidence
in the legal system, as well as promote
its responsible use.
moral character of the person,
even if it is a personal act, it can be
ground for grave misconduct that
can lead to suspension or even
disbarment.
—--------------------------------------
On Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, A.C.
No. 6148, February 27, 2004
Gross misconduct, even if it
concerns the private affairs of a
person still puts that lawyer within
the disciplinary reach of the
Supreme Court.
from the clerk and tore off and stole pages
that would have shown that the doctors
stabilized the woman.
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is “like
the court itself, an instrument or agency to
advance the ends of justice.” An incorrigible
practitioner of “dirty tricks” like the Atty. here
would be ill-suited to discharge the role of “an
instrument to advance the ends of justice.”
Atty. is disbarred
Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, A.C. No. 6148,
February 27, 2004

The fact of cohabitating with Atty. Edmundo Macarrubo married thrice and
someone even though the left the children without support.
annulment proceedings were still
ongoing constitutes immoral Atty. Macarrubo was disbarred from the
conduct. practice of law. Gross misconduct, even if it
concerns the private affairs of a person still
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all puts that lawyer within the disciplinary reach
times uphold the integrity and of the Supreme Court. The fact of cohabitating
dignity of the legal profession, and with someone even though the annulment
support the activities of the proceedings were still ongoing constitutes
Integrated Bar immoral conduct.

7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
Lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be perceived to be of
good moral character and must lead a life in
accordance with the highest moral standards
of the community. The moral delinquency that
affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such, including that which makes a
mockery of the inviolable social institution of
marriage, basically lawyers must in their
private and public lives act in a moral manner.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be Canon 2, SECTION 11. False

answerable for knowingly making a representations or statements; duty to
false statement or suppressing a correct. - A lawyer shall not make
material fact in connection with his false representations or
application for admission to the bar. statements. A lawyer shall be
liable for any material damage
caused by such false
 representations or statements.

A lawyer shall not, in demand letters or

other similar correspondence, make
false representations or statements, or
impute civil, criminal, or administrative
liability, without factual or legal basis.

A lawyer shall correct false or

inaccurate statements and
information made in relation to an
application for admission to the
bar, any pleading, or any other
document required by or submitted to
the court, tribunal or agency, as soon
as its falsity or inaccuracy is discovered
or made known to him or her.

Canon 2, SECTION 38. Non-posting of

false or unverified statements,
disinformation. - A lawyer shall not
knowingly or maliciously post, share,
upload or otherwise disseminate false
or unverified statements, claims, or
commit any other act of
disinformation.

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not Canon 2, SECTION 11. False

support the application for representations or statements; duty to
admission to the bar of any person correct. - A lawyer shall not make false
known by him to be unqualified in representations or statements. A
respect to character, education, or lawyer shall be liable for any material
other relevant attribute. damage caused by such false
representations or statements.

A lawyer shall not, in demand letters or

other similar correspondence, make
false representations or statements, or
impute civil, criminal, or administrative
liability, without factual or legal basis.

A lawyer shall correct false or

inaccurate statements and
information made in relation to an
application for admission to the

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public
or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
bar, any pleading, or any other
document required by or submitted to
the court, tribunal or agency, as soon
as its falsity or inaccuracy is discovered
or made known to him or her.
Canon 2, Section 2, 2nd par. - A lawyer
shall respect the law, the courts,
tribunals, and other government
agencies, their officials, employees,
and processes, and act with courtesy,
civility, fairness, and candor towards
fellow members of the bar.
A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on
one's fitness to practice law, nor
behave in a scandalous manner,
whether in public or private life, to
the discredit of the legal
profession.
On Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732,
October 22, 2013
What is moral turpitude?
The conduct of the accused shows a
high degree of immorality because
by nature, these crimes shows that
the character of person is immoral,
dishonest, or goes against the basic
moral fiber of humanity.
● Moral turpitude is not
criminal in nature but it puts
into question the continuing
character of a person.
Committing fraudulent acts such as
falsification of public documents
betrays the legal profession
especially since Pe was a prosecutor.
Government lawyers are held to a
higher standard and he betrayed
that by knowingly presenting
falsified documents.
On Cojuangco v. Palma, A.C. No.
2474, September 15, 2004
Why there is a prohibition on
lawyers dating their clients.
● The relationship between a
lawyer and client is
necessarily imbued with
trust and confidence, if you
cross that professional line,
you actually betray that
trust and confidence
reposed upon you by the
client. Unless, the
relationship existed before
you are contracted as a
lawyer.
Embido v. Pe
Shirley Quioyo presented the purported
decision in Special Proceedings No. 84 before a
UK Court. The judge who allegedly wrote the
decision was informed of the misrepresentation
and discovered that it was Atty. Pe, who
falsified the inexistent decision.
Ruling: Atty. Pe was found guilty of grave
misconduct for falsifying a court decision in
consideration of a sum of money, in violation
of Rules 1.01 and 7.03. His deliberate act of
falsification of the court decision was an act
that reflected a high degree of moral
turpitude on his part.
Thus, he was DISBARRED.
Cojuangco v. Palma
Atty who had a wife and 3 kids got close to the
client and his family, then secretly married
client’s daughter abroad, and used client’s
resources to do so. Atty was disbarred for
grossly immoral conduct, despite these being
done in his private capacity.
Atty also violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01
(unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct). Hence, disbarred for grossly immoral
conduct.
Belo-Henares v. Guevarra
Complainant filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Guevarra for insulting and verbally
abusive statements made by the latter on his
Facebook account. He called her, among
others, a quack doctor, he insinuated that she
 ● The new provision, CPRA, has been bribing people to destroy respondent,
CANON 3, is a reiteration of and urged his Facebook friends to boycott
the doctrine in this case. BMGI, a corporation where the complainant is
● Canon 3, SECTION 16. a principal stockholder and Medical Director.
Prohibition Against Dating,
Romantic, or Sexual Ruling: Guevarra is guilty of violating Rules
Relations with a Client. — A 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01. By posting the subject
lawyer shall not have dating, remarks, respondent disregarded the fact that,
romantic, or sexual relations as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
with a client during the decorum at all times, be it in his public or
engagement, unless the private life. “Conduct” or “misconduct,” under
consensual relationship the CPR, is not confined to one's behavior
existed between them exhibited in connection with the performance
before the lawyer-client of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers
relationship commenced. any misconduct, which — albeit unrelated to
the actual practice of their profession — would
On Belo-Henares v. Guevarra show them to be unfit for the office.
● Canon 2, SECTION 37.
Online posts — A lawyer SUSPENDED for 1 year
shall ensure that his or her
online posts, whether made
in a public or restricted
privacy setting that still
holds an audience, uphold
the dignity of the legal
profession and shield it from
disrepute, as well as
maintain respect for the law.
● Canon 2, SECTION 38.
Non-posting of false or
unverified statements,
disinformation. - A lawyer
shall not knowingly or
maliciously post, share,
upload or otherwise
disseminate false or
unverified statements,
claims, or commit any other
act of disinformation.

CANON 8
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL Canon 2, Section 2 - A lawyer shall Canon 2, Section 13 - A lawyer shall Bugaring v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090,
CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH respect the law, the courts, not, directly or indirectly, impute to January 19, 2001
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND tribunals, and other government or accuse another lawyer of a
CANDOR TOWARDS HIS agencies, their officials, misconduct, impropriety, or a crime Atty. Rexie Efren A. Bugaring was counsel for
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND employees, and processes, and act in the absence of factual or legal Royal Bechtel Builders against Spouses Luis
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS with courtesy, civility, fairness, basis. and Beatriz Alvaran in a case. In one of the
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. and candor towards fellow hearings, he was cited for contempt for:
members of the bar. Neither shall a lawyer, directly or ● Allegedly bringing an assistant in court
indirectly, file or cause to be filed, or to document the hearing on video
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct assist in the filing of frivolous or tape;
that adversely reflects on one's fitness baseless administrative, civil, or ● Insisting to present his evidence
to practice law, nor behave in a criminal complaints against another despite the judge’s contrary order;
scandalous manner, whether in public lawyer. (n) ● Speaking up, often in a sarcastic
or private life, to the discredit of the manner, despite the court telling him
legal profession. to listen; and
● Uttering insulting words to the court,
such as that “[...]he knows better than
the latter as he has won all his
certiorari cases in the appellate courts
and that he was going to move for the
inhibition of the presiding judge for
being antagonistic to his client.”

Ruling:
Lawyers should be reminded that their primary
duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct which
tends to delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice contravenes such
lawyer's duty.

The order citing Atty. Bugaring for direct

contempt is affirmed.

Roque v. Balbin
Atty who harassed and threatened opposing
counsel through calls/texts/emails to opposing
counsel himself and his friends and family, that
the atty would file disbarment and criminal
cases against opposing counsel and publicize
them to destroy opposing counsel’s reputation
if opposing counsel does not withdraw from the
case violated Canon 8. Atty here was
suspended for 2 years.

Atty also violated Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 (do

 not file unfounded criminal charges to get an
advantage) and Canon 11, 12 and Rules 12.03
and 12.04 (do not delay case; because atty.
filed for motion to extend time to file comment
but never did despite repeated notices)

Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, July 1,

2003
Atty. Reyes and Atty. Chiong were counsels of
opposing parties. Reyes filed a case of estafa
against the client of Chiong. In turn, Chiong
filed a complaint for collection of money and
damages against the client of Reyes then
amended the answer to also implead Reyes.

SC held that Chiong violated the lawyer’s oath

and Canon 8 of CPR. SC emphasized that
lawyers should treat each other with courtesy,
dignity and civility. Lawyers cannot use a civil
case as a tool to return the inconvenience
suffered by his client. Here, Chiong’s actions
demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The
aim of every lawsuit should be to render
justice to the parties according to law, not to
harass them.

SC suspended Chiong for 2 years from the

practice of law.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in Canon 2, Section 4 - A lawyer shall use Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, A.C. No.
his professional dealings, use only dignified, gender-fair, child- and 6396, October 25, 2005
language which is abusive, culturally-sensitive language in all
offensive or otherwise improper. personal and professional dealings. Atty is asking for records of a case from the
clerk. Clerk refused to give the records,
To this end, a lawyer shall not use suspecting that Atty was not the counsel of the
language which is abusive, parties in the case since the Atty. could not
intemperate, offensive or produce required papers. Atty got mad and
otherwise improper, oral or stormed out, banging the door on his way out.
written, and whether made He then came back and shouted “Vulva of your
through traditional or electronic mother!” at the clerk, in front of the latter’s
means, including all forms or types subordinates. Atty apologized and clerk
of mass or social media. accepted this.

Violated 8.01. Also violated 8.02 (lawyer shall

not encroach the employment of another
lawyer) because he was not the Atty of the
parties, so he was encroaching upon the
functions of the actual counsel.

Fact of accepted apology can only temper the

punishment. 10K Fine + warning.

Noble v. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1,

2015

The text messages were clearly intended to

malign and annoy Maximino, as evident from
the use of the word "polpol" (stupid).

Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately

terminate the services of Maximino indicates
Orlando's offensive conduct against his
colleague.

Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to

the crime of unjust vexation in the criminal
case filed against him by Marcelo was, for all
intents and purposes, an admission that he
spoke ill, insulted, and disrespected Maximino
— a departure from the judicial decorum which
exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

Ruling:
In this case, it is inconsequential that the
statements were merely relayed to Orlando's
brother in private. As a member of the bar,
Orlando should have been more circumspect in
his words, being fully aware that they pertain
to another lawyer to whom fairness as well as
candor is owed. It was highly improper for
Orlando to interfere and insult Maximino to his
client.

While a lawyer is entitled to present his case

with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does
not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. Though a lawyer's language may be
forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of
the legal profession. The use of intemperate
language and unkind ascriptions has no place
in the dignity of the judicial forum.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, encroach upon
the professional employment of
another lawyer, however, it is the
right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful
counsel.
Canon 2, SECTION 24. Encroaching or
interfering in another lawyer's
engagement; exception. - A lawyer
shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon or interfere in the
professional engagement of another
lawyer.
This includes a lawyer's attempt to
communicate, negotiate, or deal with
the person represented by another
lawyer on any matter, whether pending
or not in any court, tribunal, body, or
agency, unless when initiated by the
client or with the knowledge of the
latter's lawyer.
A lawyer, however, may give proper
advice and assistance to anyone
seeking relief against perceived
unfaithful or neglectful counsel based
on the Code.
Prohibition applies once an Garcia v. Lopez
atty-client relationship between the Atty Garcia represented his client (heirs of
person and the lawyer has been Sarmiento) for the past 6 years in an LRC
established. case, only for the respondent Atty Lopez to file
an entry of appearance and a motion to
postpone claiming he represented all the heirs
of Sarmiento. In reality, he only represented 2
of the heirs, which meant he committed
misrepresentation and misled the court. This
was also seen as encroachment upon the legal
function and professional employment of Atty
Garcia, who has been working on the case for
6 years.
The SC ruled that Atty Lopez was guilty of
violating the lawyers oath, Canon 10 Rule
10.01, and especially Canon 8 Rule 8.02, since
not only did he commit falsehood in
misrepresenting that he was the counsel of all
the heirs, but by being less candid about
whom he was representing, he also
encroached upon the employment of Atty
Garcia, the counsel of record.
SUSPENDED for 1 month.
Sevandal v. Adame, A.C. No. 10571,
November 11, 2020
Atty. Sevandal was hired by a client who
wanted to file for benefits against certain
companies. The agreement in the Retainer
Contract was that Atty. Sevandal would be paid
for fees only for cases filed within the RTC.
Client subsequently hired Atty. Adame to file
cases against the same companies in the
NLRC. However, Atty. Sevandal interfered in
the NLRC proceedings by filing a formal entry
of appearance, when in fact he was not
authorized by the client at all. He even filed an
ex parte motion for attorney's lien and was
paid 300K by the client just so he would stop
meddling.
Suspended for 1 year. Return the 300K.
 Encroachment upon the professional
employment of another lawyer is
prohibited because not only do they
erode confidence and trust in the
legal profession, they likewise
prevent justice from being attained.
CANON 9
Binay-an v. Addog, A.C. No. 10449, July
28, 2014
Atty. Addog represented a defendant in a Civil
Case filed by the Heirs of Binay-an in the
National Commission on Indigenous People. In
a meeting attended by the defendant, Atty.
Addog, and Heirs of Binay-an, Atty. Addog and
his client convinced the complainants to
execute an Affidavit of Desistance (basically
dropping the case) in exchange for monetary
consideration of 100k. Atty. Addog prepared
and notarized the Affidavit of Desistance
without the knowledge of Atty. Selmo, the
counsel of the complainants. Atty. Addog did
not inform Atty. Selmo about the execution of
the affidavit nor did he advise the Heirs to
consult their counsel first about it.
The Court ruled that the act of Atty. Addog of
preparing the affidavit of desistance,
encroached upon the legal functions of Atty.
Selmo.
Suspended for 6 months with a warning that in
case of repetition, this will be dealt with
severely.
In re: Atty. Clemente Soriano
Atty. entered his appearance as chief counsel
of record over a year after the case had
become final by another lawyer. Atty. Soriano's
entry of appearance in the present case as
"chief counsel of record" for the respondents in
effect sought to pre-empt the former counsel,
Atty. Nemesio Diaz, of the premier control over
the case.
Before taking over a case handled by a peer in
the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the
conformity of the counsel whom he would
substitute. And if this cannot be had, then he
should, at the very least, give notice to such
lawyer of the contemplated substitution.
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST
IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
OF LAW.
What’s wrong with non-lawyers
using the title Atty.?
It undermines the integrity of the
legal profession, which lawyers must
uphold.
In this case, even if eventually he
became a lawyer, just the fact that
he knows very well that he isn’t a
lawyer yet but is presenting himself
to be one perhaps to get clients or
trust of potential clients so that he
can also represent in certain
matters. That also shows how he is
unfit in terms of his good moral
character, he knows very well that it
is fraud. It’s not just because we’re
trying to be exclusive. It’s more of
protecting the integrity of the legal
profession. It really goes into the
act of misleading the client into
thinking the one representing them
is a lawyer.
Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P,
February 24, 1997
Alawi was a sales representative of a real
estate company. Alauya (Clerk of Court of
Shari’a District) entered a contract with her to
buy a housing unit through installment.
However, due to some issues involving trust
and confidence in Alawi, Alauya wrote letters
to the real estate company for the termination
of the contract. According to him, the contract
was based on deceit, fraud, and the like,
making the contract ab initio.
Upon hearing the letters sent to the company,
Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya
regarding the libelous charges without even a
solid ground. She also manifested that Alauya
used the title of “ATTORNEY” which only
regular members of the bar may use.
Alauya justified the use of the title attorney by
asserting that it was “lexically synonymous”
with “counsellors-at-law”, which Sharia lawyers
shall use. He does not want to use counsellor
because people mistakenly understood it as
“konsehal/councilor”, who are members of the
local legislature.
Ruling:
Persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not
full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar,
hence may only practice law before Shari’a
courts. While one who has been admitted to
the Shari’a Bar, and one who has been
admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be
considered “counsellors,” in the sense that
they give counsel or advice in a professional
capacity, only the latter is an “attorney.” The
title of “attorney” is reserved to those who,
having obtained the necessary degree in the
study of law and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof in good standing; and it is
they only who are authorized to practice law in

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not
delegate to any unqualified person
the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in good
standing.
Canon 2, Section 35 - A lawyer shall
not delegate to or permit a non-lawyer,
including a paralegal, to:
(a) accept cases on behalf of the
lawyer;
(b) give legal advice or opinion;
(c) act independently without the
lawyer's supervision or direction;
this jurisdiction.
Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for
the use of excessively intemperate, insulting or
virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a
judicial officer, and for usurping the title of
attorney;
Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036, June 10,
2003
Edwin Rana passed the 2000 bar
examinations. On the day before the
oath-taking in 2001, Donna Aguire filed a
petition for denial of admission to the bar
against Rana, alleging that, while he was not
yet a lawyer, Rana filed a pleading before the
Municipal Board of Canvassers, representing
himself as counsel for candidate Bunan. In
another date, candidate Estipona also
“retained” respondent as her counsel.
Court ruled that Rana engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law when he appeared
before the MBEC and filed various pleadings
without license to do so, and called himself
“counsel” when he was not a member of the
Bar. By holding himself out as a lawyer despite
knowing he had no authority to practice law,
Rana demonstrated moral unfitness to be a
member of the Bar.
DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.
CANON II, SECTION 34. Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, March
Paralegal Services; Lawyer's 20, 2013
Responsibility. — A paralegal is
one who performs tasks that require Atty. filed a complaint signed in his name by a
familiarity with legal concepts, secretary of his law office.
employed or retained by a lawyer,
law office, corporation, Preparation and signing of a pleading
governmental agency, or other constitutes legal work involving the practice of
entity for non-diagnostic and law which is reserved exclusively for lawyers.
non-advisory work in relation to Signing of pleading cannot be delegated to
legal matters delegated by such non-lawyer.
lawyer, law office, corporation,
 (d) to hold himself or herself out as a
lawyer, or be named in association with
a lawyer in any pleading or submission
to any court, tribunal, or other
government agency;
(e) appear in any court, tribunal, or
other government agency, or actively
participate in formal legal proceedings
on behalf of a client, except when
allowed by the law or rules;
governmental agency, or other Suspended for 1 year.
entity.
A lawyer must direct or supervise a
paralegal in the performance of the
latter's delegated duties.
The lawyer's duty of confidentiality
shall also extend to the services
rendered by the paralegal, who is
equally bound to keep the privilege.

(f) conduct negotiations with third

parties unless allowed in administrative
agencies, without a lawyer's
supervision or direction;

(g) sign correspondence containing a

legal opinion; and

(h) perform any of the duties that only

lawyers may undertake.

These provisions shall not apply to law

student practitioners under Rule 138-A
of the Rules of Court.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not
divide or stipulate to divide a fee
for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing
agreement with a partner or
associate that, upon the latter's
death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his
estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to
complete unfinished legal business
of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm
includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a
Canon III. Section 42. Division of fees
upon referral. — A lawyer shall, in case
of referral of legal services in favor of
another lawyer with the written
informed consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in
proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed. (20.02a)
Where a lawyer undertakes to
complete unfinished legal business
of a deceased lawyer, a division or
sharing of fees is allowed with the
deceased lawyer's legal heirs or
estate. (9.02(b)a)
Canon III, Section 43: Non-Sharing of
Tan Tek Beng v. David (recit
Pabalan v. Salva, A.C. No. 12098, March
20, 2019
Atty had an agreement with his live-in partner
that the latter would receive a portion of
attorney’s fees if she solicited clients.
Atty.’s excuse is that they never actually
divided profits. Nevertheless, he is guilty of
violating 9.02 even if there was only mere
stipulation without actual execution of the
division of proceeds.
What the CPRA wants to prevent is the
conversion of the legal profession from a
respectable profession into a commercial one.
Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261,
profit sharing agreement. fees with non-lawyers. - A lawyer shall notes) December 29, 1983
not share, split, or divide or stipulate
to divide, directly or indirectly, a fee for Why are lawyers not allowed to Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer and Atty. Timoteo
legal services with persons or share or divide their attorney’s fees David entered into an agreement whereby the
organizations not licensed or with non-lawyers? former would supply the latter with clients. In
authorized to practice law. exchange, they agreed, among other things, to
Dividing the amount would be split 50/50 all the commission and attorney’s
tantamount to treating the legal fees that would be received from their clients.
profession as a business. The agreement was not complied with, so Tan
Tek Beng filed a complaint.
The privileges of practicing law
(such as legal fees) should not be SC ruled that the agreement was void for
allowed to those who are not being tantamount to malpractice, according to
lawyers. Section 7, Rule 138. The practice of law is a
profession, not a business – “the lawyer may
How will you pay your secretaries not seek or obtain employment by himself or
and other staff if you are not through others for to do so would be
allowed to split attorney’s fees? unprofessional.” The agreement is not only
void but also unethical. His conduct is frowned
upon not because of Tan Tek Beng’s complaint
Because attorney’s fees are only for (who did not know legal ethics) but because he
lawyers. This is not the whole should’ve known better.
amount that a lawyer can get from a
client, though. There are instances REPRIMANDED
where, e.g., the losing party is
ordered to pay attorney’s fees. It
doesn’t mean the fees are paid to
the lawyer, it just means the costs
of litigation. But it can also mean
payment to an attorney for services
rendered. You can stipulate in your
contract with your client the various
fees that they have to shoulder (this
includes the salaries), but the
attorney’s fees themselves are off
limits.

Sharing encourages ambulance

chasing and turns legal profession
into a commercial transaction.

Lijauco v. Terrado, A.C. No. 6317, August

31, 2006

Atty. Terrado was supposed to extend his legal

services to Lijauco for the following
 controversies:
1. Recover the deposit of his client in a
bank
2. Appear before the trial court in the
hearing for the issuance of the Writ of
Possession of a property
3. Assist and protect the interests of Atty.
Terrado in the Compromise Agreement
connected to the two issues above

Only the first service was rendered. In return,

70K was given to him as attorney’s fees by
Lijauco with the intent that this 70K shall also
cover for the second and third controversies.
But, Atty. Terrado said that this amount was
only for the first service and it’s not big
because he will be sharing this to two other
people as a referral fee. The Court held that
such payment is too big for just the first
service and he should also not divide the said
fee for people not in the legal profession. He
was then suspended for 6 months.

A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC or Law Student Practice Rule

Section 1. Coverage. - This rule Familiarize the law student practice Cruz v. Mina, G.R No. 154207, April 27,
shall cover the limited practice of rule. 2007
law by students certified herein.
The limited practice of law covers Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the
appearances, drafting and MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private
submission of pleadings and prosecutor for Grave Threats, where his father,
documents before trial and Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. The
appellate courts and quasi-judicial petitioner, describing himself as a third year
and administrative bodies, law student, justifies his appearance as private
assistance in mediation and other prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule
alternative modes of dispute 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the
resolution, legal counseling and Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz,
advice, and such other activities Jr. That a non-lawyer may appear before the
that may be covered by the Clinical inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party
Legal Education Program of the law litigant. The petitioner furthermore avers that
school as herein provided. his appearance was with the prior conformity
of the public prosecutor and a written authority
Section 3. Eligibility Requirements of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent
of Law Student Practitioners. - No in the prosecution of the said criminal case.
law student shall be permitted to
engage in any of the activities Ruling: Ruling: Cruz can appear in court in
under the Clinical Legal Education accordance as an agent or friend of the litigant
Program of a law school unless the under Rule 138, Sec. 34 of the Rules of Court
law student has applied for and or according to the rules governing law student
secured the following certifications: practice under Rule 138-A or the Law Student
Practice Rule.
(a) Level 1 certification, for
law students who have
successfully completed
their first-year law courses;
and/ or

(b) Level 2 certification, for

law students currently
enrolled for the second
semester of their third-year
law courses: Provided
however, where a student
fails to complete all their
third-year law courses, the
Level 2 certification shall be
deemed automatically
revoked.

The certification issued shall be

valid until the student has
completed the required number of
courses in the clinical legal
education program to complete the
law degree, unless sooner revoked
for grounds stated herein.

Section 4. Practice Areas of Law

Student Practitioners. - Subject to
the supervision and approval of a
supervising lawyer, a certified law
student practitioner may:
For Level 1 Certification
(1) Interview prospective clients;
(2) Give legal advice to the client;
(3) Negotiate for and on behalf of
the client;
(4) Draft legal documents such as
affidavits, compromise agreements,
contracts, demand letter, position
papers, and the like;
(5) Represent eligible parties
before quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies;
(6) Provide public legal orientation;
and
(7) Assist in public interest
advocacies for policy formulation
and implementation.
For Level 2 Certification
(1) Perform all activities under
Level 1 Certification;
(2) Assist in the taking of
depositions and/or preparing
judicial affidavits of witnesses;
(3) Appear on behalf of the client at
any stage of the proceedings or
trial, before any court,
quasi-judicial or administrative
body;
(4) In criminal cases, subject to the
provisions of Section 5, Rule 110 of
the Rules of Court, to appear on
behalf of a government agency in
the prosecution of criminal actions;
and
(5) In appealed cases, to prepare
the pleadings required in the case.

SECTION 6. Duties of Law

Student Practitioners.— Acting
under a certification, the law
student practitioner shall:
(a) Observe the provisions of
Section 24 (b), Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court;
(b) Be prohibited from using
information acquired in one's
capacity as a law student
practitioner for personal or
commercial gain;
(c) Perform the duties and
responsibilities to the best of
one's abilities as a law student
practitioner; and
(d) Strictly observe the Canons of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Section 10. Qualification of

Supervising Lawyers. - A
supervising lawyer under this Rule
shall be a member of the bar in
good standing.

Section 11. Duties of Supervising

Lawyers. - The following are the
duties of a supervising lawyer:
(a) Supervise such number of
certified law student practitioners
as far as practicable;
(b) Personally appear with the law
student practitioner in all cases
pending before the second-level
courts and in all other cases the
supervising lawyer determines that
his or her presence is required;
(c) Assume personal professional
responsibility for any work
performed by the certified law
student practitioner while under his
or her supervision;
(d) Assist and advise the certified
law student practitioner in the
activities authorized by these rules
and review such activities with the
certified law student practitioner, all
to the extent required for the
proper practical training of the
certified law student practitioner
and the protection of the client;
(e) Read, approve, and personally
sign any pleadings, briefs or other
similar documents prepared by the
certified law student practitioner
prior to the filing thereof, and read
and approve any documents which
shall be prepared by the certified
law student practitioner for
execution by the eligible party; and
(f) Provide the level of
supervision to the certified
law student practitioner
required by these rules.
 FINALS
CANON 10
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Canon 2, Section 2. Dignified
conduct. — A lawyer shall respect
the law, the courts, tribunals, and
other government agencies, their
officials, employees, and processes,
and act with courtesy, civility,
fairness, and candor towards fellow
members of the bar. A lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on one’s fitness to
practice law, nor behave in a
scandalous manner, whether in
public or private life, to the discredit
of the legal profession.
Santos v. Paguio, A.M. No. MTJ-93-781,
November 16, 1993 – focus on infraction
of the lawyer, not the judge
Atty. Santos filed a complaint against Judge
Paguio for gross ignorance of the law and
gross incompetence, alleging that after the
answer in the case in which he was counsel for
the defendants therein was filed and "without
notice and hearing," Judge Paguio rendered
judgment against them. However, SC would
later find that Santos omitted the fact that
after the said answer was filed, the case was
set for preliminary conference and thereafter
the parties were required to submit their
position papers and the affidavits of their
witnesses and other evidence, in accordance
with the Rule on Summary Procedure.
SC ruled that Atty. Santos’s failure to divulge
the foregoing facts may have been intended by
him to give his complaint a strong prima facie
case against the Judge Paguio. While Atty.
Santos was entitled to adopt certain strategies
in his pleadings, he forgot that he owes to this
Court absolute candor, fairness and good faith.
This Court can neither condone nor tolerate
attempts to mislead it through suppression of
important facts which would have a bearing on
its initial action.
Sentenced to pay a FINE of Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00). He is further warned that a
repetition of the same or similar infractions
shall be dealt with more severely.
Chan Kian v. Angsin, G.R. No. L-28131,
February 28, 1972
A.A. Industrial Chemical Supply bought 400
drums of vetsin from Kian for P120,000 (it was
paid). Kian was ready to deliver the drums but
A.A. Industrial refused to accept delivery and
insisted on its money’s return because the
price of vetsin fell in the local market.

Kian filed a civil complaint against A.A.

Industrial, praying for the company to be
ordered to receive the vetsin. On the other
hand, A.A. Industrial filed a criminal complaint
against Kian, accusing the latter of estafa. The
trial court dismissed the civil case on the
ground that, under the rules, after a criminal
action has been commenced, no civil action
arising from the same offense can be
prosecuted. Kian appealed.

The SC ruled that the civil case is moot and

academic because the criminal case was
terminated (Kian was acquitted) long before
the petition reached the SC.

Whether or not the lawyers in this case were

remiss in owing candor, fairness and good faith
to the court?

Yes, because they should have brought the

developments to the court’s attention.

The Court notes with regret that had the

counsels, as officers of the courts, faithfully
complied with their duty to deal with the
courts in truth and candor, and promptly
manifested to the appellate court the
developments of the criminal case, all which
have made the principal issue at bar moot and
academic, this case would then have been
disposed of and need not have been certified
to the SC, and the time needed by it to devote
to the prompt disposition of meritorious cases
need not have been dissipated.

Director of Lands v. Adorable, et al., G.R.

No. 8197, October 2, 1946

Appellant filed with the court a petition for

reconstitution with the CA during WW2.
Appellant thought the case was not resolved
due to the war. However, the CA already

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do
any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority,
Canon 2, Section 8: Prohibition Against
Misleading the Court, Tribunal, or Other
Government Agency. — A lawyer
shall not misquote, misrepresent,
or mislead the court as to the
existence or the contents of any
document, argument, evidence,
law, or other legal authority, or
pass off as one's own the ideas or
words of another, or assert as a
fact that which has not been
proven.
Canon II, SECTION 8. Prohibition
against misleading the court, tribunal,
or other government agency. — A
lawyer shall not misquote,
misrepresent, or mislead the court as
to the existence or the contents of any
decided in favor of appellant and sent a copy
to the counsel of appellee.
Appellee’s counsel could have hid the decision
and let appellant go through the process again
since the decision was adverse to appellee, but
instead informed the court and appellant about
the decision.
SC said Atty. Zamora is a good lawyer.
Sps. Umaguing v. De Vera, A.C. No.
10451, February 4, 2015
Atty. rushed the preparation of documents for
the election protest. Since the material
witnesses were unavailable, he had the
affidavits signed by the nearest kin of the
witnesses. This amounts to falsification. Even
the belated retraction of the affidavits cannot
be considered to temper the punishment
because it was a mere afterthought after
discovery of the falsification.
Suspended for 6 months.
Judge Sitaca v. Palomares, A.C. No. 5285,
August 14. 2019
Atty. Palomares presented a bail bond and
release order purportedly signed by the judge
and clerk of court of the RTC of CDO. However,
it was later found out that these documents
were falsified. He knew that the crime done by
his client-son is non-bailable, so it is
impossible that there would be a legally
existing bail in the first place. The Court
disbarred Atty. Palomares.
In re Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC,
October 15, 2010
Justice del Castillo was accused of committing
plagiarism in the decision of the Vinuya case.
He was accused of copying 3 foreign articles
without acknowledgement.
or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as
a fact that which has not been
proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe
the rules of procedure and shall not
document, argument, evidence, law, or
other legal authority, or pass off as
one's own the ideas or words of
another, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proven. (10.02a)
Canon III, Sec. 7. Prohibition Against
Frivolous Suits and Abuse of Court
SC said no plagiarism since there was no
intent to deceive or to pass off their work as
his own. The problem here was bad footnoting,
accidental deletions. Justice’s use did not give
the impression that he wrote the passages.
Further, based on the doctrine of stare decisis,
the judicial system is expected to cite
precedents and related studies in their
decisions; as such, they are not expected to
produce original writing in every respect.
Allied Banking Corp v. CA, G.R. No.
144412, November 18, 2003
A labor case was filed by Allied Bank against
Galanida, its assistant manager. In arguing
that the actions of Galanida was not
insubordinate, the Labor Arbiter and Galanida’s
counsel (Atty. Durano) cited a case doctrine. It
turned out that the phrase cited by the
counsels was not found in the case itself but
rather in the syllabus of a SCRA (it was an
interpretation of the doctrine of the Court).
The Court held that a syllabus of cases in
official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court
decisions or resolutions is not the work of the
Court, nor does it state this Court's decision.
The syllabus is simply the work of the reporter
who gives his understanding of the decision.
A counsel should not cite a syllabus in place of
the carefully considered text in the decision of
the Court. As such, the Court admonished both
the LA and Atty. Durano for violating Rule
10.02, Canon 10, of the CPR which states:
“Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall
not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
text of a decision or authority. It is the duty of
all officers of the court to cite the rulings and
decisions of the Supreme Court accurately.”
Pajares v. Judge Abad Santos, G.R. No.
L-29543, November 29, 1969
misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
Processes. — A lawyer shall not:
(a) file or encourage the filing of any
suit or proceeding not authorized by
law or jurisprudence and without any
evidentiary support;
(b) unduly impede the execution of an
order or judgment which is warranted;
or
(c) abuse court processes.
A creditor filed a collection suit against
petitioner before the MTC. Instead of filing an
answer, petitioner filed a motion for bill of
particulars. When the motion was denied,
petitioner appealed the motion up until the SC,
causing the litigation for a simple collection
suit to drag on for 7 years.
SC found the appeal to be frivolous since
petitioner already has all the information she
needs to come up with a defense, so BOP is
not necessary. SC said that petitioner has
spent on the litigation way more than the
amount she owed, and yet the suit is still not
over and the amount she owes has
accumulated 7 yrs worth of interest. Her
lawyer should have advised her to confess
judgment and asked for reasonable time to
pay her debt.
SC dismissed the appeal and imposed treble
costs on petitioner, to be paid by her attorney
(See Sec. 3, Rule 142, Rules of Court)
Festin v. Zubiri, A.C. No. 11600, June 19,
2017
COMELEC issued a TRO directing the RTC to
cease and desist from executing the order in
favor of Atty.’s client. So Atty. filed
“manifestations” misleading the clerk to defy
the TRO and issue a writ of execution.
Furthermore, these “manifestations” were not
served to the other party.
A manifestation is made merely for the
information of the court. On the other hand, a
motion is an application for relief and requires
notice of hearing and proof of service to the
other party. The reality is that Atty.’s
“manifestations” were motions since he was
praying for a relief—the issuance of a writ of
execution. Atty. only labeled them as such to
sidestep the requirements of notice of hearing.
Plus, he filed them with the clerk, when it was
 supposed to be with the judge.

Suspended for 3 months.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL
OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR
CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
CANON 11
Canon 2, Section 2, par. 1:
SECTION 2. Dignified Conduct. — A
lawyer shall respect the law, the
courts, tribunals, and other
government agencies, their officials,
employees, and processes, and act
with courtesy, civility, fairness, and
candor towards fellow members of the
bar.
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on one's fitness
to practice law, nor behave in a
scandalous manner, whether in public
or private life, to the discredit of the
legal profession.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear Canon 2, Section 7

in court properly attired.
SECTION 7. Formal Decorum and
Appearance. — A lawyer shall observe
formal decorum before all courts,
tribunals, and other government
agencies.

A lawyer’s attire shall be consistent

with the dignity of the court, tribunal,
or other government agency, with due
respect to the person’s sexual
orientation, gender identity, and
gender expression.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall
punctually appear at court
hearings.
Canon 4, Section 3
SECTION 3. Diligence and Punctuality.
— A lawyer shall diligently and
seasonably act on any legal matter
entrusted by a client.
A lawyer shall be punctual in all
appearances, submissions of pleadings
and documents before any court,
Paredes-Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 120654,
September 11, 1996
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal,
Paredes-Garcia, was not present when the
criminal case to which she was assigned was
called by Judge Cruz. She arrived 10 minutes
later just when the second case in the calendar
was on its first call. In her defense, she should

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain
from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.
tribunal or other government agency,
and all matters professionally referred
by the client, including meetings and
other commitments.
Canon 2, Section 4
SECTION 4. Use of Dignified, Gender
Fair, and Child- and Culturally-Sensitive
Language. — A lawyer shall use only
dignified, gender-fair, child and
culturally-sensitive language in all
personal and professional dealings.
To this end, a lawyer shall not use
language which is abusive,
intemperate, offensive or otherwise
improper, oral or written, and whether
made through traditional or electronic
means, including all forms or types of
mass or social media.
not be held in contempt because she was
already in her office during that time.
Furthermore, she had never been late or
previously fined for tardiness in any hearing.
The Court held that Paredes-Garcia should not
be held liable for contempt of court because
Judge Cruz failed to observe the rule of
conduct in the exercise of the power to punish
for contempt of court. He failed to comply with
Section 3, Rule 71 of the RoC, namely, the
filing of a charge in writing and giving the
accused an opportunity to be heard by himself
or by counsel. Furthermore, Paredes-Garcia
arrived when the second case was on its first
call. The first call is made to determine which
cases are ready and to call the second time
those which were not ready on the first call.
Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No.
8974, November 13, 2013
Respondent was counsel for defendant in a
civil case presided by complainant. During the
preliminary conferences, respondent made
insinuations that complainant judge was partial
to the plaintiff and failed to put his MCLE
number in his pre-trial brief despite repeated
requests by the court to do so. The
investigating judge recommended the
respondent be suspended for 1-year. The OBC
adopted the findings.
Doctrine: While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity
to the cause of his client, full devotion to this
client’s genuine interest and warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his client’s rights,
as well as the exertion of his utmost learning
and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of law.
Ruling: Respondent is fined in the amount of
P5,000 (Note: no suspension for humanitarian
reasons, respondent was in the twilight of his
years) with a stern warning.
Habawel v. CTA, G.R. No. 174759,
September 7, 2011

Atty. Denis Habawel and Atty. Alexis Medina

were the counsel of Surfield Devt. Corp which
claimed for a refund of realty taxes from City
Treasurer of Mandaluyong City for the years
1995-2000. The City Treasurer denied the
claim, so Surfield filed an action for mandamus
before the RTC. The RTC denied on the
grounds of prescription and non-exhaustion of
remedies. Surfield filed a Petition for Review
before the CTA First Division (CTA 1). The CTA
1 denied on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction
(provided under the LGC) and non-exhaustion
of remedies. According to the LGC, petitioners
should have first filed the appeal before the
Local Board of Assessment.

In its Motion for Reconsideration, Habawel and

Medina insisted that CTA had jurisdiction
pursuant to Sec. 7 (a) (3) of R.A. No. 9282,
and argued that the CTA 1 manifested its “lack
of understanding or respect” for the doctrine of
stare decisis in not applying the ruling in Ty v.
Trampre, which provided that there was no
need to appeal before the Local Board of
Assessment.

The CTA 1 denied the MR. In addition, it found

petitioners’ statements in their MR as
derogatory, offensive, and disrespectful,
specifically the following:
● “It is gross ignorance of the law for the
Honorable Court to have held that it
has no jurisdiction over this instant
petition; the grossness of this
Honorable Court's ignorance of the law
is matched only by the unequivocal
expression of this Honorable Court's
jurisdiction over the instant case.”
● “This Court lacked the understanding
and respect for the doctrine of stare
decisis.”
CTA 1 reminded them that lawyers have the
basic duty to “observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers.” Due to this, petitioners were ordered
to explain why they shouldn’t be held for
indirect contempt and/or disciplinary action.

Habawel and Medina apologized but

nonetheless justified their language as, among
others, “necessary to bluntly call the
Honorable Court's attention to the
grievousness of the error by calling a spade by
spade.”

CTA 1 found petitioners’ apology lack sincerity

and humility. As such, it held petitioners guilty
of direct contempt of court with 10 days
imprisonment and a P2000 fine.

Whether or not Habawel and Medina are guilty

of direct contempt.

Yes.

Rule 11.03. — A lawyer shall abstain from

scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.

The Court ruled that petitioners clearly and

definitely overstepped the bounds of propriety
as attorneys, and disregarded their sworn duty
to respect the courts.

An imputation in a pleading of gross ignorance

against a court or its judge, especially in the
absence of any evidence, is a serious
allegation, and constitutes direct contempt of
court.

Derogatory, offensive, or malicious statements

in pleadings and written submissions to the
judge where proceedings are treated as direct
contempt because it is equivalent to a
misbehavior committed in the presence of or
near a court or judge. This is true, EVEN IF the
 derogatory statements are NOT read in open
court.

Such contempt of court cannot be condoned or

be simply ignored and set aside because the
statements of the petitioners were “strong,
tactless, and hurtful.” Such language was a
deliberate move of the petitioners to degrade
the CTA 1 and its members.

SC removed imprisonment.
Final Punishment: P2000 Fine + Warning

Ret. Judge Alpajora v. Calayan, A.C. No.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not
attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Canon 2, Section 14
SECTION 14. Remedy for Grievances;
Insinuation of Improper Motive. — A
lawyer shall submit grievances against
any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency only through the
appropriate remedy and before the
proper authorities.
8202, January 10, 2018
In an intracorporate dispute, Judge Alpajora
ordered for the creation of a management
committee, which prompted Atty. Calayan to
file an administrative case against Judge
Alpajora, which was dismissed. This case arose
from the counter-complaint of Judge Alpajora.

Statements insinuating improper The Court ruled that Calayan consistently

motive on the part of any such officer, attributed unsupported imputations against the
which are not supported by substantial complainant in his pleadings. He insisted that
evidence, shall be ground for complainant antedated the order, dated August
disciplinary action. 15, 2008, because the envelopes where the
order came from were rubber stamped as
having been mailed only on August 26, 2008.
He also accused the complainant judge of
being in cahoots and of having deplorable close
ties with the adverse counsels; and that
complainant irrefutably coached said adverse
counsels. However, these bare allegations are
absolutely unsupported by any piece of
evidence. Thus, SC found respondent guilty of
attributing unsupported ill-motives to
complainant.

Suspended for 2 years.

Judge Madrid v. Dealca, A.C. No. 7474,

September 9, 2014

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the
proper authorities only.
Atty. moved that the case be re-raffled to
another branch (motion to inhibit), citing
adverse incidents between him and the judge,
where he does not appear before this judge,
and the latter does not hear cases handled by
him.
In effect, Atty. insinuated that judges could
choose the cases they heard, and could refuse
to hear cases where hostility existed between
the judges and the litigants or their counsel.
But he did not show any evidence to support
this.
Suspended for 1 year.
Mariano v. Laki, A.C. No. 11978,
September 25, 2018
Complainant approached respondent to engage
his legal services for filing a petition for
annulment of marriage. Respondent quoted
P160,000 + P50,000 advance payment. When
Complainant expressed his surprise,
respondent stated that he knew a “friendly
judge” who is known to be receptive to
annulment cases. Complainant paid the above
fees. A year thereafter, the petition still has not
been filed. This and respondent’s attempt to
evade giving complainant updates on the case
prompted the latter to demand the return of
the money. The demand went unheeded. Thus,
complainant filed this instant complaint.
The mandatory conference was re-scheduled
multiple times because of absences (mostly on
the side of respondent). Respondent also failed
to file his answer despite repeated requests by
the commission. On the final re-scheduling,
respondent was still absent, so he was
declared in default. The IBP-CBD
recommended that the respondent be
disbarred and be ordered to refund the
professional fee.
 Doctrine: A lawyer has a duty to uphold the
dignity and authority of the courts to which he
owes fidelity.

Canon 16 shows that respondent was

unjustified in keeping complainant’s money
since he didn’t file the petition.

Even more deplorable is his violation of Canon

11. He gave assurances to the complainant
that he can secure a favorable decision without
the latter’s personal appearance because the
petition will be filed to a “friendly judge.” By
making false representation to this client,
respondent not only betrayed client’s trust but
also undermined the trust and faith of the
public in the legal profession.

Ruling: Respondent is DISBARRED and his

name stricken-off the Rolls of Attorney. His
incumbent notarial commission is REVOKED
and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as notary public.

CANON 12
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL Canon 3, Sec. 2, par. 2: Enriquez v. Lavadia, A.C. No. 5686, June
EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND SECTION 2. The Responsible and 16, 2015
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST Accountable Lawyer. — A lawyer shall
IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT uphold the constitution, obey the laws Lavadia was handling a forcible entry case. He
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. of the land, promote respect for laws failed to submit position papers and affidavits
and legal processes, safeguard human causing default for his client. Lavadia filed
rights, and at all times advance the appeal late and no appeal memorandum was
honor and integrity of the legal filed even after being given 4 months
profession. extension. The client Enriquez filed disbarment
against Lavadia and even here Lavadia failed
As an officer of the court, a lawyer to file his comment despite many extensions
shall uphold the rule of law and and orders to do so alleging family problems,
conscientiously assist in the many work, illness of wife due to dark beings,
speedy and efficient administration and his house was caught on fire.
of justice.
SC disbarred.
As an advocate, a lawyer shall
represent the client with fidelity and
zeal within the bounds of the law and
the CPRA.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not
appear for trial unless he has
adequately prepared himself on the
law and the facts of his case, the
evidence he will adduce and the
order of its profferrence. He should
also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the
copies.
Canon 4, Section 4:
SECTION 4. Diligence in All
Undertakings. — A lawyer shall
observe diligence in all
professional undertakings, and
shall not cause or occasion delay in
any legal matter before any court,
tribunal, or other agency.
A lawyer shall appear for trial
adequately familiar with the law, the
facts of the case, and the evidence to
be presented. A lawyer shall also be
ready with the object and documentary
evidence, as well as the judicial
affidavits of the witnesses, when
required by the rules or the court.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file
multiple actions arising from the
same cause.
Canon II, SECTION 23. Instituting
Multiple Cases; Forum Shopping. — A
lawyer shall not knowingly engage
or through gross negligence in
forum shopping, which offends
against the administration of
justice, and is a falsehood foisted
upon the court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
A lawyer shall not institute or advise
the client to institute multiple cases to
gain leverage in a case, to harass a
party, to delay the proceedings, or to
increase the cost of litigation.
Ancheta Cabarroguis v. Basa, A.C. No.
8789, March 11, 2020
Atty. Cabarroguis is the lawyer of Godofredo,
who filed an estafa case against the latter’s
sister, Erlinda. Atty. Basa is the lawyer of Atty.
Basa. Cabarroguis accused Atty. Basa of
dilatory tactics when, after eight years of court
trial, Atty. Basa asked for the inhibition of the
presiding judge Renato Fuentes. Basa also filed
many administrative, civil, and criminal cases
against him which were allegedly malicious
and unfounded.
SC held that the 17 complaints against
Cabarroguis were frivolous and was filed only
to vex him. In addition, Basa initiated four
criminal complaints against Cabarroguis for the
same cause of action, in violation of Canon 12,
Rule 12.02 of the CPR. The four criminal
complaints were all in relation to the same
affidavit-complaint Cabarroguis filed as the
attorney-in-fact of Godofredo in the estafa
case against Erlinda. The four complaints show
how Basa recklessly applied the same cause of
action in four different complaints that were all
dismissed for lack of probable cause,
regardless of the fact that the last two
 complaints were initiated by his client Erlinda
and not him.

Suspended for 6 months.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, Canon 4, Section 7:

after obtaining extensions of time
to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
SECTION 7. Extension of Time to File.
— A lawyer shall avoid asking for
an extension of time to file any
pleading, motion, or other court
submission, except when allowed
by the Rules of Court or for good
cause.

When an extension is obtained, the

lawyer shall not let the period lapse
without submitting the pleading,
motion, or other court submission,
except upon the client's decision not
to pursue the case any further or
for other justifiable cause.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse
Court processes.
Canon 4, Section 4:
SECTION 4. Diligence in All
Undertakings. — A lawyer shall observe
diligence in all professional
undertakings, and shall not cause or
occasion delay in any legal matter
before any court, tribunal, or other
agency.
A lawyer shall appear for trial
adequately familiar with the law, the
facts of the case, and the evidence to
be presented. A lawyer shall also be
ready with the object and documentary
evidence, as well as the judicial
affidavits of the witnesses, when
required by the rules or the court.
De Los Santos v. Barbosa, A.C. No. 6681,
June 17, 2015
Melba De Los Santos-Rodis (Rodis) filed a
complaint for Falsification of Public Document
against her father, Ricardo De Los Santos, Sr.
(De Los Santos, Sr.) and Rosie Canaco
(Canaco). Rodis alleged that Canaco made
untruthful statements in the birth certificate of
Canaco’s son, Victor Canaco De Los Santos
(Victor), that Canaco was married to De Los
Santos, Sr. when no such marriage took place.
MeTC issued an Order resetting the preliminary
conference at a later date in order to give the
prosecution time to present the certified true
copy of the birth certificate. Atty. Barbosa, who
represented Canaco, sent letters to the Office
of the Civil Registrar (OCR), NOS, and St.
Luke’s Hospital objecting to the production of
the said document since it violates secrecy and
confidentiality of records.

MeTC noted the manifestation of Rodis that she

 failed to secure a certified true copy of the
birth certificate of the accused’s son because
of the Atty. Barbosa’s letter. Thus, the MeTC
issued an Order for the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum/ad testificandum.

Victor De Los Santos II (brother of Rodis) filed

a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Barbosa for unlawfully obstructing and
delaying the proceedings of the criminal case
against Canaco before the SC.

Whether or not Atty. Barbosa’s acts constituted

undue delay in the criminal case before MeTC?

Yes. A lawyer should not only help attain the

speedy, efficient, impartial, correct, and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and prompt
satisfaction of final judgments, but should
likewise avoid any unethical or improper
practices that may impede, obstruct, or
prevent the realization of a speedy and
efficient administration of justice.

The preliminary conference was precisely

postponed to allow the prosecution to secure
this certified true copy through MeTC Order. In
disregard of the METC’s intent to expedite the
proceedings through its Order of Atty. Barbosa
sent letters to OCR-QC, NSO, and St. Luke’s
Hospital to prevent the prosecution from
obtaining a certified true copy of the birth
certificate.

Atty. Barbosa committed willful disobedience to

a lawful order of the court intended to avoid
any further delay of the proceedings in the
criminal case.

Suspended for 1 year.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain Canon 2, Section 10

from talking to his witness during a SECTION 10. Conduct in the
break or recess in the trial, while Presentation of a Witness. — A lawyer
the witness is still under shall avoid all forms of impropriety
examination. when presenting or confronting a
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not
knowingly assist a witness to
misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not
abuse, browbeat or harass a
witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid
testifying in behalf of his client,
except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the
mailing, authentication or custody
of an instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases
where his testimony is essential to
the ends of justice, in which event
he must, during his testimony,
entrust the trial of the case to
another counsel.
witness.
A lawyer shall not coach, abuse,
discriminate against, or harass any
witness, in or out of the court, tribunal,
or other government agency, or talk to
a witness during a break or recess in
the trial, while a witness is still under
examination. Neither shall a lawyer
direct, assist, or abet any
misrepresentation or falsehood by a
witness.
Canon II, Section 6. Harassing or
threatening conduct. — A lawyer shall
not harass or threaten a fellow lawyer,
the latter's client or principal, a
witness, or any official or employee of a
court, tribunal, or other government
agency. (n)
Canon 3, Section 14(g)(1)&(2)
SECTION 14. Prohibition Against
Conflict-of-Interest Representation;
Current Clients. — In relation to
current clients, the following rules shall
be observed:
(g) A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of the client, except:
(1) on formal matters, such as the
mailing, authentication or custody
of an instrument, and the like; or
(2) on substantial matters, in cases
where the testimony is essential to
the ends of justice, in which event
the lawyer must, during the
Karen Vertido v. The Philippines, CEDAW
Communication No. 18/2008
The 7 Gender-Based Myths about Rape and
Rape Victims:
1. Victim must try to Escape at every
opportunity
2. To be raped by means of intimidation,
victim must be Timid or easily cowed
3. If rape occurred by means of threat,
there must be Clear evidence of a
direct threat
4. If accused and victim are “more than
nodding Acquaintances”,
sex=consensual
5. If rape victim Resists the attack but
also cowers in submission, this is
problematic
6. Rape victim could not have resisted if
accused Ejaculated
7. It is unbelievable that a man in his 60s
would be capable of rape
Karen: It is the lack of consent that must be
the constituent element in rape.
Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252,
October 5, 2004
Atty. Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of
his client and offered the same as evidence in
the case wherein he was actively representing
his client. Atty. Rafanan responded that his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice
since his clients were in his house when the
alleged crime of attempted murder occurred.
Atty. Rafanan did not violate Rule 12.08
because this circumstance falls under the
exceptions:
a. On formal matters, such as the
 testimony, entrust the trial of the mailing, authentication or custody of
case to another counsel. an instrument and the like;
b. On substantial matters, where his
testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event he must, during
his testimony, entrust the trial of the
case to another counsel.

His case falls under (b). Although the law does

not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at
the same time counsels for a cause, the
preference is for them to refrain from testifying
as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to;
and should they do so, to withdraw from active
management of the case. Here, Atty. Rafanan’s
testimony was clearly necessary for the
defense of his clients to point out that his
clients were at his house when the crime was
allegedly committed.

CANON 13
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY Canon 1, Section 2 Lantoria v. Bunyi, A.M. No. 1769, June 8,
UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE SECTION 2. Merit-based Practice. — A 1992
AND REFRAIN FROM ANY lawyer shall rely solely on the
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO merits of a cause and not exert, or Bunyi’s client won the case. Lantoria is alleging
INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE give the appearance of, any the win was because Bunyi wrote the decisions
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING influence on, nor undermine the in those cases for the judge. There were
THE COURT. authority of, the court, tribunal or letters which proved that Bunyi submitted
other government agency, or its drafts of the decision to the judge, but it was
proceedings. not proved if the judge consented or received
any gift or consideration for it. Nonetheless,
Canon 2, Section 15 this violates Canon 13.
SECTION 15. Improper Claim of
Influence or Familiarity. — A lawyer In short, a lawyer cannot write the decision or
shall observe propriety in all even provide drafts of it since it
dealings with officers and influences/appears to influence the court
personnel of any court, tribunal, or
other government agency, whether Suspension for 1 year
personal or professional. Familiarity
with such officers and personnel that Judge Dumlao v. Camacho, A.C. No.
will give rise to an appearance of 10498, September 4, 2018
impropriety, influence, or favor shall be
avoided. Atty. Camacho was the counsel of Pathways
A lawyer shall not make claims of Trading International which case was pending
power, influence, or relationship with before the court where Judge Dumlao was
any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
presiding. Dumlao alleged that while the case
was pending, Camacho attempted to fraternize
him when the latter casually mentioned his
closeness to important personages which
included CJ Sereno and Associate Justice
Leonen, as well as his influence by dropping
names of his connections with UP Law where
he served as professor.
In the course of the proceedings, Pathways
filed a motion for summary judgment. The RTC
granted this. When the defendant of the case
filed a notice of appeal, Camacho started to
call Dumlao and even promised to share a
portion of his attorney’s fees in exchange for
the denial of the notice of appeal.Camacho
even threatened him that through his
connections, Dumlao will surely be disbarred if
he refuses the offer.
The RTC issued a Certificate of Finality and a
Writ of Execution. Camacho demanded the
court sheriff to sign the Garnishment Order,
which he himself prepared. The sheriff
justifiably refused to sign because the
defendants offered their personal property for
satisfaction of the writ of execution (Pathways
wanted money only). Thereafter, Camacho said
the following statements to the sheriff:
● "Kapag hindi mo pipirmahan ito,
papatanggal kita,"
● "Alam ng nasa itaas ito,"
● "Alam ng dalawang Justices ito."
Judge Dumlao made an Incident Report. The
SC held that Camacho was guilty of violating
Canon 13.
A lawyer is duty-bound to actively avoid any
act that tends to influence, or may be seen to
influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest
the people's faith in the judicial process is
diluted.
Clearly, Camacho continuously and unceasingly
asserted that he had influence

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not
extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity
for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not
make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for
or against a party.
Canon 2, Section 15
SECTION 15. Improper Claim of
Influence or Familiarity. — A lawyer
shall observe propriety in all dealings
with officers and personnel of any
court, tribunal, or other government
agency, whether personal
professional. Familiarity with such
officers and personnel that will give rise
to an appearance of impropriety,
influence, or favor shall be avoided.
A lawyer shall not make claims of
power, influence, or relationship with
any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
Canon 2, Section 19
SECTION 19. Sub-Judice Rule. — A
lawyer shall not use any forum or
medium to comment or publicize
opinion pertaining to a pending
proceeding before any court, tribunal,
or other government agency that may:
(a) cause a pre-judgment, or
(b) sway public perception so as to
impede, obstruct, or influence the
decision of such court, tribunal, or
other government agency, or which
tends to tarnish the court's or
tribunal's integrity, or
(c) impute improper motives
in the Court and that he would be able to
punish Dumlao and the sheriff if they do not
follow his whims and caprices. At one point,
Camacho even attempted to bribe Judge
Dumlao with a share of his attorney's fees. By
implying that he can influence Supreme Court
Justices to advocate for his cause, Camacho
trampled upon the integrity of the judicial
system and eroded confidence in the judiciary.
This gross disrespect of the judicial system
shows that he is wanting in moral fiber and
that he lacks integrity in his character.
Suspended for 2 years.
or
Marantan v. Diokno and La’O, G.R. No.
205956, February 12, 2014
In a criminal case, Marantan and his
co-accused are charged with homicide arising
from the Ortigas incident in 2005. Atty. Diokno
filed a petition praying, among others, that the
resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman
downgrading the charges from murder to
homicide be annulled and set aside; that the
corresponding informations for homicide be
withdrawn; and that charges for murder be
filed. After the Atimonan incident in 2013, La'O
and her counsel, Atty. Diokno, and one Ernesto
Manzano, organized and conducted a
against any of its members, or
(d) create a widespread perception
of guilt or innocence before
a final decision.
televised/radio broadcasted press conference.
Thus, Marantan filed the present complaint,
averring that the respondents violated the sub
judice rule, making them liable for indirect
contempt.
SC held that the comments of respondents are
simply an expression of their opinion that their
loved ones were murdered by Marantan. This
is merely a reiteration of their position in the
criminal case. The mere restatement of their
argument in their petition cannot actually, or
does not even tend to, influence the Court. As
to the conduct of the Court, a review of the
respondents' comments reveals that they were
simply stating that it had not yet resolved their
petition. There was no complaint, express or
implied, that an inordinate amount of time had
passed since the petition was filed. There
appears no attack or insult on the dignity of
the Court either.
Petition is dismissed.
Re: Show Cause order in the Decision
dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428
(Republic v. Sereno), A.M. No.
18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018
Sub judice restricts comments and disclosures
pertaining to pending judicial proceedings.
Violation of this can lead to an (indirect)
contempt proceeding or an administrative
matter.
In a contempt proceeding, the clear and
present danger rule should be followed in
accordance with Marantan v. Diokno and La’O.
But the present case is an administrative case,
so what must be followed is the CPR and the
NCJC.
Sereno’s public utterances insinuated that the
grant of the quo warranto will result in
dictatorship, and that the people can no longer
rely on the SC’s impartiality, among other

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not
brook or invite interference by
another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course
of judicial proceedings.
Provision/Topic
What is notarization?
things. She created a great deal of antipathy
from the public against the SC.
Unlike Marantan, Sereno’s utterances went
beyond her original arguments in her
pleadings. One example is the claim that the
quo warranto will lead to a dictatorship and
destroy the judiciary.
Considering her many years of public service,
Sereno is reprimanded.
Canon 1, Section 4 In re Vicente Sotto, for contempt of court,
SECTION 4. Non-Interference by a 82 Phil 595, January 21, 1949
Lawyer. — Unless authorized by law or
a court, a lawyer shall not assist or Atty. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement,
cause a branch, agency, office or which was published in the Manila Times and
officer of the government to other daily newspapers of the locality
interfere in any matter before any regarding the Court's decision in the case of In
court, tribunal, or other Re Angel Parazo. Atty. Sotto said that the
government agency. Court erroneously interpreted the law and the
decision in the said case showed the
incompetency or narrow-mindedness of the
majority of its members. He also wrote that he
will introduce in the Congress the complete
reorganization of the Court.
The Court held Atty. Sotto in contempt
because the statement was not merely a
criticism or comment but it intended to
intimidate the members of the Court with
presentation of a bill in the next Congress. He
also attacked the honesty and integrity of the
Court for saying that the “In the wake of so
many blunders and injustices deliberately
committed, I believe the only remedy to put an
end to so much evil, is to change the members
of the SC.”
2004 Notarial Rules
Case
Patenia-Kinatac-an, et al. v. Patenia-Decena, et al., G.R. No.
238325, June 15, 2020
The parties are contesting the validity of a notarized deed of donation of land.

Although the rule now under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is that the parties
are required to sign the notarial register for the document to be notarized, such
requirement did not exist under the Revised Administrative Code which was the
prevailing law at the time of the execution of the deed of donation (2002). Hence, the
deed is a valid public instrument as the new rules cannot be given retroactive effect if
they would work injustice or impair vested rights.

A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to
its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their
favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence.

However, the presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only
so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. A defective
notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private
document.

De Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit, A.C. No. 6470, July 8, 2014

De Jesus alleged that Atty. Sanchez Malit drafted and notarized a Real Estate
Mortgage of a public market stall that falsely named De Jesus as its absolute and
registered owner. As a result, the mortgagee sued De Jesus for perjury and collection
of sum of money. De Jesus alleged that Atty. Sanchez was a consultant of the LGU of
Dinalupihan Bataan, and was therefore aware that the market stall was gov’t-owned.

Whether or not Atty. Sanchez violated notarial law and the CPR.

Yes. Notarization is not an empty clerical act, but one invested with substantive public
interest. Notarization converts a private document to a public one, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notary public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial
duties, otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document
would be undermined.

Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false statement or
info contained in the instrument, but proceeds to notarize it, then he must be
disciplined. In this case, Atty. Sanche fully knew that De Jesus was NOT the owner of
the mortgaged market stall.

Records also show that on various occasions, Atty. Sanchez had notarized 22
documents that were lacking signatures. Each document may be a ground for
disciplinary action. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and who personally appeared
before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
 therein. In stating that the parties personally came and appeared before her, Atty.
Sanchez also violated R10.1 of the CPR, that she shall do no falsehood.

Suspended for 1 year. Notary license revoked. Perpetually disqualified.

Santuyo v. Hidalgo, A.C. No. 5838, January 17, 2005

Rule VI Notarized DOS was not actually notarized by Atty. Hidalgo. The notarizing duties was
Notarial Register left to the secretaries of the firm. Even the entries in the notarial registry, which was
supposed to be done by Hidalgo alone, were made by the secretaries. SC said Hidalgo
a. A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful was negligent because of this.
inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial
register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with Suspended as notary public for 2 years if he is still a notary public. If not, then
numbered pages. disqualified to be a notary public for 2 years.
b. A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any
given time. Gimeno v. Zaide, A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015

Gimeno filed a complaint charging Atty. Zaide with usurpation of a notary public’s
office and falsification, among others. Gimeno alleged that even before Zaide got
admitted to the bar and received his notarial commission, he notarized a partial
extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale. She also accused Zaide of making
false and irregular entries in the registers.

Zaide claimed that he did not notarize the partial extrajudicial partition. His stamp
and falsified signature were superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. Cabasan
who actually notarized the document. Zaide said it was Gimeno who falsified it to
make it appear he notarized it before admission to the bar. On the alleged falsification
of entries, Zaide contended that he needed to simultaneously use several notarial
registers in his separate offices to cater to his clients. This explained the irregular and
non-sequential entries.

Re: Usurpation
Gimeno did not present any concrete evidence to show that Zaide notarized the
partial extrajudicial partition prior to admission to the Bar and receipt of his notarial
commission. First, the signature and notarial stamp were merely superimposed over
Atty. Cabasan’s (the guy who actually notarized) typewritten name. Second, this
document never appeared in Zaide’s notarial registrar and report in that year. Last,
Atty. Zaide’s details (i.e. Roll of Attorney Number, etc.) as a lawyer and notary public
had not yet existed at the time, so there could have been no way for the correct
details to have been placed there.

Re: Falsification
Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by maintaining different notarial
registers in several offices. Because of this practice, numerous notarized documents
had been irregularly numbered (i.e. not chronological) and entered.

Affiant’s personal appearance as a requirement (Sec. 2(b), Rule IV)
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory
to the instrument or document:
1. Is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization
and
2. Is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified
by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as
defined by these rules
The Notarial Practice Rules provides that “a notary public shall maintain, protect and
provide for lawful inspection as provided in these rules, a chronological official notarial
register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered
pages." The same section further provides that “a notary public shall keep only one
active notarial register at any given time.”
The one active notarial register rule is in place to deter a notary public from assigning
several notarial registers to different offices manned by assistants who perform
notarial services on his behalf. A notarial commission is personal to each lawyer. No
other person should perform it. Entries need to be in chronological sequence to
address and prevent the rampant practice of leaving blank spaces in the notarial
register to allow antedating of notarizations.
His notarial commission, if existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is declared
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2)
years. He is also SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.
Pitogo v. Suello, A.C. No. 10695, March 19, 2015
Pitogo sued a motorcycle vendor for failing to register a motorcycle he bought. It was
eventually registered based on 3 documents notarized by Atty. Suello. He went to
Suello’s office to certify them, but when he looked for the documents he wanted to
certify in Suello’s notarial register, the document numbers actually pertain to
completely different documents. Pitogo filed a complaint due to these discrepancies.
SC held that failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is a ground for
revocation of notarial commission under the Notarial Rules. Notarial acts give private
documents a badge of authenticity that the public relies on when they encounter
written documents and engage in written transactions. When respondent negligently
failed to enter the details of the three (3) documents on his notarial register, he cast
doubt on the authenticity of complainant's documents. He also cast doubt on the
credibility of the notarial register and the notarial process.
SUSPENDED from practice of law for 3 months. Notarial commission is REVOKED.
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for 1 year.
Zaballero v. Montalvan, A.C. No. 4370, May 25, 2004
Atty. Montalvan is facing complaints of negligence and incompetence in notarizing
documents which purportedly contains the signature of Eulalio Zaballero, the
deceased father of the petitioner. The signature was affixed a week after the death so
it is impossible for the signature to be authentic. Part of the document is a notarial
acknowledgment where respondent declared that Eulalio Zaballero appeared before
him and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and voluntary act, but the
fact was that he was already dead at that time. Therefore, such a statement is
untruthful. Therefore, the Court revoked Atty. Montalvan’s notarial commission and he
Affirmation or oath by Videoconference (Section 1, Rule III of A.M. No.
20-02-04-SC, or the Interim Rules on Remote Notarization)
● Principal delivers document to notary public through personal or
courier service
○ Sealed in envelope with initials of principal
● If principal not personally known to notary public, he/she shall deliver
2 copies of competent evidence of identity also in the envelope
○ Principal must show original evidence of identity during the
videoconference
● Principal shall submit video clip showing that he/she signed
○ CD or USB in the envelope or email
● After receiving envelope + video clip, notary public shall schedule
videoconference where he/she must:
○ Require principal to confirm identity
○ Require principal to confirm location through GPS
○ Open sealed envelope within full view of principal
○ Require principal to confirm that he/she has read the
instrument in its entirety
○ Require principal to affix signature on a blank piece of paper
for comparison
○ Review video clip
○ Require principal to avow the whole truth of the contents
● After everything ok, notary public makes notarial certificate and sign
and set his/her seal
Competent evidence of identity (Sec. 12, Rule II)
● At least one ID issued by an official agency bearing:
○ Photo
○ Signature
■ Examples: passport, driver’s license, PRC ID, NBI
Clearance, Postal ID, GSIS e-card
● OR oath or affirmation of:
○ one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is
personally known to the notary public and who personally
knows the individual OR
○ Two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy and who
each personally knows the individual and shows their ID
is disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for a period of 2 years. He is
also suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Bakidol v. Bilog, A.C. No. 11174, June 10, 2019
Atty. notarized a Waiver of Rights over a Parcel of Land even though the principal
signatory was not in the country at the time it was notarized. Turns out it was the
sister who brought the document to the atty.
Atty. tried making an excuse that he thought the sister was the signatory because of
the resemblance in the signatory’s ID, but it was revealed that Atty. already made
previous notarizations for this sister on separate occasions.
SUSPENDED from practice of law for 6 months. Notarial commission is REVOKED.
PROHIBITED from being commissioned as notary public for 2 years.
Agaton v. Segui
Agaton filed a disbarment case against Atty. Sugui, claiming that the latter violated
the 2004 Notarial Rules for having notarized an affidavit of a certain Luz Rollon, who
did not personally appear before Atty. Sugui to swear to the affidavit. This was
proven by the fact that the document had the words “by A.S. Rollon” instead
of Luz Rollon.
The SC ruled that Atty Sugui violated Sec. 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules
provide that: A person shall NOT perform the notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document:
1. Is NOT in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization, and
2. Is NOT personally known to the notary public OR otherwise identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules
In this case, Atty. Sugui notarized the affidavit without Luz Rollon’s personal
appearance. Furthermore, the SC emphasized how a CTC or cedula is not valid
evidence to prove one’s identity for notarization, since it does not contain a
signature nor a photograph of the person. Atty. Sugui was suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months and is disqualified from notary commission for 2 years.

Jurisdiction and term (Sec. 11, Rule III)
● Notary public may perform notarial acts WITHIN the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court
● For a period of 2 years from the first day of January of the year in
which the commissioning is made
○ XPN: unless earlier revoked or notary public resigned
Disqualifications (Sec. 3, Rule IV)
● Notary public is disqualified if he:
○ Is a party to the instrument to be notarized
○ Will receive any commission, fee, advantage, right, title,
interest, cash, etc.
○ Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant or
relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the
4th civil degree
Almazan v. Suerte-Felipe, A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014
Almazan charged respondent for malpractice and gross negligence in the performance
of his duty as a notary public for notarizing the acknowledgment of a document,
stating that he is a notary public for and in the Marikina City, when he was actually a
notary public for Pasig City only.
SC ruled that Atty. Suerte-Felipe had no authority to notarize the document because
said notarial act is beyond the jurisdiction of the court that commissioned him, i.e.,
the RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of a notary public's jurisdiction is crystal
clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. For
misrepresenting that he was a notary for and in Marikina City, he also committed
falsehood, violating Rule 1.01.
SUSPENDED from practice of law. DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary
public. Notary commission is REVOKED.
Sps. Frias v. Abao, A.C. No. 12467, April 10, 2019
Sps Frias wanted Sps Escutin evicted from their land. But Sps Escutin claim the land
is theirs due to a DOAS as notarized by Atty. Abao.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as a notary public
may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing on the first day of
January of the year in which the commissioning is made. Atty. Abao could not perform
notarial acts since Atty Abao was never commissioned as notary public in Capiz in the
year 1995.
Suspension from the practice of law for 2 years and barred permanently from being
commissioned as Notary Public
Heirs of Alilano v. Examen, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015
Heirs are trying to recover land from spouses. Spouses argue that the land was sold
to them through 2 Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized by Atty., brother of husband.
However there are problems. First, Atty. is a relative by consanguinity within the 4th
civil degree to the principal. But the law governing at the time was the Revised
Administrative Code which did not have this prohibition. [NOTE: Atty. Reyes said that
in the present Notarial Rules, this prohibition only applies if the Atty. is a close relative
of the principal, but not if witness]. So Atty. cannot be held liable on this account.
Second, Atty. notarized knowing that the cedula/residence cert. number [this was a
requirement in the RAC] used by husband was not actually his but the wife’s. Good
faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance. Atty.’s defense that it was the secretary’s
 fault in mixing up the numbers reflects his disregard and unfitness to discharge the
functions of a notary public, since it is he who must personally acknowledge the
document.

Suspended for 2 years. Notarial commission is revoked, and disqualified from

reappointment as notary public for 2 years.

Relampagos v. Lagunay, A.C. No. 10703, February 9, 2015

Atty. Lagunay committed the following:

1. Allowed his wife, Carollette, to sign the deed of transfer executed by his
clients as an instrumental witness
2. Notarized the deed of transfer in 1979 despite the fact he knew that the title
to the land proceeded from a free patent under which any transfer outside of
the family of the patentee is prohibited for 5 years

The first act is not in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because a notary
public is only disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a spouse,
common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of
the principal within the 4th civil degree. Carolette is not the principal in the said
instrument. She just signed as a witness.

The second act is in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial practice since the said rule
enjoins a notary public from performing any notarial act for any person if he knows or
has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful. Atty.
Lagunay knew that the deed of transfer was a free patent lot under the 5-year
restriction. He was only warned.

Nature and creation of Attorney-Client Relationship

Canon 3, SECTION 3. Lawyer-Client Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 99-634, June
Relationship. — A lawyer-client 10, 2002
relationship is of the highest fiduciary
character. As a trust relation, it is Atty. Magulta was entrusted with 25k filing
essential that the engagement is fees but used it for personal use. Magulta was
founded on the confidence reposed by arguing there was no lawyer-client relationship
the client on the lawyer. Therefore, a because he took the case only because Burbe
lawyer-client relationship shall arise was a close friend.
when the client consciously, voluntarily
and in good faith vests a lawyer with SC said there was a lawyer-client relationship
the client's confidence for the purpose established from the very first moment
of rendering legal services such as complainant asked respondent for legal advice
providing legal advice or regarding the former's business.
representation, and the lawyer,
whether expressly or impliedly, agrees To constitute professional employment, it is
to render such services. not essential that the client employed the

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT
REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE
NEEDY.
attorney professionally on any previous
occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer
be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not
afterward handle the case for which his service
had been sought.
If a person, in respect to business affairs or
troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a
view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily
permits or acquiesces with the consultation,
then the professional employment is
established.
A lawyer-client relationship exists
notwithstanding the close personal relationship
between the lawyer and the complainant or the
nonpayment of the former's fees.
Magulta neglected his duties and the return of
the amount does not excuse him.
Suspension for 1 year
CANON 14
Canon 5, Section 3 NOTE: Cantiller v. Potenciano and Mattus
SECTION 3. Indigent Person. A lawyer v. Villaseca are moved to Canon 17.
shall not refuse the representation of Similarly, Tolentino V. So & Ancheta is
an indigent person, except if: moved to Canon 15.
1. The lawyer is not in a
position to carry out the
work effectively or
competently due to a
justifiable cause;
2. The lawyer will be placed in
a conflict-of-interest
situation; or
3. The lawyer is related to the
potential adverse party,
within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or
to the adverse counsel,
within the fourth degree.
An indigent is any person who has no
 money or property sufficient for food,
shelter and other basic necessities for
oneself and one’s family.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not Canon 5, Section 1

decline to represent a person solely
on account of the latter's race, sex.
creed or status of life, or because
of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person.
SECTION 1. Non-discrimination - a
lawyer shall not decline to represent a
person solely on account of the latter’s
nationality or ethnicity, sexual
orientation or gender identity, religion,
disability, age, marital status, social or
economic status, political beliefs, or
such lawyer’s or the public’s opinion
regarding the guilt of said person,
except for justifiable reasons.

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not

decline, except for serious and
sufficient cause, an appointment as
counsel de officio or as amicus
curiae, or a request from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines or
any of its chapters for rendition of
free legal aid.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not

refuse to accept representation of
an indigent client unless:
(a) he is not in a position to carry
out the work effectively or
competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of
interest between him and the
prospective client or between a
present client and the prospective
client.

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts Canon 5, Section 4

the cause of a person unable to
pay his professional fees shall
observe the same standard of
conduct governing his relations
with paying clients.

CANON 15
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL
OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENTS.
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in
conferring with a prospective client,
shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter
would involve a conflict with
another client or his own interest,
and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.
Canon 3, SECTION 17. Prohibition
Against Conflict-of-Interest
Representation; Prospective Clients. —
In relation to prospective clients, the
following rules shall be observed:
(a) A lawyer shall, at the earliest
opportunity, ascertain the
existence of any conflict of interest
between a prospective client and
current clients, and immediately
disclose the same if found to exist.
In case of an objection by either the
prospective or current client, the
lawyer shall not accept the new
engagement.
(b) A lawyer shall maintain the
private confidences of a the appearance of treachery and double
prospective client even if no
engagement materializes, and shall
not use any such information to
further his or her own interest, or
the interest of any current client.
Hilado v. David, 84 Phil 569 (1949)
Atty. Francisco became counsel for defendant.
Plaintiff’s counsel requested Francisco to stop
being defendant’s counsel since Francisco
previously advised plaintiff regarding this same
case.
SC said Francisco is disqualified from
representing defendant since his law firm
mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion on the
merits of the case which contained his
signature, even if Francisco himself did not
prepare the opinion or even read it.
The mere relation of attorney and client ought
to preclude the attorney from accepting the
opposite party's retainer in the same litigation
regardless of what information was received by
him from his first client. A lawyer has to avoid
dealing.
No penalty
Dee v. CA, 176 SCRA 651 (1989)
Dee and his father went to the residence of
Atty. Mutuc, accompanied by the latter’s
cousin, to seek his advice regarding the
problem of the alleged indebtedness of
petitioner’s brother, Dewey Dee (Dewey), to
Caesar’s Palace, a well-known gambling casino
at Las Vegas.
Atty. Dee managed to clear Dewey’s account
by having Ramon Sy, the true debtor,
acknowledge his obligation. Having thus
settled the account of Dewey, Atty. Mutuc sent
several demand letters to Dee demanding the
balance of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Dee,
however, ignored said letters. He claimed that
Atty. Mutuc was not entitled to the balance of
P50,000 because there was a conflict of
interest since Atty. Mutuc was a consultant for
Caesar’s Palace while he was also providing
legal services for the Dee’s.

Whether or not there was a conflict of interest

with regard to Atty. Mutuc representing the
Dees.

It does not follow that Caesar’s Palace only

listened to Atty. Mutuc’s advice because he
was their consultant. More than because he
was a consultant for Caesar’s Palace, it is more
plausible that Atty. Mutuc was able to
successfully negotiate Dewey’s account
because of his status as a former ambassador
of the Philippines to the US, his personality,
and his negotiating technique.

Caesar’s Palace was not the creditor of Dewey,

but of Ramon Sy. From this alone, it can be
seen that Atty. Mutuc was not serving two
opposing sides. In fact, he was helping the
casino get paid by proving the liability of the
real debtor, Ramony Sy.

Generally, an attorney is prohibited from

representing parties with contending positions.
However, at a certain stage of controversy
before it reaches the court, a lawyer may
represent conflicting interests with the consent
of the parties. A common representation may
work to the advantage of the parties since a
mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and
impartially cognizant of the parties’ disparate
positions, may well be better situated to work
out an acceptable settlement of their
differences, being free of partisan inclinations
and acting with the cooperation and confidence
of said parties. In this case, even if Atty. Mutuc
was the lawyer of both Caesar’s Palace and the
Dee’s at the same time, both parties consented
to this, so there would not have been any
conflict of interest. The Court found that the
Dee’s knew that Atty. Mutuc was the
representative of Caesar’s Palace in the
Philippines, which is why they went to him, of
all lawyers, in the first place.

Gonzales v. Cabucana, 479 SCRA 320

(2006)

Complainant had a civil case where Cabucana’s

law firm represented her. After winning the
case, she faced issues with the sheriff’s
execution of the judgment, which ultimately
resulted in a criminal complaint against the
sheriff. Meanwhile, Atty. Cabucana represented
the sheriff, so Gonzales filed a complaint
against him for representing conflicting
interests. He claimed that his brother
represented the complainant in the civil case,
and the other was a pro bono.

Court held that the representation of opposing

clients in said cases, though unrelated,
constitutes conflict of interests, or invites
suspicion of double-dealing. That it was Atty.
Edmar and not Atty. Marcelino who
represented Leticia in the civil case likewise
has no merit. It was their law firm which
represented Leticia, so the rule against
representing conflicting interests applies.

FINED for P2,000 + STERN WARNING

Hornilla v. Salunat, 405 SCRA 220 (2003)

Atty. is the managing partner of a law firm.

This law firm is the retained counsel of a
Teacher’s Assoc.

Assoc files a derivative suit against its own

Board. The problem is Atty. appeared as
counsel for the Board.

A lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation

cannot represent members of the same
corporation’s Board in a derivative suit against
 them. This is because the interest of the
corporate client is paramount and cannot be
influenced by any interest of individual
corporate officials.

Even if Atty. just filed a Manifestation of

Extreme Urgency for the Board in the
Ombudsman, this is already an act of entering
his appearance—conflict of interest.

ADMONISHED + WARNED.

Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be Canon 3, SECTION 17. Prohibition

bound by the rule on privilege Against Conflict-of-Interest
communication in respect of Representation; Prospective Clients. —
matters disclosed to him by a In relation to prospective clients, the
prospective client. following rules shall be observed:

(a) A lawyer shall, at the earliest

opportunity, ascertain the existence of
any conflict of interest between a
prospective client and current clients,
and immediately disclose the same if
found to exist.
In case of an objection by either the
prospective or current client, the
lawyer shall not accept the new
engagement.

(b) A lawyer shall maintain the

private confidences of a
prospective client even if no
engagement materializes, and shall
not use any such information to
further his or her own interest, or
the interest of any current client.

​Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
Canon 3, SECTION 13. Conflict of
Interest. — A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests
except by written informed consent
of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
There is conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent or
Mabini Colleges v. Pajarillo, A.C. No.
10687, July 22, 2015
Atty. Parajillo is counsel for Mabini Colleges.
Mabini applied for a loan with a bank. Mabini
could not pay and the bank foreclosed on the
mortgage on Mabini’s properties. Mabini filed
an action to annul the mortgage. Parajillo was
counsel for the bank in the action.
opposing interests of two or more
persons. The test is whether in behalf
of one client it is the lawyer's duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but which is
his or her duty to oppose for the other
client.
Pajarillo is guilty of representing conflicting
interests. 15.03 prohibits a lawyer from
representing new clients whose interests
oppose those of a former client in any manner,
whether or not they are parties in the same
action or on totally unrelated cases. This rule
covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used.
Suspension for 1 year
Quiambao v. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708,
August 25, 2005
Atty. Bamba’s facing a complaint of misconduct
for representing conflicting interests filed by
Quiambao. Quiambao procured Atty. Bamba’s
services for her corporation’s (AIB) affairs and
for her personal case. While an ejectment case
was pending where Atty. Bamba was also the
counsel, he filed a replevin case against
Quiambao on behalf of AIB. Atty. Bamba also
committed double-dealing by successfully
convincing Quiambao and Quiambao’s brother
to organize their own security agencies.
The Court ruled that Atty. Bamba is guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting
interests. The proscription against
representation of conflicting interests
applies to situations wherein the
opposing parties are clients in the same
action or in an unrelated action.
There are tests to determine whether a
lawyer’s conduct equates to representing
conflicting interests:
1. Whether a lawyer is duty bound to
fight for an issue on behalf of a client
and, at the same time, to oppose that
claim for the other client. Thus, if a
lawyer’s argument for one client has to
be opposed by that same lawyer in
 arguing for another client, there is a
violation of the rule.
2. Whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the
client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance of that duty
3. Whether the lawyer would be called
upon in the new relation to use against
a former client any confidential
information acquired through their
connection or previous employment

It is enough that the opposing parties in one

case, wherein one of them would lose the suit,
are the present clients and the nature of the
lawyer’s retainers with each of them would
affect the performance of the duty of undivided
fidelity to both clients.

Atty. Bamba is suspended for 1 year.

Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with

the written consent of all
concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.

Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when
advising his client, shall give a
candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the
client's case, neither overstating
nor understating the prospects of
the case.
Canon 4, SECTION 5. Prompt and
Objective Assessment of the Merits. —
A lawyer shall, after reasonable
inquiry, promptly give an objective
assessment of the merits and
probable results of the client's
case.
A lawyer shall explain the viable
options to the client to enable an
informed decision regarding the
matter.
Tolentino V. So & Ancheta, A.C. No. 6387,
July 19, 2016
Atty. So was the first attorney of Spouses
Tolentino. However, while the case was
pending, Atty. So resigned without informing
the Spouses. Thereafter, the Spouses went to
Atty. Ancheta who asked for P200k so he can
render his legal assistance:
1. To file a motion to reopen the case
(since the case had become final and
executory)
2. To sway certain CA justices

There was no motion filed and there was no

way to overturn the decision. So, the Spouses

Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not
state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
Canon 2, SECTION 15. Improper Claim
of Influence or Familiarity. — A lawyer
shall observe propriety in all dealings
with officers and personnel of any
court, tribunal, or other government
agency, whether personal
professional. Familiarity with such
officers and personnel that will give rise
to an appearance of impropriety,
influence, or favor shall be avoided.
A lawyer shall not make claims of
demanded for the P200K back but Atty.
Ancheta did not heed such demands. Because
of these circumstances, Spouses Tolentino filed
for complaints for disbarment against Atty. So
for negligence and Atty. Ancheta for fraud. The
recommendation now before the SC would be:
1. Atty. So be free from liability
2. Atty. Ancheta be disbarred
For the case of Atty. So: Yes, he must be free
from liability. He was employed in his capacity
as a government employed lawyer which is
akin to a private firm where if the lawyer
resigns, the firm (or in this case, the
government agency) should provide a
replacement. Though it would have been
prudent for Atty. So to inform the Spouses
about the developments, such is not required.
If anything, this should be the duty of the
Spouses since there was a 4-year gap between
the promulgation of the decision and the
resignation. The negligence is on the part of
the Spouses.
For the case of Atty. Ancheta: Yes, he must be
disbarred. Firstly, his failure to reply to the
accusations against him manifests a tacit
admission of his wrongdoings. Secondly, he
should have advised the Spouses to accept the
judgment and give respect to the opposing
party. He should have tempered the clients
urge to litigate and save them from additional
expense in pursuing action.
or

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall
impress upon his client compliance
with the laws and the principles of
fairness.
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is
engaged in another profession or
occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to
his client whether he is acting as a
lawyer or in another capacity.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL
HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.
power, influence, or relationship with
any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
Canon 2, SECTION 5. Observance of
Fairness and Obedience. — A lawyer
shall, in every personal and
professional engagement, insist on the
observance of the principles of fairness
and obedience to the law.
Canon 4, SECTION 9. Practice of Law
Concurrent with Another Profession. —
A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently
with the practice of law shall expressly
provide in the pertinent contract the
nature of the services the lawyer is
engaged to perform.
The practice of another profession or
occupation shall not jeopardize such
lawyer's competence, integrity, probity,
and independence in rendering legal
services.
CANON 16
Zalamea v. De Guzman, A.C. No. 7387,
November 3, 2016
The Zalamea brothers sought the advice of
Atty. De Guzman on their mother’s property in
Scout Limbaga, QC. Atty. De Guzman advised
them of a possible tax-free transfer of the
property.
Afterwards, the Zalamea brothers put up a
lechon business, which Atty. De Guzman
provided capital for. One of the brothers
wanted to acquire a property located in
Speaker Perez St. However, since he had no
funds, Atty. De Guzman’s wife shouldered the
expenses. The wife paid a total of P13 million,
including monthly installments.
Later on, the relationship turned sour. The
Zalamea brothers filed a disbarment case
against Atty. De Guzman for allegedly buying a
client’s property subject of litigation.

Whether or not Atty. De Guzman unlawfully

acquired his client’s property which is the
subject of litigation.

No. The prohibition does not apply in this case

because the property is not involved in
litigation. There is no proof indicating the said
property has ever been involved in any
litigation Atty. De Guzman or his law firm took
part. While it is true that Zalamea bros sought
legal advice from Atty. De Guzman, such legal
advice only involved their mother’s estate, NOT
the Speaker Perez property, in question.

De Guzman did not exert undue influence upon

the Zalamea brothers as his clients. IN FACT, it
was one of the brothers who asked Sps. De
Guzman to join them in their lechon business
where the latter agreed to pay the
downpayment to acquire the Speaker Perez
property.

The nature of the relationship between Sps. De

Guzman and Zalamea brothers is actually one
of business partners, rather than an
attorney-client relationship. The acquisition of
the Speaker Perez property was a valid
consequence of a business deal, which Atty. De
Guzman and his wife are very much allowed by
law to enter.

In re Maquera, Bar Matter No. 793, July

30, 2004

Atty. Maquerra’s client in Guam, Castro, was

the defendant in a case. He lost and Castro’s
property was auctioned, where the plaintiff
Buenavente bought the property for $500,
subject to Castro’s right to redeem. Castro
assigned said right to Maquera as payment for
the latter’s legal services. Maquera redeemed
the property for $500 then sold it to the

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account
for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client.
Canon 3, SECTION 49. Accounting
during Engagement. — A lawyer,
during the existence of the
lawyer-client relationship, shall
account for and prepare an
inventory of any fund or property
belonging to the client, whether
received from the latter or from a
third person, immediately upon
such receipt.
When funds are entrusted to a lawyer
by a client for a specific purpose, the
lawyer shall use such funds only for the
client's declared purpose. Any unused
amount of the entrusted funds shall be
promptly returned to the client upon
accomplishment of the stated purpose
or the client's demand.
Changs for $320,000. Because of this,
Superior Court of Guam suspended him from
law practice and the District Court of Guam
sent SC a letter about the suspension.
SC ruled that the exercise by Maquerra of his
client’s right of redemption falls squarely under
Art. 1492, in relation to Art. 1491, of the Civil
Code. This prohibition is founded on public
policy because an attorney may easily take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his
client and unduly enrich himself at the expense
of his client. The Guam Superior Court found
Maquera's acquisition of Castro's right of
redemption, his exercise of it, and selling the
property for huge profits were tainted with
deceit and bad faith as Maquera charged
Castro an exorbitant fee for his legal services.
But he cannot be suspended yet since he
has not been given an opportunity to be
heard.
SUSPENDED (but for non-payment of IBP
dues)
Sison, Jr. v. Camacho, A.C. No. 10910,
January 12, 2016
Atty.’s client is filing an insurance claim. Atty.
said they can get more money by increasing
the claim to 65M but he needs additional
money for docket fees. So client gave him
money.
However, client learned that the RTC already
rendered a decision with a 65M award the day
before. When client asked for the money back,
Atty. said he gave it to the clerk of court since
the period for paying docket fees has already
lapsed.
Whether Atty. pocketed the money for himself,
or used it to bribe the clerk, it is clear that he
did not use the money for the legal purpose it
was intended for.

Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep
the funds of each client separate
and apart from his own and those
of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client.
He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his
client as provided for in the Rules
of Court.
Canon 3, SECTION 50. Separate Funds.
— A lawyer shall keep the funds of the
clients separate and apart from his or
her own and those of others kept by
the lawyer.
Canon 3, SECTION 49. Accounting
during Engagement. — A lawyer, during
the existence of the lawyer-client
relationship, shall account for and
prepare an inventory of any fund or
property belonging to the client,
whether received from the latter or
from a third person, immediately upon
such receipt.
When funds are entrusted to a
lawyer by a client for a specific
purpose, the lawyer shall use such
funds only for the client's declared
purpose. Any unused amount of
the entrusted funds shall be
promptly returned to the client
upon accomplishment of the stated
purpose or the client's demand.
It also does not matter if he used the money
as payment for his attorney’s fees—he still
cannot unilaterally appropriate it.
DISBARRED.
Barnachea v. Quicho, A.C. No. 5925,
March 11, 2003
Atty. Quicho failed to refund and return the
documents entrusted to him by Barnachea
after he failed to cause the transfer under her
name of a title previously owned by another.
He was suspended for one year because the
Court found out that the checks Atty. Quicho
received from Barnachea were used to
alleviate the former’s financial woes. The
lawyer’s failure to return the money of his
client upon demand gave rise to a presumption
that he has misappropriated said money in
violation of the trust reposed on him.
Businos v. Ricafort, A.M. No. 4349,
December 22, 1997
Atty. Ricafort received 30k from the court with
the obligation to deposit it in the account of his
client. He did not and used it for himself. He
also asked and was given 2k for filing of a
bond but no bond was required.
SC said using money entrusted to him for
personal use without client’s consent and lying
about the bond is wrong and a betrayal of trust
and confidence.
Disbarred.
Rayos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079,
February 12, 2007
Typhoon Kading hit Bulacan. NAPOCOR opened
three floodgates of the spillway of Angat Dam,
which caused flooding of Angat River.
Consequently, 10 relatives of Rayos died and
his family’s properties were destroyed. Rayos
filed a civil case; Atty. Hernandez was his
counsel. Rayos won the case and was awarded
damages.

NAPOCOR issued a check worth P1,060,000.

The check was turned over to Atty. Hernandez
as he was the counsel of Rayos. Rayos
demanded the check from Atty. Hernandez but
was refused. Rayos filed a motion with the RTC
to direct Atty. Hernandez to deliver the check
to him. Despite the Court Order, Atty.
Hernandez only partially complied with the
court order by depositing P502,000 to the
bank account of Rayos but retained the
remaining ~P558,000, claiming that it was his
means to ensure payment of his attorney’s
fees.

Rayos filed a disbarment case against Atty.

Hernandez for his failure to return the
remaining amount. In his reply, Atty.
Hernandez stated that Rayos allegedly agreed
to a contingent basis fee of 40-60.

Whether or not Atty. Hernandez is justified in

retaining the amount awarded to Rayos to
assure payment of his attorney’s fees.

No. Money collected by an attorney on a

judgment rendered in favor of his client
constitutes trust funds and must be
immediately paid over to the client. A lawyer is
Not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his
client’s money for himself by the mere fact
that the client owes him attorney’s fees.

The failure of an attorney to return the client's

money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for
his own use.

The fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for fees

on moneys in his hands collected for his client,
as above-stated, does not relieve him of his
duty to promptly account for the moneys
received; his failure to do so constitutes

Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client
unless the client's interest are fully
protected by the nature of the case
or by independent advice. Neither
shall a lawyer lend money to a
client except, when in the interest
of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for the client.
Canon 3, SECTION 52. Prohibition on
Lending and Borrowing; Exceptions. —
During the existence of the
lawyer-client relationship, a lawyer
shall not lend money to a client,
except under urgent and justifiable
circumstances. Advances for
professional fees and necessary
expenses in a legal matter the lawyer
is handling for a client shall not be
covered by this rule.
Neither shall a lawyer borrow money
from a client during the existence of
the lawyer-client relationship, unless
the client's interests are fully protected
by the nature of the case, or by
independent advice. This rule does
not apply to standard commercial
transactions for products
services that the client offers to
the public in general, or where the
professional misconduct. Thus, what
respondent should have provided the petitioner
with an accounting before deducting his
attorney's fees and then to turn over the
remaining balance of the award collected to
petitioner.
Re: Contingent Fee
Contingent fee contracts should always be
subject to the supervision and regulatory
powers of the court as to its reasonableness.
When the courts find that the stipulated
amount is excessive or found to have been
marred by fraud, mistake, undue influence on
the part of the attorney, public policy demands
that said contract be disregarded to protect
the client from unreasonable exaction.
Atty. Hernandez collected 53% of the total
amount due to Rayos. This is unconscionable.
Suspended for 6 months. Atty. Hernandez is
only entitled to 35% of the award of damages.
Navarro v. Solidum, A.C. No. 9872,
January 28, 2014
Atty Solidum, who already has an
attorney-client relationship with Navarro and
Presbitero from ongoing cases, asked and
obtained 3 loans from them for a total of Php
3M through memorandum agreements he
prepared. The MOAs provided that the loans
are secured by mortgages on Solidum’s
properties are subject to 10% monthly
interest. Solidum failed to pay, so
complainants filed an action for the foreclosure
of the properties. Solidum argued that the
interest rate is usurious.
SC disbarred Solidum for violating Rule
16.04 which prohibits the borrowing of
money from his client unless the clients
or interest are fully protected by the nature
of the case; or by independent advice.
The interest of the client was not secured and

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES
FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
lawyer and the client have an
existing or prior business
relationship, or where there is a
contract between the lawyer and
the client.
CANON 17
Canon 3, SECTION 6. Fiduciary Duty of
a Lawyer. — A lawyer shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed by the client.
To this end, a lawyer shall not abuse or
exploit the relationship with a client.
protected. Petitioners were disadvantaged by
the Solidum’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on his obligation,
such as the fixing of a usurious interest rate
that he could later on impugn. This is also seen
as, in Solidum’s dealings with Presbitero,
where the former took advantage of his
knowledge of the law as well as the trust
and confidence reposed in him by his
client (misrepresented the value of the
properties mortgaged and the fact that
the checks were drawn not from his
account but from his son’s)
Cantiller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. 3195,
December 18, 1989
An action for ejectment was filed against
Peregrinau Cantiller. The court issued a
decision against the latter. A notice to vacate
was then issued against Cantiller.
Cantiller then asked the Atty. Potenciano to
handle their case. Cantiller was made to sign
by Potenciano what she described as a “hastily
prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly
composed petition for annulment of judgment”.
Nonetheless, Potenciano claimed he would
acquire a restraining order since he was
"katsukaran" (close friends) with a judge.
The petition was filed with the RTC and
Potenciano demanded from the complainant P
l,000.00 as attorney’s fee.
The judge of RTC asked the respondent to
withdraw as counsel because of their
friendship. As such, Potenciano asked for
another P2k, and asked the sisters to pay for
two plastic bags of food from Max’s restaurant,
to bribe another judge to issue a restraining
order.
Later, Potenciano claimed there was a need to
file a second case for Cantiller to retain
possession of the apartment. He asked them
to prepare P10k for a deposit. That same day,
however, Potenciano filed a motion to withdraw
as their counsel citing pain from hemorrhoids.

The first case was dismissed for failure to state

cause of action. The second case was
dismissed for being identical to the first case.

The sisters later learned that there was never

a need for the P10k deposit, and the P10k they
gave Potenciano was never actually deposited
in any court. They demanded Potenciano
return their money, but he never answered.

Whether or not Potenciano is administratively

liable.

Yes. When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he

thereby covenants that he will exert all effort
for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The
failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client's cause violates the
most elementary principles of professional
ethics.

Potenciano knew that he would be asked by

the presiding judge (his friend) in the first case
to withdraw his appearance as counsel because
of their friendship. Despite such prior
knowledge, Potenciano took no steps to find a
replacement, nor did he inform the sisters of
this fact.

His representation that there was an

immediate need to file another civil case when
he already knew that he could no longer
physically handle the same is an act of
deception of his client. It shows lack of fidelity
to his oath of office as a member of the
Philippine bar.

Potenciano is suspended for an indefinite

 period of time and is ordered to return the
money to the sisters.

Mattus v. Villaseca, A.C. No. 7922,

October 1, 2013

Atty. is representing the accused in an estafa

case. However, he committed many violations:
● He was absent during several hearings
but collected appearance fees.
● He caused frequent postponement of
trials even though he was present at
the venue.
● He failed to ask the RTC for a NBI
expert to examine signatures.
● He did not present evidence in court.
Wife of accused even wanted to be a
witness but Atty. did not do anything.
● He did not submit demurrer to
evidence although he had sufficient
time (20 days from receipt of
transcript) plus he did not offer any
valid justification
● He failed to inform wife of accused of
the promulgation of judgment and the
dates of presentation
● He erroneously inputted the wrong
case number for notice of appeal

His justification was that was his legal strategy.

But while an atty. is free to strategize, he
should not neglect the rights of the client.

SUSPENDED from practice of law for 5 years.

CANON 18
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL Canon 4: A lawyer professionally
SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH handling a client's cause shall, to the
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. best of his or her ability, observe
competence, diligence,
commitment, and skill consistent
with the fiduciary nature of the
lawyer-client relationship,
regardless of the nature of the legal
matter or issues involved, and whether

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not
undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is
not qualified to render. However, he
may render such service if, with the
consent of his client, he can obtain
as collaborating counsel a lawyer
who is competent on the matter.
for a fee or pro bono.
Canon 4, SECTION 2. Undertaking
Legal Services; Collaborating Counsel.
— A lawyer shall only undertake
legal services he or she can deliver.
With the prior written consent of
the client, a lawyer may secure the
services of a collaborating counsel.
Sanchez v. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543, March
16, 2016
Atty. was hired to represent a client in the
annulment of her marriage. Atty. charged her
150K + 5K per hearing. He was paid 70K
already. However, Atty. filed legal separation
instead, believing that it was more optimal
since the husband had psychological
incapacity.
Psychological incapacity is not even a ground
for legal separation. Instead, it is for the nullity
of marriage. Atty. misrepresented his
professional competence and skill to the client.
He did not even go through with the original
agreement to annul.
FINED 10K. REPRIMANDED.
Lunar v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 6484, June 16,
2015
Atty. Ricafort was hired by Lunar (agent of a
certain Banez) to file a case against Ricardo
and Cervantes in order to recover a parcel of
land. Atty. Ricafort was paid P95K to cover the
partial payment for the redemption price of the
property, filing fees, and attorney fees. Atty.
Ricafort had not filed any case three years
later and also refused to return the full amount
because he claimed that P50K of which was
paid to Atty. Arbitria whom he claimed to have
filed the case. Lunar refused to recognize Atty.
Arbitria since she did not consent to the
engagement of his services. Also, the
complaint was only filed three years later,
making the property no longer redeemable.
The SC disbarred Atty. Ricafort after finding
him guilty of grave misconduct and
engagement in the practice of law while under
indefinite suspension. He did not exert due
diligence in handling Lunar’s case which led to
 the failure to redeem the property within the
reglementary period. Moreover, the Court
found that Atty. Ricafort was a repeat violator
of the CPR which warranted his disbarment.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not Canon 4, SECTION 1. Competent,

handle any legal matter without Efficient and Conscientious Service. —
adequate preparation. A lawyer shall provide legal service that
is competent, efficient, and
conscientious. A lawyer shall be
thorough in research, preparation,
and application of the legal
knowledge and skills necessary for
an engagement.

Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457, June 10,

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not Canon 4, SECTION 3. Diligence and 1992
neglect a legal matter entrusted to Punctuality. — A lawyer shall
him, and his negligence in diligently and seasonably act on Atty. Coronel did not file an answer despite an
connection therewith shall render any legal matter entrusted by a extension and so his client was declared in
him liable. client. default. The judgment was served on Coronel
who took no action so the decision became
A lawyer shall be punctual in all final. Coronel did not even inform his client of
appearances, submissions of a letter demanding the client vacate her
pleadings and documents before property which she lost in the case.
any court, tribunal or other
government agency, and all Suspension for 6 months.
matters professionally referred by
the client, including meetings and Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967, September
other commitments. 3, 2003

Atty. Endaya is a PAO lawyer who represented

Spouses Oca, who were the defendants in an
unlawful detainer case. During the case,
Endaya failed to submit the required affidavits
and position paper. Nonetheless, the MCTC
ruled in their favor because the plaintiffs were
not real parties in interest.

During the appeal, Endaya failed to file a

memorandum. The RTC ruled against Spouses
Oca. Having lost the unlawful detainer case,
Spouses Oca filed an administrative complaint.

Whether or not Atty. Endaya is guilty of

professional misconduct.
Yes. When Atty. Endaya was directed to file
affidavits and position papers by the MCTC,
and appeal memorandum by the RTC, he had
no choice but to comply. However, Atty.
Endaya did not bother to do so, in total
disregard of the court orders. This constitutes
negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule
18.03 of the CPR.

Atty. Endaya’s failure to file the affidavits and

position paper at the MCTC did not actually
prejudice his clients, for the court nevertheless
rendered a decision favorable to them.
However, the failure is per se a violation of
Rule 18.03.

It was Atty. Endaya’s failure to file appeal

memorandum before the RTC which made
Spouses Oca suffer as it resulted in their loss
of the case. In not filing the appeal
memorandum, Atty. Endaya denied Spouses
Oca the chance of putting up a fair fight.

Re: PAO Lawyer

Atty. Endaya is a lawyer of PAO, which is
tasked to provide free legal assistance for
indigents and low-income persons so as to
promote the rule of law in the protection of the
rights of the citizenry and the efficient and
speedy administration of justice. Against this
backdrop, he should have been more judicious
in the performance of his professional
obligations. Lawyers in the government are
public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to
the public service. Furthermore, a lawyer from
the government is not exempt from observing
the degree of diligence required in the CPR.

Suspended for 2 months.

Tejano v. Baterina, A.C. No. 8235, January

27, 2015

The complainant accused respondent to be

acting in conspiracy with the presiding judge in
order to take the former’s property. He
imputes that respondent failed to object when
the trial court pronounced that he and his
co-plaintiffs had waived their right to present
evidence; that he would file an MR but failed to
do so; and failed to comply with the court’s
order to present exhibits. Respondent denies
any allegation of bad faith and negligence. He
explained that the reason he could not attend
was because he was suspended for two years.

Doctrine: Respondent’s duty to his clients did

not automatically cease with his suspension.
He at least had the concomitant responsibility
to inform his clients that he would be unable to
attend their case and advise them to retain
another counsel. Atty. Baterina practically
abandoned this duty when he allowed the
proceedings to run its course without any
effort to safeguard his clients' welfare in the
meantime. His failure to file the required
pleadings on his clients' behalf constitutes
gross negligence in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

SUSPENDED from practice for 5 years.

(Aggravating circumstance of second
suspension)

Lagua v. CA, G.R. No. 173390, June 27,

2012

Lagua was found guilty by RTC of homicide.

Despite several extensions, his counsel Atty.
Quimpo failed to file appellant’s brief. CA
declared the appeal abandoned. Atty. Quimpo
then manifested to the Court that he had
already withdrawn as defense counsel for
Lagua. Lagua asked more time to find new
counsel. After several extensions, new counsel
Atty. Barrientos appeared, but still failed to file
appellant’s brief.

SC said no grave abuse of discretion on CA for

declaring the appeal abandoned after 2 years.
The negligence and mistakes of counsel are
 binding on the client. Any act or omission by
counsel within the scope of the authority is
regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or
omission of the client himself. Otherwise, there
would never be an end to a suit. Lagua was
also to blame since he took so long to find new
counsel and to file an appellant’s brief without
valid explanation.

No penalty.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep Canon 4, SECTION 6. Duty to Update
the client informed of the status of the Client. — A lawyer shall
his case and shall respond within a regularly inform the client of the
reasonable time to the client's status and the result of the matter
request for information. undertaken, and any action in
connection thereto, and shall
respond within a reasonable time
to the client's request for
information.
Ramiscal v. Orro, A.C. No. 10945,
February 23, 2016
Atty. failed to inform the client of the adverse
result of the case. As a result, the case
attained finality and the client lost the
property. The Atty.’s negligence deprived the
client of the opportunity to hire a more
competent lawyer to handle their case and to
exhaust legal remedies.

SUSPENDED from practice of law for 2 years.

Katipunan, Jr. v. Carrera, A.C. No. 12661,

February 19, 2020

Atty. Carrera failed to inform Katipunan of the

resolution of his case for a higher award of
disability benefits. He would misrepresent the
case to still be pending. 2 months later,
Katipunan just knew of the dismissal of the
case (which was basically the contents of the
resolution) but Atty. Carrera just brushed it off
and said there was no other remedy and the
resolution had lapsed into finality. Atty.
Carrera’s action of withholding information on
the denial of Katipunan’s petition resulted in
the loss of opportunity to file an MR and to
persuade the SC to take a second look on the
merits and rectify reversible error, if any.

SUSPENDED for 1 month.

CANON 19
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL
REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH
ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
LAW.
Canon 3, Sec. 2, par. 3:
SECTION 2. The Responsible and
Accountable Lawyer. — A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws
of the land, promote respect for laws
and legal processes, safeguard human
rights, and at all times advance the
honor and integrity of the legal
profession.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer
shall uphold the rule of law and
conscientiously assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.
As an advocate, a lawyer shall
represent the client with fidelity and
zeal within the bounds of the law and
the CPRA.
Millare v. Montero, A. C. No. 3283, July
13, 1995
Pacifica Millare (mother of complainant)
obtained a favorable judgment ordering Elsa
Dy Co to vacate the premises of a subject lot
in an ejectment case. This became final and
executory. Atty. Montero (counsel of Co) filed a
total of six appeals for Co, all of which were
denied.
Pacifica filed a Motion for Execution of the
judgment, which was subsequently granted.
Montero challenged this by instituting a special
civil action (Rule 65, prohibition and
mandamus) with the MTC. The petition was
eventually denied.
Whether or not Atty. Montero is guilty of
malpractice.
Yes. Advocacy, within the bounds of the law,
permits the attorney to use any arguable
construction of the law or rules which is
favorable to his client. But the lawyer is not
allowed to knowingly advance a claim or
defense that is unwarranted under existing
law. He cannot prosecute patently frivolous
and meritless appeals or institute clearly
groundless actions.
It was clear to the Court that Co’s rights were
fully protected during the ejectment case,
however her counsel resorted to devious and
underhanded means to delay the execution of
the judgment rendered by the MTC adverse to
his client. The said decision became executory
even pending its appeal with the RTC because
of the failure of Co to file a supersedeas bond
and to pay the monthly rentals as they fell
due. Furthermore, his petition for annulment of
the decisions of the MTC and RTC which he
filed with the CA was defective and dilatory.
Moreover, when the CA ordered that the
records of the case be remanded, Montero
knew very well that the decision of the MTC

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ
only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has
received information that his client
has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon a person or tribunal, shall
promptly call upon the client to
rectify the same, and failing which
he shall terminate the relationship
with such client in accordance with
the Rules of Court.
Canon 2, SECTION 13. Imputation of a
Misconduct, Impropriety, or Crime
without Basis. — A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, impute to or
accuse another lawyer of a misconduct,
impropriety, or a crime in the absence
of factual or legal basis.
Neither shall a lawyer, directly or
indirectly, file or cause to be filed, or
assist in the filing of frivolous or
baseless administrative, civil, or
criminal complaints against another
lawyer.
Canon 3, SECTION 9. Duty to Call
Client to Rectify Fraudulent Act. — A
lawyer who receives information that a
client has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud in
relation to any matter subject of the
representation before a court, tribunal,
or other government agency, or against
any officer thereof, shall promptly call
upon the client to rectify the same.
Such fraudulent act on the part of the
client shall be a ground for the
termination by the lawyer of the
engagement.
was already ripe for execution. Lastly, he filed
a total of six appeals making him guilty of
forum shopping.
Montero willfully and knowingly abused his
rights of recourse through his actions. He
made a mockery of the judicial processes and
disregarded the canons of professional ethics
in intentionally frustrating the rights of a
litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case
was rendered.
Suspended for 1 year.
Dalisay v. Mauricio, A.C. No. 5655,
January 23, 2006
Atty. Mauricio, despite accepting attorney’s
fees and the documents relevant to the case,
did not render any service for his client,
Dalisay. He claims that his reason for doing
nothing was because Dalisay submitted
falsified TaxDecs and titles as evidence for the
case.
The Court ruled that, rather than inaction,
Mauricio should have called upon Dalisay to
rectify the falsification. If the latter refuses,
then he should terminate his relationship with
her. In any case, he discovered the falsification
long after Dalisay terminated their
relationship, showing that it is merely an

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not
allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case.
Canon 1, SECTION 5. Lawyer's Duty
and Discretion in Procedure. — A
lawyer shall not allow the client to
dictate or determine the procedure in
handling the case.
Nevertheless, a lawyer shall respect
the client's decision to settle or
compromise the case after explaining
its consequences to the client.
attempt by him to justify his negligence.
SUSPENDED 6 months
Olvida v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 5732, June
16, 2015
Atty. failed to submit a position paper despite
repeated attempts of the client in contacting
him. As a result, there was an adverse decision
against the client, and the copy was first
received by Atty, who did not inform the client.
In his defense, Atty. said that it was the client
who was to blame since she did not provide
documentary evidence which could have been
attached to the complaint, dispensing the need
for a position paper. Plus, he argued that there
were differences between them in how to
handle the case.
However, a lawyer should not allow the client
to dictate the procedure in handling the case.
Lawyer should have acted as an actual lawyer,
and not just an agent waiting for instructions.
Plus, it was the Atty. who was unreachable, not
the client.
SUSPENDED from practice of law for 3 years.
Fernandez v. Novero, A.C. No. 5394,
December 2, 2002
Atty. Novero failed to attend several scheduled
hearings, failed to seek postponement of said
hearings, failed to formally offer his exhibits,
and failed to file the motion for reconsideration
within the reglementary period. He denied the
allegations and contended that his failure to
perform his duties was due to his client:
1. Client did not furnish the records and
notes regarding the case despite
repeated requests
2. Failure to offer exhibits as evidence
because client wants to present more
 witnesses but never appeared during
trial

Atty. Novero was, nonetheless, negligent in the

performance of his duties because he allowed
Fernandez to take over the handling of the
case by insisting on presenting more
witnesses.

Suspended for 1 month.

CANON 20
2 concepts of attorney’s fees:
1. Attorney’s fees as compensation
a. What the lawyer gets
b. Obligation of client to lawyer for compensation (ordinary concept)
2. Attorney’s fees as damages
a. What the winning party gets
b. Concept of damages which court may award; paid by loser to winner (extraordinary concept)

Kinds of retainer:
1. General
a. Fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem
b. Fees are paid whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer
c. Reason: lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering services to other parties
d. It is apart from what the client has agreed to pay him for services which he has been employed to perform (special retainer)
2. Special
a. Fee for a specific case handled or special service rendered
b. If for every case there is a separate and independent contract for attorney’s fees, each fee = special retainer

How is compensation measured?

1. Fixed in the contract
2. Quantum meruit basis
a. “As much as a lawyer deserves”
b. Reason: for preventing undue enrichment
c. Applies in:
i. Agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for some reason other than illegality of object of performance
ii. Amount stipulated is unconscionable
iii. No agreement as to fees
iv. Some act or event has precluded the lawyer from litigating without fault on his part
v. Client has dismissed his counsel or the latter has withdrawn for a valid reason
3. Contingent fee
a. Contract for contingent fee is an agreement in writing in which the fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered, is made to depend upon
the success in the effort to enforce or defend a supposed right
i. Lawyer gets paid only when he wins the case
 1. XPN: client prevents successful prosecution, in which case lawyer will be entitled to recover on quantum meruit basis
ii. This must be in an express contract
b. Is this on top of the attorney’s fees?
c. Usually happens when the litigant is indigent

How to recover fees?

1. Lawyer can apply his client’s funds in his possession as necessary to satisfy his fees giving prompt notice to client.
a. Note: this needs client’s consent
2. Lawyer can file necessary petition as incident to main action only when something is due the client in the main action
a. In other words, lawyer cannot file petition if client recovers nothing in main action
3. Lawyer can file an independent civil action
a. When main action was dismissed
b. When court decided the main action without jurisdiction
c. When person liable for atty fee not party in main action
d. When court reserved to lawyer the right to file separate civil suit for recovery of fees
e. When services for which the lawyer seeks payment were rendered in connection with a matter not in litigation
f. Court rendered judgment in the case without requiring payment for atty fees and judgment became final
4. Remedies in estate proceedings
a. Lawyer will ask the administrator/executor to pay the fee.
i. If admin/exec refuses, lawyer can file independent civil action against admin/exec in personal capacity or
ii. file an independent action with probate court praying that admin/exec be ordered to pay his fee
b. If admin/exec dies, file action against estate

2 liens by which the lawyer ensures he gets paid:

1. Retaining lien
a. Right of atty to retain the funds, documents, papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession until lawful fees/disbursements have
been paid and apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof
b. Takes effect upon lawful possession and does not require notice to client or adverse party to be effective
c. Since passive right, if client does not voluntarily pay, need to file necessary action to recover what is due from the client
2. Charging lien
a. Right which the atty has upon all judgements for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance thereof, secured in favor of the client.
b. Takes effect only after atty caused a statement of his claim to be entered upon the record of the particular action with written notice to client and
adverse party
c. Lien once duly recorded attaches to judgment for payment of money and the executions issued in pursuance of judgment.
d. Extinguished when client loses the action as the lien may only be enforced against a judgment awarded in favor of the client, the proceeds thereof or
executions thereon

How much should the atty be privy to the imposition of fees?

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL Canon 3, SECTION 41. Fair and Quirante v. IAC, G.R. No. 73886, January
CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND Reasonable Fees. — A lawyer shall 31, 1989
REASONABLE FEES. charge only fair and reasonable fees.
In a separate case, Dr. Casasola (father of
Attorney's fees shall be deemed fair respondents) sued a building contractor
and reasonable if determined based on Guerrerro, as obligee, and PHILMAGEN, as
the following factors: Guerrero’s bondsman, for breach of contract.
(a) The time spent and the extent
of the service rendered or
required;
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the
issues involved;
(c) The skill or expertise of the
lawyer, including the level of
study and experience required
for the engagement;
(d) The probability of losing other
engagements as a result of
acceptance of the case;
(e) The customary charges for
similar services and the
recommended schedule of fees,
which the IBP chapter shall
provide;
(f) The quantitative or qualitative
value of the client's interest in
the engagement, or the
benefits resulting to the client
from the service;
(g) The contingency or certainty of
compensation;
(h) The character of the
engagement, whether limited,
seasonal, or otherwise; and
(i) Other analogous factors.
Trial court ordered the defendants to pay
Casasola damages and ordered its execution
after denying the notice of appeal of the
defendants. Atty. Quirante, counsel of
respondents, sought to enforce an agreement
that he had with the latter for the payment of
his attorney’s fees, despite the case still
pending because the order of denial against
the defendants in that case is still being
reviewed by the SC. The agreement is that if
his client (the plaintiff) recovers the P120k
surety bond, he gets P30k; in case damages
are awarded, the amount in excess of the
P120k will be divided equally among the
clients, and the two petitioners.
According to SC, petitioners are claiming
attorney’s fees different from the attorney’s
fees as an item of damages awarded to the
litigant, extraordinary attorney’s fees, that
could be enforced here since the execution of
the judgment was already ordered. The
petitioners are claiming attorney’s fees for
their professional services, which is still
premature because the case has not attained
finality. There’s still a possibility that their
client does not recover the P120k surety bond.
So, his claim should be held in abeyance.
Roxas v. de Zuzuarregui, G.R. No. 152072,
January 31, 2006
NHA filed expropriation proceedings against
the Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging
to them in Antipolo, Rizal. The Zuzzuarreguis
then obtained the legal services of Atty. Roxas
and Atty. Pastor. This was shown through a
letter-agreement. The agreement indicated
that they would be entitled to 30% of the just
compensation as CONTINGENT FEES.
Eventually, they were able to come into a
compromise agreement with the NHA that just
compensation would be at P 19.50 per square
payable in NHA bonds. The total amount
released by the NHA to Atty. Roxas was P54
million, but the records show that only P30
million in NHA bonds was turned over to the
Zuzuareguis. Eventually, the new counsel of
the Zuzuareguis demanded Atty. Roxas and
Pastor to deliver the yield to the bonds paid by
the NHA.

Whether or not the contingent fees fixed in the

letter-agreement is binding.

No. Even though the letter-agreement was a

valid contract, the Court still said that it cannot
allow a contract for professional services to
stand if the stipulation for the lawyer’s
compensation was unconscionable and
unreasonable.

Contingent Fees are not prohibited by law.

However, it should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case and should always
be subject to the supervision of the Court.

The CPR provides that lawyers should only

charge fair and reasonable. In this case, the
fees received by Atty. Roxas and Pastor
equated to 44% of the just compensation paid
by the NHA.

It is within the Court’s jurisdiction to equitable

reduce the contingent fees. The Court divided
the yield on the bonds pro rata. The
Zuzuareguis were entitled to 87.18% of the
yield while the lawyers were entitled to 12%.
Atty. Roxas and Atty. Pastor were then ordered
to return about P17 million to the Zuzuareguis.

Metropolitan Bank v. CA, G.R. Nos.

86100-03, January 23, 1990

Law firm was claiming a lien of 25% of the

actual and current market value of the litigated
properties as attorney’s fees.

SC said the charging lien could not be enforced

for payment of attorney’s fees because a lien
to be enforceable requires a judgement for
 money and execution secured by the attorney
in favor of his client. Here, the case was
dismissed. Not money judgement or monetary
award was made to the client of the law firm.

The final attorney’s fees was not determined

as it needed a full-blown trial.

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be Ignacio v. Alviar, A.C. No. 11482, July 17,
guided by the following factors in 2017
determining his fees:
(a) the time spent and the extent Atty. Alviar is the counsel of complainant’s son.
of the service rendered or required; He asked for 100K as acceptance fees and
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the after payment he rendered preparatory legal
questions involved; services like conferring with complainant’s son
(c) The importance of the subject (for 20 mins only), securing copies of the case,
matter; and verifying if the pleadings had been filed.
(d) The skill demanded; However, he failed to appear during the
(e) The probability of losing other arraignment of complainant’s son, and he did
employment as a result of not formally withdraw as counsel so that
acceptance of the proffered case; complainant could ask for the help of another
(f) The customary charges for lawyer.
similar services and the schedule of
fees of the IBP chapter to which he The SC ruled that he is negligent in his duties
belongs; and imposed a penalty of reprimand with stern
(g) The amount involved in the warning, and he is to restitute 97K from the
controversy and the benefits 100K acceptance fees he received.
resulting to the client from the
service; This restitution is based on the principle of
(h) The contingency or certainty of quantum meruit: a device to prevent undue
compensation; enrichment based on the equitable postulate
(i) The character of the that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit
employment, whether occasional or without working for it.
established; and
(j) The professional standing of the The SC ruled that for services actually
lawyer. rendered by Alviar, he is entitled to retain only
3K as reasonable compensation and is to
return the remaining balance of 97K to
complainant.

Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385,

February 13, 2009

Alexander engaged the services of Atty. Go

and they agreed that atty’s fees would be paid
on a contingent basis (20% of monetary

​Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case
of referral, with the consent of the
client, be entitled to a division of
fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility
assumed.
award; Additional 10% in case of appeal). Atty
Go alleged that Evangelina (substitute of
Alexander) failed to pay the remaining balance
of the atty’s fees. Evangelina argues that legal
compensation of a lawyer in a labor proceeding
should be based on Article 111 of the Labor
Code, which provides that in cases of unlawful
withholding of wages, the culpable party may
be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to 10%
of the amount of the wages recovered.
The Court held that Article 111 of the Labor
Code deals with atty fees in its extraordinary
sense because it regulates the amount
recoverable as atty fees in the nature of
damages. This is the amount paid by losing
part to the winning party, and is payable to the
client unless there is an agreement between
the client and lawyer. What should govern Atty
Go’s compensation is Rule 138 Sec. 24 of ROC,
which deals with atty fees in its ordinary sense
as reasonable compensation for legal services
rendered.
Canon 20.01 provides contingency as a factor
in determining atty fees. Contingent contracts
are subject to a stipulation that counsel will
only be paid if the suit prospers, so a much
higher compensation is allowed as there is a
risk that a lawyer will get nothing if the suit
fails. In this case, the Court held there is
nothing illegal in the contingent fee contract.
Canon 3, SECTION 42. Division of Fees
upon Referral. — A lawyer shall, in case
of referral of legal services in favor of
another lawyer with the written
informed consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in
proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed.
Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer, a division or sharing of fees is
allowed with the deceased lawyer's
 legal heirs or estate.

Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, Canon 3, SECTION 44. Payment of

without the full knowledge and Compensation by Third Party. — A
consent of the client, accept any lawyer shall not receive any fee,
fee, reward, costs, commission, reward, costs, commission, interest,
interest, rebate or forwarding rebate or forwarding allowance or other
allowance or other compensation compensation from anyone other than
whatsoever related to his the client, except upon the written
professional employment from informed consent of such client.
anyone other than the client.
Receipt of compensation from someone
other than the client must not interfere
with the lawyer's independence,
professional judgment, or the
lawyer-client relationship. Neither
should information relating to
representation of a client be disclosed
in violation of the rule on privileged
communication.

Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and
shall resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.
SECTION 46. Controversy Over Legal
Fees. — A lawyer shall avoid any
controversy with a client concerning
fees for legal services and shall resort
to judicial action solely to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.

RULES OF COURT ON COMPENSATION AND LIENS

Section 24, Rule 138 - Malvar v. Kraft Foods, G.R. No. 183952,
Compensation of attorneys; September 9, 2013
agreement as to fees. — An
attorney shall be entitled to have Malvar severed the attorney-client relationship
and recover from his client no more between her and her counsels, and entered
than a reasonable compensation into a compromise agreement with Kraft Foods
for his services, with a view to the on her own. With this compromise agreement,
importance of the subject matter of she is depriving her counsels of the contingent
the controversy, the extent of the fees that they are supposed to receive if it
services rendered, and the weren’t for such agreement. In this Motion for
professional standing of the Intervention, filed by the Law Firm, through its
attorney. No court shall be bound intervenor, the Protection of Attorney’s Rights
by the opinion of attorneys as is being prayed since the stipulated
expert witnesses as to the proper professional fees would be denied under such
compensation, but may disregard compromise agreement.
such testimony and base its
conclusion on its own professional
knowledge. A written contract for
services shall control the amount to
be paid therefor unless found by
the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.
The Court held that the Motion can prosper.
Although the practice of law is not a business,
an attorney is entitled to be properly
compensated for the professional services
rendered for the client, who is bound by her
express agreement to duly compensate the
attorney. The client may not deny her attorney
such just compensation. True enough, a client
can enter into compromise agreements on her
own. However, It is important for the client to
show, however, that the compromise
agreement does not adversely affect third
persons who are not parties to the agreement.

Section 37, Rule 138 - Attorneys'

liens. — An attorney shall have a
lien upon the funds, documents
and papers of his client which have
lawfully come into his possession
and may retain the same until his
lawful fees and disbursements have
been paid, and may apply such
funds to the satisfaction thereof.
He shall also have a lien to the
same extent upon all judgments for
the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of
such judgments, which he has
secured in a litigation of his client,
from and after the time when he
shall have caused a statement of
his claim of such lien to be entered
upon the records of the court
rendering such judgment, or
issuing such execution, and shall
have caused written notice thereof
to be delivered to his client and to
the adverse party; and he shall
have the same right and power
over such judgments and
executions as his client would have
to enforce his lien and secure the
payment of his just fees and
disbursements.

CANON 21
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL
PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND
SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATION IS TERMINATED.
Canon 3, SECTION 18. Prohibition
Against Conflict-of-Interest
Representation; Former Clients. — In
relation to former clients, the following
rules shall be observed:
(a) A lawyer shall maintain the
private confidences of a former
client even after the
termination of the engagement,
except upon the written
informed consent of the former
client, or as otherwise allowed
under the CPRA or other
applicable laws or regulations,
or when the information has
become generally known.
(b) A lawyer shall not use
information relating to the
former representation, except
as the CPRA or applicable laws
and regulations would permit
or require with respect to a
current or prospective client, or
when the information has
become generally known.
(c) Unless the former client gives
written informed consent, a
lawyer who has represented
such client in a legal matter
shall not thereafter represent a
prospective client in the same
or related legal matter, where
the prospective client's
interests are materially adverse
to the former client's interests.
Canon 3, SECTION 27. Confidentiality
of Privileged Communication. — A
lawyer shall maintain the confidences
of the client, and shall respect data
privacy laws. The duty of confidentiality
shall continue even after the
termination of the lawyer-client
engagement.
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
115439-41, July 16, 1997
Rules for application of Atty.-client privilege in
relation to past vs. future crimes:
1. If at the time the communication is
made, the crime had already been
committed, then it is covered by the
privilege
2. If at the time the communication is
made, the crime was about to be
committed or intended to be
committed, then it is NOT covered by
the privilege
In this case, atty. and client conspired to falsify
documents of arraignment to dismiss the
preliminary investigation on the grounds of
double jeopardy. Their communication took
place BEFORE the crime. Hence, the atty. can
be discharged as state witness and give
testimonies in relation to their communication.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
105938, September 20, 1996
The PCGG, raised a complaint before the
Sandiganbayan against Cojuangco, Jr. and
Regala and his partners in the ACCRA law firm,
for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth.
During the course of the proceedings, PCGG
filed a "Motion to Admit Third Amended
Complaint" which excluded respondent Roco
from the complaint on his undertaking that he
will reveal the identity of the principal/s for
whom he acted as a nominee/stockholder.
In their answer to the Expanded Amended
Complaint, the ACCRA lawyers requested that
PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to
them as accorded to Roco. The PCGG offered
them the same conditions, but the ACCRA
lawyers refused to disclose the identities of
their clients.
The ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for
certiorari, invoking that the Honorable
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in
not holding that the attorney-client privilege
prohibits them from revealing the identity of
their client(s) and other information requested
by PCGG.

Whether or not the client’s identity in a case

involving and acquiring companies allegedly
sourced from ill-gotten wealth is privileged and
disclosure of such is unethical.

Yes. The court held that the client identity in

this case is privileged. As a matter of public
policy, a client's identity should not be
shrouded in mystery. This general rule is
however qualified by some important
exceptions:

● Client identity is privileged where a

strong probability exists that revealing
the client's name would implicate that
client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyer's advice.
● Where disclosure would open the client
to civil liability.
● Where the government's lawyers have
no case against an attorney's client
unless, by revealing the client's name,
the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an
individual of a crime.

The circumstances involving the engagement

of the ACCRA lawyers clearly reveal that the
instant case falls under the first and third
exception.

The Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are

hereby annulled and set aside.

Genato v. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078, July 14,

2003

Atty. Silapan borrowed money from his client

but then failed to pay. So client filed for a
foreclosure case on the mortgaged property.
Atty. Silapan then stated that his client was
involved in shady deals and even said that in a
criminal case where Atty. Silapan defended his
client, the client told Silapan to bribe the
review committee of the DOJ and to prosecutor
because the client was indeed guilty of the
crime charged against him.

SC said Silapan violated the trust and

confidence. An attorney is not permitted to
disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the
client consents. The protection given to the
client is perpetual and it does not cease with
the termination of the litigation nor is it
affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It survives
the death of the client.

However, privilege against disclosure of

confidential communications or information is
limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of
lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not
extend to those made in contemplation of a
crime or perpetuation of a fraud. If the
unlawful purpose is avowed, as in this case,
Genato’s alleged intention to bribe government
officials in relation to his case, the
communication is not covered by the privilegte
since the client does not consult the lawyer
professionally. It is not within the profession of
a lawyer to advice a client as to how he may
commit a crime as a lawyer is not a gun for
hire. Hence, the attorney-client privilege does
not attach, there being no professional
employment in the strict sense.

Nonetheless, Silapan’s disclosures was not

indispensable to protect his rights in the
foreclosure case. It was improper for him to
use it against Genato in the foreclosure case
as it was not the subject matter of litigation

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not
reveal the confidences or secrets of
his client except;
(a) When authorized by the client
after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;
(c) When necessary to collect his
fees or to defend himself, his
employees or associates or by
judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to
the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course
of employment, nor shall he use
the same to his own advantage or
that of a third person, unless the
client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not,
without the written consent of his
client, give information from his
files to an outside agency seeking
such information for auditing,
statistical, bookkeeping,
accounting, data processing, or any
similar purpose.
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose
the affairs of a client of the firm to
partners or associates thereof
unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt
such measures as may be required
to prevent those whose services
are utilized by him, from disclosing
or using confidences or secrets of
and Atty. Silapan’s professional competence
and legal advice were not being attacked in the
case.
Suspension for 6 months.
Canon 3, SECTION 28. Protecting
Client Confidences. — A lawyer shall
not reveal the confidences of the client,
including data from the client's files,
except:
(a) When a written informed
consent is obtained from the
client;
(b) When required by law, such as
anti-money laundering
statutes, or the Rules of Court;
(c) To the extent necessary, to
collect the lawyer's fees;
(d) In defense of the lawyer, or the
lawyer's employees or
associates; or
(e) By judicial order, but only if
material.
Canon 3, SECTION 30. Duty of
Confidentiality of Members of a Law
Firm. — A lawyer may disclose the
legal matters entrusted by a client of
the firm to the partners and associates,
as well as paralegals, legal assistants,
law clerks, legal researchers, law
interns, and other non-legal staff, who
are or will be involved in the handling
of the client's account, unless expressly
the clients. prohibited by the client.

A lawyer directly entrusted with a

client's confidences shall adopt
necessary measures to prevent other
members of the law firm, both legal
and non-legal, to whom the client's
confidences have been shared, from
disclosing or using them, without the
written informed consent of the client.

Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid Canon 3, SECTION 31. Prohibition

indiscreet conversation about a Against Filial Disclosure. — A lawyer
client's affairs even with members shall not discuss a client's confidences
of his family. even with family members.

Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not Canon 3, SECTION 32. Non-Disclosure

reveal that he has been consulted
about a particular case except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
of Legal Consultation. — A lawyer shall
not reveal that he or she has been
consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of
interest.

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL
WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
CANON 22
Canon 3, SECTION 53. Termination of
Engagement by the Lawyer. — A lawyer
shall terminate the lawyer-client
engagement only for good cause and
upon written notice, in any of the
following cases:
(a) When the client pursues an
illegal or immoral course of
conduct in connection with the
engagement;
(b) When the client insists that the
lawyer pursue conduct that is
violative of these Canons and
rules;
(c) When the lawyer's inability to
work with a co-counsel will not
promote the best interest of
the client;
(d) When the moral predisposition
or the mental or physical
condition of the lawyer renders
Orcino v. Gaspar, A.C. No. 3773,
September 24, 1997
Atty. was hired as a private prosecutor but
failed to attend one bail hearing. At this
hearing, the court granted bail for the accused.
The client was not happy, so he accused the
Atty. of jeopardizing the case. Emotionally
damaged, Atty. gave up the records to the
client and filed a Motion to Withdraw—this was
not approved by the court. Despite this, Atty.
failed to appear in subsequent hearings.
Under Rule 138, Sec. 26, a lawyer may only
retire from an action or special proceeding:
1. By written consent of client filed in
court
2. Without consent of client, after notice
to client and lawyer and on hearing,
should the court determine that he be
allowed to retire on good cause
 it difficult to carry out the
engagement effectively; There was no consent from the client and none
(e) When the client deliberately of the circumstances in Canon 22.01 are
fails to pay the fees for the present. This was just a case of
lawyer's services, fails to misunderstanding b/w atty. and client leading
comply with the retainer to a passionate outburst. Plus, the Motion to
agreement, or can no longer be Withdraw was not approved, so Atty. should
found despite diligent efforts; have continued the job.
(f) When the lawyer is elected or
appointed to public office; ADMONISHED.
(g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may Chang v. Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934, April 6,
withdraw his services in any of the 2016
following case:
(a) When the client pursues an Atty. failed to attend hearings, which led to the
illegal or immoral course of conduct dismissal of the case to the detriment of the
in connection with the matter he is client. In his defense, Atty. said that the client
handling; was uncooperative and he was ill.
(b) When the client insists that the
lawyer pursue conduct violative of However, Atty. did not secure consent of the
these canons and rules; client. He did not even prove if the client knew
(c) When his inability to work with about his withdrawal. So the client was not
co-counsel will not promote the able to secure the services of a new lawyer.
best interest of the client; Offensive attitude of the client cannot be used
(d) When the mental or physical as an excuse to just disappear.
condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the SUSPENDED from practice of law for 1 year.
employment effectively; ORDERED to return the attorney’s fees.
(e) When the client deliberately
fails to pay the fees for the services
or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or
appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.

Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who Canon 3, SECTION 56. Accounting and

withdraws or is discharged shall, Turn Over upon Termination of
subject to a retainer lien, Engagement. — A lawyer who is
immediately turn over all papers discharged from or terminates the
and property to which the client is engagement shall, subject to an
entitled, and shall cooperative with attorney's lien, immediately render a
his successor in the orderly transfer full account of and turn over all
of the matter, including all documents, evidence, funds, and
information necessary for the properties belonging to the client.
proper handling of the matter.
 The lawyer shall cooperate with the
chosen successor in the orderly
transfer of the legal matter, including
all information necessary for the
efficient handling of the client's
representation.

A lawyer shall have a lien upon the

funds, documents, and papers of the
client which have lawfully come into his
or her possession and may retain the
same until the fair and reasonable fees
and disbursements have been paid,
and may apply such funds to the
satisfaction thereof.

New Code of Judicial Conduct

CANON 1 — Independence
Canon 1 — Independence Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286,
July 11, 1991

Rally was staged demanding the arrest of the

accused. On the same day, the judge issued
warrants of arrest without hearing. At the
same time, he also granted bail without
hearing. All of these were done in violation of
the Rules of Court which require a hearing for
the granting of bail. This was also a violation of
due process against the prosecution.

FINED 20K.

Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No.

R-351-RTJ, September 26, 1986

[Only focusing on the relevant complaint]

Five separate complaints were filed against

respondent Judge Antonia. She ordered the
arrest of Ramirez for disobeying her order and
demolishing the improvements in a certain
property, despite Ramirez only acting on the
order of Judge Socorro; respondent failed to
act on the motion of Samson to hold one of the
 defendants in a complaint in default;
respondent failed to decide a case that
has been submitted for decision for more
than 18 months; she acquitted a defendant
in a frustrated murder case without the
presence of Alba and his counsel; respondent
disobeyed the order of the SC by deciding a
case which it had already designated to
another judge.

Granting that she was threatened by a close

relative of an associate of a national official
that she will be removed if she does not decide
the case in favor of complainant Lazaro, which
she did, her confessed act of succumbing to
this pressure on the telephone is a patent
betrayal of the public trust reposed on
respondent as an arbiter of the law and a
revelation of her weak moral character. As a
judge, she is expected to be fearless in her
pursuit to render justice, to be unafraid to
displease any person, interest or power and to
be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough
to resist the temptations lurking in her office.
Regrettably, respondent has dismally failed to
exhibit these qualities required of those
holding such office.

SC found her guilty of all 5 charges and her

explanation for disobeying SC order was
unsatisfactory.

DISMISSED from service.

Sec. 1 Re Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado

Vasquez on CA-GR SP No. 103692, A.M.
Sec. 4 NO. 08-8-11-CA, September 9, 2008

Sec. 5 Justice Sabio and his brother had a phone call

where the latter was trying to convince the
Justice to rule in favor of GSIS instead of
Meralco. Even if Justice Sabio ruled contrary to
his brother’s advice, the very fact that they
had that conversation is already improper.
Judges should not only be free from influence
but APPEAR to be free from influence.
Additionally, it seems that Justice Sabio was
actually influenced by his brother since he
refused to give up the chairmanship despite
the return of the regular chairman in the 9th
Division, and he prepared and signed the
resolution of the case, which was the job of the
ponente.

SUSPENDED for 2 months.

In the matter of the allegations contained

in the columns of Mr Amado Macasaet
published in Malaya, A.M. No.
07-09-13-SC, August 8, 2008

2 kinds of judicial independence:

1. Individual
a. focuses on each particular
judge and seeks to insure his
or her ability to decide cases
with autonomy within the
constraints of the law.
b. A judge has this kind of
independence when he can do
his job without having to hear
— or at least without having to
take it seriously if he does hear
— criticisms of his personal
morality and fitness for judicial
office.
2. Institutional
a. focuses on the independence
of the judiciary as a branch of
government and protects
judges as a class.

A truly independent judiciary is possible only

when both concepts of independence are
preserved — wherein public confidence in the
competence and integrity of the judiciary is
maintained, and the public accepts the
legitimacy of judicial authority.

So if a journalist imputes bribery against a SC

Justice without evidence to back it up, the SC
 can hold him/her in contempt. This is to
protect the judiciary from attacks that would
undermine the people’s confidence in the
court.

Journalist GUILTY of indirect contempt. FINED.

CANON 2 — Integrity
Canon 2 — Integrity In re Complaint of Mrs Rotilla Marcos
against Judge Marcos, A.M. No.
97-2-53-RTC, July 6, 2001

Judge is not giving legal support to wife. He

also has a mistress and he buys her jewelry
and a car. He even flaunted the mistress to CJ
Davide during a fun run.

Judges should possess moral integrity not just

in their professional life, but also in their
personal life.

DISMISSED from service.

Sec. 1 Violation of judicial and professional

Judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but
that it is perceived to be so in the
view of a reasonable observer.
ethics - In re undated letter of Mr Luis
Biraogo, A.M. NO. 09-2-19-SC, February
24, 2009
Justice leaked an unpromulgated decision to
the public for his personal interest.

For reasons of public policy, SC took

cognizance of this complaint against its very
own member.

Even if he is already retired, he can still be

punished as a lawyer.

FINED 500K. DISQUALIFIED from holding

public office.

CANON 3 — Impartiality
Canon 3 — Impartiality People v. Veneracion, G.R. Nos.
119987-88 October 12, 1995
 During this time, a law provided that there will
be death penalty for rape + homicide. Accused
was guilty of this crime, but the judge only
sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua.
Judge said he did this because of religious
beliefs.

This is wrong—judges are supposed to be

bound by the law and they must resist
interference from personal beliefs.

REMANDED to RTC to impose death penalty.

Jorda v. Judge Bitas, A.M. RTJ-14-2376,

March 5, 2014

Prosecutor wanted to inhibit the judge from

deciding a criminal case alleging the judge was
biased in favor of the accused since judge’s
sister is close with the accused’s family. Judge
did not grant the inhibition and granted a
reduced bail summarily and did not issue
warrant of arrest. Judge also publicly
humiliated prosecutor.

SC said judge appeared bias but this should

not be. Judge should avoid suspicions on his
objectivity. Judge should act in such a manner
as to assure competence, integrity, and
independence.

Judge suspended 3 months and 1 day.

CANON 4 — Propriety
Canon 4 — Propriety Dela Cruz v. Bersamira, A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1567, July 24, 2000

Judge socialized/fraternized with the accused's

mother and counsel in posh restaurants,
issued unreasonable orders of postponement
which delayed the case, and allowed the
accused to submit to a drug test which also
postponed the case.

Sec. 1
Judges shall avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all
of their activities
Sec. 2
As a subject of constant public
scrutiny, judges must accept
personal restrictions that might be
viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so
freely and willingly. In particular,
judges conduct themselves in a
way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
Sec. 8
Judges shall not use or lend the
prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests, or
those of a member of their family
or of anyone else, nor shall they
convey or permit others to convey
the impression that anyone is in a
special position improperly to
influence them in the performance
of judicial duties.
Personal life must also be free from the
appearance of impropriety.
FINED 10K
Re Allegations made under oath at the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee held on 26
September 2013 against Associate Justice
Gregory Ong, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J
(formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB,
September 23, 2014
Justice Ong’s association with Napoles during
the pendency and after the promulgation of
the decision in the Kevlar case resulting in her
acquittal, constitutes GROSS MISCONDUCT
notwithstanding the absence of direct evidence
of corruption or bribery.
They had a picture together at a party hosted
by Sen. Estrada. Plus, Justice Ong was seen
going to Napoles’ office on two occasions.
It also does not matter if the litigation was
already terminated. Because magistrates are
under constant public scrutiny, the termination
of a case will not deter public criticisms for
acts which may cast suspicion on its
disposition or resolution.
DISMISSED from service.
Marces v. Arcangel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-712.
July 9, 1996
Judge is protecting the Canas family whose
domestic helper is being maltreated. On the
other hand, the Marces family is the one
helping out the domestic helper.
Judge did the following:
1. Requested another judge of a lower
court to issue a warrant of arrest
against one of the Marceses in a
pending case
2. Appeared in the barangay conciliation
 proceedings and introduced himself as
the Executive Judge of the RTC to sway
the barangay officials

REPRIMANDED.

CANON 5 — Equality
Canon 5 — Equality Tan v. Pacuribot, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982,
December 14, 2007

Tan and Villafranca filed sexual harrassment

complaints against Judge Pacuribot. Both of
were raped by Pacuribot in separate instances
and constantly harassed them even after these
incidents.

Judge Pacuribot behaved in a manner

unbecoming a judge and model of moral
uprightness. Pacuribot persistently solicited
sexual favors from Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca.
When they refused, he made their working
conditions so unbearable. He had moral
ascendancy and authority over complainants,
who are mere employees of the court of which
he is an officer. His actuations are aggravated
by the fact that complainants are his
subordinates over whom he exercises control
and supervision, he being the executive judge.
He took advantage of his position and power in
order to carry out his lustful and lascivious
desires. Thus, he violated the trust reposed on
his high office and completely failed to live up
to the noble ideals and strict standards of
morality required of members of the Judiciary.

DISMISSED FROM SERVICE

Guanzon v. Rufon, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2038,

October 19, 200

Judge tells a party in court with many people

present: “next time you see your husband,
open your arms and legs”

Judge also admits to using frank language


CANON 6 — Competence and Diligence
Sec. 7
Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent
discharge of judicial duties.
Court was still careful with respect
to Judge Floro’s beliefs but said
those were at odds with the critical
and impartial thinking required of a
judge.
when encouraging litigants to settle, and he
admits to using strong and colorful words.
[This seems to be more related to 3.03:
Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so
conduct themselves as to minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for
them to be disqualified from hearing or
deciding cases. Or 6.06: Judges shall maintain
order and decorum in all proceedings before
the court and be patient, dignified and
courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses,
lawyers and others with whom the judge deals
in an official capacity.]
FINED 5K
OCA v. Judge Floro, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460,
March 31, 2006
Crazy judge. He says he has a psychic vision
every morning and knows the secrets of the
universe and he can predict future events. He
sees duwendes and practices parapsychology.
He has low self-esteem and mood swings. He
has lapses in judgment and problems with
decision-making. He passed around calling
cards flexing his qualifications. He criticized the
Philippine justice system and did other things.
Judge was removed from service due to his
mind which made him unfit for service. Court
said he lacks judicial temperament and the
fundamental requirements of competence and
objectivity expected of all judges.
RELIEVED from functions and SEPARATED from
service
Castro v. Malazo, A.M. No. 1237-CAR,
August 21, 1980
Under the Agricultural Land Reform Code, a
judgment must be rendered within 30 days
 from submission for decision. However, Judge
Malazo withheld the release because he
wanted to release the decision in the case
before him at the same time as the decision in
another case filed before him by a party in the
former case. The Court admonished and
enjoined Judge Malazo to strictly comply with
the law. Members of the Judiciary have a duty
to administer justice without undue delay,
under the principle that justice delayed is
justice denied. While it may be true that Judge
Malazo had an overload of cases, this is NOT a
valid reason for him to defer and delay the
filing of the decision with the Clerk of Court
after the same had been signed by him.
Moreover, he admitted that although the 2
cases were closely related to each other, the
cause of action in one case is different from
the other. It does NOT matter whether the
resolution of any issue common to both cases
may be divulged to either party because the
decision may nevertheless be appealed by the
losing party.

Discipline of the Members of the Bench

Chapter 16: Suspension and disbarment

Willfully disobeying court orders and disrespect to court

●

Discipline of the Members of the Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No.

Bench RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008

Atty. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the OCA

charging Judge Belen of “demeaning,
humiliating and berating” him during hearing
on the case Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v.
Malabanan, et al. in which he was a counsel for
the plaintiff. In the course of the proceeding,
Judge Belen asked Atty. Mane if he was from
the UP College of Law to which Atty. Mane
answered in the negative and stated that he is
from Manuel L. Quezon University. Judge Belen
then told him that since Atty. Mane is not from
UP College of Law, he cannot equate Atty.
Mane to himself as not all law students and law
schools are not created equal.

Further, Judge Belen seemingly disregarded

the case at hand as Atty. Mane’s motion
remained unacted. The OCA, found that Judge
Belen’s statements and actions made during
the hearing constitute conduct unbecoming of
a judge and a violation of Canon 3 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct. Further, his insulting
statements which tend to question Atty. Mane’s
capability and credibility is clearly unwarranted
and inexcusable.

Whether or not the statements and actions

made by Judge Belen during the hearing
constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and
a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Yes. An alumnus of a particular law school has

no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By
hurdling the Bar Examinations which this Court
administers, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and
signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is
presumed to be competent to discharge his
functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of
the court, irrespective of where he obtained his
law degree. For a judge to determine the
fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on
the basis of his alma mater is clearly an
engagement in argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case

and not the person of the counsel. If Judge
Belen felt that his integrity and dignity were
being “assaulted”, he acted properly when he
directed Atty. Mane to explain why he should
not be cited for contempt. He went out of
bounds, however, when he engaged in a
supercilious legal and personal discourse.

Even in the face of boorish behavior from

those they deal with, judges ought to conduct
themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen

Ma’am discussed rin (mainly the
dissents) how this case was unusual
as we all know, given na hindi
naman talaga qualification ang
pagfile ng SALN specifically to
become a justice (it's not in the
Consti), and that this was the first
time a quo warranto was used this
way, to oust an already sitting CJ.
and high officers of the court.
Sereno Quo Warranto and Show Cause
Order cases
*Ma’am asked to focus on quo warranto case
lang*
Larry Gadon filed an impeachment against CJ
Sereno alleging the crimes of betrayal of public
trust and high crimes, which prompted the
Congress to organize a Justice Committee to
investigate. Through the investigation, multiple
details were brought to light such as the fact
that Sereno had missing SALN’s. Because of
this, an attorney wrote a letter to the OSG,
which prompted the latter to file a quo
warranto case.
The issue was whether or not the quo warranto
case was proper, and whether or not the failure
to file of SALNs violated the qualification of a
judiciary member needing to be of proven
integrity.
Court held that yes, the quo warranto case was
proper. The direct resort to the SC was proper
since the issue was of transcendental
importance being a question of qualifications of
a CJ. The SC also discussed how a quo
warranto proceeding and impeachment case
can happen simultaneously. Quo warranto
cases are judicial in nature, with the main
question of whether the questioned official has
the legal right to office, while impeachment is
political in nature, with the main question
being whether the officer committed any of the
violations listed by the Constitution which are
punishable by impeachment (graft, betrayal of
public trust, high crimes, treason, etc).
The SC then discussed how the failure of
Sereno to file the SALNs were a clear showing
of he lack of integrity. The SC cited multiple
laws along with the Constitution, even a
dissenting opinion CJ sereno wrote herself,
providing for the duty of a public officer,
especially the CJ, to file a statement of assets,
liability, and net worth. Along with this, there
were also other acts found which supported
her lack of integrity such as alleged tax fraud,
misrepresentation, questionable expenses, and
a lot more. Her refusal to just present the
SALNs instead of giving reasons as to why she
shouldn’t have to was showing off her lack of
integrity.