Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie, A.M. No. 2131, May 10, 1985
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a foreign law firm, as
the latter cannot practice law in the Philippines and the use of the foreign
law firms name is unethical.
Jose vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38581, March 31, 1976
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. He is the representative not of
an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to
govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a
case but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very
definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer.
General Bank and Trust Co. vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 125440,
January 31, 2000
Where the matter referred to in Rule 6.03, in which the lawyer intervened
as a government official in a case is different from the matter or case in
which he intervenes either as incumbent government official or as a former
or retired public officer, there is no violation of Rule 6.03 nor he will be taking
inconsistent positions nor will there be representation of conflict of interests,
nor violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law.
In re: Atty. Jose Principe, Bar Matter No. 543, 20 September 20,
1990
There is no such thing as retirement in the IBP as understood in labor law. A
lawyer, however, may terminate his bar membership after filing the required
verified notice of termination with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar.
Lorenzana Food Corporation vs. Daria, A.C. No. 2736, May 27, 1991
An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has
represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has
terminated. It is not a good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in
another case other persons against his former client under the pretext that
the case is distinct from and independent of the former case.
Uy v. Mercado (1987)
Res Ipsa Loquitor applies to both judges and lawyers. Judges had been
dismissed form the service without the need of a formal investigation
because based on the records, the gross misconduct or inefficacy of the
judges clearly appears
The act of a lawyer notarizing a Special Power of Attorney knowing that the
person who allegedly executed it is dead is a serious breach of the sacred
obligation imposed upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1.
Armi M. Flordeliza, et al. vs. Judge Julia A. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-061625, September 18, 2009
Those who don the judicial robe must observe judicial decorum which
requires magistrate to be at all times temperate in their language, refraining
from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or from resorting to language of
vilification. The respondents use of vulgar language has no place in the
court. The frequent nocturnal gimmicks also impair the respect due to her as
a Judge. Furthermore, borrowing money from her staff is not illegal per se but
this is an unbecoming conduct of a judge because she exerted moral
ascendancy over her staff.
Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane vs. Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen A.M. No.
RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008
An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the
law. 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 an argumentum
ad hominem. In the case, the judge questions the capability and credibility of
the complainant just because he was not a graduate from UP Law School.
The Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the face of
boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct
themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.
Aleria, Jr. vs. Velez, G.R. No. 127400 November 16, 1998
The bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other
than the evidence presented.
Oktubre vs. Velasco, A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444, July 20, 2004
A municipal judge who filed complaints in his own court for robbery and
malicious mischief against a party for the purpose of protecting the property
interests of the judges co-heirs, and then issued warrants of arrest against
the party, was found guilty of serious misconduct and ordered dismissed
from the bench before he was able to recuse himself. The Supreme Court
held that "his subsequent inhibition from the cases which he filed in his own
court does not detract from his culpability for he should have not taken
cognizance of the cases in the first place the evil that the rule on
disqualification seeks to prevent is the denial of a party of his right to due
process.
J. King & Sons Company, Inc. vs. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr.,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802, September 21, 2004
The Court reiterates the common sense rule that once retired, judges may no
longer decide cases. Neither may they, or even their successors, promulgate
decisions written while they were still in office. In short, once retired, they
can no longer write or promulgate decisions, orders or other actions proper
only to incumbents.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Lorenza M. Martinez, A.M. No. P06-2223 (2013)
A Clerk of Court is the courts accountable officer. It was not the cash clerk. It
was her duty to supervise and monitor her subordinate to ensure that the
proper procedures were followed in the collection of the courts funds. Being
the custodian of the courts funds, revenues, records, properties, and
premises, she was liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of
such funds and property. Time and again, the Court reminds that "those
charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the
lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest
degree of honesty and integrity, and should be made accountable to all
those whom he serves. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who
cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. The
Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission
on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would
violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish, or even just
tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the Judiciary."
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, A.M. No. P10-2789 (2013)
A sheriffs failure to fully implement the writ should not be taken entirely
against him. He could not fulfill his task solely by verbally telling the
occupants to vacate the property as he encountered resistance from the
informal settlers on the property who had built permanent structures thereon
and refused to leave. He, however, cannot fully be excused for his failure to
make periodic reports in the proceedings taken on the writ, as mandated by
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The submission of the return and of
periodic reports by the sheriff is a duty that cannot be taken lightly. It serves
to update the court on the status of the execution and the reasons for the
failure to satisfy its judgment. The periodic reporting also provides the court
insights on how efficient court processes are after a judgments
promulgation. Its overall purpose is to ensure speedy execution of decisions.
A sheriffs failure to make a return and to submit a return within the required
period constitutes inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties; it is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183952
(2013)
A client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at
any time with or without cause. But this right of the client is not unlimited
because good faith is required in terminating the relationship. The limitation
is based on Article 19 of the Civil Code, which mandates that "every person
must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR. VS. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY; A.C. No.
8103; 03 December 2014 Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which
requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on
his behalf as notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice
law. By leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and with
his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint. Respondent also violated his obligation
under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into
his office while he was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity
being conducted therein. They expected that their documents would be
converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the
notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and
effect. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an
unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession was eroded.