THE

COURTS
 Canon 10.
A lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith
to the court.
Requirements of candor

1. A lawyer shall not suppress material and

vital facts which bear on the merit or lack
of merit of a complaint or petition.
2. A lawyer shall volunteer to the court any
development of the case which has
rendered the issue raised moot and
academic.
3. Disclosure to the court of any decision adverse
to his position of which opposing counsel is
apparently ignorant and which court should
consider in deciding a case; and

4. He shall not represent himself as a lawyer for

a client, appear in court and present pleadings in
the latter’s behalf only to claim later that he was
not authorized to do so.
 Rule 10.01, Canon 10
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.
• Presenting false evidence is not justifiable.
It is a clear violation of Canon 10 and
Rule 10.01 of the CPR. Aside from
violations of the CPR, the lawyer is also
guilty of a crime under Art. 184, Revised
Penal Code.
 Rule 10.02, Canon 10
A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of the paper, the language
or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a
decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law as
provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not
been proved.
• If not faithful and exactly quoted, the
decisions and rulings of the court may
lose their proper and correct meaning, to
the detrimental of other courts, lawyer
and the public who may thereby be
misled.
 Rule 10.03, Canon 10
A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them
to defeat the ends of justice.
• Instances when lawyers can be disciplined
based on the pleadings they filed. When the
counsel deliberately:

(1) Files an unsigned pleading in violation

of the rules;
(2) Alleges scandalous matters therein; or
(3) Fails to promptly report to the court a
change of his address.
 Rule 10.04, Canon 10
A lawyer shall, when filing a pleading furnish
the opposing party with a copy thereof,
together with all the documents annexed
thereto. Unless a motion is ex parte, he should
set it for hearing, with sufficient notice to the
party.
 Re: Serana vs
Sandiganbayan, GR No
162059, January 22,
2008
Facts:
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a government scholar, and
senior student of UP-Cebu. She was appointed by then President
Joseph Estrada on 1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-
year term. In the early part of 2000, petitioner discussed with
President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP
Diliman. Petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, all registered
members of the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc.
(OSRFI) received 15M from President Estrada as financial assistance
for the proposed renovation. The Ombudsman, found probable cause
to indict petitioner and her brother for Estafa, docketed as Criminal
Case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved to quash
the information claiming that the Sandiganbayan does not have
any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person.
 Issue: 
1. Whether Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling: 

Yes. Petitioner's contention that the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan is determined by Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019 has
no basis. It is P.D. No. 1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No.
3019, as amended, that determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. A brief legislative history of the statute creating
the Sandiganbayan is in order. The Sandiganbayan was created
by P.D. No. 1486, promulgated by then President Ferdinand
E. Marcos on June11, 1978. It was promulgated to attain the
highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and
employees, based on the concept that public officers and
employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times
accountable to the people.
• As a parting note, petitioner’s counsel, Renato G. dela
Cruz, misrepresented his reference to Section 4 of
P.D. No. 1606 as a quotation from Section 4 of R.A.
No. 3019. A review of his motion to quash, the instant
petition for certiorari and his memorandum, unveils
the misquotation. We urge petitioner’s counsel to
observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.02 of the Rules
stating that "a lawyer shall not misquote or
misrepresent."
In Re: Letter dated 21
February 2005 of Atty.
Noel Sorreda
Facts:

Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the

Chief Justice over his frustrations of the outcome of his
cases decided by the Supreme Court. The letter
contained derogatory and malignant remarks which are
highly insulting. The Court accorded Atty. Sorreda to
explain, however, instead of appearing before the court,
he wrote another letter with insulting remarks as the
first one. The court was thus offended with his remarks.
 Issue: 
1. Whether or not Atty. Sorreda
can be held guilty of contempt
due to the remarks he has made
in his letters addressed to the
court.
Ruling: 
Yes. ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA is found guilty both of
contempt of court and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility amounting to gross
misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the
Bar. He is hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED as a member
of the Bar and is prohibited from engaging in the practice
of law until otherwise ordered by this Court.

As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has the duty to

uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to
promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. 
 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
• Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
• Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
• Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.
CANON 11

• Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives

not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.
• Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge
to the proper authorities only.
 CASES
• Soriano vs CA, GR NO 10063, August 28, 2011
• Falcis III vs Civil Registrar, GR No. 217910, July 3,
2018
• Alpajora vs Calayan, AC No. 8208, January 10,
2018
• Maceda vs Ombudsman, GR No. 102781, April
22, 1993
• Rodriguez- Manahan vs Flores, AC NO 8954,
November 13, 2013
 Soriano vs CA, GR NO 10063, August 28, 2011

FACTS:
Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes pleaded that they were employed by Socorro as manager and administrative assistant of her property and
real estate in 1968. As payment for their services, in 1973, Socorro gave them one apartment unit to use as their dwelling for the duration of
their lifetime and a token monthly rental on P150 was imposed. In the same building, another unit was occupied by the spouses which was
improved and converted by them into a pub and restaurant. For the use of the premises, the token amount of P1500 monthly was imposed.
On October 17, 1988, Socorro gave Deogracias and Rosalina notice to vacate the said two units. Deogracias and Rosalina owned two
commercial lots with improvements. On May 28, 1968, they becameindebted to Socorro in the amount of P638,635.36. The parties agreed
to pay for the debt by selling the two lots for P2.5M. While looking for a buyer, Deogracias and Rosalina conveyed the property to Socorro by
way of first mortgage. A deed of absolute sale was executed in place of a real estate mortgage. Action was initiated by the spouses but the
court released the two lots in favor of Socorro having presented the deed of absolute sale in her name. On October 28, 1988, the spouses
paid the filing fee and legal research. On November 29, 1988, Socorro filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: the first cause
of action was barred by the pendency of an ejectment case between the same parties over the same parties; the second cause of action was
premature On December 8, 1988, the Carmelite Sisters on behalf of their benefactress filed with the trial court an urgent ex-parte motion
for restraining order. They talked to respondent judge Naval in his chambers and requested him to immediately act on Socorro‘s urgent ex-
parte motion for a restraining order. On December 16, 1988, the Trial Court denied the motion. On January 16, 1989, Socorro, through
counsel, filed a motion to inhibit Judge Naval; while still a law practitioner and politician, he was a frequent customer of the restaurant of
the spouses and was a good friend of his; he was also a good friend of the attorney of the spouses, Trial Court denied motion to inhibit.
 Soriano vs CA, GR NO 10063, August 28, 2011

ISSUE:

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion and acted in excess of
jurisdiction in finding Atty. Sabino Padilla, Jr. guilty of "direct contempt."
 Soriano vs CA, GR NO 10063, August 28, 2011

HELD:

Yes. Lawyers may not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that
the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language. 89 While judges must exercise patience, lawyers must also observe
temperate language as well. At this juncture, we admonish all lawyers to observe the following canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read:
"Canon 8. Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
"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."
A lawyer is an officer of the Court, bound by the law. It is a lawyer's sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the
high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice.
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial
office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.  It is peculiarly incumbent for lawyers to support the courts against "unjust
criticism and clamor."
It is human nature that there be bitter feelings which often reach to the judge as the source of the supposed wrong. A judge, therefore,
ought to be patient, and tolerate everything which appears as but a momentary outbreak of disappointment. Lawyers may not be held to
too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language. While judges must exercise patience, lawyers must also observe temperate language as well.
 RULE 11. 01
Falcis III vs Civil Registrar, GR No. 217910, July 3, 2018

FACTS:
At the start of the preliminary conference, Atty. Falcis failed to rise and manifest his presence when appearances for petitioner and petitioners-in
intervention were called. He also failed to rise during the initial round of questioning by the Justices. When responding to them, he failed to address
them in keeping with customary courtesies. Throughout the proceedings, he acted as though he was unprepared and without knowledge of the decorum
typical to appearing in court.
Atty. Falcis attempted to explain that he had contracted the services of outside counsel to appear in collaboration with him, but was hard put to
specifically name a lawyer or a law firm. The law firm he subsequently mentioned, Molo Sia Dy Tuazon Ty Coloma Law Offices (MOSVELDTT), had yet to
enter its appearance in this case.
Atty. Falcis was attired in "a casual jacket, cropped jeans, and loafers without socks.”
When questioned by Associate Justice Leonen why he was so attired, he claimed that he had attended a meeting with advocates in Makati earlier that
day. He was attired in such a manner despite notice as early as March that he was scheduled to appear before this Court. Because of his appearance and
conduct during the preliminary conference, Atty. Falcis was ordered to file his written explanation no later than June 6, 2018 as to why he should not be
cited in contempt. On June 6, 2018, Atty. Falcis filed his Compliance (Re: Decorum During the Preliminary Conference), 6 where he apologized for his
poor decorum and appearance during the preliminary conference. He explained that he had engaged MOSVELDTT to assist him in the oral arguments.
However, due to miscommunication with the handling lawyer, Atty. Darwin Angeles, MOSVELDTT was unable to file its entry of appearance in time for
June 5, 2018. Thus, as the only counsel on record, Atty. Falcis recognized that he should be the one to attend the preliminary conference. He only realized
that he was underdressed for the preliminary conference when he entered the Session Hall, by which time it was too late for him to change into a more
appropriate attire.
 RULE 11.01
Falcis III vs Civil Registrar, GR No. 217910, July 3, 2018

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Falcis III committed any ethical impropriety

HELD:
YES. Atty. Falcis is reminded of the requirement under Canon 11 of the CPR for lawyers to
“observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and to insist on
similar conduct by others.” This duty encompasses appearances before courts in proper
attire. This Court does not insist on sartorial pomposity. It does not prescribe immutable
minutiae for physical appearance. Still, Professional courtesy demands that persons,
especially lawyers, having business before courts, act with discretion and manifest this
discretion in their choice of apparel.
 RULE 11.03
Rodriguez- Manahan vs Flores, AC NO 8954, November 13, 2013

FACTS:
Atty. Flores was the counsel for the defendant in a civil case before the sala of Judge Manahan. During
the preliminary conference, Atty. Flores entered his appearance and was given time to file a Pre-Trial
Brief.
Later, Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was expunged
from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required MCLE
compliance, however, Atty. Flores asked for ten (10) days to submit proof.
The preliminary conference was set several times and Atty. Flores was given several occasions to submit
the brief with the proper MCLE compliance. In the final instance, instead of submitting the promised
proof of MCLE compliance, Atty. Flores filed a letter stating that he was no longer representing the
defendant. Such was stated in what was deemed as intemperate language .
 RULE 11.03
Rodriguez- Manahan vs Flores, AC NO 8954, November 13, 2013

ISSUE:
Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for using
intemperate language in his pleadings

HELD:
NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance
notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings.
As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language. However, the court found the
recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It appears
that this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, the court is not prepared to impose on the respondent the
penalty of one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in
the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years. Considering the foregoing, the court deem
it proper to fine respondent and to remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey and respect court
processes.
 RULE 11.04
Alpajora vs Calayan, AC No. 8208, January 10, 2018

FACTS:

Respondent, Atty. Calayan consistently accused Judge Alpojara in his pleadings. He

insisted that Judge Alpojara antedated court orders. He also accused the
complainant of being in close relations with the adverse counsels; and that the
complainant coached the adverse counsels. However, the allegations were
absolutely unsupported by any piece of evidence. Atty. Calayan was not able to
produce any evidence.
 RULE 11.04
Alpajora vs Calayan, AC No. 8208, January 10, 2018

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Calayan violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 RULE 11.04
Alpajora vs Calayan, AC No. 8208, January 10, 2018

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent lawyer guilty of attributing unsupported ill-motives to complainant. It must be remembered that
all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is
the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; otherwise, the institution would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.

Hence, no matter how passionate a lawyer is towards defending his client's cause, he must not forget to display the appropriate decorum
expected of him, being a member of the legal profession, and to continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts.

For having violated the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath, respondent's conduct should be meted with a commensurate penalty.

SC'S DECISION: WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors
dated September 28, 2013. Accordingly, Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan is found GUILTY of violating The Lawyer's Oath and The Code of
Professional Responsibility and he is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
 RULE 11.05
Maceda vs Ombudsman, GR No. 102781, April 22, 1993

FACTS:
Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the
Ombudsman against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent
Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by
certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision for
a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31,
1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision had been
rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been submitted for decision.
Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of service
for 17 months.
 RULE 11.05
Maceda vs Ombudsman, GR No. 102781, April 22, 1993

ISSUE:
Whether the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment
into the SC’s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts .
 RULE 11.05
Maceda vs Ombudsman, GR No. 102781, April 22, 1993

HELD:
Yes. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and under
Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious
act.
In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative supervision over
all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it
is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude
into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination whether said judge or
court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.
 “A lawyer shall exert every effort
CANON and consider it his duty to assist in

12 the speedy and efficient

administration of justice”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless

he has adequately prepared himself on the
law and the facts of his case, the evidence RULE
12.01
he will adduce and the order of its
preference. He should also be ready with
the original documents for comparison
with the copies.”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

Unless a lawyer comes to court adequately

prepared for pre-trial or trial, the pre-trial or
hearing may be postponed which would thus
entail :
1. delay in the early disposition of the case, or
2. the judge may consider his client non-suited
NOTE
or in default or
3. consider the case deemed submitted for
decision without his evidence
to his client’s prejudice.
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall not file multiple RULE

12.02
actions arising from the same
cause.”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

• He should not file pointless petitions that

only add to the workload of the courts

NOTE
• He should not enter his appearance as
counsel for a party in a case which had
long been terminated by final judgment

• He should not misuse legal remedies to

thwart or delay the satisfaction of a final
judgment.
FORUM SHOPPING
- The act of filing repetitious suits in different courts.

- Prohibited by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91

- Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides for a

Certification Against Forum Shopping

- Failure to comply with the requirements shall not be

curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing.
COMMITTED THRU:
Going from one court to another in the hope of securing a
favorable relief in one court, which another court has denied.

Filing repetitious suits or proceedings in different courts

concerning the same subject matter after one court has decided
the suit with finality.

Filing a similar case in a judicial court after receiving an

unfavorable judgment from an administrative tribunal.
PENALTIES
(FOR VIOLATION OF SC CIRCULAR NO. 28-91)

Any violation of this circular shall be a cause for the summary

dismissal of the multiple petition or complaint;

Any willful and deliberate forum shopping by any party and his
lawyer with the filing of multiple petitions or complaints to ensure
favorable action shall constitute direct contempt of court;

The submission of a fake certification under par. 2 of the Circular

shall likewise constitute contempt of court, without prejudice to the
filing of a criminal action against the guilty party. The lawyer may
also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall not, after obtaining

extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period
RULE
lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for his failure
to do so.”
12.03
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

For one reason or another, some lawyers

fail to file the same within the original or
extended period. Such negligence
constitutes a breach of duty not only to the
court but also to the client, and many
NOTE
lawyers have been disciplined for such
infraction.
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall not unduly delay a RULE

12.04
case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

• A lawyer who prostitutes judicial

processes to secure for his client what is
not justly and validly due him or who
appeals a decision manifestly for the
purpose of delay violates his oath and
obstructs the administration of justice.
NOTE
• He may be held administratively
accountable as well as liable for costs of
suit for such improper conduct.
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall refrain from talking to

his witness during a break or recess in
RULE
the trial, while the witness is still
under examination.” 12.05
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

The purpose of the rule is to avoid any

suspicion that he is coaching the witness
what to say during the resumption of the NOTE
examination.
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a RULE

12.06
witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

• The lawyer should avoid any such action

as may be misinterpreted as an attempt to
influence the witness what to say in court.
NOTE
• A lawyer who presents a witness whom
he knows will give a false testimony may
be subjected to disciplinary action
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat RULE

12.07
or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

• The client cannot be made the keeper of

the lawyer’s conscience in professional
matters.
NOTE
• Improper speech is not excusable on the
ground that it is what the client would say
if speaking in his own behalf.
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

“A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his

client, except:

a. Formal matters, such as the mailing,

authentication or custody of an instrument,
RULE
12.08
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.”
The LAWYERS and the COURTS

• It is improper for a lawyer to accept

employment in a case in which he knows
he or his partner will be a material witness
for the party seeking to employ him
NOTE
• It would also be improper for a lawyer to
accept employment in a case where it
would be his duty to attack the essential
testimony to be given by his partner on
behalf of the opposite side.
 FACTS:
• Complainant: Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)
Santiago
vs
Rafanan • Respondent: Atty. Edison V. Rafanan
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004

• Complaint: Disbarment for Deceit, malpractice or other gross

misconduct in office under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court; and Violation of Canons 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03,
Canon 5 and CANONS 12.07 AND 12.08 OF THE CODE
OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
 FACTS:
Alleged Acts

• Failure and/or refusal to make the proper notation regarding the

Santiago cedula of the affiants; enter such details in the notarial register; and,
vs make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP
numbers in the documents he had notarized
Rafanan
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004 • Respondent executed an Affidavit in favor of his client and offered
the same as evidence in the case wherein he was actively
representing his client.

• Respondent accompanied by several persons waited for

Complainant after the hearing and after confronting the latter
disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered insulting words
and veiled threats.
 FACTS:
Answer

• Admitted having administered the oath to the affiants and that the notation of
Santiago residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary
public and was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before
vs courts and other government offices. Respondent explained that as counsel of
Rafanan the affiants, he had the option to comply or not with the certification.
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004
• Argued that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients "on substantial
matters, in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice.

• Alleged that it was complainant who had threatened and harassed his clients
after the hearing of their case by the provincial prosecutor on January 4, 2001.
Respondent requested the assistance of the Cabanatuan City Police the
following day, January 5, 2001, which was the next scheduled hearing, to
avoid a repetition of the incident and to allay the fears of his clients.
 FACTS:
IBP Recommendation

• IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution approving and adopting the

Santiago Investigating Commissioner’s Report that respondent had violated
vs specific requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a
certification, the entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the
Rafanan indication of the affiant’s residence certificate.
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004

• It increased the fine to "₱3,000 with a warning that any repetition of the
violation will be dealt with a heavier penalty.“

The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR -- were
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
 ISSUE:

Santiago
vs Whether or not the Respondent
Rafanan (Atty. Rafanan) violated Canons 12.07 and
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004
12.08 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
 HELD:
Lawyer as Witness for Client

Santiago • A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases
pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client
vs relationship.
Rafanan
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004 • Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of lawyer and witness for the
client will provoke unkind criticism and leave many people to suspect the
truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as disinterested.
 HELD:
No Proof of Harassment

Santiago • The charge that respondent harassed complainant and uttered insulting words and
veiled threats is not supported by evidence. Allegation is never equivalent to
vs proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.
Rafanan
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004 • It is not the self-serving claim of complainant but the version of respondent that is
more credible, considering that the latter’s allegations are corroborated by the
Affidavits of the police officers and the Certifications of the Cabanatuan City
Police.
 HELD:
Lawyer as Witness for Client

Santiago • Respondent NOT administratively liable for the following reasons:

vs 1. As defense counsel, he was expected to spare no effort to save his clients

from a wrong conviction. He had the duty to present- by all fair and
Rafanan honorable means- every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law
A.C. No. 6252 permitted, to the end that his clients would not be deprived of life, liberty or
October 5, 2004
property, except by due process of law.
2. The Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which was
merely inquisitorial. Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary
investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of securing innocent persons
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from
open and public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well as expense
and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from useless and
expensive prosecutions.
 HELD:

Atty. Edison V. Rafanan is found guilty of violating

Santiago the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of
vs Professional Responsibility and is hereby FINED
Rafanan ₱3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the
A.C. No. 6252
October 5, 2004 future will be dealt with more severely.
 HELD:
Lawyer as Witness for Client

Santiago • Respondent NOT administratively liable for the following reasons:

vs 1. As defense counsel, he was expected to spare no effort to save his clients

from a wrong conviction. He had the duty to present- by all fair and
Rafanan honorable means- every defense and mitigating circumstance that the law
A.C. No. 6252 permitted, to the end that his clients would not be deprived of life, liberty or
October 5, 2004
property, except by due process of law.
2. The Affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation which was
merely inquisitorial. Not being a trial of the case on the merits, a preliminary
investigation has the oft-repeated purposes of securing innocent persons
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions; protecting them from
open and public accusations of crime and from the trouble as well as expense
and anxiety of a public trial; and protecting the State from useless and
expensive prosecutions.
THANK YOU 
CANON 13
Rule 13. 01
Rule 13.02
Rule 13.03
CANON 13

“A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and

refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the
court.”
 WHAT IS
IMPROPRIETY?

A failure to observe standards or show due honesty or modesty

(improper language, behavior, or character).

WHAT ARE THE EXAMPLES?

 Giving gifts
 Breeding familiarity with the judges
RULE 13.01, CANON 13

“A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention

or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with judges.”
 WHAT DOES FAMILIARITY WITH THE JUDGES MEAN?

This is the being familiar to or a state of close relationship.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS RULE?

This is designed to protect the good name and reputation of the

judge and the lawyer.
RULE 13.02, CANON 13

“A lawyer shall not make public statement in the

media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.”
 WHAT DOES PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY MEAN?

There must be an allegation and proof that the judges have been
unduly influenced.
RULE 13.03, CANON 13

“A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by

another branch or agency of the government in the
normal course of judicial proceedings.”
 WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS RULE?

 The reason for this rule is that such action will be contrary to the
principle of separation of powers.
 All lawyers must uphold, respect and support the
independence of the judiciary. This independence from
interference is made to apply against all branches and
agencies of the government.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER TO THE
CLIENTS

Characteristics:
Strictly Personal
Highly Confidential
Fiduciary
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Strictly Personal
prohibits the delegation of work without the client’s consent.
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Highly Confidential
 Communication made in the course of lawyers
professional employee
 Communication intended to be confidential
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Fiduciary
 Hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession
 When a lawyer enforces a charging lien against his client, the
relationship is terminated
 An attorney cannot represent adverse interest unless the parties
consent to their representation after full disclosure of facts
 DOES THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT PRECLUDE
FINDING OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP?

No. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the

employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied.

WHEN DOES THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

COMENCE?
It commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to handle
client’s case and accepts money representing legal fees from the
latter.
FORMATION OF THE LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Oral
Express
Implied
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Oral
when the counsel employed without a written agreement, but
the conditions and amount of attorney’s fees are agreed upon.
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Express
when the terms and conditions including the amount of fees are
explicitly stated in a written document, which may be a private or
public document. Written contract of attorney’s fees is a law
between the lawyer and the client.
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Implied
when there is no agreement whether oral or written, but
the client allowed the lawyer to render legal services
not intended to be gratuitous without objection and client is
benefited by reason thereof.
 RULES PROTECTING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

 Best effort must be exerted by the attorney to protect the clients interest.
 The attorney must promptly account for any fund or property entrusted by
or received for his client.
 An attorney cannot purchase his client’s property or interest in litigation.
 The privacy of communication shall be upheld.
 An attorney cannot represent a party whose interest is adverse to that of his
client even after termination of the relation.
THREE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY OF
LAWYER

 Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and
obligations.
 Appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and
authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law,
in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
 Preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
principles not possessed by ordinary layman.
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

Facts:
 This is a petition to cite respondents in contempt of court.
 Petitioner herein P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan is a respondent in G.R. No. 199462, but
already dismissed, where respondents pray that the resolution downgrading the
charges from murder to homicide be annulled and set aside; and that charges for
murder be filed.
 Monique Cu-Unjieng La'O is one of the petitioners in the said case, and respondent
herein Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno (Atty. Diokno) is her counsel therein.
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

 G.R. No. 199462 relates to Criminal Case Nos. 146413-PSG, 146414-PSG and
146415-PSG, entitled "People of the Philippines v. P/SINSP Hansel M. Marantan, et
al.," pending before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 265 (RTC), where
Marantan and his co-accused are charged with homicide. The criminal cases involve
an incident which transpired on November 7, 2005, where victims including Anton
Cu-Unjieng (son of respondent La’O), were shot and killed by police officers in front
of the AIC Gold Tower at Ortigas Center, which incident was captured by a television
crew from UNTV 37 (Ortigas incident).
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

 In the meantime, on January 6, 2013, a shooting incident occurred where Marantan was the
ground commander in a police-military team, which resulted in the death of thirteen (13) men
(Atimonan incident). This encounter, according to Marantan, elicited much negative publicity
for him.
 Marantan alleges that, riding on the unpopularity of the Atimonan incident, La’O and her
counsel, Atty. Diokno, and one Ernesto Manzano, organized and conducted a televised/radio
broadcasted press conference. During the press conference, they maliciously made
intemperate and unreasonable comments on the conduct of the Court in handling G.R. No.
199462, as well as contumacious comments on the merits of the criminal cases before the
RTC, branding Marantan and his co-accused guilty of murder in the Ortigas incident.
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

 Marantan submits that the respondents violated the sub judice rule, making them
liable for indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, for
their contemptuous statements and improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
 He argues that their pronouncements and malicious comments delved not only on the
supposed inaction of the Court in resolving the petitions filed, but also on the merits
of the criminal cases before the RTC and prematurely concluded that he and his co-
accused are guilty of murder.
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014
Issue:

Whether or not the respondents violated the sub judice rule,

making them liable for indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

Held:
 No. The court dismissed the petition.
 The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or
obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable
for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
 This form of contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of
the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

 The comments the respondents claim to be an expression of their opinion that their
loved ones were murdered is merely a reiteration of their position in G.R. No.
199462, which precisely calls the Court to upgrade the charges. The Court detects no
malice. The mere restatement of their argument in their petition cannot actually, or
does not even tend to, influence the Court.
 "A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of
freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still
pending, upon the theory that in such a case, it must necessarily tend to obstruct the
orderly and fair administration of justice.
MARANTAN VS DIOKNO,
GR NO. 205956, FEBRUARY 12, 2014

Section 3(d)
Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
IN RE ALMACEN,
GR NO. L-27654

Facts:
 Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate of
Title”, in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed against
his client by this Supreme Court. He indicts this Court as a tribunal "peopled by men
who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity.” His client's he continues, “has become "one of the sacrificial victims
before the altar of hypocrisy. He ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that
justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only
blind, but also deaf and dumb."
IN RE ALMACEN,
GR NO. L-27654

 The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his
motion in the trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason
of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again
dismissed thru a minute resolution.
 With the disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this
petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as
soon as he regained confidence in the justice system.
IN RE ALMACEN,
GR NO. L-27654
Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary action

for his acts.
IN RE ALMACEN,
GR NO. L-27654

Held:
 Yes. The court suspended Atty. Almacen from the practice of law until further orders,
the suspension to take effect immediately.
  It is a classic example of gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and
gross transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics. As such, it cannot be allowed to go
unrebuked.
IN RE ALMACEN,
GR NO. L-27654

 Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and
alleged injustices, so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused
enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary.
 Finally, the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary
incident of the power to admit persons to said practice.
 Thank you! ☺
Prepared by:
Alexander Mancio
Czarina May Reynoso
Jeneferlyn Yap
Jaquelene Ann Tambal