CREDITS: This reviewer follows the outline of

Professor Jardeleza (UP College of Law) and uses

the commentaries of Agpalo and Aguirre. It is an
updated version of the 2006 BAROPS LEGAL
ETHICS REVIEWER which was prepared by Roman
Miguel de Jesus (2007-E) using the reviewers,
digests and notes of Miles Malaya, Angel
Manalaysay, Shaina Ramirez and Sharry Salazar
(all of 2008-D) and of Jeneline Nicolas, Easter
Princess Castro, Vanessa Grace Ignacio, and
Michael Jobert Navallo (all of 2009-B).
THE 2007 BAROPS LEGAL ETHICS TEAM
This updated LEGAL ETHICS reviewer including the
appended laws and the glossary of terms was
prepared by Katherine L. Soto (2009-A) using
Aguirre(2006), the ATENEO BAR REVIEWER 2006,
SAN BEDA CENTRAL BAR REVIEWER 2006 and BAR
QUESTIONS and ANSWERS from 1993 2005. The
cases were edited by Ivan Bandal and Emmar
Benjoe Panahon (2010-D). The case survey for
2006 was prepared by Chris Capul (2010-A).
NOTE: This reviewer may seem overly long for
such an innocuous subject. We have gone to
lengths to come up with a comprehensive reviewer,
hoping you will be confident to take the bar after
reading only this reviewer. The reason for the
length is because of (1) extended digests, and (2)
an appendix of the pertinent laws.

THE LEGAL
PROFESSION

organization
for
the
well-defined
but
unorganized and incohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member.
(2) The IBPs fees are inherent in the power to
regulate the Bar. They are a proper exercise of
police power.
(3) Freedom of speech is not impaired because
the exaction of fees is a valid exercise of the
SCs regulatory powers.
Integration of the bar was found to be called for
at that time (1973) because of the beneficial
experience of foreign jurisdictions upon such
integration and because of the overwhelming
national demand of Filipino lawyers made
evident in by official statistics.

In re Cunanan (1954)
RA 972, or the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, was
declared
partially
unconstitutional
as
it
encroached upon the powers granted by the
Constitution to the SC in determining the
admission of bar examinees to the bar by
usurping such power through a legislative act.

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICE OF

LAW
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Introduction
STATE
REGULATION
OF
THE
LEGAL
PROFESSION (BY THE SC AND CONGRESS)

Const art. VIII, sec. 5(5).

The SC shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning practice and
procedure in all courts, the admission into the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar.

Const art. XII, sec. 14.

The practice of all professions in the Phils.
shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
prescribed by law.

Practice of law: legal advice and

instructions to clients to inform them of
their rights and obligations; preparation for
clients of documents, requiring knowledge
of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary layman; 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 the proper interpretation
and enforcement of law

(Aguirre)

Practice of law: the rendition of services

requiring the knowledge and application of
legal principles and techniques to serve the
interest of another with his consent.
It is not limited to appearing in court, or
advising and assisting in the conduct of
litigation, but embraces the preparations of
the pleadings, and other papers incident to
actions
and
special
proceedings,
conveyancing the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of
all legal advice to clients. [Blacks Law
Dictionary, 3rd ed., cited in Cayetano vs.
Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September, 3,
1991]

In the Matter of the IBP (1973)

The power to integrate the Philippine bar is
given to the SC by the Constitution. RA 6397 is
a mere legislative declaration that the
integration of the bar will promote public
interest.
The unification of the bar is Constitutional.
(1)
It does not impinge upon freedom of
association because it does not make the lawyer
part of any group of which he is not already a
member and simply provides an official

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

1 of 158

Cayetano v Monsod (Padilla dissent):

practice of laws 4 elements:
1.habituality
2.compensation

ONE UP LAW

3.application of law, legal

practice or procedure
4.attorney-client relationship

principles,

The practice of law is a mere privilege.

Conferred only for merit, earned by hard
study, learning and good conduct. But in a
sense a right: not lightly or capriciously
restricted

Not practice of law: writing law books/

legal articles, teaching

Ulep v Legal Clinic, Inc (1993)

The Legal Clinic was enjoined from issuing
advertisements representing itself as practicing
law as the Clinic was not properly a legal firm.
Practice of law was defined as any activity, in
or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and
experience.
The advertisements regarding secret marriages,
divorce, annulment, absence, and visa were
understood to be representing the legal clinic as
tendering legal advice to clients. The Court
could not believe that information was simply
provided and that the clinic did not engage in
advisory or diagnostic services.

Cayetano v. Monsod (1991)

F:
The SC held that Monsod met the 10year practice of law requirement for the
position of COMELEC chairperson to which he
had been nominated saying that practice of
law means any activity, in or out of the court,
which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
H:
Practice of law means any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. It is to give notice or render any
kind of service, which device or service requires
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill.
Monsod after passing the bar,
worked in his fathers firm for one year,
then worked as an operations officer in the
World Bank Group. He also worked with
the Meralco Group upon his return to the
Philippines,
and
then
became
chief
executive officer of an investment bank,
legal and economic consultant of various
companies,
National
Chairman
of
NAMFREL,
member
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Commission,
and
then
became
a
member
of
the
Davide
Commission.
Interpreted in the light of the various
definitions of the term practice of law,
particularly the modern concept of law practice,
and taking into consideration the liberal

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

2 of 158

construction intended by the framers of the

Constitution,
Atty.
Monsods
past
work
experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyerlegislator verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least
10 years.

Padilla, Dissenting
Practice of law means to exercise or pursue
an
employment
or
profession,
actively,
habitually, repeatedly or customarily. There
must be continuity or a succession of acts.
Several
factors
enumerated
by
the
Commission on Appointments to determine
practice of law:
(1) Habituality - customarily or frequently
holding ones self out to the public as a lawyer
(2) Compensation - his professional services are
available to the public for compensation, as a
service of his livelihood or in consideration of
his said services.
(3) Application of law, legal principles, practice,
or procedure - calls for legal knowledge,
training and experience.
(4) Attorney-client relationship- hence, teaching
law or writing law books are not considered as
practice of law.
Padilla: Monsod did not perform any of the
tasks which constitute the practice of law
HABITUALLY for at least 10 years prior to his
appointment. Vote is to GRANT petition.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

IN A NUTSHELL
Requirements
1. Citizenship
2. Residence
3. 21 years of age
4. good moral character
5. no charges against him involving moral
turpitude
6. Legal Education
a. Pre-Law
b. Law Proper
7. Bar Examination
8. Lawyers Oath

Rule 138, sec. 2.

Requirements
for all applicants for admission to the bar.
Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at
least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and a resident of the Philippines; and
must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character,
and that no charges against him, involving

ONE UP LAW

moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending

in any court in the Philippines.

LEGAL EDUCATION
1.

PRE-LAW

Rule 138, sec. 6.

Pre-Law.No
applicant for admission to the bar examination
shall be admitted unless he present a certificate
that he has satisfied the Sec. of Education that,
he began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily complete in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for
admission thereto the completion of a four-year
high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelors degree in
arts or sciences with any of the following
subjects as major or field of concentration:
political science, logic, english, spanish, history
and economics.

In re Telesforo Diao (1963)

The SC ordered the Clerk to strike Diaos name
from the Roll of Attorneys as he was not
qualified to take the bar exams due to his false
representations. He started studying law six
months before obtaining his arts degree.

2. LAW PROPER

Rule 138, sec. 5.

Additional
Requirements
for
other
applicants.All
applicants for admissionshall, before being
admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show
that they have regularly studied law for four
years, and successfully complete all prescribed
courses, in a law school or university, officially
approved and recognized by the Sec. of
Education.
The affidavit of the candidate,
accompanied by a certificate from the university
or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of
such facts, and further evidence may be
required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar
examinations unless he has satisfactorily
completed the following course in a law school
or
university
duly
recognized
by
the
government: civil law, commercial law, remedial
law,
criminal
law,
public
and
private
international law, political law, labor and social
legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and
legal ethics.

CITIZENSHIP

Const. art. XII, sec. 14.

The
practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
prescribed by law.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

3 of 158

In re Arturo Castillo Reyes (1993)

Petitioners name was struck from the Roll of
Attorneys due to the following facts: graduated
from UP College of Law in 1939; passed the bar
in 1939; inducted to and served in the US
Armed Forces in the Far East during WWII and
thus became eligible for citizenship under the
1990 US Immigration Act; became a naturalized
citizen of the US in 1993. Only Filipino citizens
may practice law in the Philippines. This
requirement is prescribed by the Constitution,
XII 14, and the ROC, 2 Rule 138.
Ratio: Since one of the solemn duties of an
attorney is to maintain allegiance to the RP and
to support the Constitution and obey the laws of
the Phils. (20(a) Rule 138 ROC), it follows that
a Filipino citizen admitted to the Phil Bar must
maintain such citizenship to remain qualified for
the practice of law in this country.

(Aguirre) formatting
GRADUATES ON FOREIGN LAW SCHOOLS
An applicant who desires to take the bar
examinations must not only have studied law in
a local school but must be able to present the
certifications required under sections 5 and 6 of
Rule 138.
Since graduates of foreign law schools cannot
submit said certifications, they shall not be
allowed to take the bar examinations. [Re:
Application of Adriano M. Hernandez, Resolution
of the Court, EN Banc dated July 27, 1993]
BAR EXAMINATION

Rule 138, Sec. 7.

Time for filing
proof of qualifications.all applicants for
admission shall file with the clerk of the
Supreme Court the evidence required by section
2 of this rule at least 15 days before the
beginning of the examination. If not embraced
within sections 3 and 4 of this rule they shall
also file within the same period the affidavit and
certificate required by section 5, and if
embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall
exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their
admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that
the same has not been revoked, and certificates
as to their professional standing. Applicants
shall also file at the same time their own
affidavits as to their age, residence, and
citizenship.

Rule 138, sec. 8.

Notice
of
applications.Notice
of
applications
for
admission shall be published by the clerk of the
Supreme Court in newspapers published in
Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least 10
days before the beginning of the examination.

Rule 138, sec. 9.

Examination;
subjects.Applicants, not otherwise provided
for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be
subjected to examinations in the following

ONE UP LAW

subjects:
Civil
Law;
Labor
and
Social
Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law;
Political
Law
(Constitutional
Law,
Public
Corporations, and Public Officers); International
Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial
Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and
Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(in Pleading and Conveyancing).

Rule 138, sec. 10.

Bar
examination, by questions and answers, and in
writing.Persons taking the examination shall
not bring papers, books or notes into the
examination rooms. The questions shall be the
same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in
English or Spanish, shall be given to each
examinee.
Examinees
shall
answer
the
questions personally without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee
stating that his penmanship is so poor that it
will be difficult to read his answers without
much loss of time, the Supreme Court may
allow such examinee to use a typewriter in
answering the questions. Only noiseless
typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examiners shall take such
precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other
frauds. Examinees shall not place their names
on the examination papers. No oral examination
shall be given.

give or receive any assistance. The candidate

who violates this provision, or any other
provision of this rule, shall be barred from the
examination, and the same to count as a failure
against him, and further disciplinary action,
including permanent disqualification, may be
taken in the discretion of the court.

Rule 138, Sec. 14.

Passing
average.In order that a candidate may be
deemed to have passed his examinations
successfully, he must have obtained a general
average of 75 % in all subjects, without falling
below 50 % in any subject. In determining the
average, the subjects in the examination shall
be given the following relative weights: Civil
Law, 15 %; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 %;
Mercantile Law, 15 %; Criminal Law; 10 %;
Political and International Law, 15 %; Taxation,
10 %; Remedial Law, 20 %; Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises, 5 %.

Rule 138, sec. 15.

Report of the
committee; filing of examination papers.Not
later than February 15th after the examination,
or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the
committee shall file its reports on the result of
such examination. The examination papers and
notes of the committee shall be fixed with the
clerk and may there be examined by the parties
in interest, after the court has approved the
report.

Rule 138, sec. 11.

Annual
examination.Examinations for admission to
the bar of the Philippines shall take place
annually in the City of Manila. They shall be
held in four days to be designated by the
chairman of the committee on bar examiners.
The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
1st day: Political
and
International
Law
(morning) and
Labor
and
Social
Legislation
(afternoon);
2nd day: Civil Law (morning) and
Taxation (afternoon);
3rd day: Mercantile Law (morning) and
Criminal Law (afternoon);
4th day: Remedial Law (morning) and
Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(afternoon).

Rule 138, Sec. 16.

Failing
candidates to take review course.Candidates
who have failed the bar examinations for three
times shall be disqualified from taking another
examination
unless
they
show
to
the
satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled
in and passed regular fourth year review classes
as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a
recognized law school.
The professors of the individual review subjects
attended by the candidates under this rule shall
certify under oath that the candidates have
regularly attended classes and passed the
subjects under the same conditions as ordinary
students and the ratings obtained by them in
the particular subject.

Rule 138, Sec. 12.

Committee of
examiners. Examinations shall be conducted
by a committee of bar examiners to be
appointed by the Supreme Court. This
committee shall be composed of a Justice of the
Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and
who shall be designated by the court to serve
for one year, and eight members of the bar of
the Philippines, who shall hold office for a
period of one year. The names of the members
of this committee shall be published in each
volume of the official reports.

In re Adriano Hernandez (1993)

The SC allowed Hernandez to take the 1993
Phil. Bar Exams despite having graduated from
the Columbia Law School and having passed the
Bar Exams in the State of New York. He had
taken review classes in the Ateneo de Manila
Law School.

Rule 138, Sec. 13.

Disciplinary
measures.No candidate shall endeavor to
influence any member of the committee, and
during examination the candidates shall not
communicate with each other nor shall they

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

4 of 158

The SC, however, pointed out that beginning

1994, graduates of foreign law schools would
not be allowed to take the bar. An applicant
should study law in a local school and follow the
requirements of 5-6 Rule 138, ROC.

In re Amparo (1975)
Amparo was caught reading a piece of paper
inside the examination room in the course of
the 1974 bar exam in criminal law.
He

ONE UP LAW

admitted having in his possession the paper

that carried the table of penalties but explained
that the paper fell from his pocket when he took
his handkerchief from his pocket to wipe his
perspiration.
He was found guilty of bringing notes into the
examination room in violation of 10 Rule 138
ROC and of attempted cheating. Nevertheless,
Amparo failed in the exam that year
(1974), and the Court ordered him
disqualified from taking the 1975 bar
exam.
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Good Moral Character

No definition and criteria in law for good

moral character

Moral character is what a person really is

(corresponds to objective reality) while
good reputation is the opinion generally
entertained of him, the estimate in which
he is held by the public in the place where
he is known (subjective).
Not enough that conduct merely enables a
person to escape the penalty of criminal
law.

Justice Felix Frankfurter: moral character =

qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of
honor, full candor, intellectual honesty, and
the strictest observance of fiduciary
responsibility

Good moral character is the absence of a

proven conduct or act which has been
historically and traditionally considered as a
manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or
conduct showing moral turpitude need not
amount to a crime; and even if it does
constitute an offense, a conviction upon a
criminal charge is not necessary to
demonstrate bad moral character although
it may show moral depravity.

DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT IN
ANY CRIMINAL CASE
NOTES
(Agpalo)

an applicant must show that no charges

against him involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or pending in court in the
Philippines

the concealment or withholding from the

court of the fact that an applicant has been
charged with or indicted for an alleged
crime is a ground for disqualification

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

5 of 158

a lawyers name may not be stricken off

from the roll of attorneys by reason of
alienage, non-completion of the prescribed
course of study or bad moral character in
the absence of clearly preponderant
evidence that he did not, in fact, possess
the necessary qualifications at the time of
his admission.

No charges involving moral turpitude are filed

against him/her or pending in court

Question of moral turpitude is for SC to

decide. Which is why applicants are
required to disclose any crime which they
have been charged. Concealment or
withholding from the court information
about charges and indictments is a ground
for disqualification of applicant or for
revocation of license. Even if the crime
concealed does not involve moral turpitude,
the act of concealment makes him/her unfit
to be a lawyer.

Applicant assumes burden of proof to

establish qualifications in asking admission.
But after having presented prima facie
evidence, burden to overcome the prima
facie showing shifts to those objecting
his/her admission.

That the bar examination committee has

passed upon the applicants qualification
will not preclude judicial inquiry on the
same question raised in disbarment.

Lawyers name may not be stricken off the

roll of attorneys by reason of
(1) alienage,
(2) non-completion of the prescribed course of
study or
(3) bad moral character in the absence of
clearly preponderant evidence that he did not
possess necessary qualifications at the time of
admission. Burden of proofcomplainant.

In re Al Argosino (1997)
Al Argosino passed the 1993 bar examination.
His oath taking was deferred due to his
previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide for the death of a
neophyte during fraternity initiation in which he
was one of the initiators. To prove that he was
of good moral character, he presented 15
certifications of such and also submitted that he
and his co-accused had established in
cooperation with the victims family, a
scholarship foundation in honor of the hazing
victim. The SC granted Argosinos petition.

WHO ELSE MAY PRACTICE LAW

General Rule: Only Members of the Bar

Rule 138, Sec 1. Who may practice

law.Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as

ONE UP LAW

such in accordance with the provisions of this

rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.
Exception 1: Law Student Practice Rule

Rule 138-AANNEXED

NOTES
(Aguirre)
Qualifications of students who may appear
in court

and ability to aid defendant; NOT IN ANY

OTHER COURT

Supreme Court can validly authorise a

layman to represent litigant in court

Question: Can legislature can permit by law

a layman to appear on anothers behalf in
court or administrative tribunals. Yes, in
cadastral courts, NLRC ok; otherwise NO

3 limitations:
1. layman should confine work to nonadversarial contentions
2. not habitually rendered
3. not charge for payment

Rule 138-A (ROC) allows law students to

appear in court under the condition that they:
1) must have completed the 3 rd year of a
prescribed regular 4-year curriculum;
2) must be enrolled in a recognized law schools
legal education program approved by the
Supreme Court, without compensation, to
represent indigent clients.
3) must be under the direct supervision and
control of a member of the IBP duly accredited
by the law school.
Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be
signed by the supervising attorney for and in
behalf of the legal clinic.
Direct supervision and control, defined
The phrase direct supervision and control
requires no less than the physical presence of
the supervising lawyer during the hearing.
In Re: Need That Law Student Practicing
Under Rule 138-A Be Actually Supervised
During Trial (1997)
H: A law student appearing before the RTC
under Rule 138-A should at all times be
accompanied by a supervising lawyer.
Appearance In Inferior Courts
The rule is different if the law student appears
before the inferior court, where the issues and
procedure are relatively simple.
RULE: A law student may appear in his personal
capacity without the supervision of a lawyer in
inferior courts.
(refer to Rule 138, section 34 below under
exceptions 2 & 3)
Thus, a law student may appear before an
inferior court as an agent or friend of a party
without the supervision of a member of the bar.

Exception 3: Litigation by Party

Rule 138, Sec. 34. By whom litigation

conducted.In the court of a justice of the
peace (now, MTC) a party may conduct his
litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or
friend appointed by him for that purpose, or
with the aid of an attorney. In any other court,
a party may conduct his litigation personally or
by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must
be either personal or by a duly authorized
member of the bar.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Necessity of representation by counsel

In a democratic and civilized country where

the rights of a person are determined in
accordance with established rules, the
employment of a person acquainted with
those rules becomes a necessity both to the
litigants and to the Court. A party litigant
needs the assistance of counsel in all
proceedings,
administrative,
civil
or
criminal.
When appearance by counsel not obligatory
1. In a Municipal Trial Court, a party may
conduct his litigation in person or with the
aid of a friend appointed by him for that
purpose or with an aid of an attorney.
2.

In the RTC and Appellate Courts, a party in

a civil suit may conduct his litigation either
personally or by attorney unless the party
is a juridical person.

Exception 2: Agent

3. And even if he has chosen to appear by

counsel, he may at any time dispense with the
services of his lawyer and prosecute or defend
his case personally.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Waiver to
proceedings

Metropolitan/ Municipal Trial Court: one

may be represented by an agent: In such
cases,
no
attorney-client
relationship
exists; not habitual; locality where licensed
member
of
bar
is
not
available;
person/resident of good repute for probity

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

6 of 158

right

of

counsel

in

criminal

The right to counsel of an accused is

absolute or immutable. HOWEVER, his
option to secure the services of counsel de
parte is not absolute. The trial court may
restrict his option to retain a counsel de
parte if a) the accused insists on an
attorney he cannot afford b) chosen counsel

ONE UP LAW

is not a lawyer or c) the attorney declines

to represent the accused for a valid reason,
in which case the trial court can appoint his
counsel de oficio to represent him. Sec 1
(c) of Rule 115 provides that an accused
may waive his right to counsel but if he
cannot protect his rights without the
assistance of a counsel, the Court should
advise him to secure a counsel de parte or
appoint a counsel de officio to represent
him.
NOTES
(Prof. Jardeleza Lectures and ATENEO BAR
REVIEWER 2006)
NON LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR IN
COURT
Party to the Litigation
Cases before the
RTC (court of a

in
justice of the peace)
person

throu
gh an agent or
friend

appoi
nted by him for
that purpose

with
the aid of attorney
(Rule 138, Sec. 34,
ROC)
Party to the litigation
Before any other

in
court
person

by aid
of an attorney
(Rule 138, Sec. 34,
ROC)
The Judge may
Criminal case before
appoint a non-lawyer
the MTC in a locality
who is a:
where
a
duly

reside licensed member of

the
BAR
is
not
nt of a province
available

of
good repute for
probity and ability
to aid the accused
in his defense
(Rule 116, Sec. 7,
ROC)
1. Senior law student
Legal Aid Program
enrolled in a
recognized law
schools clinical
education program
2. Program is
approved by the
Supreme Court
3. Student is without
compensation
4. To represent
indigent clients
5. Student is accepted
by the Legal Clinic of
the law school
6. Under the direct
supervision and
control of an IBP
member duly
accredited by the law
school

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

7 of 158

1.Person representing
himself
2. Person representing
his organization or
members thereof
(Art. 222, Labor Code,
PD 442, as amended)
A non-lawyer can
represent a claimant
(Cadastral Act, Act
2259, Sec. 9)

Before the NLRC or

any Labor Arbiter

Before the Cadastral

Court

WHO MAY NOT PRACTICE LAW

RELATIVE PROHIBITION
1) Senators and members of the House of
Representatives (prohibition to appear) (Art VI,
Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution)
2) Members of the Sanggunian (RA No. 7160,
Sec. 91)
ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION
1) all members of the judiciary
a) judges and other officials as
employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 148,
Sec. 35 ROC)
b)Government prosecutors (people vs.
Villanueva 14 SCRA 109)
2) President, Vice President, members of the
cabinet (Art VIII, Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution)
3) members of Constitutional Commissions (Art.
IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution)
4) Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8
2nd par, 1987 Constitution)
5) Solicitor General and Assistant Solicitor
General
6) all governors, city and municipal mayors (RA
No. 7160, Sec. 90)
7) those prohibited by special laws retired
members of the judiciary (RA 910, Sec. 1, as
amended)

CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
(Aguirre) (supplemented by the San Beda
Bar Review 2006)
LEGAL ETHICS,DEFINED
Legal Ethics denotes that body of principles by
which the conduct of members of the legal
profession is controlled.
It is that branch of moral science which treats
of the duties which an attorney at law owes to
his clients, to the courts, to the bar and to the
public. [G.A. Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics
8 (1949)].

NOTES

ONE UP LAW

(Agpalo)
History of the Development of Ethical
Standards for Lawyers

13th and 14th century: Requirement of the

lawyers oath and the statement of his
duties

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

1917: The Philippine Bar adopted, as its

own, Canons 1 to 32 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association. 1946: It again adopted, as its
own, Canons 33 to 47 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association

An attorney enjoys the presumption of

regularity in the discharge of his duty. (i.e.
He is immune, in the performance of his
obligation to his client, from liability to a
third person insofar as he does not
materially depart from his character as a
quasi-judicial officer.)

There are also privileges

status as a quasi-judicial
law makes his passing the
equivalent to a first grade
civil service eligibility.)

1980: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines

adopted a proposed Code of Professional
Responsibility which it later submitted to
the Supreme Court for approval

Duties of Office

June 21, 1988: The Supreme Court

promulgated the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Code consists of 22
Canons and 77 Rules, which are divided
into 4 chapters namely:

The
The
The
The

Law and Society;

Lawyer and the Legal Profession;
Lawyer and the Courts; and
Lawyer and the Clients.

The Code is binding upon all lawyers and

failure to live up to any of its provision is a
ground for disciplinary action.

Nature of Office of Attorney

The title attorney is reserved to those

who, having obtained the necessary degree
in the study of law, and passed the bar
examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
remain members thereof of good standing;
and it is they only who are authorized to
practice law in the Philippines.

An attorney is more than a mere agent

because
a) he possesses special powers of trust and
confidence reposed in him by his client
b) he is as independent as the judge
c) his powers are entirely different and far
superior to those of an ordinary agent.

any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative

tribunal.

He is a public officer although he is not an

officer in the constitutional or statutory
meaning of the term. He occupies a quasijudicial office because he is in fact an officer
of the court and thus, is subject to the
disciplinary authority of the court and to its
orders and directives with respect to his
relation to the court as well as to his client.

Privileges of attorney
A lawyer has the privilege and right to
practice law during good behavior before

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

8 of 158

inherent in his
officer. (i.e. the
bar examination
or second grade

Rule 138, sec. 20. Duties of

attorneys.--It is the duty of an attorney:
a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines;
b) To observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers;
c) To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be
just, and such defenses only as he believes
to be honestly debatable under the law;
d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining
the causes confided to him, such means
only as are consistent with truth and honor,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;
e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at
every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
f) To abstain from all offensive personality and
to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor
or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;
g) Not to encourage either the commencement
or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from
any corrupt motive or interest;
h) Never to reject, for any consideration
personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
i) In the defense of a person accused of
crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the
guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end
that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.

Note:

(Aguirre) (supplemented by the San Beda

Bar Review 2006)
FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A LAWYER

ONE UP LAW

1) Duties to Society should not violatehis

responsibility to society, exemplar for
righteousness, ready to render legal aid, foster
social reforms, guardian of due process, aware
of special role in the solution of special
problems and be always ready to lend
assistance in the study and solution of social
problems
2) Duties to the Legal Profession candor,
fairness, courtesy and truthfulness, avoid
encroachment in the business of other lawyers,
uphold the honor of the profession
3) Duties to the Court respect or defend
against criticisms, uphold authority and dignity,
obey order and processes, assist in the
administration of justice
4) Duties to the Client entire devotion to
clients interest

The duties may also be classified into:

public (operating as a faithful

assistant of the court in search of a just
solution to disputes),
Duty of Counsel de Oficio ( 1991,
1993, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2004 BAR
EXAMS)
A Counsel de Oficio is expected to render
effective service and to exert his best
efforts on behalf of an indigent
accused. He has a high duty to a poor
litigant as to a paying client. He should
have a bigger dose of social conscience
a little less of self-interest
private (an attorney operating as a
trusted agent of his client),
Role of Private Prosecutor
A private prosecutor may intervene in
the prosecution of a criminal action when
the offended party is entitled to indemnity
and has not waived expressly, reserved or
instituted the civil action for damages.
In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutors, the private prosecutor
may be authorized in writing by the Chief of
the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecution to prosecute the case subject
to the approval of the Court. Once so
authorized to prosecute the criminal action,
the private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case up to the end of the trial
even in the absence of a public prosecutor,
unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn (Rule 110, Sec. 5, ROC, as
amended per A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, May 1,
2002)
and
personal obligations (an attorney
operating as a self-employed
businessman).

The rules and ethics of the legal

profession demand that an attorney
subordinate his personal and private
duties to those, which he owes, to the

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

9 of 158

court and to the public. His obligation

to his client, in turn, takes precedence
over his duties to himself.

LAWYERS OATH
I _____ , do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the RP: I will support and defend
its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its
commission; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will not delay any mans cause for
money or malice and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the court as to my clients; and I will impose
upon myself this obligation voluntarily, without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.
IMPORTANCE OF THE
(2003 BAR EXAMS)

LAWYERS

OATH

The lawyers oath is not a mere ceremony or

formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should
at all times weigh his actions according to the
sworn promises he makes when taking the
lawyers oath. If all lawyers conducted
themselves strictly according to the lawyers
oath and the Code of Professional responsibility,
the administration of justice will undoubtedly
fairer, faster and easier for everyone concerned.
(In Re: Al Argosino, 270 SCRA 26)
Olbes vs. Deciembre, 457 SCRA 341
By taking the lawyers oath, a lawyer
becomes the guardian of truth and the rule of
law and an indispensable instrument in the fair
and impartial administration of justice.
Good moral character includes at least
common
honesty.
Deception
and
other
fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable
practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable,
they reveal a basic moral flaw.

Chapter 1
The Lawyer and
Society
CANON 1
PROMOTE &
PROCESSES

RESPECT

LAW

&

LEGAL

ONE UP LAW

still fit to be allowed the privilege as such.

Public interest is its primary objective.
In General

Canon 1.
A lawyer shall uphold
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal process.
Rule 1.01.
A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02.
A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal profession.
Rule 1.03.
A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or delay any mans 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.

Zaldivar v. Gonzales (1988)

F: The SC indefinitely suspended Tanodbayan
Raul Gonzales from the practice of law upon a
finding that he was guilty of contempt of court
and of gross misconduct as an officer of the
court and member of the Bar. Gonzales filed a
motion for reconsideration which made the
following statements, which were unrelated to
the legal issue: that he was twice approached
by a leading member of SC to go slow on the
accused and not to be too hard; that he was
approached and asked to refrain from
investigating the COA reports on illegal
disbursements in the SC; that he was called
over the phone several times by a leading
member of SC and was asked to dismiss cases
against two members of SC.
H: The SC has plenary disciplinary authority
over attorneys. This authority stems from the
Courts constitutional mandate to regulate
admission to the practice of law, which includes
authority to regulate the practice of law. It is
also an inherent power incidental to the proper
administration of justice and essential to an
orderly
discharge
of
judicial
functions.
Moreover, the SC has power to punish for
contempt anyone connected with a case at bar
to protect it from improper interference with
due administration of justice. This is not
dependent upon the complaint of any of the
parties.
The power to punish for contempt and power to
discipline attorneys are two inherent powers of
the Court. With respect to lawyers, the
disciplinary powers of SC are broader in scope
than the power to punish for contempt since it
may cover any misconduct other than
contempt. The power to punish for contempt
however may apply to both lawyers and nonlawyers.
Although the Court, in deciding Gonzales case,
may act as offended party, prosecutor and
arbiter at the same time, it is exercising its
powers. As held in In Re Almacen, disciplinary
proceedings are sui generis (one of its kind). It
is neither purely civil nor purely criminal since it
is an investigation as to whether the attorney is

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

10 of 158

On Gonzales principal defense of freedom of

speech: Freedom of expression and of speech is
not absolute and needs an occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public
interestsone of which is the maintenance of
the integrity and orderly functioning of the
administration of justice. There is no antimony
between free expression and the integrity of the
system of administering justice. Both are
indispensable to a free society. However, a
lawyers right of free expression may have to be
more limited than that of a layman. Moreover,
as special prosecutor, he owes duties of fidelity
and respect to RP and SC more than a private
lawyer. Besides, the nature and manner of
Gonzales criticism exceeded the bounds of
decency and propriety.
RULE 1.01
NO UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR
DECEITFUL CONDUCT

Rule 1.01.
A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Unlawful conduct

act or omission which is against the law

Dishonest act

act of lying or cheating

Immoral or deceitful conduct

one that involves moral turpitude.

Gross immorality

A grossly immoral act is one that is so

corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to
be reprehensible to a high degree. (ex.
Adultery)

Mere intimacy between a man and a

woman, either of whom possesses no legal
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on
and devoid of any deceit on the part of the
lawyer,
is
neither
as
corrupt
nor
unprincipled as to warrant imposition of
disciplinary sanction, even if the woman
gives birth to a child, so long as he admits
paternity. Disowning child or refusing to
support it may be ground for disciplinary
action.

Cohabitation per se is not immoral,

depending on surrounding circumstances.

The question as to whether an act is so

unprincipled or so disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree presents a
more difficult problem for the answer may,
to some extent, depend upon the prejudice,
caprice and bias of the court and the

ONE UP LAW

general concept of morality prevailing at

the time.

4)
5)

It is not necessary that there be prior

conviction for a lawyers act to be grossly
immoral; it is enough that the act charged,
in the language of the law, constitutes a
crime.
Even if evidence is not sufficient to hold
lawyer
liable
for
gross
immorality,
reprimand may be proper where evidence
shows failure to comply with rigorous
standards of conduct appropriately required
from the members of the Bar and officers of
the court. As officers of the court, lawyers
must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of
good moral character.

Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

Moral turpitude means anything which is

done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty
or good morals, or to any act of vileness,
baseness or depravity in the private and
social duties that a man owes his fellowmen
or to society, contrary to the accepted rule
of right and duty between man and man.

In general, all crimes of which fraud or

deceit is an element or those which are
inherently contrary to rules of right
conduct, honesty or morality in a civilized
community involve moral turpitude.

Fraudulent transactions

Commission of fraud or falsehood show that

the lawyer is unfit to manage the legal
business of others, unworthy of public
confidence and devoid of high sense of
morality and fair dealing expected and
required of a member of the bar. (ex.
misappropriating money, falsifying power of
attorney to collect money, etc...)
(Aguirre)
Immoral Conduct

that which is willful, flagrant or shameless

and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community.

Moral Turpitude

includes any act done contrary to justice,

honesty, modesty or good morals

(Aguirre)
The ff. acts have been declared by the court as
involving moral turpitude:
1)
2)
3)

abduction with consent (In Re: Basa,

41 Phil 275 (1920)
violation of BP 22 (People vs. Tuanda,
Adm. Case No. 3360, January 30,
1989)
bigamy (In RE: Lontok, 43 Phil 293
(1922)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

11 of 158

6)
7)

Murder - (In RE: Gutierrez, Adm. Case

No. L-363, July 31, 1962)
Falsification of public documents (In
RE: Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439,
September 30, 1982)
Smuggling - (In RE:Rovero, Adm. Case
No. 126, December 29, 1980)
Participation in fatal hazing of a
fraternity neophyte (In RE: Al
Argosino)

Conduct

as used in this rule is not limited to conduct

exhibited
in
connection
with
the
performance of professional duties.

Barrios v. Martinez (2004)

Violation of BP 22 is a crime involving moral
turpitude. Moral turpitude includes everything
which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owed his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man
and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. The act of a
lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient
funds to cover the same constitutes such willful
dishonesty and immoral conduct as to
undermine the public confidence in law and
lawyers. The Court also noted that disbarment
is not tantamount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law. The purpose of a
proceeding for disbarment is to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those
who exercise this important function shall be
competent,
honorable
and
reliable.
A
proceeding for disbarment is not in any sense a
civil action. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are prosecuted solely for the
public welfare and for preserving courts of
justice from the official ministrations of persons
unfit to practice them. Furthermore, the Court
took notice of the fact that it took an inordinate
length of time for the respondent to respond to
the Courts requirement that he submit his
Comment on the original petition to disbar him.
He squandered away 7 years to have his day in
court.
These
acts
constitute
a
willful
disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court,
which under Sec. 27 of Rule 138 is in itself a
cause sufficient for disbarment.

Ui v. Bonifacio (2000)
The SC found that the imprudence of an
attorney who married a man already previously
married (without initially knowing that he was
in fact married but, upon acquiring such
knowledge, cut off all ties with him) did not
constitute immoral conduct sufficient for her
disbarment. Furthermore, lawyers, as keepers
of public faith, are burdened with a higher
degree of social responsibility and thus must
handle their personal affairs with greater
caution. The respondent was imprudent in the
sense that she should have investigated the fact
that the man with whom she had relations was

ONE UP LAW

married. Nevertheless, the fact that she

distanced herself from him shows that she
displayed no moral indifference. The ratio
decidendi of the Court is that the requisite of
good moral character in the admission to the
practice of law must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of
the practise of law. It is the bounden duty of
lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest
standards of morality.

Sebastian v Calis (1999)

Atty. Calis was found guilty of gross misconduct
by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct for deceiving Sebastian that
he could provide her with working travel papers
to the US.

Co v Bernardino (1998)
The SC found Bernardino guilty of violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code for procuring personal
loans through insinuations of his power as an
influence peddler in the Bureau of Customs, the
issuance of a series of bad checks and the
taking of undue advantage of his position in the
aforementioned government office.

Figueroa v. Barranco (1997)

Atty. Barranco was not disbarred despite the
fact that he had sexual congress with Patricia
Figueroa with whom he begot a child, promised
that he would marry her after he passed the bar
but then married another woman. The Court
held that grossly immoral conduct is one that is
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. Mere intimacy
between a man and a woman, both of whom
possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily
carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part
of the respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so
unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a
result of such relationship a child is born out of
wedlock. The acts were consensual, as proven
by the years of their amicable and intimate
relations.

Castillo vda Mijares v Villaluz

(1997)
SC found Justice Villaluz guilty of deceitful and
grossly immoral conduct for marrying Judge
Castillo despite having previously been married
and then subsequently marrying a third woman.

solely on a conviction for violation of a statute,

the pardon of the crime for which the attorney
had been convicted bars the administrative
proceeding.

Lisazo v Amante (1991)

Despite
there
being
not
attorney-client
relationship between Lisazo and Amante, the SC
found Atty. Amante guilty of malpractice and
dishonesty in his profession for failing to return
Lisazos money despite repeated demands.

Bautista v. Gonzales (1990)

The purchase by a lawyer of his clients
property in litigation constitutes a breach of
professional ethics for which a disciplinary
action may be brought against him that he
expressly violated the law prohibiting a lawyer
from acquiring his clients property involved in
any litigation in which he may take part by
virtue of his profession (1491 CC)
By failing to disclose to his client that a land
had already been sold at a public auction prior
to the execution of a land development
agreement, Gonzales failed to live up to the
rigorous standards of ethics of the law
profession which place a premium on honesty
and condemn duplicitous conduct.
By submitting falsified documents wherein 2
signatories were made to appear as having
fixed their signatures, Gonzales acted in willful
disregard of his solemn duty as a lawyer to act
at all times in a manner consistent with the
truth.

People v Tuanda (1989)

A conviction for violating a special law, BP 22
for example, is sufficient ground for finding an
attorney guilty of moral turpitude and thus
subject to administrative proceedings.

Cordova v Cordova (1989)

The reconciliation between the lawyer husband
and
his
wife
who
had
initiated
the
administrative proceedings against him for
engaging in an adulterous and clearly immoral
relationship
does
not
wipe
away
the
misconduct and immoral behavior.

Fernandez v Grecia (1993)

Atty. Grecia was guilty of violating Canon 1 by
surreptitiously tearing of two pages of medical
records which were evidence in a case he was
handling.

In re Vailoces (1982)
Plenary pardon does not of itself warrant
reinstatement, evidence of reformation must
first be present.
Vailoces was guilty of
falsification of public documents. The President
then granted plenary pardon.
The plenary
pardon does not itself warrant reinstatement.
The SC found however that he had regained the
trust of his fellow lawyer and thus was
readmitted into the practice of law.

In re Lontok (1992)
Lontok was convicted of bigamy but was issued
a pardon by the Governor General. The SC held
that where disbarment proceedings depend

Arciga v. Maniwang (1981)

The SC found that Atty. Maniwang should not be
disbarred despite having engaged in repeated
acts of cohabitation with Arciga which resulted

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

12 of 158

ONE UP LAW

in the birth of their son and then having

married another woman despite promises that
he would marry Arciga.

Professional Responsibility prohibits a member

of the bar from making public statements on a
case that may tend to arouse public opinion for
or against any party. With already an earlier
admonition, Paguia is indefinitely suspended for
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

In re Gutierrez (1962)
Gonzales was convicted of murder but was then
granted conditional pardon by the President.
When the pardon is conditional and merely
remits the unexecuted portion of the penalty,
administrative
proceedings
cannot
be
automatically barred.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court will not

denounce criticism made by anyone against the
Court for, if well founded, can truly have
constructive effects in the task of the Court, but
it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor
allow the erosion of our peoples faith in the
judicial system, let alone, by those who have
been privileged by it to practise law in the
Philippines.

Piatt v Abordo (1933)

Atty. Abordo was duped into buying fake opium.
He sought the help of police authorities to
recover his money (what an idiot!).
As a general rule the SC will not assume
jurisdiction over one of its officers when the
alleged misconduct was performed in his
personal capacity. The exception is the lawyer
who will be removed from office for gross
misconduct not connected with his professional
duties.
RULE 1.02.
NO COUNSELING TO DEFY LAW

Rule 1.02.
A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
profession.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Rule 1.02 requires that the lawyer should

not promote an organization known to be
violating the law nor assist it in a scheme
which he knows is dishonest. He should not
allow his services to be engaged by an
organization whose member as violating
the law, to defend them when they get
caught.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2003)

The SC indefinitely suspended Atty. Paguia for
making claims that the Justices of the Supreme
Court have been participating in partisan
political activity and have prejudged a case that
will assail the legality of an act done by
President Arroyo, that Estrada v Arroyo is a
patent mockery of justice and due process, that
three Justices of Sandiganbayan made their
bias manifest and are impartial against his
client. The Court held that Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
that a lawyer should observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers,
and insist on similar conduct by others. Paguia,
in liberally imputing sinister and devious
motives and questioning the impartiality,
integrity and authority of the members of the
Supreme Court, succeeded in seeking to
impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation
of justice.
Rule 13.02 of the Code of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

13 of 158

In re Terrel (1903)
Terrel was found guilty of malpractice or gross
misconduct for assisting in the establishment
and acting as counsel for the Centro Bellas
Artes Club, an organization intending to evade
the practice of law.
RULE 1.03
NO TO ENCOURAGING
PROCEEDINGS

LAWSUITS

OR

Rule 1.03.
A lawyer shall not, for
any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or delay any mans cause.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

To stir up litigation is a crime known as

maintenance at common law.

Among the unprofessional acts that are

prohibited include: a) volunteering advice
to bring lawsuit (except when ties of blood,
relationship, or trust make it his/her duty to
do so); b) hunting up defects in titles or
other causes of action and informing
thereof in order to be employed to bring
suit or collect judgment, or to breed
litigation by seeking out claims of personal
injuries or those having any other grounds
of action in order to secure them as clients;
c) employing agents or runners or agents
for like purposes; d) paying reward
(directly or indirectly) to those who bring or
influence in bringing such cases to his
office; rewarding policemen, court or prison
officials, physicians, hospital attaches or
others who may succeed, under the guise
of giving disinterested friendly advice, in
influencing the criminal, the sick and the
injured, the ignorant or others, to seek
professional
services;
e)
searching
unknown
heirs
and
soliciting
their
employment of him; f) initiating a meeting
of the members of club and inducing them
to organize and contest legislating under
his/her guidance; g) purchasing notes to
collect them by litigation at a profit; h)
furnishing credit reports in expectation of
possible employment; i) agreeing with a
purchase of future interests to invest
therein in consideration of his services.

ONE UP LAW

The purpose of prohibiting these acts is to

prevent ambulance chasing (solicitation
of almost any kind of legal business by
laymen employed by an attorney for the
purpose or by the attorney himself).
Ambulance chasing is prohibited because it
stirs up litigation with resulting burdens on
courts and the public; supports perjury, the
defrauding
of
innocent
persons
by
judgments, upon manufactured causes of
actions and the defrauding of injured
persons having proper causes of action but
ignorant of legal rights and court procedure
by means of contracts which retain
exorbitant expenses and by settlement
made for quick returns of fees against the
rights of the injured persons.

Saburnido v. Madroo (2001)

F:
Respondent Madroo was a judge of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
Prior to the
present case, Venustiano Saburnido had filed
charges of grave threats and acts unbecoming a
member of the judiciary against Madroo for
pointing a high-powered firearm at him and for
allowing other persons to take confiscated
smuggled goods deposited in his court. Another
case was filed by the assistant provincial
prosecutor against the judge for reducing bail in
a criminal case without notice to the
prosecution. For these charges, Madroo was
dismissed from the judiciary and his retirement
benefits were forfeited. In retaliation, the
former judge filed 4 charges against the
spouses
namely:
serious
irregularity,
falsification, evasion thru negligence and
violation of the Omnibus Code.
Spouses
Saburnido filed this administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Madroo. They alleged
that respondent has been harassing them by
filing numerous complaints against them as well
as acts of dishonesty.
H:
Atty. Florante Madroo should not be
disbarred but he does merit a suspension of one
year. A lawyer may be disciplined for any
conduct, in his professional or private capacity,
that renders him unfit to continue to be an
officer of the court. Canons 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility command all lawyers
to, at all times, uphold the dignity and integrity
of the legal profession. Clearly, Atty. Madroos
act of filing multiple complaints against the
Saburnidos reflects on his unfitness to be a
member of the legal profession. His act evinces
vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait
whether in a lawyer or another individual. The
supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court. Suspension is a
sufficient sanction against respondent. It is not
primarily intended as a punishment but as a
means to protect the public and the legal
profession.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

14 of 158

RULE 1.04
ENCOURAGE
CLIENT
CONTROVERSY

TO

AVOID

Rule 1.04.
A
lawyer
shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The function of a lawyer is not only to

conduct litigation but to avoid it where
possible,
by
advising
settlement
or
withholding suit.
He/she must act as
mediator for compromise rather than an
instigator and conflict. What sometimes
beclouds a lawyers judgment as to what is
best for his client is his/her eye on the
attorneys fees which are often considerably
less when the cause is amicably settled.
The problem of conflict of interests must be
resolved against self-interest.

Castaneda v Ago (1975)

Atty. Luison was found guilty of instigating
controversy and being a predator of conflict for
maneuvering for 14 years to doggedly resist the
execution of the courts decision thru manifold
tactics from one court to another.
SPECIAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO
NOTARIAL PRACTICE

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

ANNEXED

Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo (2005)

The SC found a notary public negligent in his
duty for allowing office secretaries to perform
his notarial functions, i.e., safekeeping of his
notarial dry seal and notarial register. The Court
held that considering that the responsibility
attached to a notary public is sensitive,
respondent should have been more discreet and
cautious in the execution of his duties as such
and should not have wholly entrusted
everything to the secretaries; otherwise he
should not have been commissioned as notary
public.

Sicat v. Ariola (2005)

The SC disbarred Atty. Gregorio Ariola from the
practice of law for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 by notarizing an SPA purportedly executed by
a certain Benitez at a time when Benitez was
already dead. The Court held that a notary
public should not authenticate documents
unless the persons who signed them are the
very same persons who executed them and
personally appeared before them to attest to
the contents and truth of what are stated
therein.
(Zaballero
v.
Atty.
Montalvan)
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
routinary act. It converts a private document
into a public instrument, making it admissible in

ONE UP LAW

evidence without the necessity of preliminary

proof of its authenticity and due execution.

Nunga v. Viray (1999)

The SC found Victor Nungas acts to sufficiently
constitute grounds for suspension. He acted as
a notary public in a transaction where a house
(owned by a bank to which he was stockholder
and legal counsel) was sold without bidding to
his son and was then mortgaged. The SC found
that he was not licensed as a notary during this
entire time.

Flores v Chua (1999)

The SC found attorney Chua liable for
misconduct (1) for notarizing a document that
had not been signed in his presence then
passing of the document to the signatorys
widowed wife as a legitimate document. (2)
Misrepresenting himself as counsel through
prematurely publishing a portion of a
questionable decision on appeal.

CANON 2
PROVIDE EFFICIENT
LEGAL SERVICES

AND

CONVENIENT

Canon 2.
A lawyer shall make
his legal services available in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession.
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 latters rights.
Rule 2.03.
A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed to primarily solicit
legal business.
Rule 2.04.
A lawyer shall not charge rates
lower than those customarily prescribed unless
the circumstances so warrant.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

RULE 2.01
NOT TO REJECT OR OPPRESS
DEFENSELESS OR OPPRESSED

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

15 of 158

THE

Rule 2.01.
A lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of
the defenseless or the oppressed.

Sec 1 Art 1 IBP Handbook.

Guidelines Governing the establishment and
Operation of Legal Aid Office. Legal aid is not a
matter of charity. It is a means for the
correction of social imbalance that may and
often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is
a public responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of
public service should, therefore, underlie all
legal aid offices. The same should be
administered
to
indigent
and
deserving
members of the community on all cases,
matters and situations in which legal aid may
be necessary to forestall an injustice.

Rule 14.03.
A lawyer may not
refuse to accept representation of an indigent
unless: (a) he is in no position to carry out the
work effectively or competently or (b) he
labours under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present
client and the prospective client

Ledesma v Climaco (1974)

Ledesma, who was appointed Election Registrar
of his municipality, was not excused from acting
as counsel in criminal proceedings that had
started that same year. Moreover, to avoid the
frustration of the case, especially such as where
the defendants are indigent, a lawyer may be
required to act as a counsel de oficio. The fact
that his services were rendered without
remuneration should not occasion a diminution
of his zeal. Most importantly, the Constitution
blessed the accused with the right to be heard
by himself and by counsel. This manifests the
indispensable role of a lawyer in the defense of
the accused.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

This rule stems from one of the obligations

incident to the status and privileges of a
lawyer which is to represent the poor and
the oppressed in the prosecution of their
claims or the defense of their rights. The
court is empowered to require a lawyer to
render legal service (to designate him/her
as counsel de oficio for an accused if the
latter is unable to employ counsel de
parte).

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines

through its Committee on Legal Aid has
established legal aid offices throughout the
country. Its objective is to provide on a
nationwide basis legal services in favor of

The necessity and the right to legal

representation give rise to the correlative
duty of lawyers to make efficient legal
services conveniently available. A wide gap
between the need for legal services and its
satisfaction exists for two reasons:
(1) poverty and the inability to pay;
(2) ignorance of the need and where to find a
competent and dependable lawyer.
There is also the fear that technicalities of the
law will cause delay and the fear of lawyers who
overcharge

Legal services should be available not only

to those caught up in litigation but those
who need advice to avoid litigation.

ONE UP LAW

the poor segment of society. Their policy is

that legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is
a means for the correction of social
imbalance that may and often do lead to
injustice, which makes it a public
responsibility of the Bar.

RULE 2.04
NO RATES OTHER THAN
CUSTOMARILY CHARGED

Rule 2.04.
A lawyer shall not
charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

RULE 2
NOT TO REFUSE TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE

NOTES
(Agpalo)

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 latters rights.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

A valid reason to refuse is when the lawyer

is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively and competently. However he
shall still render legal advice (such as those
pertaining to preliminary steps a person can
take). But he shall refrain from giving legal
advice if the reason for not accepting the
case is that there involves a conflict of
interest (between him and a prospective
client or between a present client and a
prospective client). In the case mentioned
above, rendering legal advice to the
prospective client will establish an attorneyclient relationship between them and this
will constitute a violation of the rule
prohibiting a lawyer from representing
conflicting interests.

RULE 2.03
NO SOLICITATION

Rule 2.03.
A lawyer shall not do
or permit to be done any act designed to
primarily solicit legal business.

Rule 138, sec. 27.

A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the SC for any
malpractice. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

This is a prohibition on professional

flaunting. Examples of such are lawyers
who recommend their employment or the
employment of a partner, associate, or
member of his legal staff to a non-lawyer
who has not sought his legal advice
regarding employment of a lawyer or
lawyers who pay a person or organization
to recommend or secure their employment
of a client; rewards a person or
organization
for
having
made
a
recommendation that resulted in his
employment by a client.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

16 of 158

What the rule prohibits is the competition in

the matter of charging professional fees for
the purposed of attracting clients in favor of
the lawyer who offers lower rates. The rule
does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a
reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or
to a person who would have difficulty
paying the fee usually charged for such
services.

CANON 3:
INFORMATION ON LEGAL SERVICES THAT
IS TRUE, HONEST, FAIR AND DIGNIFIED

Canon 3.
A lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01.
A lawyer shall not use or
permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading,
deceptive,
undignified,
selflaudatory, 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.
Rule 3.03.
Where a
office, he shall withdraw
name shall be dropped
unless the law allows
concurrently.

partner accepts public

from the firm and his
from the firm name
him to practice law

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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

General Rule: A lawyer cannot advertise.

It is highly unethical for an attorney to
advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. (In Re: Tagorda, 53
Phil 442)
Although advertising is not really malum in
se here are some reasons why it is
prohibited:
member
of
honourable
profession primarily for public service;
different from shopkeeper who advertises
to have private gain; commercialises the

ONE UP LAW

profession,
lowers
public
confidence,
lessens ability to render high character of
service; involves self-praise and puffing
(conscientious and ethical are at the mercy
of braggarts); assertion of fraudulent
claims, corruption, attacks on marital
stability; may increase lawsuits and results
in needless litigation.
Instead, lawyers
should employ methods compatible with the
traditional dignity and in the maintenance
of correct professional standards.
Best
advertising is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity.

Exceptions to this rule (i.e. advertising

which is either expressly allowed or
necessarily implied by restrictions) are the
following: a) publication in reputable law
list with brief biographical and other
informative data which may include name,
associates,
address,
phone
numbers,
branches of law practised, birthday, day
admitted to the bar, schools and dates
attended,
degrees
and
distinctions,
authorships,
teaching
positions,
associations, legal fraternities and societies,
references and regularly represented clients
must be published for that purpose; b) an
ordinary, simple professional card; c)
publication of simple announcement of
opening of law firm, change of firm; d)
telephone
directory
(but
not
under
designation of special branch of law); e) if
acting as an associate (specialising in a
branch of law), may publish a brief and
dignified announcement to lawyers (law list,
law journal); f) working in a public office
(which can be filled only by a lawyer); g)
full time position as corporate counsel; h) if
in media, those acts incidental to his
practise (i.e., not his own initiative); i) write
articles for publication giving information
upon the law (and not individual rights or
advising through column/ TV broadcast, lest
such be considered indirect advertising); j)
if enter into other businesses (which are not
inconsistent with lawyers duties) then it is
advisable that they be entirely separate and
apart such that a layman could distinguish
between the two functions.

RULE 3.01.
NO FALSE OR UNFAIR CLAIM REGARDING
QUALIFICATIONS

Rule 3.01.
A lawyer shall not use
or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading,
deceptive,
undignified,
selflaudatory, or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.

Sec 27 Canon of Professional

Ethics.
Advertising, Direct of IndirectThe most worthy
and effective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

17 of 158

to trust. This cannot be force, but must be the

outcome of character and conduct.
The
publication or circulation of ordinary simple
business cards, being a matter of personal taste
or local custom, and some times of convenience
is not per se improper.
But solicitation of
business by circulars or advertisements, or by
personal relations is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional
to
procure
business
by
indirection through touters of any kind whether
allied real estate firms or trust companies
advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or
wills or offering retainers in exchange for
executorships or trusteeships to be influenced
by the lawyer.
Indirect advertisement for
business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments concerning the manner of their
conduct, the magnitude of the interests
involved, the importance of the lawyers
position, and all other like self-laudation, defy
the traditions and lower the tone of our high
calling and are intolerable.

Sec 46 Canon of Professional

Ethics.
Notice of specialized serviceWhere a lawyer is
engaged in rendering a specialized legal service
directly and only to other lawyers, a brief,
dignified notice of that fact, couched in
language indicating that it is addressed to
lawyers, inserted in legal periodicals and like
publications, when it will afford convenient and
beneficial information to lawyers desiring to
obtain such service, is not improper.
NOTE: The explication of the Canon 3.01 refers
itself back to the rather outdated Canon of
Professional Ethics. (Prof. Jardeleza):

In re Tagorda (1929)

F:
Tagorda was suspended for soliciting
business. Before Tagordas election to the
provincial board of Isabela, he used a card
offering services as an attorney and a notary
public free. The card also stated that he was a
candidate for the provincial board. After his
election, he wrote a letter to the barrio
lieutenant informing him that he would continue
his practice as lawyer and asking that the
lieutenant transmit this information to the
barrio.
H:
Sec. 27 of the Code of Professional
Ethics states that the most worthy and effective
advertisement possible, is the establishment of
a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be
forced but must be the outcome of character
and conduct.
Solicitation
of
business
circulars
or
advertisement, or by personal communication
or interviews not warranted by personal
relations is unprofessional.
Indirect
advertisement
for
business
by
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments
concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interests involved, the

ONE UP LAW

importance of the lawyers position, and all

other like self-laudation, defy the tradition and
lowers the tone of the high calling are
intolerable.
Canon 28 further provides that it is
unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice
to bring a lawsuit, except where ties of blood,
relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Stirring up strife and litigation is not only
unprofessional but is indictable at common law,
and one of the penalties for this offence was
disbarment.
The law is a profession and not a business. The
lawyer may not sell or obtain employment
himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional. It is destructive of the honor of
a great profession. It lowers the standards of
that profession. It works against the confidence
of the community and it results in needless
litigation.

Ulep v Legal Clinic (1993)

supra at introduction
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement
of facts. Lawyers should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment.
The standards of the legal profession condemn
the lawyers advertisement of his talent, this
rest on the fundamental postulate that the
practice of law is a profession. The lawyer
degrades himself and his profession who stoops
to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by
advertising his services or offering them to the
public.
Not all types of advertising or solicitation are
prohibited. The exceptions are of two broad
categories, those, which are expressly allowed,
and those, which are necessarily implied from
the restrictions. The first of such exceptions is
the publication in reputable law lists, in a
manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, or brief
biographical and informative data

Khan v. Simbillo (2003)

F:
Atty. Simbillo was found guilty for
violating Rule 2.03 and 3.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and sec. 27 Rule
138, of the Rules of Court for advertising his
services in a Philippine Daily Inquirer ad which
read Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532433/521-2667.
H:
The solicitation of legal business is not
altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation
to be proper, it must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession. If it were made
in a modest and decorous manner, it would
bring no injury to the law and to the bar. The
use of simple signs stating the name or names
of the lawyers, the office, and the residence
address and fields of practice, as well as
advertisements in legal periodicals bearing the
same brief data and the use of calling cards are

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

18 of 158

permissible. The publication in reputable law

lists, in a manner consistent with the standards
of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief
biographical and informative data is likewise
allowed. But a lawyer may not properly publish
his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society
program (Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.).
Director of Religious Affairs v Bayot
(1944)
Bayot was reprimanded for publishing an
announcement
in
the
Sunday
Tribune
advertising his services in getting a marriage
license and in arranging marriages and his free
legal consultation for the poor.
RULE 3.02
NO FALSE OR MISLEADING FIRM NAME

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.

Dacanay v Baker and McKenzie

(1985)
F:
Because Baker and McKenzie is an alien
law firm not authorized to practice law in the
Philippines, the respondents were enjoined from
using
the
name
as
it
constituted
a
misrepresentation.
H:
The respondents use of the firm name
constitutes
a
representation
that
being
associated with Baker and McKenzie they could
render legal services to the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others
engaged in foreign trade and investment. This
is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not
authorized to practice law here.

In the Matter of the Petition for

Authority to Continue Use of the Firm
Name Ozaeta, Romulo, de Leon, etc. and
Petition for Authority to Continue Use of
Firm Name Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, etc.
(1979)
F:
Surviving partners cannot continue to
use the names of the deceased partners. The
Court held, amongst others, that:
H:
Continued use will run counter to Art.
1815 CC which tacitly provides that names in a
firm name of a partnership must be those of
living partners and, in case of non-partners,
should be living persons who can be subject to
liability. The public relations value of the use of
an old firm name can create undue advantage
and disadvantage in the practice of the
profession.
Canon 33 does not consider the act unethical
when such practice is permissible by local
custom but it warns that care should be taken
to avoid deception. In the Philippines, no local

ONE UP LAW

custom permits or allows the continued use of a

deceased partners name because here, the
practice is to identify the more active and/or
more senior members or partners of the law
firm.
The practice is allowed in the U.S. because it is
sanctioned by custom. Here, there is no local
custom allowing such. In this case, where a
previous SC decision has laid the rule against
the continued use of a deceased partners
name, no custom or practice, even if proven,
can prevail.

Local government officials: prohibited

Sanggunian: may, except

(1) civil case with LGU/ government is the
adverse party;
(2) criminal case when officer of the LGU is
accused in relation to office;
(3) Not collect any fee for appearance in
administrative proceeding;
(4) not use property of government except
when defending government interest

Civil service officers: with consent from

head of department (written)

RULE 3.03
PARTNERS ASSUMING PUBLIC OFFICE

*isolated case (even if prohibited): counsel

for relative/ close family friend

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 concurrently.

totally unauthorized to practice law:

includes disbarred and suspended estafa!

Legal remedies: injunction, declaratory

relief,
contempt,
disqualification,
disbarment, estafa, administrative case

Const, art. VI, sec. 14. [limitation] No

Senator or member of the House of
Representative may personally appear before
any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunal,
or
quasi-judicial
and
other
administrative bodies
Const,
art.
VII,
sec.
13.
[prohibition] The President, VicePresident, the members of the cabinet and
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided
in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall
not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly
practice any profession

Const, Art. IX, Sec. 2. [prohibition]

No member of a Constitutional Commission
shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the
practice of any profession
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Public office is public trust, expected to

perform
with
highest
degree
of
responsibility,
integrity,
loyalty
and
efficiency, exclusive fidelity

Absolutely
prohibited:
judges,
court
employees, Solicitor General, prosecution
officers, President, Vice-President, cabinet,
deputies and assistants (cabinet), members
of Constitutional Commissions, civil service
officers whose jobs require full time
devotion to the government

Legislators: not absolutely prohibited

only prohibited from appearing as counsel
before court of justice, Electoral Tribunals,
quasi-judicial, other administrative bodies
prohibited: appearance in court and
other bodies (includes arguing, filing a
pleading, including him in firm name)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

19 of 158

Samonte v. Gatdula (1999)

The SC found it improper that the name of
Rolando Gatdula, a branch clerk of court,
appears on the calling card of a firm. The Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees declares that it is
unlawful for a public official or employee to,
among others: engage in the private practice
of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with official
functions.
RULE 3.04.
NO USE OF MEDIA TO ATTRACT BUSINESS

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.

En Banc Resolution (1991)

Spurred by Art Borjals letter to CJ Fernan
regarding the live TV and radio coverage of the
hearing of Ppl v Beltran where Pres. Aquino
took the witness stand and Judge Makasiars
letter of response denying that he had given
such permission to the Presidential Broadcast
Staff, the SC passed the following resolution:
Considering the prejudice it poses to the
defendants right to due process as well as to
the fair and orderly administration of justice,
and considering further that the freedom of the
press and the right of the people to information
may be served and satisfied by less distracting,
degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and
television coverage of court proceedings shall
not be allowed.
Video footages for news
purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots
of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the
parties and their counsel taken prior to the
commencement of official proceedings.
No

ONE UP LAW

video shots or photographs shall be permitted

during the trial proper.

public: to make the law a part of its social

consciousness

CANON 4:
PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPMENT:
SUPPORT
LEGAL
REFORMS
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

AND

Members of the IBP, except those exempt

under Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850
(Mandatory Continuing Legal Education),
are required every 3 years to complete at
least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities, with appropriate penalties for
failure to do so. (Agpalo)

Canon 4.
A
lawyer
shall
participate in development of the legal system
by initiating reform and in the improvement of
the administration of justice.

Bar
Continuing
ANNEXED

AGPALO
(notes)

CANON 6:
CANONS
APPLY
TO
GOVERNMENT SERVICE

While the lawyers task in contributing to

the improvement of the legal system is not
a matter of strict duty, it is a duty
nevertheless that flows from the lawyers
sense
of
public
responsibility.
The
improvement of the legal system cannot,
however, be done by dreaming in a
vacuum. The lawyer must recognize that
the law is a part of vast social network and
whether he likes it or not, he has to interact
with the rest of society. There is thus the
need on the part of the lawyer to transcend
the narrow limits of technical law.
Intricately woven is the law with the social
fabric that the legal profession cannot
afford to confine itself to narrowly technical
legal questions. A lawyer must broaden out
and continue to grow in knowledge and
competence in order to be able to make the
law socially responsive. (Agpalo)

CANON 5:
PARTICIPATE IN LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAM

Canon 5.
A lawyer shall keep
abreast of legal developments, participate in
continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve highest standards in law
schools as well as in the practical training of law
students and assist in disseminating information
regarding law and jurisprudence.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Service in the judiciary and being in the

active practice of law require continuing
study and research on the law from
beginning to end.
A lawyer incurs a three-fold obligation
after admission to practice: To himself:
to continue improving his knowledge of the
law: to his profession: to take an active
interest in the maintenance of high
standards of legal obligation; to the lay

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

20 of 158

Matter
850Mandatory
Legal
Education
(MCLE)

LAWYERS

IN

Canon 6. These Canons shall apply to

lawyers in government service in the discharge
of their official duties.
Rule 6.01.
The primary duty of a lawyer 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 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.
Rule 6.03.
A lawyer shall not, after
leaving
government
service,
accept
engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had interned.

RA 6713, (Code of Conduct and

Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees.)Sec. 4(A) Norms of Conduct of
Public Officials and Employees.
(A)
Every
public
official and employee shall observe the
following as standards of personal conduct
in the discharge and execution of official
duties:
(a) Commitment to public interest. - Public
officials and employees shall always
uphold the public interest over and
above personal interest. All government
resources
and
powers
of
their
respective offices must be employed
and
used
efficiently,
effectively,
honestly and economically, particularly
to avoid wastage in public funds and
revenues.
(b) Professionalism. - Public officials and
employees shall perform and discharge
their duties with the highest degree of
excellence, professionalism, intelligence
and skill. They shall enter public service
with utmost devotion and dedication to
duty. They shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as

ONE UP LAW

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

dispensers or peddlers of undue

patronage.
Justness and sincerity. - Public officials
and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with
justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially
the poor and the underprivileged. They
shall at all times respect the rights of
others, and shall refrain from doing
acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order,
public safety and public interest. They
shall not dispense or extend undue
favors on account of their office to their
relatives whether by consanguinity or
affinity
except
with
respect
to
appointments of such relatives to
positions considered strictly confidential
or as members of their personal staff
whose terms are coterminous with
theirs.
Political neutrality. - Public officials and
employees shall provide service to
everyone without unfair discrimination
and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.
Responsiveness to the public. - Public
officials and employees shall extend
prompt, courteous, and adequate
service to the public. Unless otherwise
provided by law or when required by
the public interest, public officials and
employees shall provide information of
their policies and procedures in clear
and understandable language, ensure
openness
of
information,
public
consultations and hearings whenever
appropriate, encourage suggestions,
simplify and systematize policy, rules
and procedures, avoid red tape and
develop
an
understanding
and
appreciation of the socio-economic
conditions prevailing in the country,
especially in the depressed rural and
urban areas.
Nationalism and patriotism. - Public
officials and employees shall at all
times be loyal to the Republic and to
the Filipino people, promote the use of
locally produced goods, resources and
technology and encourage appreciation
and pride of country and people. They
shall endeavor to maintain and defend
Philippine sovereignty against foreign
intrusion.
Commitment to democracy. - Public
officials and employees shall commit
themselves to the democratic way of
life and values, maintain the principle
of public accountability, and manifest
by deeds the supremacy of civilian
authority over the military. They shall
at all times uphold the Constitution and
put loyalty to country above loyalty to
persons or party.
Simple living. - Public officials and
employees and their families shall lead
modest lives appropriate to their
positions and income. They shall not

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

21 of 158

indulge in extravagant or ostentatious

display of wealth in any form.
Collantes v. Renomeron (1991)
Atty. Renomeron was dismissed from office
because, in his capacity as Register of Deeds,
he refused to register deeds for V & G Better
Homes Subdivision unless the latter should
either provide him with weekly round trip
tickets from Tacloban to Manila complete with
pocket money or sell on his behalf a piece of
property in QC.

Misconduct as public official constitutes a

violation of his oath as a lawyer. The Code
of Professional Responsibility applies to
lawyers in govt service in the discharge of
their official tasks (Canon 6) and forbids a
lawyer from unlawful conduct (1.01). Also
note that a lawyer shall not delay any
mans cause for any corrupt motive or
interest (1.03)

RULE 6.01.
PRIMARY DUTY: THAT JUSTICE IS DONE

Rule 6.01.
The primary duty of a
lawyer 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
In General

A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer

who represents, not an ordinary party to a
controversy,
but
sovereignty.
This
sovereignty has its obligation to govern
impartially. Therefore, the interest in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win
a case but that justice shall be done.

The public prosecutor owes the State, the

court, and the accused the duty to lay
before the court the pertinent facts at his
disposal with methodical and meticulous
attention. He should clarify contradictions
and fill up gaps in his evidence so that
there would be no doubt in the courts
mind.

Prosecutors should avoid giving the

impression that their office is being used for
political ends or for other purposes that
contravene the objective of serving justice
impartially regardless of who the litigants
are. The image of impartiality is achieved
by strict adherence to the established
procedures.

A prosecutor should prosecute with

earnestness and vigor but must keep in

ONE UP LAW

mind that the primary objective is not to

win but to serve justice: Guilt shall not
escape nor innocence suffer.
The public prosecutor should not

use improper methods calculated to

produce a wrongful conviction (to use
legitimate means to bring about just ones);

offer proof of accuseds guilt illegally

acquired; suppress facts nor conceal
witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused;

consent to any undue delay in the

prosecution; deprive a person of his
statutory or legal rights; assert his personal
knowledge of a crime (he must withdraw as
a prosecutor and take the witness stand to
be cross-examined);

assist in the escape of a prisoner;

institute a criminal
settlement of a case;

agree to refrain form prosecuting a person

in consideration of a reward;

action

to

force

receive money from dismissing a complaint;

induce an accused to plead guilty;

willfully fail to prosecute violations of law or

lose records thereof; have a secret law
partner with whom he divides the fees;

hesitate to recommend to the court the

accuseds acquittal if the evidence in his
possession shows that the accused is
innocent.

However,
a
prosecutor
enjoys
the
presumption that he is learned in the law,
that he has high morality, and that he had
performed his duties with impartiality.

Role of a private prosecutor:

The general rule is that an offended party

has the right to intervene in the prosecution
of a crime except in the following instances
(Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court in connection with Section 5):
1. When from the nature of the crime and
the law defining and punishing it no
civil liability arises his favor;
2. When he has waived his right to civil
indemnity or has expressly reserved his
right to institute a civil action or he has
already instituted such action.

The role of the private prosecutor is to

represent the offended party with respect
to the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense.
His/her duty does not include demanding
punishment. If the case is dismissed, the
private prosecutor may not file a motion for
reconsideration. Such a duty belongs solely
to the public prosecutor.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

22 of 158

The offended party may not withdraw the

civil case already filed so that he/she can
intervene in the criminal case.

The offended partys standing in a criminal

case is only that of a witness once a
separate civil case is filed.

Subject to Control of Public Prosecutor

Intervention by a private lawyer is subject

to prosecutors control.

The public prosecutor is required to be

present the proceedings and must at any
time take over the conduct of the trial from
the private prosecutor.

The prosecutors presence is necessary for

the validity of evidence to be presented as
an evidence of the People of the Philippines.

This applies only to court which are

provided by law with their own prosecutors,
and not to municipal courts which have no
trial prosecutors.

HOWEVER,
the
Supreme
Court
has
amended Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court (effective May 1, 2002): in case of
heavy work schedule or in the even of lack
of public prosecutors, a private prosecutor
may be authorized in writing by the Chief
Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to
the approval of the court. The authority
may be revoked or withdrawn. A private
prosecutor, being under the direction and
control of the public prosecutor may not
take a stand different from that of the
latter.

When a public prosecutor should take over

handling of case. A public prosecutor should
not allow the trial in the hands of a private
prosecutor to degenerate into a private
prosecution (turns out to be a gratification
of private malice or the accomplishment of
a private gain or advantage)

Suarez v Platon (1940)

F: Lt. Orais arrested and incarcerated Atty.

Suarez for uttering seditious words. The
following day, he moved for the dismissal of the
case against Suarez on the motion of his
superior. Suarez charged Orais with illegal
detention. Judge Platon, however, dismissed the
case on the basis of the public prosecutors
recommendation of such.
The SC upheld
Platons decision.
H: (Laurel J.) We cannot overemphasize the
necessity of close scrutiny and investigation of
prosecuting officers of all cases handled by
them, but whilst this court is averse to any form
of vacillation by such officers in the prosecution
of public offenses, it is unquestionable that they
may in appropriate cases, in order to do justice
and avoid injustice, reinvestigate cases in which
they have already filed the corresponding

ONE UP LAW

information.
In the language of Justice
Sutherland of the US SC, the prosecuting officer
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
twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not
escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute
with earnestness and vigorindeed, he should
do so, but, while he may strike hard blows, he
is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as
much his duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it
is to use every legitimate means to bring about
a just one.

People v Pineda (1967)

F: Narbada, Alindo and Borres stood indicted as
principals in five separate cases for murder and
frustrated murder. Five separate informations
were filed by the prosecuting attorney from his
investigation.
Two of the three defendants
moved for a consolidation of the five cases into
one criminal case because the said cases arose
out of the same incident and motivated by one
impulse. Judge Pineda granted the petition and
ordered the other four cases to be dropped. The
City Fiscal disagreed with the finding of the
judge.
H: The benefit of the doubt belongs to the
prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney
is under no compulsion to file a particular
criminal information where he is not convinced
that he has evidence to prop up the averments
thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a
different conclusion. But we must have to
recognise that a prosecuting attorney should
not be duly compelled to work against his
conviction. We should give him the benefit of
the doubt. The prosecuting attorney, being the
one charged with the prosecution of offences,
should determine the information to be filed
and cannot be controlled by the offended party.
The impact of Judge Pinedas order is that his
judgment substitutes the prosecutors on the
matter of what crime is to be filed in court.
Nevertheless, a judge may, by a relief in
equity, stop a purported enforcement of
criminal law where
(1) it is needed for the orderly administration of
justice,
(2) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the
law in an oppressive and vindictive manner,
(3) to avoid multiplicity of actions,
(4)
to
afford
adequate
protection
to
constitutional rights and
(5) because the statute relied upon is
unconstitutional or was held invalid.
The present case does not fall under any of
these exceptions, thus the order of the judge
must be set aside.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

23 of 158

RULE 6.02
NOT TO USE PUBLIC POSITION FOR
PRIVATE INTEREST

Rule 6.02.
A
lawyer
in
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.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

This rule applies to lawyers in government

service, who are allowed by law to engage
in private law practice and to those who,
though prohibited from engaging in the
practice of law, have friends, former
associates, and relatives who are in the
active practice of law.

The lawyer must not use his public office to

further his law practice. He should not
accept any private legal business in conflict
with his official duties and if such a case
arises he must terminate his professional
relationship, explaining to his client that his
public duty must prevail.

If he is prohibited from practicing his

profession, he must not do so indirectly by
being a silent partner in a law firm or by
securing legal business for a friend or a
former associate in the active practice of
law, and receiving a share in the fees for
his effort.

The following principles complement the

code of conduct (Public officials shall NOT):

own, control, manage or accept

employment as officer, employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly
allowed by law;

engage in the private practice of their

profession unless authorized by the
constitution or law (will not conflict with
his/her official functions);

recommend any person to any position

in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction
with their office; and

use or divulge confidential information

officially known to them by reason of
their office (not available to the public)
to further private interest, to give
undue advantage anyone or to the
prejudice of public interest.

Misamin v San Juan (1976)

F: Atty. San Juan, a captain of the MM Police

force and a member of the bar was charged
with coercing an employee, Misamin, to agree
to drop charges filed against his employer Tan

ONE UP LAW

Hua for violation of the Minimum Wage Law.

The case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
H: While the charges have to be dismissed, still
it would not be inappropriate for respondent to
avoid
all
appearances
of
impropriety.
Respondent, in his future actuations as a
member of the bar, should refrain from laying
himself open to such doubts and misgivings as
to his fitness not only for the position occupied
by him but also for membership in the bar. He
is not worthy of membership in an honorable
profession who does not even take care that his
honor remains unsullied.

Vitriolo v. Dasig (1973)?

H: The SC disbarred Atty. Felina Dasig, the OIC
of the Legal Affairs Service of CHED, for making
unlawful demands to extort money from certain
people who had pending applications in her
office for correction of names. Generally
speaking, a lawyer who holds a government
office may not be disciplined as a member of
the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties as government official. However, if said
misconduct as a government official also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer
then he may be disciplined by this Court as a
member of the Bar. The Attorneys Oath is the
source of obligation and duties of every lawyer
and any violation thereof is a ground for
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary
action. Respondents demands for sums of
money to facilitate the processing of pending
applications before her office violates such duty
and runs afoul of the oath she took when
admitted to the Bar. A member of the Bar who
assumes public office does not shed his
professional obligation. The CPR was not meant
to govern the conduct of private petitioners
alone, but of all lawyers including those in
government service. Lawyers in government are
public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to
the public service. Thus they have to be mores
sensitive
in
the
performance
of
their
professional obligations. Respondents attempts
to extort money from persons with applications
or requests pending before her office are
volatile of Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers
from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest or
deceitful acts. These acts also constitute a
breach of rule 6.02 which bars lawyers in
government service from promoting their
private interests. A lawyer in public service is a
keeper of public faith and is burdened with a
high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher than her brethren in private practice.

RULE 6.03.
NOT TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT
GOVERNMENT SERVICE

AFTER

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.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

24 of 158

RA 3019, Sec. 3(d) (Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act). In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful: (d) Accepting
or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.

RA 6713, Sec. 7(b). In addition to

acts and omissions of public officials and
employees not prescribed in the Constitution
and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public
official and employee and are hereby declared
to be unlawful: (b) Outside employment and
other activities related thereto.Public officials
and employees during their incumbency shall
not:
1) Own,
control,
manage
or
accept
employment
as
officer
employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee
or nominee / in any private enterprise
regulated, supervised or licensed by their
office / unless expressly allowed by law;
2) Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions; or
3) Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or
pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a
period of 1 year after resignation, retirement or
separation from public office, / except in case of
subparagraph (2) above, / but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in
connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with, / in which case the one year
prohibition shall likewise apply.

RA 910 Sec. 1 (condition of

pension). No retiring justice or judge of a court
of record or city or municipal judge during the
time that he is receiving said pension shall
appear as counsel in any court in any civil case
where in the govt. or any of its subdivisions or
instrumentalities is an adverse party, in a
criminal case were an officer or employee of the
govt. is accused of an offense related to his
official function, or collect any fee for his
appearance in any administrative proceedings
to maintain an interest adverse to the govt.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The restriction in Rule 6.02 extends beyond

his/her tenure on certain matters in which
he has intervened as a public official.

Any matter and he had intervened in

Rule 6.03 are very broad terms which

ONE UP LAW

include any conceivable subject in which he

acted in his official capacity.

Chapter 2
The Lawyer and the
Legal Profession

PNB v Cedo (1995)

Atty. Cedo was found guilty of violating 6.O3 for
handling a case involving transactions he had
handled for his previous employer, PNB. The
Rule on Conflicting Interests applies.

CANON 7:
UPHOLD THE DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY OF
THE PROFESSION

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.
Rule 7.01.
A lawyer shall be answerable
for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02.
A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in
respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03.
A lawyer shall not engage
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
private life, behave in a scandalous manner
the discredit of the legal profession.

in
to
or
to

NOTES
(Agabin)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

25 of 158

Maintenance by the bar of a high standard

of legal proficiency as well as honesty and
fair dealing is a prerequisite to making the
bar an effective instrument in the proper
administration of justice.

But the bar can only be as reputable as its

members hence, it is necessary that every
lawyer should strive at all times to uphold
the honor and maintain the dignity of the
legal profession and to improve not only the
law but the administration of justice as
well.

More than just paying IBP Membership

dues, a lawyer should help achieve
objectives and purposes of the IBP, i.e.,

assist in the administration of justice;

foster and maintain on the part of its

members high ideals of integrity,
learning,
professional
competence,
public service and conduct;

safeguard the professional interests of

its members;

cultivate among its members a spirit of

cordiality and brotherhood;

ONE UP LAW

provide a forum for the discussion of

law,
jurisprudence,
law
reform,
pleading, practice and procedure and
the relations of the bar thereto;
encourage and foster legal education;
promote a continuing program of legal
research in substantive and adjective
law,
and
make
reports
and
recommendations thereon.

In re: 1989 Election of the IBP

(1989)
F:
The SC annulled the IBP Elections and
ordered the holding of special elections and
declared the candidates in the June 3, 1989, as
ineligible for any IBP position in the special
elections. The Court based its conclusion upon
the following findings: prohibited campaigning
and solicitation of votes by the candidates; use
of PNP plane in the campaign of Atty. Drilon;
formation of tickets and single slates; giving
free transportation to out-of-town delegates and
alternates; giving free hotel accommodations,
food, drinks, entertainment to delegates;
campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Drilon
(her husband is the Labor Secretary); paying
the dues of other indebtedness of any member
(sec. 14(e) IBP By-Laws); distribution of
materials other than bio-data of not more than
one-page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec.
14(a), IBP By-laws); causing distribution of
such statement to be done by persons other
than those authorized by the officer presiding at
the election (Sec. 14 (b), IBP By-Laws);
inducing or influencing a member to withhold
his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate
(Sec. 14 (e), IBP By-Laws).
H:
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it
is non-political in character and that there shall
be neither lobbying nor campaigning in the
choice of the IBP Officers. The fundamental
assumption is that the officers would be chosen
on the basis of professional merit and
willingness and ability to serve. The candidates
and many of the participants in the election
process not only violated the By-Laws of the
IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession
which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of
their obligation to obey and uphold the
constitution and the laws, the duty to promote
respect for law and legal processes and to
abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. (Rule 1.02) The unseemly ardor with
which the candidates pursued the presidency of
the association detracted from the dignity of the
legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers
bribing or being bribed to vote did not uphold
the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the
publics esteem.

Santos v. Llamas (2000)

F:
The
SC
suspended
Llamas
for
nonpayment of IBP dues and for using the same
IBP O.R. Nos. and data for 3 years. Llamas
justified his nonpayment of IBP dues by
claiming that he had a limited practice of law,
being a farmer by occupation, and that since

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

26 of 158

19992, he is exempt from payment of taxes as

a senior citizen.
H: In accordance with Sections 9 and 10 of
Rule 139-A ROC, Llamas can engage in the
practice of law only by paying his dues, and it
does not matter if his practice is limited. While
it is true that RA 7432 section 4 grants senior
citizens exemption from payment of individual
income taxes: provided, that their annual
taxable income does not exceed the poverty
level as determined by NEDA for that year, the
exemption does not include payment of
membership or association dues.

Re: 2003 Bar Examinations (2004)

F: After a rumored leakage concerning the
mercantile bar exam of 2003, the SC spread out
the weight of mercantile law among the
remaining 7 subjects. An investigation into the
matter revealed that 75% of the questions on
mercantile law were prepared by bar examiner
Atty. Marcial Balgos. 25% were prepared by
Justice Vitug. Those questions prepared by
Justice Vitug were not among the leaked
questions. Bar examiner Atty. Balgos explained
that he prepared the test questions for that
subject using his personal computer but that he
does not know how to use his PC, except to
type on it. His private secretary turns his PC on
and shuts it down for him. Only two people
know the PCs passwordhis secretary and the
office manager Silvestre Atienza (2 nd year
student at MLQU). Atty. Balgos thought that he
alone could access his PC and was surprised to
find that it was fact interconnected with the
other computers in the law office. Atty. Balgos
found out that Atienza was responsible for
interconnecting Atty. Balgos PC without the
latters permission. Atienza is a member of the
Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity in MLQU. He said
that he participated in his fraternitys bar-ops
but only in bringing food to the examinees.
Another member of the fraternity and of the law
firm, Atty. Danilo De Guzman, admitted that he
downloaded the test questions from Atty.
Balgos PC and faxed a copy to his fraternity
brother.
H: Atty. de Guzmans act of downloading the
test questions from Atty. Balgos PC without the
latters knowledge and permission was a
criminal act of larceny. It was theft of
intellectual property. He transgressed the very
first canon of the Lawyers Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
obey the laws of the land. By transmitting and
distributing the stolen questions to his fraternity
brothers, he had given them undue advantage
over the other examiners.
He has violated
canons 1.01 and 7 of the CPR. He is guilty of
grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the
Bar. He had impaired public respect for the
court and damaged the integrity of the bar
examinations as the final measure of a law
graduates academic preparedness to embark in
the practice of law.
All this could have been avoided had Atty.
Balgos exercised due diligence in safeguarding

ONE UP LAW

the secrecy of the test questions. He relied too

much on his secretary. He should have typed
the test questions using his typewriter in the
privacy of his own home.
Atty. Balgos
negligence in the preparation and safe-keeping
of his proposed test questions was not the
proximate cause for the leakage, it was the root
cause.
The SC ruled that Atty. de Guzman be disbarred
for being morally unfit to continue as a member
of the legal profession, grave dishonesty, lack of
integrity and criminal behavior and found that
he should make a written public apology and
pay damages to the Supreme Court.
Atty.
Balgos was likewise reprimanded and required
to make a written apology.

Letter of Atty. Cecilia Arevalo

(2005)
F: The SC turned down Atty. Arevalos request
for exemption from IBP dues amounting to P12,
035 for the period 1977-2005 explaining that
after joining the Philippine Bar in 1961, he
became part of the Civil Service (hence, he
could not be assessed his IBP dues having been
prohibited from practice of law while in
government service) and in 1986, he migrated
to the US where he worked.
H: Organized by or under the direction of the
State, an Integrated Bar is an official national
body of which all lawyers are required to be
membersthey are, therefore subject to all the
rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including the payment of a reasonable annual
fee for the effective discharge of the purposes
of the Bar, and adherence to a code of
professional ethics or professional responsibility.
The integration of the Phil. Bar means the
unification of the entire lawyer population
requiring membership and financial support of
every attorney as condition sine qua non to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in
the Roll of Attorneys of the SC. Bar integration
does not compel the lawyer to associate.
The only compulsion is the payment of annual
dues which, the SC, in order to foster the
States legitimate interest in elevating the
quality of professional legal services, may
require to be shared by all the subjects and
beneficiaries the lawyers.
The fee is a
regulatory measure not barred by the
Constitution. The only limitation is that the
regulation
should
not
impose
an
unconstitutional burden. The public interest far
outweighs the slight inconvenience to a
member. The compulsory nature of payment of
dues subsists for as long as ones membership
in the IBP remains, regardless of the extent of
practice of a lawyer. There is no exemption. As
pointed out by IBP, Atty. Arevalo could have
informed the Sec. of the Bar of his intention to
stay abroad, in which case his IBP membership
could have been terminated and oblige to pay
annual dues discontinued. Citing In re Atty.
Marcial Edillon: The practice of law is not a
property right but a mere privilege, and as such
must bow to the inherent regulatory power of
the court to exact compliance with the lawyers
public responsibilities. Membership in the bar is

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

27 of 158

a privilege burdened with conditions, one of

which is the payment of membership dues.

7.01
NO FALSE STATEMENT

Rule 7.01
A lawyer shall be
answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact, in
connection with his application for admission to
the bar.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Observance
of
the
duties
and
responsibilities of a lawyer begins even as a
law student. A students failure to live up to
them may be a ground for SC to refuse
admission to practice or for disbarment
should SC learn later on about his/her
transgressions.

RULE 7.02
NOT TO SUPPORT
APPLICANT

UNQUALIFIED

BAR

Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the

application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in
respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer should not readily execute an

affidavit of good moral character in favor of
an applicant who has not live up to the
standard set by law.

He
should
volunteer
information
or
cooperate in any investigation concerning
alleged anomaly in the bar examination.
This is to help guard the profession from
candidates who are unfit or unqualified.

He should expose without fear or favor

before the SC corrupt or dishonest conduct
in the profession and should not hesitate to
accept professional employment against a
lawyer who has wronged his client.

RULE 7.03
NO CONDUCT ADVERSELY AFFECTING
THE PROFESSION

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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

ONE UP LAW

The best way a lawyer can uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession
is not to engage in any conduct or do any
act that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor to behave, in his public or
private life, in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. (it can be
likened to a shield in defense of rights and
to ward off wrong)

Zaguirre v. Castillo (2003)

F: Zaguirre and Castillo were officemates at the
NBI. Zaguirre said that Castillo represented
himself to be single, courted her and promised
her marriage. Soon they had intimate relations
and Zaguirre became pregnant. During their
affair, Castillo was preparing for the bar exam
which he passed. Only after Castillo was
admitted to the Bar did Zaguirre learn that he
was married. She presented an affidavit
executed by Castillo, who by now is a lawyer
admitting his relationship with her and
recognizing the baby she was carrying as his.
However, when she gave birth, Castillo refused
to recognize the child and to give her any form
of support. Castillo denied all her allegations
and said that what transpired between them
was nothing but mutual lust and desire. He
admitted that he executed the affidavit but
explained that he only did so to save Zaguirre
from embarrassment. He sought understanding
from the court by pointing out that men by
nature are polygamous. The SC indefinitely
suspended him from the practice of law for
gross immoral conduct. (He was not disbarred
because the Court took notice of the fact that
he severed his ties with Zaguirre and now lives
with his wife and children.)
H: Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual
congress with a woman not his wife and refuses
to recognize and support a child whom he
previously recognized and promised to support.
Clearly therefore, he violated the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and
should be disciplined accordingly. Atty. Castillos
defenses are not feasible. What is in question in
a case like this is respondents fitness to be a
member of the legal profession. In a
disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the
complainant is aware of his marital status or
that he was not caught in pari delicto because
this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the
complainant but one to purge the law
profession of unworthy members, to protect the
public and the court. Possession of good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain
ones good standing in the profession.
Complainants admission to practice merely
creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all
the qualifications to become a lawyer.

CANON 8
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

28 of 158

Canon 8.
A lawyer shall conduct
himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall
avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel.
Rule 8.01.
A
lawyer
shall
not,
in
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Observance of honorable, candid and

courteous dealings with other lawyers and
fidelity to known and recognized customs
and practices of the bar that make the
practice of law a profession are among the
obligations of a lawyer.

Candor, fairness and truthfulness should

characterize the conduct of a lawyer with
other lawyers.

A lawyers duty is to restrain client from

improprieties and to terminate relation with
him/her should the latter persist.

A lawyer should not avoid performance of

an agreement fairly made because it is not
reduced to writing. He should not take
advantage of the excusable unpreparedness
or absence of counsel during the trial of a
case. Nor should he make use, to his or to
his clients benefit, the secrets of the
adverse party acquired thru design or
inadvertence.

A lawyer who thinks a case is weak may not

criticize the lawyer who accepts it, much
less should he attribute to him/her evil
motive for taking up the clients cause.
Such action is not only immaterial but
betrays lack of understanding of attys
duties to client.

Although respect and confidence is due to

every colleague, it is not improper for a
lawyer to honor the just claim of a layman
against another lawyer because such act is
a mere honest effort to serve the interest of
his/her client.

Camacho v. Pangulayan (2000)

F: The counsel [our very own Prof. Manuel
Camacho] of expelled AMA students filed this
complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pagulayan and Associates Law Office for
procuring without his knowledge compromise
agreements during the civil case involving the

ONE UP LAW

students and the school.

The agreements
required the students to waive all kinds of
claims they might have against AMA and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings filed against it. The students also
wrote letters of apology.
Atty. Pangulayan
admits that only he participated in the
formulation and execution of the various ReAdmission Agreements complained of. He
alleges however that the agreements had
nothing to do with the civil case but were purely
administrative.
The
SC
suspended
Atty.
Pangulayan from the practice of law for three
months.

RULE 8.01
NOT TO ENCROACH ON
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT

H: The IBP found that Atty. Pangulayan was

aware that when the letters of apology and ReAdmission Agreements were formalized, the
complainant was already the counsel for the
students in the civil case but that he still
proceeded to negotiate with the students and
their parents without at the very least
communicating the matter to their lawyer. His
failure is an inexcusable violation of the canons
of professional ethics and an utter disregard of
a duty owing to a colleague. His defense that
the agreements were purely administrative does
not hold because the manifestation stated that
the students shall drop all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings against AMA.

A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers

client nor induce the latter to retain him by
promise of better service, good result or
reduced fees for his services. Neither
should
he
disparage
another, make
comparisons or publicize his talent as a
means to further his law practice.

He may accept employment to handle a

matter previously handled by another
lawyer, provided that the other lawyer has
been given notice of termination of service.
Without such notice, he shall only appear
once he has obtained conformity or has, at
the very least, given sufficient notice of
contemplated substitution. A lawyers
appearance in the case without notice to
the first lawyer amounts to an improper
encroachment
upon
the
professional
employment of the original counsel.

The purpose is for the original lawyer to

assert his/her right but the latter cannot
insist
that
the
new
lawyer
refuse
employment in the matter merely because
he claims the termination of his services is
a breach of contract. To do so would be to
deny litigant of the right to be represented
at all times of his counsel of choice.

A lawyer should not, in the absence of the

adverse partys counsel, interview the
adverse party and question him as to the
facts of the case even if the adverse party
was willing to do so. Neither should he
sanction the attempt of his client to settle a
litigated matter with the adverse party
without the consent nor knowledge of the
latters counsel. (cf. Canon 9)

A clients proffer of assistance of additional

counsel should not be regarded as evidence
of want of confidence but the matter should
be left to the determination of the client.
The 2nd lawyer should communicate with
the 1st before making an appearance.
Should the 1st lawyer object, he should
decline association but if the 1 st lawyer is
relieved, he may come into the case.

When there is conflict of opinions between

two lawyers jointly associated in a case, the
client should decide. The decision should be
accepted unless the nature of the difference
makes it impracticable for the lawyer whose
judgment has been overruled to cooperate

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.
NOTES
Agpalo

RULE 8.01
NO ABUSIVE AND IMPROPER LANGUAGE

Rule 8.01.
A lawyer shall not, in
professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
NOTES
Agpalo

Do as adversaries do in law: strive mightily

but eat and drink as friends should
characterize the
relationship between
opposing counsel in a case. Whatever illfeelings
between
clients
should
not
influence counsel in their conduct and
demeanor toward each other.

The fact that one of the lawyers conducts

him/herself improperly does not relieve the
other from professional obligation in his
relation with him/her.

The highest reward that can come to a

lawyer is the esteem of his/her brethren. It
is won in unique conditions and is a tribute
to
exceptional
power
controlled
by
conscience and a sense of public dutyto a
knightly bearing and valor in the hottest of
encounters.

Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr., 405 SCRA 212

Any undue ill-feeling between clients
should not influence counsels in their conduct
and demeanor toward each other. While lawyers
owe entire devotion to the interest of their
clients, their office does not permit violation of
the laws or any manner of fraud or chicanery.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

29 of 158

ONE UP LAW

effectively. In this event, it is his/her duty

to ask client to relieve him/her.

Laput v. Remotigue (1962)

F:
The SC dismissed the charges of Atty.
Laput that the respondents nursed the desire of
his former client to replace him.

was found that he appeared as counsel for a

candidate in the May 2001 elections before the
Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of
Mandaon, Masbate where he even filed a
pleading representing himself as counsel for
and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty candidate
George Bunan. All these he did before signing
the roll of attorneys.

H:
The solicitor general found that before
respondents filed their appearance, the client
had already filed with the court a pleading
discharging the complainant.
The fact that
complainant was not able to get a copy was not
the fault of respondents. Also, it was found that
Mrs. Barrera dismissed complainant as lawyer
because she no longer trusted him because she
found out that some checks were sent to the
complainant instead of her and that several
withdrawals were made by complainant in her
account without her permission.

H: Ranas having passed the bar and taking the

oath does not make him a lawyer. It is the
signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
Rana passed the bar is immaterial. Passing the
bar is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law. Rana was engaged in the
practice of law when he appeared in the
proceedings before the MBEC and filed various
pleadings without license to do so. Respondent
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of
the Philippine Bar.

There is no irregularity in the appearance of

respondents
as
counsel.
Complainants
withdrawal and his filing of a motion for the
payment of his attorneys fees estop him from
now complaining that the appearance of
respondent Patlinghug is unprofessional. As for
the respondents, they only entered their
appearance after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed of
the complainants services and after the
petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn.

OCA v. Ladaga (2001)

F:
The SC sternly reprimanded Atty.
Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court the RTC of
Makati, for practicing law without prior
permission when he appeared as pro bono
counsel for his cousin.
Atty. Ladaga had
actually requested the Court Administrator for
authority to appear but nonetheless appeared
before authorization could be given.

CANON 9
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Canon 9.
A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
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.
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:
1.
Where
there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latters
death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
2.
Where
a
lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished
or legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
3.
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 profitsharing arrangement.

Aguirre v. Rana (2003)

F:
Edwin Rana passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations but was denied admission after it

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

30 of 158

H:
Private practice does not pertain to an
isolated
court
appearance;
rather,
it
contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding ones
self to the public as a lawyer. It is evident that
the isolated instances when Atty. Ladaga
appeared as pro bono counsel of his cousin do
not constitute the private practice of the law
profession contemplated by law. Nonetheless,
though his appearances do not amount to
private practice, he still failed to obtain a
written permission from the head of the
Department as required by the Revised Civil
Service Rules (No officer or employee shall
engage directly in any private business,
vocation or profession).

Sps. Suarez. v. Salazar (1999)

F:
Atty. Filemon Manangan was hired by
the petitioners as their counsel. In 1990, the SC
found him to be in reality Andres Culanag who
is not a member of the Philippine Bar. At the
hearing for this motion, Manangan admitted
that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in
the Philippines and that despite the previous
decision of the Court he continued to
misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-law.
The SC declared him guilty of indirect contempt
and
sentenced
him
to
three
months
imprisonment.
H:

[unnecessary]

Alawi v Alauya (1997)

F:
Alauya, a member of the Sharia Bar
used the title of attorney.

ONE UP LAW

H:
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 IBP and remain members
thereof in good standing, and it is they only
who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.

In re del Rosario (1928)

F:
Del Rosario, who was accepted to the
bar upon a review of the records, was acquitted
of falsifying public documents. His co-principal
however was convicted. The SC disbarred Del
Rosario despite his acquittal.
H:
Acquittal upon a criminal charge is not
a bar to proceedings intended to determine if a
candidate is worthy to be admitted to the bar.
The standards of the legal profession are not
satisfied by conduct which merely enable one to
escape the penalties of criminal law.

US v Ney (1907)
F:
Bosque was not permitted to practice
law as he refused to relinquish his status as a
Spanish subject.
A signature in a pleading containing the
name of one, neither a party nor an attorney,
does not comply with the rules even if the name
of a licensed attorney is included. A signature
by agents amounts to a signing by nonqualified
attorneys, the office of attorney being originally
one of agency.
H:
A person not admitted to the bar may
not hold himself out to the public as engaged in
the practice of law, either alone or as associated
with a practicing attorney under a firm name.
RULE 9.01
NOT TO DELEGATE WORK

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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Can employ secretaries, investigators,

detectives, researches as long as they are
not involved in the practice of law (e.g., not
writing pleadings, appearing in court,
etc.)

NOTES
(Jardeleza)

May a lawyer delegate a case to another

lawyer within the same firm? If a client has
specified the services of one particular
attorney, then the case may not be
delegated. Otherwise, it may be delegated.

NOT TO DIVIDE LEGAL FEES

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 latters 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 or 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 profit-sharing
arrangement.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

the first two exceptions to the rule

represent compensation for legal service
rendered by the deceased lawyer during his
lifetime, which is paid to his estate or heirs

the third exception to the rule does not

involve, strictly speaking, a division of legal
fees with non-lawyer employees.
The
retirement benefits in the form of pension
represent additional deferred wages or
compensation for past services of the
employees

Five J Taxi v. NLRC (1994)

H:
Art. 222 of the Labor Code as amended
states that non-lawyers may appear before the
NLRC or any labor arbiter only (1) if they
represent themselves, or (2) if they represent
their organization or the members thereof.
While it may be true that Guillermo H. Pulia was
the authorized representative of private
respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not
fall in either of the foregoing categories.
Hence, by clear mandate of the law, he is not
entitled to attorneys fees. Furthermore, the
statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled
to have and recover from his client a reasonable
compensation for his services necessarily
imports the existence of an attorney-client
relationship as a condition for the recovery of
attorneys fees, and such relationship cannot
exist unless the clients representative is a
lawyer.

Chapter 3
The Lawyer and the
Court

RULE 9.02

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

31 of 158

ONE UP LAW

CANON 10
OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAITH

FAIRNESS

&

GOOD

Canon 10.
A Lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the Court.
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 an 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, 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 misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of

the court. He takes part in one of the most
important
functions
of
the
state
administration of justice

As an officer of the court and as part of the

machinery for the administration of justice,
a lawyer is continually accountable to the
court for the manner he discharges his
duties and is always subject to its
disciplinary control

The power to exclude persons from the

practice of law is but a necessary incident
of the power to admit persons to said
practice

Lawyers duty to court, generally

A lawyer owes to the court, as its officer,

the duty to be candid, faithful and hones;
observe and maintain the respect due it
and judicial officers; assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice; and
refraining from any impropriety tending to
influence the court in the performance of its
judicial function

The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client

but to the administration of justice

A lawyer is not an umpire but an advocate.

He is under no duty to refrain from taking
every proper argument in support of any
legal point because he is not convinced of
its inherent soundness

Ting Dumali v. Torres (2004)

F:
The SC disbarred Atty. Torres for
facilitating the conveyance of the property of his
parents-in-law by way of an extrajudicial

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

32 of 158

partition of the properties.

The document
falsified the signature of the complainant and
asserted that there were no other compulsory
heirs.
H:
The oath to which all lawyers have
subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate
themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a
mere ceremony or formality for practicing law
to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere
words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all
times. Also, respondent is the brother in law of
the
complainant.
Being
married
to
complainants sister, he knew of his wifes
siblings. He was also consulted with regard to
the falsification of complainants signature in
the extrajudicial settlement. Instead of advising
her to secure a written special power of
attorney and against committing falsification,
he presented such document to the Registry of
Deeds to secure a new title to the lot in favour
of his wife and her sibling.

Cobb Perez v. Lantin (1968)

F:
In a previous decision, the SC was
compelled to observe that the petitioners
resorted to a series of actions and petitions,
abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of
thwarting the execution of a simple money
judgment which had long become final and
executory. The petitioners and their counsel, far
from viewing the courts as sanctuaries for those
who seek justice, tried to use them to subvert
the very ends of justice. Corollarily, the Court
assessed treble costs against the petitioners, to
be paid by their counsel. The SC denied this
motion for reconsideration by said counsel who
justified their position thus: If there was a
delay, it was because petitioners counsel
happened to be more assertive a quality of
lawyers which is not to be condemned.
H:
A counsels assertiveness in espousing
with candour and honesty his clients cause
must be encouraged and is to be commended;
what we do not and cannot countenance is a
lawyers insistence despite the patent futility of
his clients position, as in the case at bar. It is
the duty of a counsel to advise his client,
ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and
vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of
merit of his case. If he finds that his clients
cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty
to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit
rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A
lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of
his client, and temper his clients propensity to
litigate. A lawyers oath to uphold the cause of
justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is indisputable.
Rule 10.01
Truthfulness Towards the Court

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 an artifice.

ONE UP LAW


Canon 32 Code of Professional
Ethics. The lawyer's duty in its last analysis.
No client corporate or individual, however,
powerful nor any cause, civil or political,
however important, is entitled to receive nor
should any lawyer render any service or advice
involving disloyalty to the laws whose ministers
we are, or disrespect of the judicial office, which
we are bound to uphold, or corruption of any
person or persons exercising a public office or
private trust, or deception or betrayal of the
public. When rendering any such improper
service or advice, the lawyer invites and merits
stern and just condemnation. Correspondingly,
he advances the honor of his profession and the
best interests of his client when he renders
service or gives advice tending to impress upon
the client and his undertaking exact compliance
with the strictest principles of moral law. He
must also observe and advice his client to
observe the statute law, though until a statute
shall have been construed and interpreted by
competent adjudication he is free and is entitled
to advise as to its validity and as to what he
conscientiously believes to be its just meaning
and extent. But above all a lawyer will find his
highest honor in a deserved reputation for
fidelity to private trust and to public duty, as an
honest man and as a patriotic and loyal citizen.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Candor especially towards the court is

essential to the speedy administration of
justice.

Courts are entitled to expect only complete

honesty from lawyers appearing before
them. Lawyers have the fundamental duty
to satisfy that expectation.

It would be a great detriment to, if not a

failure of, the administration of justice if the
courts could not rely on the submissions
and representations of lawyers in the
handling of their cases.

A lawyer should not conceal the truth from

the court, nor mislead the court in any
manner no matter how demanding his
duties to clients may be.

Rule 10.01 is also found in the lawyers

oath.
A lawyer should volunteer to the court any
development of the case which has
rendered the issue raised moot and
academic thus avoiding the time of the
court from being wasted.

Preferring false charges

A lawyer, including a private prosecutor,

may not prefer nor file false charges
against another without being disciplined
for his action

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

33 of 158

To warrant disciplinary action against a

lawyer, who prosecutes false charges or
complaints, it must be shown that the
charges are false and the lawyer knows
them to be so. (malice or bad faith)

Introducing false evidence

A lawyer who introduces evidence in any

proceeding that he knows is false violates
his duty to do no falsehood nor consent to
the doing of any.

If a lawyer, through negligence in the

performance of his duties as counsel for a
party, failed to discover the falsity of the
document which he offered in evidence, he
may still be dealt with administratively
notwithstanding lack of intent on his part to
deceive

Young v. Batuegas (2003)

F:
The Court suspended lawyers who filed
a Manifestation with Motion for Bail on Dec 13,
2000, alleging that the accused voluntarily
surrendered to a person in authority. The truth
is that the accused only surrendered on Dec 14,
2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention
of the NBI. Respondents declared that on Dec
13, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was
issued for their client, they filed the
Manifestation with motion for bail with the trial
court. Then they immediately fetched the
accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to
voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy
traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2:00 am the
next day; hence, the certificate of detention
indicated the accused surrendered on Dec. 14
H: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He
swore upon his admission to the bar that he will
do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any in court and he shall conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to his clients. Respondent lawyers
fell short of the duties and responsibilities
expected from them as members of the bar.
Anticipating that their motion for bail will be
denied by the court if it found that it had no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they
craftily concealed the truth by alleging that
accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person
in authority and was under detention.

Afurong v. Aquino (1999)

F:
Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment
against Victorino Flores for non-payment of
rentals. After the court issued a writ of
execution, Flores sought the assistance of the
Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO). His
case was assigned to Aquino, then still an
employee of CLAO. After working on the case,
Aquino was separated from the CLAO on Oct 1,
1975. But after this date, he still filed an urgent
motion for postponement, signing his name as
counsel for Flores and indicating the address of
CLAO as his office address. Respondent failed to
attend the pre-trial on Dec. 12 because he had

ONE UP LAW

to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case.

This excuse was proven to be false as there
were no such case. The SC suspended Afurong
from the practice of law for six months.
H:
It is the duty of an attorney to counsel
or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
appear to him to be just, and such defenses
only as he believes to be honestly debatable
under the law. Respondent should not have filed
a petition for certiorari considering that there
was no apparent reason for it than to delay the
execution of a valid judgment. Furthermore,
respondent committed falsehood when he
stated that he had to attend another
(nonexistent) hearing. Such act violates the
canons of professional ethics which obliges an
attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth
from the court. Moreover, Aquino purposely
allowed the court to believe that he was still
employed with the CLAO when in fact he had
been purged from the said office.

Cuaresma v. Daquis (1975)

F:
Cuaresmas lawyer filed a petition for
certiorari stating therein that his client had no
knowledge of a previous civil case instituted by
Daquis against him; that he was not given his
day in court; that he was only given three days
notice of the order for the demolition of his
house. In fact, Cuaresma was aware of said
civil case and that he was given notice of 30
days. He explained that what he meant was
that he had no knowledge of the civil case from
1968 1970 and that he only had knowledge of
the case after the decision was rendered. He
further explained that it had been an honest
mistake and that there was no deliberate
attempt to mislead the Court.

(Agpalo)

In citing the SC decisions and rulings, it is

the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same
word-for-word and punctuation-mark-forpunctuation-mark

Insular Life Assurance Employees

Assoc.-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance
(1970)
F:
The SC denied the petition to cite the
presiding judge of the CIR in contempt for
misquoting a decision of the SC.
H:
The Court believes it is more a result of
clerical ineptitude than deliberate attempt to
mislead. The Companies have the prima facie
right to rely on the quotation as it appears on
respondent judges decision. However, the Court
articulates its firm view that in citing this
Courts decision and rulings, it is the bounden
duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce
or
copy
the
same
word-for-word
and
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Only
from this Tribunals decisions and rulings do all
other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants,
take their bearings. Ever presenting the danger
that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the
decisions and rulings of this Court may lose
their proper and correct meaning.
RULE 10.03
OBSERVE RULES OF PROCEDURE

Rule 10.03.
A lawyer shall observe
the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.

H:
Though his explanation appears to be a
mere afterthought there is the assumption of
good faith in favour of respondent. Moreover,
judging from the awkwardly-worded petition
and even his compliance quite indicative of
either carelessness or lack of proficiency in the
handling of the English language, it isnt
unreasonable to assume that his deficiency in
the mode of expression contributed to the
inaccuracy of his statements. Every member of
the bar should realize that candor in the
dealings with the court is the very essence of
honorable membership in the profession.

Rule 138.20(d)
Duties
of
attorneysIt is the duty of an attorney (d) to
employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek
to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by
an artifice or false statement of fact of law.

Procedural rules are instruments in the

speedy ad efficient administration of
justice. They should not be used to derail
such ends.

RULE 10.02
NOT TO MISQUOTE OR MISREPRESENT
CONTENTS OF PAPER

They should not misuse them, as by filing

multiple petitions regarding the same cause
of action of by deliberately misreading the
law to seek a reopening of a case long
decided.

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, 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.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

CANON 11
RESPECT COURTS AND
JUDICIAL OFFICERS

NOTES

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

34 of 158

ONE UP LAW


Canon 11.
A lawyer shall observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.

however, erroneous they may be, must be

respected especially by lawyers who are
themselves officers of the court

A lawyer who gives a clearly unsatisfactory

explanation as to why he failed to comply
with a lawful order or who simply ignores it
commits an act within the meaning of the
term willful disobedience.

willfulflagrant misconduct such as would

indicate a disposition on the part of a
lawyer so unruly as to affect his
qualifications and standing for the further
exercise of his profession.

Rule 11.01.
A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Rule 11.02.
A
lawyer
appear at court hearings.

shall

punctually

Rule 11.03.
A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts.
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
grievances against
authorities only.

lawyer
a Judge

shall
submit
to the proper

Defending judges from unjust criticism.

A lawyer should refrain from subjecting the

judge to wild and groundless accusation, to
discourage other people from so doing and
to come to his defense.

NOTES
(Agpalo)
Respect due to the courts.

A lawyer should conduct himself toward

judges with that courtesy all have a right to
expect and with the propriety which the
dignity of the courts requires.

This is not for the sake of the temporary

incumbent of the judicial office but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance.
Respect of courts helps build high esteem
and regard toward them which is essential
to the proper administration of justice. It
also guarantees the stability of their
institution.

This duty also devolves upon students who

will choose to enter the legal profession.
They have as much the same duty as a
member of the bar to observe and maintain
the respect due the courts, and their failure
to discharge such duty may prevent them
from being inducted into the office of
attorney

Obeying court orders.

Court orders no matter how erroneous they

may be, must be respected especially by
lawyers who are officers of the court.

This is essential to the maintenance of

government of laws and not of men.

It will be a trying ordeal for lawyers under

certain conditions.
It may happen that
counsel possessed greater knowledge of the
law that the judge who presides. However,
discipline and self-restraint on the part of
the bar under these conditions are
necessary of the orderly administration of
justice.

Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey

court orders and processes. Court orders,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

35 of 158

A judge lacks the power, outside of his

court, to defend himself against unfounded
criticism. It is the duty of the lawyer to
come to his defense for no other person
than a lawyer who can better appropriately
support the judiciary and judicial officers
Guerrero v. Villamor (1989)

F:
Consequent to the dismissal of some
criminal cases for qualified theft against one
Gloria Naval by respondent Judge Villamor, the
offended party thru his lawyer and herein copetitioner filed before the RTC an action for
damages
against
respondent
judge
for
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in the
aforesaid criminal cases. Respondent judge
issued in criminal cases an Order of Direct
Contempt of Court against herein petitioners,
finding them guilty and sentencing them to five
days imprisonment and a fine of P500.00 for
degrading the respect and dignity of the court
through the use of contemptuous language
before the court. The SC held that the order of
direct contempt was void because
(1) it was issued without charge and hearing,
and
(2) it was irregularly issued as an incident in
already terminated criminal cases.
H:
In this case, the statements are not
contemptuous but merely descriptive of
plaintiffs cause of action. The power to punish
for contempt should be used sparingly and
should be exercised only for purposes that are
impersonal, the power being intended as a
safeguard not for the judges as persons but for
the functions they exercise. On the other hand,
lawyers should bear in mind their basic duty to
observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers and to
insist on similar conduct by others (Canon 11
CPR). This attitude is best shown through
scrupulous preference for respectful language,
is to be observed not for the sake of the

ONE UP LAW

temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but

for the maintenance of its supreme importance.

In re Vicente Sotto (1949)

F: Atty. Vicente Sotto, then a Senator of the
Republic, wrote his opinion in the Manila Times
regarding the SCs decision, In re Angel Parazo
which was then pending reconsideration. There
the SC cited in contempt a reporter for his
refusal to divulge his source of news published
in the paper. Sotto claims that majority of the
members
of
the
Supreme
Court
are
incompetent and narrow-minded. He also said
that the members of the Court have deliberately
committed blunders and injustices during the
past years. The SC cited Sotto in contempt and
required him to show cause why he should not
be disbarred.
H:
Mere criticism or comment on the
correctness or wrongness, soundness or
unsoundness of the decision of the court in a
pending case made in good faith may be
tolerated; because if well founded it may
enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed; but if it is
not well taken and obviously erroneous, it
should not influence the court in reversing or
modifying its decision. But respondent does not
merely criticize or comment on the decision of
the Parazo case, which was then and still is
pending reconsideration by this Court upon
petition of Angel Parazo. He not only intends to
intimidate the members of this Court with the
presentation of a bill in the next Congress
reorganizing the SC and reducing the members
of justices from eleven to seven who are
incompetent and narrow-minded in order to
influence the final decision of said case by this
Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the
administration of justice. He also brings the
integrity of the SC into disrepute and degrades
the administration of justice. As a member of
the bar and an officer of the courts, Sotto is
duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority
of this court, to which he owes fidelity according
to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and
not to promote distrust in the administration of
justice. Otherwise, he may be removed from
office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as
being guilty of flagrant misconduct. Respect to
the courts guarantees the stability of other
institutions, which without such guaranty would
be resting on a very shaky foundation.
Respondents assertion that his statement was
made in good faith and without intention of
offending any member of the SC may mitigate
but not exempt him from liability for contempt
of court. It is also true that the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of speech and the press
must be protected to its fullest extent, but
license or abuse of liberty of the press and of
the citizen should not be confused with liberty
in its true sense. As important as the
maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the
free exercise of the right of the citizen, is the
maintenance of the independence of the
judiciary.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

36 of 158

RULE 11.01
PROPER ATTIRE

Rule 11.01.
A lawyer shall appear
in court properly attired.
NOTES
(Aguirre)

Courts have ordered a male attorney to

wear a necktie and have prohibited a
female attorney from wearing a hat.
However, the prohibition of a dress whose
hemline was five inches above the knee
was held to be acceptable as such had
become an accepted mode of dress even in
places of worship.

(Agpalo)

Barong Tagalog or a coat and tie

Respect begins with the lawyers outward
physical appearance in court. Sloppy or
informal attire adversely reflects on the
lawyer and demeans the dignity and
solemnity of court proceedings.

RULE 11.02
PUNCTUALITY

Rule 11.02.
A
lawyer
punctually appear at court hearings.

shall

NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer owes the court and his client the

duty to punctually appear at court
proceedings

Inexcusable absence from, or repeated

tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing
may subject the lawyer to disciplinary
action as his actions showing disrespect to
the court make him guilty of contemptuous
behavior

RULE 11.03
PROPER LANGUAGE AND BEHAVIOUR

Rule 11.03.
A lawyer shall abstain
from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the courts.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Lawyers Courtesy

It must never be forgotten that a lawyer

pleads; he does not dictate. He should be
courageous, fair, and circumspect, not
petulant, combative, or bellicose in his
dealings with the court

While criticism of judicial conduct is not

forbidden and zeal in advocacy is
encouraged, the lawyer must always act
within the limits of propriety and good taste
and with deference for the judges before

ONE UP LAW

whom he pleads his clients cause

A lawyer should not assail, without basis,

the personal integrity of a judge and accuse
him of misfeasance in an attempt to hide
his own inadequacies and omissions to
escape criticism of his client

The discharge of the lawyers duty to his

client does not justify or require the use of
defamatory or threatening words. Neither
does the mistake of a judge in some of his
rulings warrant the use of offensive
language

There is no defense against the use in a

pleading by a lawyer of disrespectful,
threatening,
abusive,
and
abrasive
language. It cannot be justified by the
constitutional right of free speech for such
right is not absolute and its exercise must
be within the context of a functioning and
orderly system of dispensing justice

Where words are abrasive or insulting,

evidence that the language employed is
justified by the facts is not admissible as a
defense

Judges Courtesy

The duty to observe and maintain respect is

not a one-way duty from a layer to a judge.
A judge should show no shortness of
temper which merely detracts from the
equanimity and judiciousness that should
be the constant marks of a dispenser of
justice

A judge may utilize his opportunities to

criticize and correct unprofessional conduct
of attorneys but he may not do so in an
insulting manner

Sangalang v. IAC (1989)

F:
Atty. Cezar Sangco, a former judge and
counsel for petitioners Jose and Lutgarda
Sangalang, was charged for contempt for using
intemperate and accusatory language in his
motion for reconsideration. In that motion, he
claimed that the Courts decision reads more
like a Brief for Ayala and that the Court has
not only put to serious question its own
integrity and competence but also jeopardized
its own campaign against graft and corruption
undeniably pervading the judiciary... He also
accused the Court of judicial arrogance. The SC
suspended him from the practice of law for
three months.
H: The Court found Atty. Sangcos statements
disparaging, intemperate and uncalled-for. His
suggestions that the Court might have been
guilty of graft and corruption in acting on these
cases are not only unbecoming, but comes, as
well, as an open assault upon the Courts honor
and integrity. A lawyers "first duty is not to his
client but to the administration of justice; to
that end, his client's success is wholly
subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

37 of 158

ethics." And while a lawyer must advocate his

client's cause in utmost earnest and with the
maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at
liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and
innuendo.

In re Vicente Raul Almacen (1970)

F:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen was a
counsel for defendant in civil case Calero vs.
Yaptingchay. The trial court rendered judgment
against his client. Both the CA and the SC
dismissed his appeals. The latter did so via a
minute resolution. Angered, Atty. Almacen filed
a Petition to Surrender Lawyers Certificate of
Title (Sept. 25, 1967) in protest against what
he asserts as a great injustice committed
against his client by this SC. He indicted the
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. He further said that
justice as administered by present members of
the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also
deaf and dumb. He vowed to argue before the
peoples court and disclosed the contents of the
petition to the media. This was published in the
Manila Times and the Manila Chronicles. After
Almacen failed to surrender his certificate, the
SC then required him to show cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Denying the charges, he asked to give his
reasons in an open and public hearing.
Almacen explained that since the Court is the
complainant, prosecutor and Judge, he
preferred to be heard and to answer questions
in a public hearing. He also asked for leave to
file a written explanation, to which the Court
consented. In his written explanation, Almacen
offered no apology. Almacen repeated his
jeremiad of lamentations, this time quoting
from the Bible. He particularly attacked the
minute resolution, assailing the justice system
as ...deaf in the sense that no members of this
Court has ever heard our cries for charity,
generosity, fairness, understanding, sympathy
and for justice; dumb in the sense that in spite
of our beggings, supplications, and pleadings to
give us reasons why our appeal has been
DENIED, not one word was spoken or given...
H:
Every citizen has the right to comment
upon and criticize the actuations of public
officers. The Court also treats with forbearance
and restraint a lawyer who vigorously assails
their actuations, provided it is done in
respectful terms and through legitimate
channels.
For
courageous
and
fearless
advocates are the strands that weave durability
into the tapestry of justice. The reason is that
an attorney does not surrender his right as a
citizen to criticize the decisions of the court in
fair
and
respectful
manner,
and
the
independence of the Bar, as well as the
judiciary, has always been encouraged by the
courts. Criticism has been an important part of
the traditional work of a lawyer. As a citizen
and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected
not only to exercise his right, but also to
consider it his duty to avail of such right. But

ONE UP LAW

the cardinal condition of all such criticism is that

is shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety.

remedies which result in a finding that the

judge has gravely erred.

Atty. Almacen used vicious language and

scurrilous innuendos that transcend the
permissible bounds of legitimate criticism. They
could serve no other purpose but to gratify the
spite of an irate attorney, attract public
attention to himself and, more important of all,
bring this Court and its members into disrepute
and destroy public confidence in them to the
detriment of the orderly administration of
justice.

Maceda v. Vasquez (1993)

F:
This prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction is with regard to whether the office of
the ombudsman could entertain a criminal
complaint for the alleged falsification by Judge
Maceda of his certificate of service submitted to
the SC, and assuming that it can, whether a
referral should be made first to the SC.

RULE 11.04
NOT TO ATTRIBUTE TO JUDGE MOTIVES

Rule 11.04.
A lawyer shall not
attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The rule allows such criticism so long as it

is supported by the record or it is material
to the case. A lawyers right to criticize the
acts of courts and judges in a proper and
respectful way and through legitimate
channels is well recognized.
What a lawyer can ordinarily say against a
concluded litigation and the manner the
judge handed down the decision therein
may not generally be said to a pending
action. Once litigation is concluded the
judge who decided it is subject to the same
criticism as any other public official because
then his ruling becomes public property and
is thrown open to public scrutiny.
The cardinal condition of all such criticism is
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill
over the wall of decency and propriety.

RULE 11.05
GRIEVANCES AGAINST JUDGES

Rule 11.05.
A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.

Const art. VIII, sec. 6. The Supreme

Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof. [the SC is
the proper authority]
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The duty to respect does not preclude a

lawyer from filing administrative complaints
against erring judges, or from acting as
counsel for clients who have legitimate
grievances against them.

The lawyer shall not file an administrative

case until he has exhausted judicial

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

38 of 158

H:
A judge who falsifies his certificate of
service is administratively liable to the SC for
serious misconduct and inefficiency (Sec. 1,
Rule 140, Rules of Court) and criminally liable
to the State under the Revised Penal Code for
his felonious conduct. The Ombudsman could
therefore entertain the criminal complaint.
However, where a criminal complaint against a
judge or other court employees arises from
their administrative duties, the Ombudsman
must defer action on said complaint and refer
the same to the SC for determination whether
said judges or court employees acted within the
scope of their administrative duties. Otherwise,
in the absence of any administrative action
taken against Maceda, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Courts power of administrative supervision
over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers.
Right and Duty of Lawyer to Criticize
Courts (1997 BAR EXAMS)
The fact that a person is a lawyer does
not deprive him of the right, enjoyed by every
citizen, to comment on and criticize the
actuations of a judge.
However, what he can ordinarily say
against a concluded litigation and the manner
the judge handed down the decision therein
may NOT generally be said to a pending action.
The court, in a pending litigation, must be
shielded from embarrassment or influence in its
all important duty of deciding the case.
On other hand, once a litigation is
concluded, the judge who decided it is subject
to the same criticism as any other public official
because then his ruling becomes public property
and is thrown open to public consumption.
But it is the cardinal condition of all
such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety.

CANON 12
ASSIST IN SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Canon 12.
A lawyer shall exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.
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

ONE UP LAW

evidence he will adduce and the order of its

proferrence. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the
copies.

that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the

administration of justice and by faithfully
complying with all his duties to the court
and to his client. Examples of the former
would include the duty to inform the court
of any change of his address or of the death
of his client.

Rule 12.02.
A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03.
A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting to the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04.
A lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.

Rule 12.05
A lawyer shall refrain from
talking to his witness during the break or recess
in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
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
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.

CONST. art III, sec 6. All persons

shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.

Rule 138 Sec 20(g). Duties of

attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (g)
Not to encourage either the commencement or
the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any mans cause, from any corrupt motive
or interest.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Duty to assist in the administration of justice

The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client

but the administration of justice. As an
officer of the Court, it is the duty of the
lawyer to advance the Courts objective of
having a speedy, efficient, impartial,
correct, and inexpensive adjudication of
case and the prompt satisfaction of final
judgments.

The duty to assist in the administration of

justice may be performed by doing no act

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

39 of 158

Acts that amount to obstruction of the

administration of justice may take many
forms. They include such acts as instructing
a complaining witness in a criminal case not
to appear at the scheduled hearing so that
the case against his client, the accused,
would be dismissed.
Ordinarily, obstruction of justice constitutes
contempt of court, and citing the
misbehaving lawyer for contempt and
punishing him for such misbehavior may be
sufficient to accomplish the end desired.
However, the misbehavior may be of such
character as to effect the offenders
qualifications as a lawyer for the practice of
law. In such case, he may be disciplined as
a lawyer for such misconduct.

RULE 12.01
ADEQUATE PREPARATION

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 proferrence. He should also be ready with
the original documents for comparison with the
copies.

Rule 18.02.
A lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Without adequate preparation, the lawyer

may not be able to effectively assist the
court in the efficient administration of
justice. Non-observance of this rule might
result in:
1) The postponement of the pre-trial or
hearing, which would thus entail delay
in the early disposition of the case,
2) The judge may consider the client nonsuited or in default or
3) The judge may consider the case
deemed submitted for decision without
clients evidence, to his prejudice.

RULE 12.02
FORUM SHOPPING

Rule 12.02.
A lawyer shall not file
multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Rule 7, sec. 5. The

plaintiff
or
principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaining or
other
initiatory
pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn

ONE UP LAW

certification
annexed
thereto
and
simultaneously filed therewith:
a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein;
b) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and
c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or
is pending, he shall report that fact within 5
days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
Failure
to
comply
with
the
foregoing
requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion after hearing.
The
submission of false certification or noncompliance with any of the undertaking therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without
prejudice
to
the
corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same
shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt,
as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

It is essential to an effective and efficient

administration of justice that once a
judgment has become final the winning
party be not, through subterfuge, and
misuse of legal process, deprived of that
verdict.

Rule 12.02 stresses the affirmative duty of

a lawyer to check against useless
litigations. His signature in every pleading
constitutes a certificate by him that to the
best of his knowledge there is a good
ground to support it and that it is not to
interpose for delay. The willful violation of
this rule may subject him to (1) appropriate
disciplinary action or (2) render him liable
for the costs of litigation.

Forum shopping is prohibited by Supreme

Court Circular No. 28-91(annexed),
which is now integrated in the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.

RULE 12.03
NOT TO DELAY CASE

Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after

obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting to the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

40 of 158

Where a lawyers motion for extension of

time to file a pleading, memorandum or
brief has remained unacted by the court,
the least that is expected of him is to file it
within the period asked for

RULE 12.04
COURT PROCESS

Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly

delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Tempering clients propensity to litigate

While a client may withhold from his

counsel certain facts or give him false
information to attain his unlawful ends, a
lawyer can easily see through the clients
action either before or at the early stage of
the litigation

If after his appearance a lawyer discovers

that his client has no case, he may not
unceremoniously abandon the action. He
should advise his client to discontinue the
action or to confess judgment, and if the
client is determined to pursue it he should
ask that he be relieved from professional
responsibility

Lawyer to discourage appellate review

If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the

futility of an appeal in a civil suit he should
not hesitate to temper his clients desire to
seek appellate review of such decision for
unless, he could show sufficient cause for
reversal, he would only succeed in planting
false hope in his clients mind, increasing
the
burden
on
appellate
tribunals,
prolonging litigation unnecessarily and
exposing his client to useless expenses.

Nonetheless a lawyer should not, solely on

his own judgment, let the decision become
final by letting the period to appeal lapse,
without informing his client of the adverse
decision and of his candid advice in taking
appellate review thereof, well within the
period to appeal, so that the client may
decide whether to pursue appellate review.
Malonso v. Principe (2004)

F:
In expropriation proceedings by the
NAPOCOR against several lot owners in
Bulacan, the president of an organization of the
lot owners entered into a contract for legal
services with Atty. Principe. The complainant
Malonso, a member of the same organization,
appointed on the other hand a certain Elfa as
his attorney-in-fact on the matter of negotiation
with NPC. Eventually, an amicable settlement
was had between NAPOCOR and the lot owners.
More than two years after the expropriation
cases were instituted, Atty. Principe filed his

ONE UP LAW

motion to separate legal fees and filed his

Notice of Entry of Appearance claiming that he
is the legal counsel of the lot owners. The other
lot owners including Malonso wrote a letter to
NPC informing the latter that they have never
authorized Sandamas President to hire the
services of Atty. Principes law firm to represent
them. Atty. Principe filed several motions to
ensure his claim to the 40% of the selling price
of the properties being expropriated.
An
investigation
conducted
by
the
IBP
recommended Atty. Principes suspension from
the practice of law for two years on the ground
that Atty. Principe had violated among others
Rule 12.04 which says that a lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes. In its
Resolution, the IBP Board ordained his
suspension from the practice of law for 2 years.
The SC however found that formal requisites of
the investigation and resolution had not been
complied with and dismissed the case requiring
the IBP to comply with the procedure outlined
in Rule 139-B in all cases involving disbarment
and discipline of attorneys.
H:

[not pertinent]

Manila Pest Control v. Workmens

Compensation Commission (1968)
F:
Abitria, an employee of MPC suffered
from tuberculosis found to have been
contracted from his work. He was granted
disability benefits by the Court but Manila Pest
Control alleged infringement of due process as
it was not served the decision by the court thru
its counsel. It claimed that a writ of execution
should not have been ordered since it did not
receive a copy of the decision. The decision was
sent to Atty. Camacho, who was without any
connection to the case, and not to its counsel
Atty. Corpuz. The SC upheld the decision of the
WCC which explained that when it delivered the
decision to Atty. Corpuz, he refused to receive
the decision alleging that he was no longer
handling the case. He instead instructed WCC to
deliver said decision to Atty. Camacho, who
according to him was now handling the case. In
view of said instruction, the employee of WCC
handed the copy of the decision to the receiving
clerk in the Office of Atty. Camacho. The Court
imposed treble costs against petitioner to be
paid by Atty. Corpuz.
H:
It is sad to note that Atty. Corpuz is
now impugning the delivery of the decision to
Atty. Camacho when in fact the delivery of said
decision was made per his instruction to the
employee of WCC. This would not be the first
time where out of excess of zeal and out of
desire to rely on every conceivable defense that
could delay if not defeat the satisfaction
incumbent on ones client, counsel would
attempt to put the most favorable light on a
course of conduct which certainly cannot be
given the stamp of approval. Not that it would
clear counsel of any further responsibility. His
conduct leaves much to be desired. The effort
to evade liability by petitioner by invoking due
process guaranty must not be rewarded with

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

41 of 158

success. An effort was made to serve petitioner

with a copy of the decision; that such effort
failed was attributable to the conduct of its own
counsel.
It is not enough that petitioner be required to
pay the sum due to Abitria. The unseemly
conduct of petitioners counsel calls for words of
reproof. It is one thing to exert to the utmost
ones ability to protect the interest of ones
client. It is quite another thing to take
advantage any unforeseen turn of events, if not
to create one, to delay if not to defeat the
recovery of what is justly due and demandable,
especially so when the obligee is a povertystricken man suffering from a dreaded disease.
The ancient and learned profession of the law
stresses the fairness and honor; that must be
ever kept in mind by everyone who is enrolled
in its ranks and who expects to remain a
member of a good standing.
RULE 12.05 TO 12.07
PROPER BEHAVIOR TOWARDS WITNESSES

Rule 12.05
A lawyer shall refrain
from talking to his witness during the break or
recess in the trial, while the witness is still
under examination.
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 132, sec. 3.

Rights
and
obligations of a witness. A witness must answer
questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him. However, it is the
right of a witness:
1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it be to the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which
the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his
previous conviction for an offense.

P.D. No. 1829 Penalizing the

obstruction
of
apprehension
and
prosecution of criminal offenders (1981)
ANNEXED
NOTES
(Agpalo)

ONE UP LAW

Rule 12.05. The purpose of this rule is to

avoid any suspicion that he is coaching the
witness what to say during the resumption
of the examination.

Rule 12.06. A lawyer may interview

witnesses in advance of trial or attend to
their needs if they are poor but he should
avoid any such action as may be
misinterpreted as an attempt to influence
the witness what to say in court. Court will
not give weight on a testimony of a witness
who admits having been instructed. A
lawyer who presents a witness whom he
knows will give a false testimony or is an
impersonator
may
be
subjected
to
disciplinary action.

Rule 12.07. The lawyer has a duty to

always treat adverse witnesses and suitors
with fairness and due consideration.

Rule 12.07. The client cannot be made the

keeper of the lawyers conscience in
professional matters. He has no right to
demand that his counsel abuse the opposite
party and the latters witnesses or indulge
in offensive personalities. Improper speech
is not excusable on the ground that it is
what the client would say if speaking in his
own behalf

Rule 12.07. If it is the judge who subjects

the witness to harsh treatment, the lawyer
has the right to protest in a respectful and
dignified manner the action of the judge
and to make the incident of record without
being held liable administratively or for
contempt of court

RULE 12.08
NOT TO TESTIFY IN BEHALF OF A CLIENT

Rule 12.08
A lawyer shall avoid
testifying in behalf of his client; except:
a.
on formal matters, such as 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The underlying reason for the impropriety

of a lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies
in the difference between the function of a
witness and that of an advocate. The
function of a witness is to tell the facts as
he recalls then in answer to questions. The
function of an advocate is that of a
partisan. It is difficult to distinguish
between the zeal of an advocate and the
fairness and impartiality of a disinterested
witness

The lawyer will find it hard to disassociate

his relation to the client as a witness and
his relation to the party as a witness. The
dual relationship would invite embarrassing
criticisms which could be harmful to the
reputation of the profession.

PNB v. Uy Teng Piao (1932)

F:
Pursuant to a judgment of the CFI the
mortgaged lands of Uy Teng Piao were sold.
PNB obtained a waiver of the right to
redemption. Uy Teng Piao alleged that the
waiver was given with the agreement that the
bank would not collect from him the balance of
judgment. One of the attorneys for the bank
during trial testified that the defendant
renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land
because a friend of the defendant was
interested in buying it.
H:
With respect to the testimony of the
banks attorney, we should like to observe that
although the law does not forbid an attorney to
be a witness and at the same time an attorney
in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should
not testify as witness unless it is necessary and
that they should withdraw from the active
management of the case. Canon 19 of the
Code of Legal Ethics provides that when a
lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to
merely formal matters. Such as the attestation
or custody of an instrument and the like, he
should leave the trial of the case to other
counsel. Except when essential to the ends of
justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court
in behalf of his client.

CANON 13
REFRAIN FROM ACTS
GIVING APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCE

Canon 13.
upon the merits of his
any impropriety which
gives the appearance of

A lawyer shall rely

cause and refrain from
tends to influence, or
influencing the court.

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 media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Rule 13.03.
A lawyer shall not
invite interference by another branch
of the government by another branch
of the government in normal course
proceedings.

brook or
or agency
or agency
of judicial

NOTES

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

42 of 158

ONE UP LAW

(Agpalo)

Improper acts of a lawyer which give the

appearance of influencing the court to
decide a case in a particular way lessen the
confidence of the public in the impartial
administration of justice and should be
avoided.

Courts as impartial administrators of justice

are entitled to disposed of their business in
an orderly manner, free from outside
interference obtrusive of their functions and
tending to embarrass the administration of
justice, just as litigants are entitled to have
their causes tried fairly by an impartial
tribunal, uninfluenced by publication, public
clamor, bias, prejudice or sympathies.

F: Two unions with pending cases before the SC

had intermittent pickets in front of the Padre
Faura gate of the SC building, obstructing
access to and egress from the Courts premises.
They also constructed provisional shelters, set
up a kitchen, littered the area causing it to be
unhygienic and unsanitized, waved their red
streamers and placards with slogans, and
harangued the court with the use of
loudspeakers. Two justices called the leaders of
the unions and their counsel to inform them
that the pickets constitute direct contempt of
court, and that their petitions could not be
heard until the pickets stop. Arty Espinas, the
counsel for the unions, apologized and assured
that the acts would not be repeated. The SC
dismissed the contempt charges against Atty.
Espinas.

In Re: Published Alleged Threats

Against Members of the Court in the
Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard
de Vera (2003)
F:
Atty. De Vera made some remarks to
the Philippine Daily Inquirer regarding a
pending case involving the constitutionality of
the Plunder Law. In one statement, he asked
the SC to dispel rumors that it would vote in
favor of a petition filed by Estradas lawyers to
declare the plunder law unconstitutional and
that his group was greatly disturbed by the
rumors. In another statement, he said that a
decision in favor of the laws unconstitutionality
would trigger mass actions and the people
would not just swallow any SC decision that is
basically wrong.
Atty. De Vera admitted to
making the statements but that these were
factually accurate and that these are within his
right to freedom of speech. Also, his second
statement is allegedly historically correct
(Marcos and Erap times) but that both
statements are not to degrade the court, to
destroy public confidence and to bring it into
disrepute. The SC found that de Veras acts
constitute indirect contempt and fined him P20,
000.
H:
Freedom of speech is not absolute, and
must be balanced with the requirements of
equally important public interests, such as the
maintenance of the integrity of the courts and
orderly functioning of the administration of
justice. De Vera is in abuse of his right.
Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the
courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for
the exercise of said right cannot be used to
impair the independence and efficiency of
courts or public respect and confidence thereof.
His statements are not fair criticisms of any
decision of the Court, but are threats made
against it to force the Court to decide the issue
in a particular manner, or risk earning the ire of
the public. It tends to promote distrust an
undermines public confidence in the judiciary,
by creating the impression that the Court
cannot be trusted to resolve cases impartially,
uninfluenced by public clamor and other
extraneous influences.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

43 of 158

Nestle Phils v. Sanchez (1987)

H: Grievances must be ventilated through

proper channels (appropriate petitions, motions
or other pleadings) in keeping with the respect
due to the Courts as impartial administrators of
justice entitled to proceed to the disposition of
its business in an orderly manner, free from
outside interference obstructive of its functions
and tending to embarrass the administration of
justice. The acts of the respondents are not
only affront to the dignity of this Court, but
equally a violation of the right of the adverse
parties and the citizenry at large.
The
individuals cited are not knowledgeable in the
intricacies of substantive and adjective laws,
but the duty of advising them rests primarily on
their counsel of record. For though the rights of
free speech and of assembly are constitutionally
protected, an attempt to pressure or influence
courts of justice is no longer within the ambit of
constitutional protection.
13.01
NO EXTRAORDINARY ATTENTION

Rule 13.01.
A lawyer shall not
extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to,
nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity
with Judges.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The common practice of some lawyers

making judges and prosecutors godfathers
of their children to enhance their influence
and their law practice should be avoided by
judges and lawyers alike

A lawyer should not see a judge in chamber

and talk to him about a case he is handling
and pending in the judges court

A lawyer should not communicate to the

judge the merits of a pending case

However, it is not incumbent on a lawyer to

refuse professional employment in a case
because it may be heard by a judge who is
his relative, compadre or former colleague

ONE UP LAW

in office. The responsibility is on the judge

not to sit in a case unless he is both free
from bias and from the appearance thereof
13.02
NO PUBLIC STATEMENT TO MEDIA

Rule 13.02.
A lawyer shall not
make public statements in media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A newspaper publication tending to impede,

obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts
in administering justice in a pending case
constitutes criminal contempt, but the rule
is otherwise after the litigation is ended.

Limitations on right to criticize

Right of lawyer to comment on or criticize

the decision of a judge or his acts is not
unlimited. Criticism must be bona fide and
must not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety.

A publication in or outside of court tending

to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence
the courts in the administration of justice in
a pending suit, or to degrade the courts,
destroy public confidence in them or bring
them in any way to disrepute, whether or
not there is a pending litigation, transcends
the limits of fair comment. Such publication
or intemperate and unfair criticism is a
gross violation of the lawyers duty to
respect the courts.

Purpose: Newspaper publications regarding

a pending or anticipated litigation may
interfere with a fair trial, prejudice the
administration of justice, or subject a
respondent or a accused to a trial by
publicity and create a public inference of
guilt against him

This is the reason why certain proceedings

are considered confidential and their
publication prohibited until their final
resolution
by
the
courts,
as
in
administrative complaints against judges
and lawyers

Press may not publicize proceedings

declared confidential by law or by SC
resolution until their final adjudication. No
one may publicly comment thereon during
their pendency. (ex. disciplinary actions
against judges and lawyers)

Public officials charged with duty of

prosecuting or defending actions in court
may issue statements but such statements
should avoid any statement of fact likely to
create an adverse attitude in the public
mind respecting the alleged actions of the
defendants to the pending proceedings.

Maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the

free exercise of the rights of the citizens are
as
important
as
preservation
of
independence of the judiciary.

Picketing is a form of public expression by a

group or organization of sentiments or
opinions on a particular matter. It should
not be held to influence a court to decide a
case in a particular way. The duty and
responsibility of advising the picketers and
their leaders that what they are doing is
contemptuous rests primarily upon their
lawyers who, as officers of the court, are
duty-bound to apprise them of proper
decorum and attitude towards courts of
justice. (Cf. Nestle Phils. v. Sanchez supra
at Rule 13.01)

Criticism of pending and concluded litigation

The court, in a pending litigation, must be

shielded from embarrassment or influence
in its all important duty of deciding the
case. Thus, what a lawyer can ordinarily
say against a concluded litigation and the
manner the judge handed down the
decision may not generally be said to a
pending action.

Once a litigation is concluded, the judge

who decided it is subject to the same
criticism as any other public official because
then, his ruling becomes public property
and is thrown open to public consumption.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

44 of 158

Right and duty of lawyer to criticize courts

Guarantees of a free speech and a free

press include the right to criticize judicial
conduct, hence, this rule is not intended to
prevent or preclude criticism of judicial acts
of a judge.

Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced

is a fit subject for comment.

If people cannot criticize a judge the same

as any other public official, public opinion
will be effectively muzzled.

Courts are not sacrosanct. They should

expect
critical
evaluation
of
their
performance. For like the executive and the
legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted
in the soil of democratic society and
nourished by the periodic appraisal of
citizens whom it should serve.

In re Request Radio TV Coverage

(2001)
F: The petitioner, in essence, sought to reverse
the 1991 SC resolution denying the live
coverage of a libel case filed by then President
Aquino. In this case, petitioners requested the
Court to allow live media coverage of the
anticipated trial before the Sandiganbayan of
criminal charges against Pres. Estrada. In the
1991 case, the court totally prohibited live radio
and TV coverage because of the prejudice it

ONE UP LAW

poses to the defendants right to due process

and to the fair and orderly administration of
justice. The Court also held that the right of
the people to information may be served by less
distracting, degrading and prejudicial means.
The radio and TV coverage allowed was limited
to shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers,
the parties and their counsel taken prior to the
commencement of official proceedings. No video
shots or photographs were permitted during the
trial proper. The SC denied the petition.
H:
This resolution of this case involves the
weighing out of the freedom of the press and
the right of the people to information on one
hand, and the fundamental rights of the
accused on the other, along with the
constitutional power of the court to control its
proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial. Jurisprudence tells us that the right of the
accused must be preferred. Television can work
profound changes in the behavior of the people
it focuses on. However, the actual effect of
media cannot be quantified.
The effect of
television may escape the ordinary means of
proof, but is not far-fetched.
The court also pointed out that a public trial is
not synonymous to a publicized trial. Although
the court recognizes the constitutionally
protected freedom of the press and the right to
public information, within the courthouse, the
overriding consideration is still the paramount
right of the accused to due process.
In Estes v. Texas, it was held that the likely
prejudices of a live coverage of a trial are: (1)
When the judge allows the trial to be televised,
the case automatically assumes an important
status in the community such that everybody
becomes interested. (2) The quality of the
testimony in criminal trials will often be
impaired.
(3)
There
are
additional
responsibilities that the presence of television
places upon the judge. (4) The presence of
television may prove to be a form of mental
sometimes physicalharassment on the part of
the defendant. (much like being in a police lineup)
The court is not unmindful of recent
technological advances but to chance with the
life or liberty of any person in a hasty bid to use
and apply them, even in the presence of safety
precautions, is a price too high to pay.

Martelino v. Alejandro (1970)

F:
A shooting occurred between some
Muslim recruits (then undergoing commando
training) and members of the AFP. Major
Eduardo Martelino and the officers under him
were charged for violation of the Articles of War
as a result of this shootout. The SC denied the
petition to disqualify the president of the
general court martial, who acquired jurisdiction
over the case because o his admission that he
read newspaper stories of the Corregidor
incident, which some newspapers called the
incident the Corregidor massacre. Petitioners
contend that the case has received such an

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

45 of 158

amount of publicity and was being exploited for

political purposes in connection with the 1969
presidential election. They alleged that the
adverse publicity given in the mass media to
the incident, coupled with the fact that it
became an issue against the administration,
was such as would unduly influence the
members of the court-martial. News items that
appeared in the Daily Mirror stated among other
things that: coffins are being prepared for the
Philippine president. An editorial from Manila
Times said that this issue would be brought up
in the elections and that it is a heavy load for
the administration.
H: The court cited US jurisprudence regarding
the topic of trial by publicity. Irvin vs. Dowd
marks the first time a state conviction was
struck down solely on the ground of prejudicial
publicity. Rideau vs. Louisiana is a case where
a change of venue was granted because the fact
that the people in that place had seen and
heard the accuseds televised confession during
interrogation would work to unjustly prejudice
the accused.
Televising a court trial would amount to a
violation of due process. A carnival atmosphere
would be created.
Jurisprudence also states that there is nothing
that proscribes the press from reporting events
that transpire in the courtroom. But there is a
reasonable likelihood that the prejudicial news
prior to trial will prevent a fair trial. If publicity
during the proceeding threatens the fairness of
the trial, a new trial shall be ordered.
HOWEVER, THE CASE AT BAR IS DIFFERENT.
The publicity in this case did not focus on the
guilt of the petitioners but rather on the
responsibility of the government for what was
claimed to be a massacre of Muslim trainees.
If there was a trial by newspaper it was not of
the petitioner but of the government. There is
no showing that the courts martial failed to
protect the accused from massive publicity.
Protection would include: controlling the release
of information; change the venue or postpone
trial until the deluge of prejudicial publicity has
subsided. Even granting that there is massive
and prejudicial publicity, the petitioners do not
contend that the respondents have been unduly
influenced but simply that they might be.

In re Vicente Raul Almacen (1970)

supra at Rule 11.03

Cruz v. Salva (1959)

F: The SC publicly reprimanded Pasay City
Fiscal Salva for conducting a reinvestigation of
the Monroy murder not in his office, but in the
Municipal Courts session hall, to accommodate
the big crowd wanting to witness the
proceeding. Members of the press were
present, and were even allowed to ask
questions. Salva was willing to adopt the press
questions as the committees.
H: Anent the investigation, the court was
greatly disappointed and annoyed by the

ONE UP LAW

publicity and sensationalism. He committed a

grievous error and poor judgment for which the
court failed to find any satisfactory explanation.
His actuations went beyond the bounds of
prudence, discretion and good taste. When such
publicity and sensationalism is allowed, the
whole
thing
becomes
inexcusable
even
abhorrent, and in the interest of justice, is
constrained to put an end to it.

13.03
NOT TO INVITE OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE

Rule 13.03.
A lawyer shall not
brook or invite interference by another branch
or agency of the government by another branch
or agency of the government in normal course
of judicial proceedings.

Rule 11.05.
A lawyer shall submit
grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
NOTE
(Aguirre)

The basis for the rules is the principle of

separation of powers

(Agpalo)

The reason for Rule 13.03 is that a lawyer

who invites interference by another branch
or agency of government in the normal
course of judicial proceedings endangers
the independence of the judiciary

Maglasang v. People (1990)

F: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the
court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His
counsel, Atty. Castellano, filed for a petition for
certiorari through registered mail. Due to noncompliance with the requirements, the court
dismissed the petition and a motion for
reconsideration. Atty. Castellano then sent a
complaint to the Office of the President where
he accused the five justices of the 2 nd division,
with biases and ignorance of the law or
knowingly rendering unjust judgments. He
accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino
administration for being Marcos appointees, and
robbing the Filipino people genuine justice and
democracy. He also said that the SC is doing
this to protect the judge who was impleaded in
the petition and for money reasons. He alleges
further that the court is too expensive to be
reached by ordinary men. The court is also
inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous.
When asked to show cause why he should not
be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the
complaint was constructive criticism intended to
correct in good faith the erroneous and very
strict practices of the justices concerned. He

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

46 of 158

also said that the justices have no jurisdiction

over his act and that they should just answer
the complaint. The SC found him guilty of
contempt and improper conduct and ordered to
pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to
suffer six months suspension.
H: The court found his comments scurrilous and
contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of
constructive criticism. What he said are not
relevant to the cause of his client. They cast
aspersion on the Courts integrity as a neutral
and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies
before it.
The explanation of Castellano in his negligence
in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not
render his negligence excusable. It is clear that
the case was lost not by the alleged injustices
Castellano
irresponsibly
ascribed
to the
members of the Court, but his inexcusable
negligence and incompetence.
As an officer of the court, he should have
known better than to smear the honor and
integrity of the Court just to keep the
confidence of his client.
Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic
tenet of the system of government separation
of power - has been lost. He should know that
not even the President of the Philippines can
pass judgment on any of the Courts acts.

Chapter 4
The Lawyer and the Client
NOTES
(Regala v. Sandiganbayan)

The nature of lawyer-client relationship is

premised on the Roman Law concepts of
1.
location
conduction
operarum
(contract of lease and services) where
one person lends his services and
another hires them without reference to
the object of which the services are to
be
performed,
wherein
lawyers
services may be compensated by
honorarium
2.
mandato (contract of agency) wherein
a friend on whom reliance could be
placed makes a contract in his name,
but gives up all that he gained by the
contract to the person who requested
him.

BUT the lawyer-client relationship is more

than that of the principal-agent and lessorlessee. The modern day perception is that
an attorney is more than a mere agent or
servant because
1.
he possesses special power of trust
and confidence reposed on him by his
client
2.
he is as independent as the judge of
the court
3.
he occupies a quasi-judicial office
since he is an officer of the Court and

ONE UP LAW

A lawyer has no power to act as counsel or

legal representative for a person without
being retained nor may he appear for a
party in a case without being employed
unless by leave of court

The essential feature of the relation of

attorney and client is the fact of
employment. While a written agreement for
professional services is the best evidence to
show the relation, formality is not an
essential element of the employment of a
lawyer

Attorney-client relationship

The relationship is strictly personal and

highly confidential and fiduciary (something
in trust for another). Thus, delegation is
prohibited absent the clients consent. It
likewise terminates at death of either the
client or the attorney.

It is sufficient, to establish the professional

relation, that the advice and assistance of
an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession

There is an implied contract of professional

employment where an attorney appears on
behalf of a party without the latter
interposing any objection thereto

Courts have to recognise its creation on the

faith of the clients word. Likewise,

A client can terminate it any time with or

without the consent of the lawyer. However,
an attorney enjoys no similar right as he is
an officer of the court and he may be
permitted to withdraw only with the
consent of his client or with the approval of
the court

In the absence of a written retainer, the

establishment
of
the
attorney-client
relationship
depends
upon
the
circumstances of each case

To employ an attorney one has to have

legal capacity to do so.
Minors/
incompetents
must
have
a
general
guardian/ guardian ad litem has to employ
an attorney.

he exercises his judgment in the

courses of action to be taken favorable
to his client

4.

In the creation of lawyer-client

relationship, there are rules, ethical
conduct and duties that breathe life
into it, among those, the fiduciary duty
to his client which is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character,
requiring a very high degree of fidelity
and good faith that is required by
reason of necessity and public interest.

(Agpalo)

There should be a proper sense of vicarious

detachment, less emotional involvement to
adequately serve interest of client. It is
therefore advisable not to appear for
oneself or close relatives.
It
demands
undivided
allegiance,
a
conspicuous and high degree of good faith,
disinterestedness, candour, fairness, loyalty,
fidelity and absolute integrity in dealings
and transactions.
It demands the utter
renunciation of every personal advantage
conflicting in any way

The relationship has to be reconciled with

duties to the court and thus requires fidelity
and loyalty in varying degrees within limits

Its preservation and protection encourage

clients to entrust their legal problems to an
attorney, which is paramount importance in
administration of justice

In sum, an attorney must exert his best

efforts and learning: to protect of client; to
promptly account for any fund/ property
entrusted by or received for client; not to
purchase/ acquire any property or interest
of client in litigation; to
forever keep
inviolate clients secrets or confidence; not
to represent an adverse party even after
termination.

Retainer

Retainer, defined:
(1) an act of client by which he engages
services of an attorney to render legal advice,
defend or prosecute his cause in court;
(2) fee which a client pays to an attorney when
latter is retained (retaining fee)

General
retainer,
defined:
secure
beforehand services of attorney for any
legal problem that may afterward arise

Special retainer, defined: particular case or

service

Retaining fee, defined: preliminary fee paid

to insure and secure future services, to
remunerate him for being deprived, by
being retained by one party. It prevents
undue hardship resulting from the rigid
observance of the rule forbidding him from
acting as counsel for other party

Employment of a law firm

The employment of a law firm is equivalent

to the retainer of a member thereof even
though only one of them is consulted

Sufficiency of Employment

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

47 of 158

ONE UP LAW

RULE 14.01
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
REGARDLESS OF STATUS

CANON 14
SERVICE TO THE NEEDY

Canon 14.
A lawyer
refuse his services to the needy.

shall

not

Rule 14.01.
A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person.
Rule 14.02.
A lawyer shall not decline,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio or as amici
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 refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client if:
a.
he is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
b.
he labors under a conflict of interests
between him and the prospective client or
between
a present
client and
the
prospective client.

Rule 14.01.
A lawyer shall not
decline to represent a person solely on account
of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life,
or because of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person.

Rule 138, sec. 20 (h-i). Duties of

attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (h)
Never to reject, for any consideration personal
to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed. (i) In the defense of a person
accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to
the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by
due process of law.
NOTES
(Jardeleza)

(Agpalo)

Regardless of his personal feelings, a

lawyer should not decline representation
because a client or a cause is unpopular or
community reaction is adverse

Rule 14.01 makes it his duty not to decline

to represent the accused regardless of his
opinion as to his guilt.

In criminal cases: easy to take accused

because of presumption of innocence and
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Rule 14.04.
A lawyer who accepts the
cause of a person unable to pay his professional
fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.

Rule 2.01.
A lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of
the defenseless or the oppressed.

R.A. 6033. An act requiring courts

to give preference to criminal cases where
the party or parties involved are indigents
(1969)ANNEXED

R.A.
6034.
An
act
providing
transportation and other allowances for
indigent litigants. (1969) ANNEXED

RA
6035.
An
act
requiring
stenographers to give free transcript of
notes to indigent and low income litigants
and providing a penalty for the violation
thereof. (1969) ANNEXED

In Civil Actions

In a civil action, the rules and ethics of the

legal profession enjoin a lawyer from taking
a bad case, and he certainly knows whether
a civil suit is good, bad, or honestly
debatable under the law.

The attorneys signature in every pleading

constitutes a certification by him that there
is good cause to support it and that it is not
interposed for delay, and a willful violation
of such rule may subject the lawyer to
disciplinary action.

It is the lawyers duty to counsel or

maintain such actions or proceedings only
as appear to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under law.
He is not to
encourage the commencement or the
continuance of an action or delay any mans
cause, for any corrupt motive or interest.
He must decline to conduct a civil cause or
to make a defense when convinced that it is
intended merely to harass or injure the
opposite party or to work oppression or
wrong. If he were to take a bad civil case

NOTES
(Agpalo)

General rule: A private practitioner is not

obliged to act as counsel for a person who
may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline employment.

Exceptions:
Canon
14
provide
the
exceptions to the general rule and
emphasize the lawyers public responsibility
of rendering legal services to the needy and
the oppressed who are unable to pay
attorneys fees. In such cases, refusal is
the exception rather than the rule.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

48 of 158

Rule 14.01 applies only to criminal cases.

ONE UP LAW

for a plaintiff, it will only be to advise him

not to file the action or to settle it with the
claimant. If he were to accept the defense
of a bad civil case against a defendant, it
will either be to exert his best effort toward
a compromise or, to tell his client to confess
judgment
RULE 14.02
PROVIDING COUNSEL DE OFICIO
1.

Counsel de Oficio

Rule 14.02.
A lawyer shall not
decline, except for serious and sufficient cause,
an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amici
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.

Rule 138 sec. 20 (h), Duties of

attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (h)
Never to reject, for any consideration personal
to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;

Rule 138, sec. 31 Attorneys for

destitute litigants.A court may assign an
attorney to render professional aid free of
charge to any party in a case, if upon
investigation it appears that the party is
destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and
that the services of counsel are necessary to
secure the ends of justice and to protect the
rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the
attorney so assigned to render the required
service, unless he is excused therefrom by the
court for sufficient cause shown.

Rule 116, sec. 6. Duty of court to

inform accused of his right to counsel.Before
arraignment, the court shall inform the accused
of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires
to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to
defend himself in person or has employed
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
counsel de oficio to defend him.

Rule 116, sec. 7. Appointment of

counsel de oficioThe court shall appoint a
counsel de oficio to defend a client, considering
[1] the gravity of the offense, [2] the difficulty
of the questions that may arise, [3] and the
experience and ability of the appointee. The
counsel must be [1] a member of the bar in
good standing [2] or, in localities without
lawyers, any person of good repute for probity
and ability

Rule 116, sec. 7. Time for counsel de

oficio to prepare for arraignment. Whenever
a counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to
defend the accused at the arraignment, he shall
be given a reasonable time to consult with the
accused as to his plea before proceeding with
the arraignment.

Rule 124 (Case on Appeal in the

CA), sec. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

49 of 158

for the accused.If it appears from the record

of the case transmitted that [1] the accused is
confined in prison, [2] is without counsel de
parte on appeal, or [3] has signed the notice of
appeal himself, the clerk of court of the CA shall
designate a counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may,
upon request, be assigned a counsel de oficio
within the 10 days from receipt of the notice to
file brief and he establishes his right thereto by
affidavit.
NOTES
(Aguirre)

Rule 138, sec. 31 is the general rule for all

indigent litigants as it speaks of the
attorney for destitute litigants. Rule 116
sec. 6 & 7 and Rule 124, sec. 2 refer to the
accused in a criminal case and counsel de
oficio is used only for the accused in a
criminal proceeding.

(Agpalo)

Counsel de Oficio, defined: a counsel,

appointed or assigned by the court, from
among such members of the bar in good
standing who by reason of their experience
and ability, may adequately defend the
accused.

One of the obligations incident to the status

and privilege of a lawyer to practice law is
to represent the poor and the oppressed in
the prosecution of their claims or the
defense of their rights

Assignment as counsel de oficio

If a person who is under the investigation

for the commission of an offense cannot
afford the services of a counsel, he must be
provided with one; but not if the client
wants or expresses the desire to have
counsel de parte..

Every
lawyer
should
welcome
his
appointment as counsel de oficio as an
opportunity to render public service, show
that the practice of law is a profession, and
demonstrate that the discharge of his
duties does not depend upon payment.

A lawyer should not however be frequently

designated counsel de oficio. The burden of
an attorneys regular practice and the
possibility that the compensation for
counsel de oficio will be considered as a
regular source of income.

Assignment from the IBP

The IBP has established legal aid offices

throughout the country

Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a

means for the correction of social imbalance
that may and often do lead to injustice, for
which reason it is a public responsibility of
the bar

ONE UP LAW

2.

Amicus Curiae

Rule 138, sec. 36. Amicus curiae.

Experience and impartial attorneys may be
invited by the Court to appear as amici
curiae to help in the disposition of issues
submitted to it.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Amicus curiae, defined: A friend of the

court; a bystander (usually a counselor)
who interposes or volunteers information
upon some matter of law in regard to which
the judge is doubtful or mistaken.
A lawyer should not decline an appointment
by the court as amicus curiae except for a
valid cause

P.D. 543. Authorizing the designation

of municipal judges and lawyers in any branch
of the government service to act as counsel de
oficio for the accused who are indigent in places
where there are no available practicing lawyers.
(1974)ANNEXED

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.
Rule 15.02.
A lawyer shall be bound by the
rule on privileged communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective
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.
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 clients
case, neither overstating nor understanding the
prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06.
A lawyer shall not state or
imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07.
A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.

RULE 14.03
VALID GROUND FOR REFUSAL

Rule 14.03.
A lawyer may refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client if:
a.
he is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
b.
he labors under a conflict of interests
between him and the prospective client or
between
a present
client and
the
prospective client.
RULE 14.04
SAME STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR
PAYING AND NON-PAYING CLIENTS

FAIRNESS

AND

Canon 15.
A lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

50 of 158

CANON 15.
OBSERVE
CANDOR,
LOYALTY

FAIRNESS

AND

Canon 15.
A lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Rule 14.04.
A lawyer who accepts
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
OBSERVE
CANDOR,
LOYALTY

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.

This canon is based on the character of the

attorney-client relationship which is strictly
personal and highly confidential and
fiduciary. Only in such a relationship can a
person be encouraged to repose confidence
in an attorney.

The canon therefore is required by

necessity and public interest and is based
on the hypothesis that abstinence from
seeking legal advice in a good cause is an
evil which is fatal to the administration of
justice.

RULE 15.01 AND 15.03

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ONE UP LAW


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.

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.

Art. 209 Revised Penal Code.

Betrayal of trust by an attorney. or
solicitor.Revelation
of
Secrets.The
same penalty shall be imposed upon any
attorney or solicitor (procurador judicial)
who, having undertaken the defense of a
client or having received confidential
information from said client in a case, shall
undertake the defense of the opposing
party in the same case, without the consent
of his first client. [the first part of this
provision appears at Rule 15.02]
NOTES
(Agpalo)

It is the duty of a lawyer to disclose and

explain to the prospective client all
circumstances of his relations to the parties
and any interest in or any connection with
the controversy, which in his honest
judgment might influence the client in the
selection of counsel.

The disclosure is more for the protection of

the lawyer than that of the client, so that
the client may not lose confidence in him,
which may even affect his fee. If the lawyer
does not disclose anything, a client may
assume the lawyer has no interest which
will interfere with his devotion to the cause
confided to him or betray his judgment.

Duty to decline employment (1993 BAR EXAMS)

It is his duty to decline employment in any

matter which may involve representing
conflicting interests

He should not accept employment from

another on a matter adversely affecting
any interest of his former client with
respect to which confidence has been
reposed.

He should not accept employment as

an advocate in any matter in which he
had intervened while in the government
service.

He should not accept employment the

nature of which might easily be used as
a means of advertising his professional
services or his skill. (ex. advice
column)
and if it involves

A violation of the rules of the legal

profession.

Nullification of a contract which he

prepared

Employment with a collection agency

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

51 of 158

which solicits business to collect claims.

Any matter which he knows or has
reason to believe that he or his partner
will be an essential witness for the
prospective client.

Although there is no statutory restriction for

a lawyer to be an advocate and a witness
for a client in a case, the canons of the
profession forbid him from acting in that
double capacity as he will find it difficult to
disassociate his relation to the client as a
lawyer and as witness.

A lawyer generally should not refuse

services to the needy. However, he may
refuse if he is not in a position to carry it
out effectively or competently or he labors
under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between his
present client and the prospective client.

Test of Conflict of Interest

Here are some tests employed to determine

the existence of conflicting interests.
1.
when,
on
behalf of one client, it is the attorneys
duty to contest for that which his duty
to another client requires him to
oppose or when the possibility of such
situation will develop;
2.
whether
the
acceptance of the new relation will
prevent a lawyer from the full discharge
of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or will invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness in the
performance thereof; and
3.
whether
a
lawyer will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired in the previous
employment.

The proscription against representation of

conflicting interests finds application where
the conflicting interests arise with respect
to the same general matter and is
applicable however slight such adverse
interest may be. It applies although the
attorneys intentions and motives were
honest and he acted in good faith.

Rule
against
representing
conflicting
interests applies even if the conflict pertains
to the lawyers private activity or in the
performance in a non-professional capacity,
and his presentation as a lawyer regarding
the same subject matter.

Effect of termination of attorney-client relation

Termination of relation of attorney and

client provides no justification for a lawyer
to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of the former client.
Neither may he do anything injurious to his
former client nor use against former client
any knowledge or information gained.

ONE UP LAW

Reason: clients confidence, once reposed,

cannot be divested by the expiration of
professional employment.

Acquisition
of
confidential
information
immaterial

The relationship prohibits the lawyer from

accepting professional employment from
clients adversary either in the same case or
in a different but related action applies
irrespective of whether or not the lawyer
has acquired confidential information from
his former client.

Reason: the attorney-client relationship is

one of trust and confidence. A lawyer
knows everything about the case, hence, he
must not be given opportunity to take
advantage of that knowledge, otherwise the
profession will suffer.

Rule is designed not only to prevent

dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct but also to preclude the honest
practitioner from putting himself in a
position where he may be required to
choose between conflicting duties, and to
protect him from unfounded suspicion of
professional misconduct.
An attorney should not only keep inviolate
his clients confidence but should likewise
avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing.

Opposing clients in same or related suits

An attorney who appears for opposing

clients in the same or related actions puts
himself in that awkward position where he
will have to contend on behalf of one client
that which he will have to oppose on behalf
of the other client. He cannot give
disinterested advice to both clients but will
instead be called on to use confidential
information against one client in favor of
the other in view of the identicalness or
relatedness of the subject.

Opposing clients in unrelated actions

A lawyer 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 because it is not good
practice to permit him afterwards to defend
in another case another person against his
former client under the pretext that the
case is distinct from, and independent of,
the former case.

Reason: if rule is made to depend on

acquisition of confidential info, it will require
investigation into the case and will only lead
to the revelation of matters in advance to
clients prejudice. It will also violate
attorney-client relationship.

Foundation of, and reason for, the rule

Founded on principles of public policy and

good taste. It springs from attorneys duty
to represent client with undivided fidelity
and to maintain inviolate the clients
confidence.

way clear to settling the controversy

amicably, retire from the case.

Even though the opposing clients, after full

disclosure of the fact, consent to the
attorneys dual representation, the lawyer
should, when his clients cannot see their

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

52 of 158

It is improper for a lawyer to appear as

counsel for one party against the adverse
party who is his client in another totally
unrelated action. The attorney in that
situation will not be able to pursue, with
vigor and zeal, the clients claim against the
other and to properly represent the latter in
the unrelated action; or, if he can do so, he
cannot avoid being suspected by the
defeated client of disloyalty of partiality in
favor of the successful client.

New client against former client

A lawyer cannot represent a

new client against a former client only when
the subject matter of the present
controversy is related, directly of indirectly,
to the subject matter of the previous
litigation in which he appeared for the
former client. He may properly act as
counsel for a new client, with full disclosure
to the latter, against a former client in a
matter wholly unrelated to that of the
previous employment, there being no
conflict of interests.

Reason: what a lawyer owes to

former client is to maintain inviolate the
clients confidence or to refrain from doing
anything which will injuriously affect him in
any matter which he previously represented
him; in this case, duty does not arise

Where
subject
matter
of
present suit between the lawyers new
client and his former client is in some way
connected, prohibition applies even if no
confidential information was acquired.

Conflicting duties

A lawyer may not, as an employee of a

corporation whose duty is to attend to its
legal affairs, join a labor union of
employees in that corporation because the
exercise
of
the
unions
rights
is
incompatible with his duty as a lawyer for
his corporate client

A lawyer may not, as counsel for a client,

attack the validity of the instrument
prepared by him

Attorneys interest vs. Clients interest

An attorney should not put himself in a

position where self-interest tempts him to

ONE UP LAW

do less than his best for his client. (e.g., it

is improper to have financial stakes in
subject matter of suit brought on behalf of
his client)
Rule applicable to law firm

Where a lawyer is disqualified or forbidden

from appearing as counsel in a case
because of conflict of interests, the law firm
of which he is a member as well as any
member, associate or assistant is similarly
disqualified or prohibited from so acting.

This rule is a corollary of the rule that the

employment of one member of a law firm is
considered as an employment of the law
firm and that the employment of a law firm
is equivalent to a retainer of the members
thereof.

Limitations to general rule

The
prohibition
against
representing
conflicting interests does not apply:
1. where no conflict of interests exists
(e.g. a lawyer may represent new client
against former client where both
actions are unrelated and where lawyer
will not be called to oppose what he
had espoused on behalf of former client
not use confidential info against former
client.)
2. where the clients knowingly consent to
dual representation in writing

Lawyer may represent

conflicting
interests
before
it
reaches the court but only after full
disclosure of the facts and express
written consent of all parties.

Where representation
by a lawyer is for both opposing
parties, their written consent may
enable the lawyer to represent
them before but not after their
controversy has reached the court.
After the controversy has reached
the court, the lawyer cannot, even
with the parties written consent,
represent both of them without
being held administratively liable as
an officer of the court.

Disclosure
should
include thorough explanation of
nature and extent of conflict and
possible adverse effects of dual
representation. This should include
disclosure of the lawyers present
and/or former clients who have
conflicting interests.
Advantage: a mutual
lawyer, impartial and with honest
motivations, may be better situated
to
work
out
an
acceptable
settlement since he has confidence
of both parties
A
lawyer
may
represent new client against former
client only after full disclosure and

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

53 of 158

3.

written consent. Former clients

written
consent
constitutes
a
release from obligation to keep
inviolate the clients confidences or
to desist from injuriously affecting
him in any matter which he
previously represented.

Where circumstances
show parties require independent
counsel, or where lawyer may be
suspected of disloyalty, he should
immediately withdraw from the
case.

General rule that a

lawyer may be allowed to represent
conflicting interests, where parties
consent, applies only where one is
a former client and the other is a
new one, not where both are
current clients.

Lawyer
may
not
represent
conflicting
interests,
even with consent, where the
conflict is between the attorneys
interest and that of a client (selfinterest should yield to clients
interest) or between a private
clients interest and that of the
govt or any of its instrumentalities
(public policy and public interest
forbid dual representation).
where
no
true
attorney-client
relationship is attendant

Absence
of
true
attorney-client relationship either
with the attorney or with the law
firm of which he is a member
makes the prohibition inapplicable.

Exception: attorneys
secretary, stenographer or clerk
who, in such capacity, has acquired
confidential
information
from
attorneys client, may not accept
employment or, after admission to
the bar, represent an interest
adverse to that of attys client.

Effects of representation of conflicting

interests

Representation of conflicting interests

subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.
The reason is that the representation of
conflicting interests not only constitutes
malpractice but also a violation of the
confidence which results from the attorneyclient relationship, of the oath of a lawyer
(in that he did not serve his clients interest
well) and of his duty to both the client and
the court.

If
representation of conflicting interests is
unknown and works prejudice against new
client, judgment against the latter may be
set aside. Basis: a lawyer disqualified from
appearing on account of inconsistency of
duties is presumed to have improperly and

ONE UP LAW

prejudicially advised and represented the

party from beginning to end of litigation.
Two questions to be asked:
(1) Did the attorney discharge or have
opportunity to discharge conflicting interests?
(2) Did the new client suffer prejudice? If yes
to both, adverse judgment against new client
may be justified.

Attorneys
right to be paid for his services to former
client may be affected by representation of
conflicting interests, only if 2 matters are
related and the former client objected to
such representation. But new client may
not defeat attorneys right to fees in the
absence of concealment and prejudice by
reason of attorneys previous professional
relationship with opposing party.

San Jose Homeowners v. Romanillo

(2005)
F: In 1985 Atty. Romanillos represented San
Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. (SHJAI)
before the Human Settlements Regulation
Commission in a case against Durano and
Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of the Subdivision
and Condominium Buyers Protection Act. While
still the counsel for SHJAI, Atty. Romanillos
represented the spouses Montealegre in
requesting for SJHAIs conformity to construct a
building on Lot. No. 224 to be purchased from
Durano. When the request was denied,
respondent applied for clearance before the
HLURB in behalf of the Montealegres. SJHAI
terminated Atty. Romanillos services as counsel.
Atty. Romanillos went further and acted as
counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who
substituted for DCI in aforementioned civil case.
SHJAI filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Romanillos for representing conflicting interests.
In 1999 the SC recommended the dismissal of
the complaint with admonition that respondent
should observe extra care and diligence in the
practice of his profession. Notwithstanding the
admonition,
Atty.
Romanillos
continued
representing Lydia Durano-Rodriguez before the
CA and SC. Thus, a second disbarment case
was filed against him for violation of the March
1999 Resolution and for his alleged deceitful
conduct in using the title Judge although he
was not honorably discharged from the judiciary
being found guilty of grave and serious
misconduct in a previous case Zarate vs. Judge
Romanillos. Atty. Romanillos had used the title
Judge
in
his
office
letterhead,
correspondences, and on billboards which were
erected in several areas within the Subdivision.
The SC disbarred him.
H:
It is inconsequential that petitioner
never questioned the propriety of respondents
continued representation of Rodriguez. The lack
of opposition does not mean tacit consent. As
long as the lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing clients, he is
guilty of violating his oath.
Rule 15.03
mandates that a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned parties after a full disclosure.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

54 of 158

Also, respondents continued use of the title

Judge violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01 prohibiting
lawyer from engaging in deceitful conduct and
from using any misleading statement or claim
regarding qualifications or legal services. He
resigned from being a judge during the
pendency of a case where he was eventually
found guilty of illegal solicitation and receipt of
P10,000 from a party litigant and would have
been dismissed from the service had he not
resigned. The title Judge should be reserved
only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not
to those who were dishonorably discharged
from the service. This is not respondents first
infraction as an officer of the court and a
member of the legal profession. He was
stripped of his retirement benefits and other
privileges in the Zarate case and he got off
lightly with just an admonition in the 1999
resolution. He manifested undue disrespect to
our mandate and exhibited propensity to violate
the laws. His disbarment is consequently
warranted.

Hornilla v. Salunat (2003)

F:
Members of the Philippine Public School
Teachers
Association
(PPSTA)
filed
an
intracorporate case against members of the
Board of Directors before the SEC and filed a
complaint before the Ombudsman for unlawful
spending and the undervalued sale of real
property of PPSTA. Atty. Salunat, the retained
counsel of PPSTA, represented the members of
the Board of Directors in these cases.
Complainants contend that Atty. Salunat was
guilty of conflict of interest because he was
engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants
were members, and was being paid out of its
corporate funds.
The SC admonished Atty.
Salunat.
H:
There is conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent interest of two or
more opposing parties. The test is whether or
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty
to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty
to oppose it for the other client. Also, if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to perform an act which will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against
his first client any knowledge acquired through
their connection. Another test is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the performance thereof. In this
case, the court is convinced that a lawyer
engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot
represent members of the same corporations
board of directors in a derivative suit brought
against them. To do so with be tantamount to
representing conflicting interests.
Though
Salunat claims he only filed a pleading for
dismissal, but in the filing of the pleading, he
necessarily entered his appearance. Again,
there is conflict of interests, considering the
complaint in the Ombudsman, albeit in the

ONE UP LAW

name of the individual members of the PPSTA,

was brought in behalf of and to protect the
interests of the corporation.

Dee v. CA (1989)
F: Donald Dee and his father went to the
residence of Atty. Amelito Mutuc to seek Mutucs
advice regarding the alleged indebtedness of
Dees brother Dewey to Ceasars Palace Casino
in Las Vegas. Mutuc pursued the matter and
eventually freed Dewey from the claim of the
casino.
Mutuc then sent the Dees several
demand letters for the P50, 000 balance for his
attorneys fees and consequently filed a suit for
collection of attorneys fees and refund of
transportation fare.
The Dees denied the
existence of any professional relationship of
attorney and client, claim that the initial visit
was an informal one and that the services were
not specifically contracted. They also claimed
that Mutuc, as the representative of Caesars
Palace in the Philippines, worked for the interest
of the casino.
H: The absence of a written contract will not
preclude the finding that there was a
professional relationship which merits attorneys
fees
for
professional
fees
rendered.
Documentary formalism is not an essential
element in the employment of an attorney; the
contract may be express or implied.
As to Mutuc being employed by the casino, the
court said that though an attorney is generally
prohibited from representing parties with
contending positions, at a certain stage of the
controversy, 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 the parties
Because the petitioner was not unaware of
these
contending
interests,
he
actually
consented to them and cannot now decry the
dual representation that he postulates.
RULE 15.02
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound

by the rule on privileged communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

55 of 158

Art. 209 Revised Penal Code.

Betrayal of trust by an attorney. or
solicitor.Revelation
of
Secrets.In
addition to the proper administrative action,
shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law
or solicitor (procurador judicial) who, by
any malicious breach of professional duty or
of inexcusable negligence or ignorance,
shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of
the secrets of the latter learned by him in
his professional capacity.
NOTES
(Aguirre)

Exceptions to privilege
1. When a lawyer is accused by the client
and he needs to reveal information to
defend himself
2. When the client discloses the intention
to commit a crime or unlawful act.
(Future crime)

(Agpalo)

Matters disclosed by a prospective client to

a lawyer are protected by the rule on
privileged communication even if the
prospective client does not thereafter retain
the lawyer or the latter declines the
employment.

Reason: to make prospective client free to

discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer
without fear that what he tells the lawyer
will not be divulged nor used against him,
and for the lawyer to be equally free to
obtain information from the prospective
client.

People v. Sandiganbayan (1997)

F: In 1985, the Director of Lands sought
cancellation of a patent and certificate of title
procured by Paredes, Provincial Attorney of
Agusan
del
Sur,
then
Governor
and
Congressman, through free patent. The patent
and certificate were cancelled as the trial court
found it was obtained thru fraudulent means.
The Tanodbayan investigated Paredes for
allegedly using his former position as Provincial
Attorney to influence and induce Bureau of
Lands officials to favorably act on his
application. A criminal case was filed before
Sandiganbayan. Sansaet was Paredess counsel.
Sansaet filed a MR on the ground that filing of
case would constitute double jeopardy since a
perjury case had been ordered dismissed by the
court upon recommendation of DOJ. He
attached copy of (1) dismissal order (2)
certificate
of
arraignment
and
(3)
recommendation of DOJ. (these would later turn
out to have been falsified with the help of
Honrada,
clerk of court, then acting
stenographer of a MCTC in Agusan del Sur).
The case was dismissed however on the ground
of prescription. In 1990, a taxpayer who filed
perjury and graft charges against Paredes,
wrote to the Ombudsman seeking investigation
of respondents for allegedly falsifying the notice
of arraignment and transcripts of stenographic

ONE UP LAW

notes which were attached to the MR. As it

turned out, the perjury case did not reach
arraignment pending review in the DOJ, hence,
fiscal could not have received the notice of
arraignment. The Ombudsman approved filing
of charges against Paredes, Sansaet and
Honrada. It refused to consider Sansaet as
state witness since he could not have been
unwittingly induced to commit the crime and
claimed further that his testimony would be
covered by the attorney-client privilege.
Sandiganbayan sided with Ombudsman and
denied discharge of Sansaet as sate witness.
The SC reversed the decision of the
Sandiganbayan
H: The attorney-client relationship cannot apply
in this case as the facts and the actuations of
both respondents constitute an exception to the
rule. Undoubtedly, there was a confidential
communication made by Paredes to Sansaet,
regardless of the mode. Acts and words of the
parties during the period when the documents
were
being
falsified
were
necessarily
confidential since Paredes would not have
invited Sansaet to his house and allowed him to
witness the same except under conditions of
secrecy and confidence.
For attorney-client
privilege to apply, however, the period to be
considered is the date when the privileged
communication was made by the client to the
attorney in relation to either a crime committed
in the past or with respect to a crime intended
to be committed in the future. (if past, privilege
applies; if future, does not apply)
In the
present case, testimony sought to be elicited
from Sansaet are communications made to him
by physical acts and/or accompanying words of
Paredes at the time he and Honrada, either with
active or passive participation of Sansaet, were
about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying,
the documents which were later filed by
Sansaet
in
the
Tanodbayan.
Crime
of
falsification had not yet been committed, hence,
they are not covered by the privilege. It could
also not have been covered by the privilege
because Sansaet was himself a conspirator in
the commission of the crime of falsification. In
order that a communication between a lawyer
and his client be privileged, it must be for a
lawful purpose or in the furtherance of a lawful
end. On the contrary, Sansaet, as lawyer, may
be bound to disclose the info at once in the
interest of justice.

Regala v. Sandiganbayan (1996)

F: In 1987, the Republic through the PCGG
instituted
a
complaint
before
the
Sandiganbayan against Eduardo M. Conjuangco,
as one of the principal defendants, for the
recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. Among the
defendants named in the case are herein
petitioners, who all were then partners of the
ACCRA Law Firm. In 1991, the PCGG filed a
Motion to exclude private respondent Raul Roco
from the complaint as party-defendant. PCGG
based its exclusion of Roco on his undertaking
that he testify that the partners assisted in the
organization and acquisition of the corporations
involved in sequestration proceedings and that
the partners acted as nominees-stockholders of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

56 of 158

said corporations. The petitioners subsequently

filed a counter-motion that PCGG similarly
exclude them as parties-defendants of the case
as accorded Roco. The PCGG set the following
conditions precedent for the exclusion of
petitioners: (1) disclosure of the identity of its
clients;
(2)
submission
of
documents
substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; (3)
submission of the deeds of assignments
petitioners executed in favor of its clients
covering their respective shareholdings. The
Sandiganbayan
denied
the
exclusion
of
petitioners for their refusal to comply with the
conditions required by PCGG. The SC reversed
the Sandiganbayan.
H:
In
our
jurisdiction,
this
privilege
(confidentiality in lawyer-client relationship)
takes off from the following authorities
(1) Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure
enacted by Philippine Commission;
(2) Sec 24 Rules of Court
(3) Sec 138 of the Rules of Court;
(4) Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and
(5) Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics
The public interests served by the policy that
favors confidentiality are the following:
1.
In the constitutional sphere, the
privilege gives flesh to the right to counsel
and the right against self-incrimination. If
no such privilege is accorded, an accused
might be compelled to either opt to stay
away from the judicial system or to lose the
right to counsel.
2.
Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer
by one seeking legal services opens the
door to a whole spectrum of legal options
which would otherwise be circumscribed by
limited information engendered by fear of
disclosure.
Necessarily, in order to attain effective
representation, the lawyer must invoke the
privilege not as a matter of option but as a
matter of duty and professional responsibility.
The general rule is that a lawyer may not
invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of his client. The reasons for
this are that:
1.
The Court has a right to know that
the client whose privileged information is
sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2.
The privilege begins to exist only
after the attorney-client relationship has
been established. The privilege does not
attach until there is a client.
3.
The privilege pertains to the
subject matter of the relationship.
4.
Due process considerations require
that the opposing party should know his
adversary. (Metaphor: He cannot be obliged
to grope in the dark against unknown
forces.)
The general rule is however qualified by some
exceptions. Client identity is privileged
1.
Where a strong probability exists that
revealing the clients name would implicate

ONE UP LAW

2.
3.

the client in the very activity for which he

sought the lawyers advice.
Where disclosure would open the client
to civil liability.
Where the governments lawyers have
no case against an attorneys client unless
by revealing the clients name, the said
name would furnish the only link that would
form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict an individual of a crime.

Information relating to the identity of the client

may fall within the ambit of the privilege when
the clients name itself has an independent
significance, such that disclosure would then
reveal client confidences.
The instant case falls under the first and third
exceptions. Under the first exception, the
disclosure of the clients name would lead to
establish said clients connection with the very
fact in issue of the case, which is privileged
information, because the privilege protects the
subject matter or the substance (without which
there is no attorney-client relationship).
Petitioners have a legitimate fear that
identifying their clients would implicate them in
the very activity for which legal advice had been
sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of illgotten
wealth
in
the
aforementioned
corporations. Under the third exception, the
revelation of the clients name would obviously
provide the necessary link for the prosecution
to build its case, where none otherwise exists.
It is the link that would inevitably form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict the
client of a crime.
An important distinction should be made
between these two cases: First case: A client
takes on the services of an attorney for illicit
purposes seeking advice about how to go
around the law for the purpose of committing
illegal activities. Second case: A client thinks he
might have previously committed something
illegal and consults his attorney about it. The
first case does not fall within the privilege.
Reason: It is not within the professional
character of a lawyer to give advice on the
commission of a crime. The second falls within
the exception because whether or not the act
for which the client sought advice turns out to
be illegal, his name cannot be used or disclosed
if the disclosure leads to evidence not yet in the
hands of the prosecution, which might lead to
possible action against him. Reason: The policy
serves legitimate public interests.
RULE 15.04
MEDIATOR,
CONCILIATOR
ARBITRATOR

OR

Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the

written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

57 of 158

An attorneys knowledge of the law and his

reputation for fidelity may make it easy for
the disputants to settle their differences
amicably. However, he shall not act as
counsel for any of them.

RULE 15.05
CANDID, HONEST ADVICE

Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising

his client shall give a candid and honest opinion
on the merits and probable results of the
clients
case,
neither
overstating
nor
understanding the prospects of the case.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest

opinion on the merit or lack of merit of
clients case, neither overstating nor
understating the prospect of the case. He
should also give an honest opinion as to the
probable results of the case, with the end in
view of promoting respect for the law and
the legal processes.

As officers of the court, counsels are under

the obligation to advice their clients against
making untenable and inconsistent claims.

A lawyer who guarantees the successful

outcome of a litigation is under a heavy
pressure to employ any means to win the
case at all costs or under a cloud of
suspicion of having betrayed a client when
the case is lost. In either case, he puts
himself in a trying situation.

If a lawyer finds that his clients

contemplated civil suit is totally devoid of
merit, or that the pending action against
him is wholly defenseless, which is his
function and duty to find out, he should so
inform his client and dissuade him from
filing the case or advise him to compromise
or submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible

RULE 15.06
NOT TO CLAIM INFLUENCE

Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or

imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

This
rule
peddling.

Some prospective clients secure the

services of a particular lawyer or law firm
precisely because he can exert a lot of
influence on a judge and some lawyers
exact big fees for such influence

protects

against

influence

ONE UP LAW

do, particularly with reference to the

conduct toward the court, judicial officer,
witness, etc.

RULE 15.07
IMPRESS COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS

Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress

upon his client compliance with the laws and
the principles of fairness.

Art. 19 Civil Code. Every person

must, in the exercise of his rights and in
the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due and observe
honesty and good faith.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer is required to represent his client

within the bounds of the law. The CPR
enjoins him to employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and warns him not to allow his client
to dictate procedure in handling the case.
He may use arguable construction of the
law or rules which are favorable to his
client. But he is not allowed to knowingly
advance a claim or defense that is
unwarranted under existing law.
While a lawyer is not expected to know all
the laws he is expected to take such
reasonable precaution in the discharge of
his duty to his client.

Duty to resist clients improper request

A lawyer appears in court not only as an

advocate of his client but also as an officer
of the court trusted and authorized by the
state to assist the court in determining
what is right between the parties before it.

A lawyer should comply with the clients

lawful requests. But he should resist and
should
never
follow
any
unlawful
instructions. In matters of law, it is the
client who should yield to the lawyer and
not the other way around.

The State is vitally interested in seeking

that justice is done and goes to great
expense and provides the machinery for
that part of its governmental function. To
permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous
practices for the protection of the supposed
rights of their clients is to defeat the
administration of justice, one of the
purposes of the state.

A lawyer must also observe and advice his

client to observe the statute law, thought
until a statute shall have been construed
and interpreted by competent jurisdiction,
he is free and is entitled to advice as to its
validity and as to what he conscientiously
believes to be its just meaning and extent.

A lawyer should use his best efforts to

restrain and to prevent his client from doing
those things which he himself ought not to

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

58 of 158

RULE 15.08
DUAL PROFESSION

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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited

but a lawyer must make it clear when he is
acting as a lawyer and when he is
otherwise, especially in occupations related
to the practice of law. Reason: certain
ethical considerations may be operative in
one profession and not in the other.

Nakpil v. Valdes (1998)

F: Atty. Carlos Valdes was the lawyer and
accountant of the Nakpils. In 1965, Jose Nakpil
wanted to buy a summer residence in Baguio
City but because of lack of funds, he agreed
that Valdes would keep the property in trust
until the Nakpils could buy it back. Valdes took
out two loans to purchase the property. In
1973, Jose Nakpil died. The ownership of the
Baguio property became an issue in the
intestate proceedings as Valdes excluded it from
the inventory of Joses estate. In 1978, Valdes
transferred his title to the property to his
company.
The estate filed an action for
reconveyance and the adminstratix filed an
administrative case to disbar Valdes for (1)
maliciously appropriating the property in trust
to his family corporation (2) including in the
claims against the estate the amounts of the
two loans which he claimed were Joses loans
probably for the purchase of a house and lot in
Moran St., Baguio City and (3) for conflict of
interest, since his auditing firm prepared the list
of claims of creditors who were also
represented by his law firm. The SC suspended
Valdes from the practice of law for one year
H: A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his
client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good
faith. Business transactions between an
attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged by policy of law because by virtue
of a lawyers office, he is an easy position to
take advantage of the credulity and ignorance
of his client. Thus, there is no presumption of
innocence or improbability of wrongdoing in
favor of lawyers.
Valdes is guilty of representing conflict of
interests.
The
proscription
against
representation of conflicting interests finds
application where the conflicting interests arise
with respect to the same general matter and is

ONE UP LAW

applicable however slight such adverse interest

may be. It applies although the attorneys
intentions and motives were honest and he
acted in good faith. Representation of
conflicting interests may be allowed where the
parties give an informed consent to the
representation after full disclosure of facts. The
lawyer must explain to his clients the nature
and extent of the conflict and the possible
adverse effects must be thoroughly understood
by his clients. In this case, there is clearly a
conflict between the interest of the estate which
stands as the debtor, and that of the two
claimants who are creditors of the estate. The
fact that Valdes did not personally file the case
and appear in court is beside the point.
Respondent acted as counsel and accountant of
the complainant after the death of Jose. His
claim of resignation from the law firm is not
supported by any documentary proof and even
with his resignation from the accounting firm in
1972 and 1974, he returned on July 1, 1976.
When Valdes transferred the Moran property to
his corp. on Feb. 13, 1978, the intestate
proceedings was still pending in court.
That Imelda did not object to Valdes law firm
acting as legal counsel of the estate and his
accounting firm as auditor of both the estate
and the claimants cannot be taken against her
as there is no showing that Valdes or his law
firm explained the legal situation and its
consequences to the complainant. Her silence
does not amount to acquiescence based on an
informed consent.
Valdes undoubtedly placed his law firm in a
position where his loyalty to his client could be
doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of
his law firm was to contest the claims of these
two creditors but which claims were prepared
by his accounting firm. Even if the claims were
valid and did not prejudice the estate, the setup is still undesirable. The test to determine
whether there is conflict of interest in the
representation is the probability, not the
certainty of conflict. It was his duty to inhibit
either of his firms to avoid probability of
conflict.
Valdes claim that he could not be charged as
his misconduct pertains to his accounting
practice is of no merit. Complainant is not
charging respondent with breach of ethics for
being the common accountant of the estate of
the two creditors but for allowing his accounting
firm to represent two creditors of the estate
and, at the same time, allowing his law firm to
represent the estate in the proceedings where
these claims were presented. It is a breach of
professional ethics and undesirable because it
placed respondent and his law firms loyalty
under a cloud of doubt. Even if misconduct
pertains to his accounting practice, he may still
be disciplined by the Court because a lawyer
may be suspended or disbarred for ANY
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows in him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

59 of 158

Members of the Bar are expected to always live

up to the standards embodied in the CPR as the
relationship bet. The attorney and his client is
highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost
fidelity and good faith.

CANON 16
HOLD IN TRUST CLIENTS
MONEY AND PROPERTIES

Canon 16.
A Lawyer shall hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.01.
A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
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 to 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.
Rule 16.04.
A lawyer shall not borrow
money from his client unless the clients
interests 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.

Art.
1491(5)
Civil
Code.
The
following persons cannot acquire by
purchase, even at a public auction, wither
in person or through the mediation of
another: (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting
attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior
courts, and other officers and employees
connected with the administration of
justice, the property and rights in litigation
or levied upon an execution before the
court within whose jurisdiction or territory
they exercise their respective functions;
this prohibition includes the act of acquiring
by assignment and shall apply to lawyers,
with respect to the property and tights
which may be the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.
(Aguirre)
Elements of Art. 1491
1) Property or interest is in litigation
2) Attorney takes part as counsel in the
case involving said property

ONE UP LAW

3)

Purchase, acquisition by attorney, by

himself or through another of the
property in litigation, during the
pendency of the case.
(purchase includes mortgage of property
in litigation to lawyer. In this case,
acquisition is merely postponed until
foreclosure but the effect is the same)
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Effects of fiduciary relations, generally

Position of attorney enables him to put in

his power, and opens him to the temptation
to avail himself, not only of the necessity of
his client but of his good nature, liberality
and credulity to obtain undue advantages,
bargains and gratuities.

Fiduciary and strictly confidential relations

requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity
and disinterestedness on the part of an
attorney is designed to remove all such
temptation.

Principles of expediency and justice demand

that a lawyer should not take advantage of
his position to the prejudice of his client; on
the contrary, it is the client who should
benefit.

A fiduciary relationship exists as a matter of

law between attorney and client, which
requires all dealings growing out of such
relationship to be subject to the closest
judicial scrutiny.

Dealings with client closely scrutinized

Court will protect client from any undue

disadvantage resulting from any situation in
which he and his attorney may stand
unequal. In fact, law requires that courts be
vigilant in protecting clients in all
contractual, property or other relations,
when one of the parties is at a
disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental
weakness, tender age or other handicaps.

Business transactions between lawyers and

clients must be characterized by utmost
honesty and good faith of a much higher
standard than that in ordinary business
dealings. Although a lawyer is not barred,
as a rule, from dealing with his client, this
kind of business transactions are disfavored
and discouraged by policy of lawbecause
a lawyer is in a position to take advantage
of the credulity and ignorance of his client.
Thus, no presumption of innocence or
improbability of wrongdoing is considered in
his favor.
Even when transaction between lawyer and
client is not prohibited by law, burden of
proof rests upon attorney to show fairness
of the transaction.

Purchase of clients property in litigation

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

60 of 158

Law and canons of the legal profession

prohibit a lawyer from purchasing, even at
a public or judicial auction, either in person
or through the mediation of another, any
property or interest involved in any
litigation in which he may take part by
virtue of his profession.

Purpose: to curtail any undue influence of

the lawyer upon his client on account of his
fiduciary and confidential relation with him.

Prohibition is absolute and permanent, and

rests on considerations of public policy and
interest. No need to show fraud and no
excuse will be heard. Law does not trust
human nature to resist temptation likely to
arise.

Application of Rule

When all the following four elements are

present there is a violation of law and
ethically improper conduct:
1. there
must
be
attorney-client
relationship
2. the property or interest of the client
must be in litigation
3. the attorney takes part as counsel in
the case
4. the attorney himself or through another
purchases such property or interest
during the pendency of the litigation

immaterial that deed of sale is

executed at the instance of the client or at
the behest of the lawyer because the latter
occupies a vantage position to dictate his
terms

prohibition covers any scheme

which has the effect of circumventing the
law (ex: deed of sale as attorneys fees,
purchase by firm or wife, etc...)

where
the value
of
the
property in litigation transferred by a client
in favor of his attorney in payment of the
latters fees is worth much more than his
services, the transfer contravenes the law.

When rule inapplicable

The absence of one element renders

prohibition inapplicable (e.g. an attorney
may bid on behalf of his client at the
auction sale of the clients property in
litigation since it is not for his own benefit)

contingent fee contract: allowed since it

neither gives nor purports to give to the
attorney an absolute right, personal or real,
in the subject matter during the pendency
of
the
litigation;
the
measure
of
compensation provided is a mere basis for
the computation of fees and the payment
made from the proceeds of the litigation is
effected
only
after
its
successful
termination. A distinction must be made
between purchasing an interest in the

ONE UP LAW

litigation to enable a lawyer to litigate on

his own account or to abuse the clients
confidence (prohibited) and accepting
compensation contingent upon the result of
the litigation (allowed).
Note, however,
that a contingent fee contract which is
unreasonable ceases to be a measure of
due compensation for services rendered.
Effects of Prohibited Purchase

A prohibited purchase is null and void ab

initio; public interest and public policy
dictate that its nullity is definite and
permanent and cannot be cured by
ratification. The lawyer will be deemed to
hold the property in trust for the client.

The client is therefore entitled to recover

property and interest from his attorney with
the fruits.
The client should, however,
return the purchase price and the legal
interests.

Purchase of choses in action

Spirit of the rule against the acquisition of a

clients property in litigation and the
injunction against stirring up of strife
should be applied in determining whether
the purchase of a chose in action by an
attorney is improper.

Purpose:
prevent
lawyer
from
the
temptation to litigate in his own account as
a business proposition.
It is improper for lawyer to accumulate
distinct causes of action in himself by
assignment from hundreds of small
claimants and sue in his name for the
benefit of the clients directly interested
because (1) while there is no litigation yet,
litigation is its purpose, and (2) attorney
places himself in the category of a
voluntary litigant for a profit.
It is improper for lawyer in his professional
capacity to buy judgment notes or other
choses in action for much less than their
face value with intent to collect them at a
large profit for himself.

It is improper for a lawyer to enter into an

arrangement with one who purchases
future interests in estates where he
becomes part owner and shares in the
profit in consideration of his work in
securing the interest.

An attorney may, however, properly acquire

choses in action not in his professional
capacity but as a legitimate investment.
The fact that a person happens to be a
lawyer does not deprive him of the privilege
to engage in business activities as enjoyed
by any other person, but his being a lawyer
in the practice of law enjoins him from
doing any such act as may bring dishonor
to the profession or violate any of its ethical
rules concerning advertising or solicitation
of business.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

61 of 158

RULE 16.01
ACCOUNT FOR ALL MONEY AND PROPERTY

Rule 16.01.
A lawyer shall account
for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer holds money or property, which he

received from or for his client, in trust and
should promptly make an accounting
thereof.

If money or property entrusted was not

used for its purpose, it should be returned
immediately to the client. Failure to return
would
raise
presumption
that
he
misappropriated the money/property.

Money received by a lawyer from a person

who is not his client is also held by him in
trust and he is under obligation to account
for it.

The question is not whether the rights of

the clients have been prejudiced but
whether the lawyer has adhered to the
ethical standards of the bar.

The circumstance that a lawyer has a lien

for his attorneys fees over the clients
money in his possession does not relieve
him from the obligation to make a prompt
accounting and his failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct

Berbano v. Barcelona (2003)

F: The Berbano family gave Atty. Barcelona up
to P64, 000 in cash and checks to secure the
release of Daen, their attorney-in-fact. Atty.
Barcelona made it appear that he had
connections with SC justices. The SC ordered
his disbarment.
H:
Respondent is guilty of culpable
violations of Canons 1, 7, 11, 16 and Rule
16.01. The Code exacts from lawyers not only
a firm respect for law, legal processes and the
courts but also mandates the utmost degree of
fidelity and good faith in dealing with their
clients and the moneys entrusted to them
pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
OBITER:
The object of disbarment is not so much to
punish the individual attorney himself, as to
safeguard the administration of justice by
protecting the court and the public from the
misconduct of officers of the court, and to
remove from the profession of law persons
whose disregard for their oath of office have
proved them unfit to continue discharging the
trust reposed in them as members of the bar.
Respondent has demonstrated a penchant for
misrepresenting to clients that he has the
proper connection to secure relief they seek,

ONE UP LAW

and thereafter, ask for money which will

allegedly be given to such connections. The
same is true in this case. Not only that, he had
the audacity to tell complainant that the
Justices of the Supreme Court do not accept
checks. In so doing, he placed the Court in
dishonor and public contempt.
As an officer of the Court, it is his sworn and
moral duty to help build and not destroy
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard
towards the courts so essential to the proper
administration of justice. Judiciary has been
besieged enough with accusations of corruption
and malpractice. For a member of the legal
profession to further stoke the embers of
mistrust on the judicial system with such
irresponsible representations is reprehensible
and cannot be tolerated. Indubitably, he does
not deserve to remain a member of the Bar any
minute longer. The Supreme Court, as guardian
of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary
power over attorneys.

Daroy v. Legaspi (1975)

F: The SC disbarred Atty. Legaspi who, without
his clients knowledge, received from the deputy
provincial sheriff P4, 000 as their share in the
intestate
proceeding
of
their
maternal
grandparents.
He misled his clients by
informing them that they could withdraw the
money but later admitted that he had
withdrawn the money and spent it. The SC
disbarred Atty. Legaspi.
H:
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges
himself not to delay any man for money or
malice and is bound to conduct himself with all
good fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to
report promptly the money of his clients that
has come into his possession (otherwise a
violation of Sec. 25, Rule 138 of ROC). He
should not commingle it without his clients
consent. He should maintain a reputation for
honesty and fidelity to private trust. The fact
that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his
hands would not relieve him from the duty of
promptly accounting for the funds received.
A member of the bar who converts the money
of his client to his own benefit through false
pretenses is guilty of deceit, malpractice and
gross misconduct in his office as lawyer.
RULE 16.02
KEEP CLIENTS FUND SEPARATE

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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer should keep funds of each client

separate and apart from his own. He should
not use clients money for personal
purposes without clients consent. He

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

62 of 158

should report promptly the money of his

client in his possession.

Hernandez v. Go (2005)
F:
In 1961, Nazaria Hernandezs husband
left her and her son Luciano. Creditors of her
husband went after her so she hired legal
services of Atty. Jose Go, who advised her to
give him titles to three lots in Zamboanga City
and execute deeds of sale in his favor without
any monetary or valuable consideration
supposedly so that Atty. Go can sell the lots and
pay Nazarias debts.
When mortgages over
three other lots fell due, Atty. Go redeemed the
lots and convinced Nazaria to execute deeds of
sale in his favor. In 1974, Nazaria found out
Atty. Go did not sell the lots but that he became
the owner, depriving her of real properties
worth millions.
In
1975,
Nazaria filed
disbarment letter-complaint. The SC disbarred
Go.
H:
Atty. Gos acts in acquiring the lots
entrusted to him are acts constituting gross
misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act,
a dereliction in duty, willful in character and
imply a wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment, thereby violating Canon 16. Such
conduct degrades not only himself but also the
name and honor of the legal profession.
He also violated Canon 17 when he
abused the trust and confidence of Nazaria
when he did not sell the lots as agreed but sold
it to himself. He should have given a detailed
report. Complainant could have earned more if
lots were sold to other buyers. Records show
she did not receive any amount from
respondent.
OBITER:
Respondents deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and
grossly immoral acts have made him unfit to
remain in the legal profession. Lawyers are to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and are to refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
Public interest requires that an attorney should
exert his best efforts and ability to protect the
interests of his clients. A lawyer who performs
that duty with diligence and candor not only
protects his clients cause; he also serves the
ends of justice and does honor to the bar and
helps maintain the respect of the community to
the legal profession.
RULE 16.03
DELIVERY OF FUNDS; LAWYERS LIEN

Rule 16.03.
A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property to 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

ONE UP LAW

executions he has secured for his client as

provided for in the Rules of Court.

Rule 138, sec. 37. 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 record
of the court rendering such judgment, or
issuing such execution, and shall have
caused written notice thereof to be
delivered to his client 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Failure of an attorney to return clients

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

If client agrees with lawyer as to the

amount of attorneys fees and as to the
application of the clients fund to pay his
lawful fees and disbursement, a lawyer may
deduct what is due him and remit the
balance to his client. If no such agreement
or consent or if there is dispute or
disagreement as to the fees, he should
return everything to client without prejudice
to his filing a case to recover his unsatisfied
fees.

This rule grants the lawyer a lien over the

clients funds in his possession as well as on
all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client, to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements.

Busios v. Ricafort (1997)

F:
Atty. Ricafort, as counsel of Busios in
a case Busios won, received from the Clerk of
Court of RTC Ligao, Albay, P25, 000 and from
OAS Standard High School P5, 000. Busios
waited for the amounts to be deposited in her
account. Atty. Ricafort later informed her that
he had spent the money but he promised to pay
her. Only after an estafa case was filed did Atty.
Ricafort pay P60,000 as settlement. Busios
dropped the estafa case but not the disbarment
case.
H:
Atty. Ricafort breached Sec. 25 of Rule
138 of Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of
the CPR.
There is no doubt he is guilty of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

63 of 158

having used the money of his clients without

their consent. His use of their money is made
more manifest by his letters to complainant, all
promising the latter to make good his promise
to pay the money he withdrew from the Clerk of
Court and OAS. Money collected by a lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients
is held in trust and must be immediately turned
over to them.
OBITER:
Respondents
transgressions
manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave
misconduct and grossly unethical behavior
which caused dishonor, not merely to
respondent, but to the noble profession to
which he belongs. A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The trust and confidence necessarily
reposed by clients require in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to his
clients, his profession, the courts and the
public.
Any departure from the path which a
lawyer must follow as demanded by virtues of
his profession shall not be tolerated especially
where respondent deliberately defied lawful
orders of the Court, transgressing Canon 11
which requires a lawyer to observe and
maintain respect due to the courts.

Quilban v. Robinol (1989)

F:
Pursuant to a court order in their favor,
thirty-two squatter families turned over a total
of P75,000 to their counsel Atty. Robinol to
purchase the land which they were occupying.
Atty. Robinol had entered into an agreement
with the families that he would receive a portion
of the land equivalent to that of one of the
families. On the pretense that he wanted his
portion converted to cash, he witheld payment
of the P75,000 to the owner of the property.
The families changed counsel to Atty.
Montemayor and filed an administrative case
against Atty. Robinol to investigate his refusal to
return money. The SC disbarred Atty. Robinol
and found that Atty. Montemayor did not
encroach upon the the formers attorney-client
relationship with the families.
H:
[re: Atty. Robinol] Atty. Robinol has no
right to unilaterally appropriate his clients
money not only because he is bound by written
agreement (the written agreement says that
portions of the land would be given to him, not
its monetary equivalent) but also because it
was highly unjust for him to do so. Clients
were mere squatters who could barely raise
their respective quota of P2,500 per family with
which to pay for the land only to be deprived of
the same by one who, after having seen the
color of money, heartlessly took advantage of
them. His claim that since he was unjustly
dismissed by his clients he had the legal right to
retain the money in his possession has no basis
because of the following reasons: (1) There was
a justifiable ground for his discharge. His clients
had lost confidence in him for he had engaged
in dilatory tactics to the detriment of their
interests, which he was duty-bound to protect.

ONE UP LAW

(2) Even if there were no valid ground, he is

bereft of any legal right to retain his clients
funds intended for a specific purpose-the
purchase of land.
The principle of quantum meruit applies if a
lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon
for his services in which case he would be
entitled to receive what he merits for his
services, as much as he has earned. In this
case, however, the principle is inapplicable
because there was an express contact and a
stipulated mode of compensation.
H: [re: Atty. Robinol] Atty. Montemayor had in
no way encroached upon the professional
employment of a colleague. Of the 32 plaintiffs,
21 expressed their resolve to change their
lawyers. It is sufficient to make the consensus
binding.
Atty. Robinol is estopped from
questioning his discharge. In his memorandum
and in the proceedings, he stated that he had
no objection to Atty. Montemayors appearance
as a counsel. He was informed in writing by
plaintiffs of the termination of his services
followed by another letter of the same tenor.
Clients are free to change their counsel in a
pending case at any time and thereafter employ
another lawyer who may then enter his
appearance. The plaintiffs act was within their
prerogative in deciding to change their lawyer
for loss of trust and confidence.

Champertous Contractwhere the lawyer

assumes all expenses of litigation and
reimbursement is contingent on outcome of
case is PROHIBITED!
Champertous
contracts are like wagersthe lawyer gets
paid and reimbursed if he wins the case and
loses even what he had spent on the case if
he loses.

Champertya bargain by a stranger (the

lawyer) with a party to a suit (the client) by
which such third person undertakes to carry
on the litigation at his own expense and
risk, in consideration of receiving, if
successful, a part of the proceeds or
subject sought to be recovered.

v Maintenanceconsists in maintaining,
supporting or promoting the litigation of
another; Champerty is a bargain to divide
the proceeds of litigation between the
owner of the liquidated claim (the client)
and a party supporting or enforcing the
litigation (the lawyer)

v Contingent Fee Contractin this, the

lawyer gets reimbursed for any advances
made for the client in the course of the
representation, whether he wins the suit or
not; only the amount of attorneys fees is
contingent upon winning.

(Agpalo)

That a lawyer should not

borrow from his client is intended to
prevent the lawyer form taking advantage
of his influence over the client. While the
lawyer may borrow where the clients
interests are fully protected by the nature
of the case he is handling for the client, or
by independent advice from another lawyer,
he should not abuse the clients confidence
by delaying payment.

That a lawyer may not lend

money to client, except when, in the
interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling, is intended to assure the lawyers
independent professional judgment, for if a
lawyer acquires a financial interest in the
outcome of the case, the free exercise of
his judgment may be adversely affected. He
might be after his own recovery more than
that of his client, violating his duty of
undivided fidelity to client and making
lawyering a money-making venture and not
a profession.

RULE 16.04
NO BORROWING OR LENDING

Rule 16.04.
A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless the clients
interests 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.
NOTES
(Aguirre)

Stated positively, the first part of the above

rule allows the lawyer to borrow form his
client if the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advise, while the second part
allows a lawyer to lend money to his client
only when he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client as this will serve the interest
of justice.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

64 of 158

Barnachea v. Quicho (2003)

F:
Atty. Quiocho had not been in the
practice of law for some time but decided to
revive his legal practice with some associates.
The complainant engaged the legal services of
repsondent to cause the transfer under her
name of title over property previously owned by
her sister. Complainant issued the total amount
of P41,280 for the expenses for the transfer and

ONE UP LAW

payment for respondents legal services. Atty.

Quiocho encashed the checks. After two
months, respondent was unable to secure title
over the property in favor of complainant. She
then demanded the refund of the amount and
the documents she handed. Respondent failed
to comply. Complainant Baranachea filed a
complaint for breach of lawyer-client relations.
The SC suspended Atty. Quiocho from the
practice of law for one year.
H: A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or
property of his client that may come into his
possession. He is to keep the funds of his client
separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him. If money entrusted to a
lawyer for a specific purpose is not used, it
must be returned immediately. Failure to return
raises the presumption that he misappropriated
it.
The relation of attorney and client is highly
fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is
duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients. The profession, therefore, demands
of an attorney an absolute abdication of every
personal advantage conflicting in any way,
directly or indirectly, with the interest of his
client.

Rubias v. Batiller (1973)

F: Atty. Rubias filed a suit to recover the
ownership and possession of a parcel of lot
which he bought from his father-in-law, against
its present occupant Batiller. Batiller argued that
the contract of sale between Atty. Rubias and
his father-in-law was void because it was made
when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in
a land registration case involving the property
in dispute (pursuant to art. 1409 & 1491 of the
Civil Code). SC held that the sale was void.
H: Assuming arguendo that his client could sell
the same, the sale would still be void and could
produce no legal effect because Article 1491 of
our Civil Code prohibits lawyers, amongst
others, by reason of the relation or trust or
their peculiar control over the property, from
acquiring such property in their trust or control
either directly or indirectly and even at a public
or judicial function. The nullity of such
prohibited contracts with regard to judicial
officers and lawyers is definite and permanent
and cannot be cured by ratification. In this
regard, the permanent disqualification grounded
on public policy differs from the first three cases
under art. 1491 (guardians, agents, and
administrators), whose transactions it has been
opined may be ratified by means and in the
form of a new contract, in which case its
validity may be determined only by the
circumstances at the time of the execution of a
new contract.

CANON 17
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

65 of 158

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. [no implementing rules]
NOTES
(Agpalo)

No lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser

or advocate for every person who may wish
to become his client. He has the right to
decline employment (subject to Canon 14
of the CPR).

Once he agrees to take up the clients

cause, however, the lawyer owes fidelity to
such cause and he must always be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him;
entire devotion to the interest of the client;
warm zeal and maintenance and defense of
his clients right; the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability to the end that nothing
be taken or withheld from his client, save
by the rules of law, legally applied.

The client is entitled to the benefit of any

and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by law and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every remedy or defense
authorized by law in support of his clients
cause, regardless of his lawyers personal
views.

Fear, judicial disfavor, or public unpopularity

should not restrain a lawyer from the full
discharge of his duty.

The finest hours of the legal profession

were those where a lawyer stood by his
client even in the face and risk of danger to
this person or fortune. And his client can
take comfort in the thought that his lawyer
will not abandon him when his services are
needed most.

In re: Suspension from the Practice

of Law (2004)
F: Atty. Maquera was suspended from the
practice of law in Guam where he had also been
admitted as attorney. This suspension was due
to findings of misconduct, as he acquired his
clients property as payment for his legal
services and as a consequence obtained an
unreasonable
high
attorneys
fee.
IBP
suspended Maquera but not for the same
reason as that held in his Guam case. Rather,
IBP rendered to suspend him due to his failure
to pay members dues.
The SC held that
Maqueras acts in Guam violate standards of
ethical behavior for lawyers and thus constitute
grounds for his suspension in the Philippines.
However, because he had not been given an
opportunity to be heard on the matter in the
Philippines he could not be penalized therefore.
The Court, asked that he show cause why he
should not be penalized and suspended him,

ONE UP LAW

instead, for one year for his non-payment of

IBP dues.
H:
The Superior Court of Guam found that
Maqueras acquisition of his clients right of
redemption as payment for legal fees, his
subsequent exercise of said right, and his act of
selling the redeemed property for huge profits
were tainted with deceit and bad faith when it
concluded that Maquera charged client an
exorbitant fee for his legal services.
Maqueras acts are valid grounds for his
suspension from the practice of law in the
Philippines. Such acts are violative of a lawyers
sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his
clients.
However, Maqueras suspension in
Guam does not automatically result in his
suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.
This only constitutes prima facie evidence of
Maqueras unethical acts as a lawyer.
Due
process demands that he be given the
opportunity to defend himself and to present
testimonial and documentary evidence on the
matter.

Ngayan v. Tugade (1991)

F:
Complainants procured the services of
Atty. Tugado in a case concerning the
unauthorized entry of Soriano and Leonido into
their dwelling. Atty. Tugade drafted an affidavit
which omitted the fact that Leonido was one of
the persons who barged into their dwelling.
Mrs. Ngayan signed the affidavit without
reading it because Atty. Tugade rushed. Atty.
Tugade was later discharged by complainants
after they noticed the omission.
After the
discharge, complainants found out that the
name of Leonido was not even included in the
charge. The omission was remedied by their
new counsel and a case was subsequently filed
in court. Later, Soriano and Leonido filed a
motion for reinvestigation and attached thereto
the first affidavit of Mrs. Ngayan. The motion
was filed by Atty. Gaminda, a former classmate
of Atty. Tugade. Complainants also discovered
that Atty. Tugade was the lawyer of the
Leonidos brother. When the motion for
reinvestigation was set for hearing before the
city fiscal, Atty. Tugade himself executed and
submitted an affidavit in favor of the adverse
parties. He also sent a personal letter to the
fiscal denouncing complainants and stating that
he is filing criminal and civil cases against them.
The SC suspended Atty. Tugade from the
practice of law for one year.
H:
Respondents act of furnishing the
adverse parties with a copy of their discarded
affidavit, thus enabling them to use it as
evidence against the complainants constitutes
betrayal of trust and confidence of his former
clients in violation of par. (e), Section 20, Rule
138, Rules of Court.
We tend to believe
complainants claim that Atty. Tugade was
partial to the adverse parties as he even tried to
dissuade complainants from filing charges
against Leonido, which could be explained by
the fact that respondent is the former classmate

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

66 of 158

of the adverse partys counsel and that

respondent is the lawyer of the brother of
Leonido
in
an
insurance
company.
Respondents act of executing an affidavit as
exhibit for the adverse parties advancing facts
which are prejudicial to the case of his former
clients such as the fact that the crime charged
in complainants affidavit had prescribed and
that he was asked to prepare an affidavit to
make the offense more grave so as to prevent
the offense from prescribing demonstrates
clearly an act of offensive personality against
complainants in violation of paragraph (f) of
Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court. Likewise,
respondents act of joining the adverse parties
in celebrating their victory over the dismissal of
the case against them constitutes a degrading
act on the part of the lawyer. Additionally,
respondents failure to answer the complaint
and his failure to appear for investigation re
evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful
orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency
for his oath of office.

Vda de Alisbo v. Jalandoon Sr.

(1991)
F:
In an action to recover share in estate
of a deceased relative, Alisbo availed of Atty.
Jalandoons services. Jalandoon had acted as
counsel for the Sps. Sales who had secured a
judgment in their favor against Alisbo.
Jalandoon filed a first complaint on behalf of
Alisbo which was found to be defective as the
lone petitioner, Alisbo was insane and without
legal capacity to sue. Jalandoons amended
complaint which was filed in the name of Alisbo
and other petitioners was dismissed for having
been filed beyond the reglementary period for
revival of judgment.
H: As a dutiful lawyer, he should have declined
the employment offered by Alisbo on the
ground of conflict of interest. Had he done that
soon enough, then Alisbos would have had
enough time to hire another lawyer and they
would not have lost their case through
prescription of the action. He thus violated
Paragraph 1 and 2, No. 6 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics which provides that It is a
duty of a lawyer at the time of the retainer to
disclose to the client a) all the circumstances of
his relations to the parties, b) and any interest
in or connection with the controversy, which
might influence the client in the selection of the
counsel. It is unprofessional to represent
conflicting interests, except by express consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a
lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in
behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for
that which duty to another client requires him
to oppose.
Atty. Jalandoon used his position as Alisbos
counsel precisely to favor his other client Carlito
Sales, by delaying Alisbos action to revive the
judgment n his favor and thereby deprive him
of the fruits of his judgment which Atty.
Jalandoon, as Sales counsel, had vigorously

ONE UP LAW

opposed.
Thus, although he prepared the
complaint for revival of judgment, he delayed
its filing until Sept 12, 1970. He postponed
filing the action by asking the Court to instead
resolve pending incidents in said civil case. The
original complaint which he filed in the names
of Ramon Alisbo and his brothers was only
partially
defective
because
of
Ramons
incompetence. By dropping the other plaintiffs,
he made it wholly defective and ineffectual to
stop the running of the prescriptive period.
After filing the complaint, he sat on the case.
While he allegedly found out about Alisbos
insanity on July 17, 1971 only, he amended the
complaint to implead Alisbos legal guardian as
plaintiff on Dec 8, 1971 only, or almost five
months later. By that time, the prescriptive
period had run out. Atty. Jalandoon betrayed his
client Ramon Alisbos trust and did not
champion his cause with that whole-hearted
fidelity, care, and devotion that a lawyer is
obligated to give to every case that he accepts
from a client.
There is more than simple negligence. There is
a hint of duplicity and lack of candor in his
dealings with his client, which call for the
exercise of the Courts disciplinary power.

Ppl v. Ingco (1971)

F: Respondent Alfredo Barrios, counsel of
Gaudencio Ingco, filed fifteen days late a
motion for the extension of the time for
submitting the brief for appellant Ingco, who
had been sentenced to death for the crime of
rape with homicide. He explained that he was
busy with another case pending in the CA and
that he was misled into assuming that he had
taken the necessary steps to file a motion for
extension of time for the submission of his brief
by receipt of the resolution from the CA
granting him such extension.
H:
Considering that the accused was
fighting for his life, the least that could be
expected of a counsel de oficio is awareness of
the period within which he was required to file
appellants brief. The mere fact that according
to him his practice was extensive requiring his
appearance in courts in Manila and other
provinces should not have lessened that degree
of care necessary for the fulfillment of his
responsibility. What is worse is that by sheer
inattention, he would confuse the proceedings
in a matter pending in the CA with this present
case. Such grave neglect of duty is deserving
of sever condemnation. It is clearly unworthy
of membership in the Bar which requires
dedication and zeal in the defense of his clients
rights, a duty even more exacting when one is
counsel de oficio. On such an occasion, the
honor and respect to which the legal profession
is entitled demand the strictest accountability of
one called upon to defend an impoverished
litigant. He who fails in his obligation then has
manifested a diminished capacity to be enrolled
in its ranks. SEVERLY REPRIMANDED

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

67 of 158

Cantiller v. Potenciano (1968)

F:
Petitioners availed of Atty. Potencianos
services for their petition to annul a judgment
which orders them to vacate their apartment.
Atty. Potenciano assured them that he could
secure for them a restraining order as the judge
was his katsukaran (close friend). Contrary to
this, the judge asked respondent to withdraw
his appearance as counsel because of their
friendship. Respondent solicited various sums
from the petitioners which, allegedly, were to be
used in the litigation. But four days prior to the
hearing, Potenciano withdrew his appearance as
counsel. Unable to avail of another lawyers
services and to secure a restraining order, the
petitioners were forced to vacate the property.
The SC indefinitely suspended Potenciano from
the practice of law.
H: The failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client's cause makes such
lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client
had reposed on him. Assuming that respondent
had no previous knowledge that he would be
asked to withdraw, the record is quite clear that
four days prior to the hearing of the preliminary
injunction, respondent already filed a motion
therein withdrawing as complainant's counsel
interposing as reason therefore his frequent
attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids. Despite this
void, respondent failed to find a replacement.
He did not even ask complainant to hire another
lawyer in his stead. His actuation is definitely
inconsistent with his duty to protect with
utmost dedication the interest of his client and
of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he
owes his client. More so in this case, whereby
reason of his gross negligence complainant
thereby suffered by losing all her cases.
Ratio why much is demanded of a lawyer:
Public interest requires that an attorney exert
his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or
defense of his clients cause. A lawyer who
performs that duty with diligence and candor
not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to
the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. This is so
because the entrusted privilege to practice law
carries with it the correlative duties not only to
the client but also to the court, to the bar and
to the public. That circumstance explains the
public concern for the maintenance of an
untarnished standard of conduct by every
attorney towards his client. [the case cites
Agpalo and, in his textbook, Agpalo points out
the fact that the case cited him]

CANON 18
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Canon 18.
A lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence.

ONE UP LAW

Rule 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.
Rule 18.02.
A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03.
A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
Rule 18.04.
A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable period of time to
the clients request for information.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Duty to serve with competence and diligence

Lawyer impliedly represents that: he

possesses requisite degree of learning, skill,
ability which is necessary to the practice of
his profession and which other similarly
situated possess; he will exert his best
judgment in the prosecution or defense of
the litigation entrusted to him; he will
exercise reasonable and ordinary care and
diligence in the use of his skill and in the
application of his knowledge to his clients
cause; he will take such steps as will
adequately safeguards his clients interest.
A client may reasonably expect that counsel
will make good his representations.
Competence

sufficiency
of
lawyers
qualifications to deal with the matter in
question and includes knowledge and skill and
the ability to use them effectively in the interest
of the client.
Edquibal vs. Ferrer, 450 SCRA 406
Diligence is the attention and care
required of a person in a given situation and is
the opposite of negligence. It is axiomatic in
the practice of law that the price of success is
eternal diligence to the cause of the client.
Duty to safeguard clients interest

This commences from his retainer until his

effective release from the case or the final
disposition of the whole subject matter of
the litigation.

Even if the lawyer is counsel de oficio this

does not diminish or alter the degree of
professional responsibility.

Failure of the client to pay does not warrant

abandonment.

Ethical delinquency or impropriety arises

invariably either from a lack of appreciation
or a lawyers duty to his client or from a
blind and overzealous performance.

RULE 18.01
CLIENT CONSENT WITH COLLABORATING
COUNSEL

Rule 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.
NOTES
(Aguirre)

However well meaning he may be, a lawyer

cannot ask another lawyer to collaborate
with him in a particular case without the
consent of the client. The fiduciary nature
of attorney-client relationship prohibits this.

(Agpalo)

Some cases involve specialized fields of law

and require special training.
A lawyer
should not accept an undertaking in specific
area of law which he knows or should know
he is not qualified to enter.

He may render such service if his client

consents, he can obtain a collaborating
counsel who is competent on the matter.

RULE 18.02
ADEQUATE PREPARATION

Rule 18.02.
A lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Lawyer should safeguard his clients rights

and interests by thorough study and
preparation; mastering applicable law and
facts involved in a case, regardless of the
nature of the assignment; and keeping
constantly
abreast
of
the
latest
jurisprudence and developments in all
branches of the law

inadequate preparation spawns adverse

effects that go far beyond the personal
interest
of
the
client.
Inadequate
preparation for instance may mislead the
court to look at the case in an uneven light.
Careless preparation may cast doubt upon
lawyers intellectual honesty and capacity.

Thorough study and preparation will not

ensure winning the litigation, however
lawyer shall have deep satisfaction of
having lost a case but won the esteem and
respect of his client and the approbation of
the court in the manner he espoused his
clients cause with skill, diligence, ability
and candor.

Preparation of Pleadings

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

68 of 158

ONE UP LAW

Pleadings show the extent of study and

preparation, articulate ideas, mirror the
personality of the lawyer, and reflect his
conduct and attitude. Thus, lawyers must
exercise utmost care in the preparation of
pleadings.
How a lawyer should prepare his pleading:
thoroughly discuss the issued raised;
refrain from using abrasive and offensive
language; not suppress or distort material
and
vital
facts,
nor
omit
relevant
documents which bear on the merit or lack
of merit of his petition

The following may not excuse a lawyer from

complying with preparation of pleadings:
time pressure; inexperience of counsel;
assertiveness in espousing his clients cause
or even good faith and honest intention.

Note that a complaint for damages: should

allege and state the specific amounts
claimed in the body of complaint and the
prayer

Rule 18.03.
A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.

Ordinary diligence required

The standard of diligence required of a

lawyer is that of a good father of a family.
He is not bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence

There is want of required diligence when a

lawyer fails without sufficient justification to
bring an action immediately, to answer a
complaint within the reglementary period,
to notify his client of the date of the date of
hearing, to attend the scheduled pre-trial
conference, to inform the client of an
adverse judgment within the reglementary
period to appeal, to take steps to have the
adverse decision reconsidered or appealed,
to ascertain the correct date of receipt of
decision, to acquaint himself with what has
happened to the litigation, to pay docket
fee on appeal, to claim judicial notice sent
to him by mail or to file the appellants brief

If lawyer cannot appear at the scheduled

hearing, he should either request another
lawyer to appear for him and see to it that
he does so or ask for its postponement
(without assuming that postponement will
be granted)

A lawyer who enters in midstream has duty

to inquire status of the case

A lawyer should see to it that his client

attend the pre-trial conference. If client
cannot appear, he should secure a written
authority to compromise action and submit
the case to arbitration

A lawyer should not assume that motion for

extension will be granted. He should always
inquire with the clerk of court.

If a lawyer failed to present motion for

extension of time to file a pleading, motion,
brief or memorandum, and within the
reglementary period, he should file the
same accompanied with a motion for leave
to admit it, stating therein the reasons for
the delay.

A
lawyer
who
cannot
continue
representation should ask his client to be
allowed to withdraw so that another counsel
may be retained. When client refuses, or
nowhere to be found, which will render
performance of lawyers duties difficult or
impossible, he should ask that he be

Interviewing witnesses

A lawyer may interview a witness in

advance of trial to guide him in the
management of the litigation

Witness however must be warned when

asked on cross-examination as to whether
counsel has conferred with him, a cheap
subterfuge employed by some lawyers to
entrap a witness in to falsehood, to be
truthful and frank to admitting it.

He should avoid any suggestion calculated

to induce witness to suppress or deviate
from the truth

Lawyer may also interview a prospective

witness for the opposing side in any civil or
criminal action without the consent of the
opposing counsel or party.

A lawyer may properly obtain statements

from
witnesses
whose
names
were
furnished by the opposing counsel or
interview the employees of the opposing
party even though they are under subpoena
to appear as witnesses for the opposite
side.
An adverse party may be used as witness.
But not within the meaning of the rule
permitting a lawyer to interview the witness
of the opposing party even without the
consent of the opposing counsel. REASON:
lawyer is forbidden from communicating
upon the subject of controversy with the
opposite party, except with the latters
counsel.
It is the lawyers duty to obtain witnesss
retraction if he committed perjury

RULE 18.03
NOT TO NEGLECT LEGAL MATTERS

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

69 of 158

A lawyer who accepts a legal matter from

his client is understood that he will take all
procedural steps necessary to prosecute the
clients claim or to defend the clients rights
in the action

ONE UP LAW

discharged or apply or to the court to be

released.

Pressure and large volume of legal work

provide no excuse for the inability to
exercise due diligence

appeal and the evidence are elevated to the

appellate court

He may not sit idly by and wait until the

clerk of court does his duty.

What to do in case of conflict in trial dates

He should lose no time in asking for

postponement of the case or cases set later,
as he should not give undue preference as
against the other EXCEPT in favor of that
case wherein the court has served warning,
in
view
of
the
previous
repeated
postponements of trial

Duty to keep client fully informed

A lawyer must advise his client promptly

whenever he has any information to give
which it is important that the client receive.
These include: withdrawal of appeal and all
adverse consequences; mode or manner by
which interest is defended of why certain
steps are taken or omitted; when client
should be present at the hearing of his case

The most ethical thing to do: inform the

prospective client of all the facts so that the
latter may retain another lawyer. If client
still retains that lawyer, after full disclosure,
he assumes the risk and cannot complain of
the consequences if postponement is
denied and finds himself without an
attorney to represent him at the trial

Adoption of system to insure receipt of mails

A lawyer should maintain a system that will

insure his prompt receipt of notices and
communications sent to him by registered
mail at his address of record

The following will not prevent service of

registered mail from being effective after 5
days of notice by postmaster: lawyer could
not afford to hire a regular clerk to claim
mail; that his clerk failed to
call his
attention to it; the demands of his work
required him to be in different places;
changed his address without notice to the
court

The client should also not sit idly by. He is

bound to contact his counsel from time to
time in order that he may be informed of
the progress of his case.

Standard of duty required of defense counsel

A defense lawyer is required to render

effective legal assistance to the accused,
irrespective of his personal opinion as to
the guilt of his client (In a criminal case.
Remember that he can decline in a civil suit
if suit is intended to harass or injure
another)

He should present by all fair and honorable

means, every defense and mitigating
circumstance that the law permits to the
end that his client may not be deprived of
life, liberty or property but by due process
of law legally applied.

The effect of failure to notify the court of a

change in address is that a notice served at
the attorneys original address is binding
upon the client who will suffer the
consequences.

In defense, a lawyer should not put on a

witness stand whom he knows will give a
false testimony. He should also not attribute
to another person the crime with which his
client is charged unless it can be inferred
that another may have committed it.
A lawyer may not cause the transfer,
through misrepresentation of a case
pending in one sala to another without the
consent of the judge, and for the purpose
of obtaining a more satisfactory remedy. He
cannot likewise employ improper or
dishonorable means to secure acquittal of
an accused known to him to be guilty, nor
abandon him or withdraw from the case
even if he is convinced of his clients guilt.

Note that if a client dies, the lawyer should

inform court within 30 days, and request
for the substitution of the decedent in the
event that the claim survives death

What is required of counsel de oficio

Expected to render effective service and to

exert his best efforts on behalf of an
indigent accused.

Notice of change of address

A lawyer must make of record his correct

address in the case in which he appears for
a suit or and to inform the court in writing
of his change of address. Otherwise he will
not be entitled to be served with judicial
notice if address not on record.

Requiring clerk or court to do his duty

If the clerk of court is negligent, he shall

call the attention of the court to that fact or
to file the necessary motion to set the case
for
pre-trial
or
trial
so
that
the
administration of justice will not suffer any
delay

While clerk of court may not do his duty, it

does not discharge lawyer from the
responsibility of seeing that the record on

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

70 of 158

He ought not to be excused from his

responsibility for any trivial reason.

Duty of defense counsel when accused intends

to plead guilty

When a client desires to enter a guilty plea,

his counsel must fully acquaint himself with
the records and surrounding circumstances
of the case; confer with the accused and
obtain from him his account of what had
happened; advise him of his constitutional

ONE UP LAW

rights; thoroughly explain to him the import

of a guilty plea and the inevitable conviction
that will follow; see to it that prescribed
procedure is strictly followed and disclosed
in the court records.

professional writ runners and pleaders:

lawyers who handle large volume of cases
for less than spectacular fees by advising,
influencing, cajoling or even coercing clients
to plead guilty, irrespective of their guilt or
innocence

guilt plea system puts the most reputable

lawyer into a trying situation. It would be
to the clients advantage in view of the
evidence of guilt and in view of the
prosecutions offer or willingness to charge
him with a lesser offense if the accused will
enter a plea of guilty.

The dilemma: if he were to advise his client

to enter a plea, he may be less than true to
his duty of extending the best legal
assistance. If he were to counsel him to
plead guilty, he may be confronted with the
problem of division of responsibility as to
the correctness of the step taken. Solution:
none
really.
These
problems
just
underscore the need for a defense counsel
to be conscientious and diligent in the
discharge of his duties to an accused who
desires to enter a guilty plea as the best
insurance for a clear conscience

Dalisay v. Mauricio (2005)

F:
Valeriana Dalisay was impressed with
Atty. Melanio Batas Mauricio Jr.s pro-poor and
pro-justice advocacy, and engaged his services
for a civil case where she is the defendant. She
handed him all pertinent documents, and paid
him a total of P56, 000. Notwithstanding her
payments, Mauricio never rendered any legal
service regarding the civil case. Dalisay then
terminated their attorney-client relationship and
demanded the return of the amounts and
documents. Mauricio refused. The SC required
Mauricio to refund the P56,000 and suspended
him for six months.
H:
When Mauricio accepted the P56, 000
from Dalisay, it was understood that he agreed
to take up the latters case and that an
attorney-client relationship between them was
established. From then on, it was expected of
him to serve Dalisay with competence and
attend to her case with fidelity, care and
devotion. He did not even follow-up the case
which remained pending up to the time she
terminated his services. There was also no
evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show
that Mauricio filed any case considering that the
filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the
filing of a case. It is clear that Mauricio did not
take any step to assist Dalisay in her case,
charging P56, 000 is improper. While giving
legal advice and opinion on Dalisays problems
and those of her family constitutes legal
services, however, the attorneys fees must be
reasonable. Obviously, P56, 000 is exorbitant.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

71 of 158

When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he

covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting the clients rights.

Endaya v. Oca (2003)

F:
The spouses Endaya were sued for
unlawful detainer. Atty.Wilfredo Oca of the
Public Attorneys Office was assigned to handle
their case. He failed to submit affidavits and
position
papers
required
by
the
MTC.
Fortunately for the spouses, the case was
dismissed because the MTC held that the
plaintiffs in that case were not real-parties-ininterest. On appeal to the RTC, the parties were
required to submit memoranda. Oca again
failed to submit the documents.
The RTC
reversed the MTC decision and the Endayas
were ordered to vacate the land and pay their
debts in arrears. Endaya received the decision
and confronted Oca who denied having received
the decision. This later proved to be false. The
SC suspended Oca for two months.
H: Ocas transgressions show his seeming
stubborn mindset against the acts required of
him by the courts. This intransigent attitude not
only belies lack of diligence and commitment
but evinces absence of respect for the authority
of the SC and other courts involved. In not filing
the appeal memorandum, Oca denied the
Endayas the chance of putting up a fair fight in
the dispute. He should have left it to the sound
judgment of the court to determine whether
affidavits support his clients, and not refuse to
file these altogether.
Notwithstanding his belief that without the
supporting documents a pleading would be
futile, he should have formally and promptly
manifested his intent not to file the pleadings to
prevent delay. Also, he tried to evade
responsibility for his negligence when Endaya
confronted him upon receipt of the adverse
decision. Oca was untruthful and effectively
betrayed the trust placed in him by the client.
Ocas
explanations
have
undertones
of
dishonesty, especially in being the counsel only
for one incident. Though he asked to be
relieved, this could not mean that less was
expected of him. Once a lawyer takes the case,
he owes it to the client to see the case to the
end. Also, a lawyer continues to be counsel until
the lawyer-client relationship is terminated
either by the act of his client or his own act,
with permission of the court. Until such time,
the lawyer is expected to do his best for the
interest of his client.

Rentoy v. Ibadlit (1998)

F:
Atty. Ibadlit was the lawyer of Reontoy.
RTC decided the case against his client. Atty.
Ibadlit alleges that he told Reontoys brother to
inform her that they had lost the case and that
appeal was futile. Confident that the brother
had conveyed the message and having failed to
receive any advice from Reontoy, Atty. Ibadlit
did not file an appeal. He was later informed
that she wanted to appeal thus he filed a notice

ONE UP LAW

of appeal, which was denied for having been

filed beyond the reglementary period.
H:
A lawyer has no authority to waive his
clients right to appeal and constitutes a
negligence and malpractice as proscribed in
18.03.

Mariveles v. Mallari (1993)

Atty. Mallari represented Mariveles in a BP 22
case, which he lost in the RTC of Davao.
Despite numerous extension (totaling 245 days)
granted by the CA, Mallari failed to appeal.
Hence the decision became final. The SC,
however, granted Mariveles appeal, admitting
the brief filed by new counsel stating: Where
the negligence of counsel is so great that the
rights of the accused are prejudiced and he is
prevented from presenting his defense,
especially where the appellant raises issues
which place in serious doubt the correctness of
the trial courts judgment of conviction, the
aforesaid rule [regarding dismissal of appeals]
must not be rigidly applied to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.

Legarda v. CA (1992)
F: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for
specific performance.
Atty. Coronel, her
counsel, failed to file an answer within the
period and Legarda was thus declared in
default. The lower court rendered a decision
against Legarda.
Coronel failed to pose an
appeal within the period. Thus, the decision
became final. The SC suspended Atty. Coronel
for six months.
H: Coronel is guilty of gross negligence for
violating Canon 18 and rule 18.03 particularly.
By neglecting to file the answer to the
complaint against petitioner, he set off the
events which resulted in the deprivation of
petitioners rights over her house and lot. It
should be remembered that the moment the
lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that
he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its
final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise
due diligence or abandons his clients cause
makes him unworthy of the trust reposed on
him by the latter.

RULE 18.04
INFORM CLIENT OF STATUS OF CASE

Rule 18.04.
A lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable period of time
to the clients request for information.

Abay v. Montesino (2003)

F:
National Institute of Technology, where
Abay is a stockholder, availed of Atty.
Montesinos legal service in an action against
the estate of Galo. In CA, Montesino failed to

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

72 of 158

file an appellants brief so appeal was

dismissed. Abay contended that dismissal was
due to counsels failure to pass appellants brief.
In defense, Montesino asserted he felt that the
case they filed was wrong as the property no
longer belonged to the heirs of Galo and that
they should recover said property from another
person.
H: The failure of respondent to file the brief was
a clear violation of his professional duty to his
client. The Court cited Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Not
filing the brief was prejudicial because it
resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
Respondent failed to exercise due diligence
towards the cause of his client.
His
abandonment of that cause made him unworthy
of the trust of the client. Even if he sincerely
thinks its for the clients best interest, he
should have not abandoned the appeal without
the clients consent.
He should have just
withdrawn his appearance and allowed the NIT
to hire another lawyer. The client is entitled to
the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the
land and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense. Also, his failure
to file the brief despite numerous extensions
violates Rule 12.03.

Blanza v Arcangel (1967)

F: Due to lack of evidence, the SC dismissed
the case against Atty. Arcangel who after
volunteering to help petitioners Blanza and
Pasion to claim pension (in connection with the
deaths their PC husbands) failed to inform them
of the progress of their case because they had
not paid him for photostating expenses he had
incurred.
H: A lawyer has a dynamic and positive role in
the community than merely complying with the
minimal technicalities of the stature. As a man
of law, he is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen.
His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he
volunteers
his
professional
services.
Respondent here has not lived up to that ideal
standard.
It was unnecessary to have
complainants wait, and hope, for six long years
on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to
co-operate, respondent should have forthwith
terminated
their
professional
relationship
instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely.

CANON 19
REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL

Canon 19.
A
lawyer
shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of law.
Rule 19.01.
and honest

A lawyer shall employ only fair

means to attain the lawful

ONE UP LAW

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.

It then becomes his duty to insist upon the

judgment of the court as to the legal merits
of his clients claim or defense. But this
duty should be carried out using only fair
and honest means. Thus, he should not
offer in evidence any document which he
knows is false; not present any witnesses
whom he knows will perjure; make such
defense only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law; abstain from all
offensive personality; advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness unless required by the
justice of the cause with which he is
charged.

Advocacy, within the bounds of law, permits

the
attorney
to use any
arguable
construction of the law or rules which is
favorable to his client; he is not allowed to
advance knowingly a claim or defense that
is unwarranted under existing law.

Rule: In espousing his clients cause, a

lawyer should not state his personal belief
as to the soundness or justice of his case.
Reasons: the lawyers personal belief has
no real bearing on the case; if expression of
belief were permitted, it would give
improper advantage to the older and better
known lawyer whose opinion would carry
more weight; If such were permitted,
omission to make such assertion might be
taken as an admission of the lack or belief
in the soundness of his clients cause.

Rule 19.02
A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of
the representation, perpetuated 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.
Rule 19.03.
A lawyer shall not allow his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

To society: he owes the duty not to engage

in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. To the legal profession: he is not
to engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law nor to behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession. To the courts: not to
do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court. To the client: to impress
upon him compliance with the laws and
principles of fairness.

The lawyers obligation to represent his

client with zeal and devotion must always
be within the bounds of the law.

While his zeal in the task of advocacy is

commendable and his persistence in the
discharge
of
his
responsibility
is
understandable, it should not amount to
obstinacy nor should it be carried beyond
the limits of sobriety and decorum.

RULE 19.01
FAIR AND HONEST

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 138, Sec. 20(d). Duties of

attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (d) To
employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek
to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.

Duty to restrain the client from impropriety

A lawyer should use his best efforts to

restrain and to prevent his client from doing
those things which he himself ought not to
do, particularly with reference to the
conduct toward the court, judicial officer,
witness and suitor.

Technical defense

In an annulment of marriage or legal

separation proceeding, the circumstance
that the state is vitally interested in the
maintenance of the marriage relation does
not necessarily render improper the
lawyers appearance for a party in such
proceeding and securing for him what is
due him under the law.

What
is
unethical
is
the
lawyers
participation (i.e. by encouraging the
commission of a matrimonial offense, by
fabricating
evidence,
by
suppressing
evidence) in any collusion between the
parties.

Lawyer must also avoid any act which may

invite or raise suspicion of collusion.

Consider this situation: A lawyer possesses

confidential information acquired from his

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Acceptance of a retainer in a civil suit

implies that a lawyer honestly believes that
his client has a good cause or defense
which is ripe for judicial adjudication.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

73 of 158

If the client persists in such wrongdoing,

the lawyers should terminate their relation.

ONE UP LAW

client who is not in collusion with the other

party, the disclosure of which may defeat
the action for annulment which outcome his
client does not want. The question is
whether he as counsel for the plaintiff
should reveal the information to the court
or whether he, as attorney for the
respondent, should plead it as a defense?
The question involves conflicting goals and
loyalties: To his client, he owes the duty to
secure lawfully for him what he desires-the
annulment-and to keep inviolate the clients
confidence, both of which require him to
keep
silent
about
the
damaging
information. To the court, he owes the duty
to act with honesty and candor, which
requires that he divulge the information. To
society, he owes the duty to accord fealty to
the public policy that considers marriage as
a social institution in the maintenance of
which the public is committed. Agpalos
answer: He should incline the scale of his
decision in favor of that solution which will
best serve all his loyalties, by declining the
professional employment or terminating the
professional relationship. His duty to
maintain undisclosed his clients confidence,
which outlasts his professional employment,
should
inhibit
him,
however,
from
volunteering such information to any
interested party.

Rule 19.03.
A lawyer shall not
allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.

Rule 138, sec. 23. Authority of

attorneys to bind clients.Attorneys have
authority to bind their clients in any case by any
agreement in relation thereto made in writing,
and in taking appeals, and in all matters of
ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot,
without special authority, compromise their
client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount
in cash.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Rule 19.03 warns the lawyer

not to allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case.

A
lawyer
should
seek
instruction from his client on any
substantial matter concerning the litigation,
which requires decision on the part of the
client (i.e. whether to compromise the case,
or to appeal an unfavorable judgment.) In
procedural matters, the client must yield to
the lawyer.

While it is the lawyers duty to

comply with the clients lawful request, he
should resist and should never follow any
unlawful instruction of his client.

Rule: In matters of law, it is

the client who should yield to the lawyer
and not the other way around. Reasons:
Lawyers duty to the court is foremost. The
dignity of the legal profession may be
compromised.

An excuse that a lawyer is only

following the clients instruction cannot
justify a lawyers violation of the rules and
ethics of the legal profession.

RULE 19.02
RECTIFY CLIENTS FRAUD

Rule 19.02
A lawyer who has
received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetuated 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Canon 19.02 merely requires the lawyer to

terminate his relationship with the client in
the event the latter fails or refuses to
rectify the fraud.

On the other hand, Canon 41 of the Canons

of Professional Ethics permits the lawyer to
inform the person injured by the fraudulent
acts of his client or the injured partys
counsel. Canon 41 may collide with the
lawyers duty to keep the clients confidence
inviolate which may be the reason for the
revision.

Rule: A lawyer may not volunteer the

information
concerning
the
clients
commission of fraud to anybody, as it will
violate his obligation to maintain his clients
secrets undisclosed.

RULE 19.03
CONTROL PROCEEDINGS

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

74 of 158

A lawyer is not a gun for hire.

Mistakes or Negligence of Lawyer Binding

Upon Client (1998, 200, 2002 BAR EXAMS)
General Rule: Client is bound by attorneys
conduct, negligence and mistake in handling
case or in management of litigation and in
procedural technique, and he cannot be heard
to complain that result might have been
different had his lawyer proceeded differently.
Exceptions:
1) Where adherence thereto results in
outright deprivation of clients liberty or
property or where interest of justice so
requires.
2) Where error by counsel is purely
technical
which
does
not
affect
substantially clients cause.

ONE UP LAW

3)

4)
5)

Ignorance,
incompetence
or
inexperience of lawyer is so great and
error so serious that client, who has
good cause is prejudiced and denied a
day in court.
Gross negligence of lawyer.
Lack of acquaintance with technical
part of procedure.

CANON 20
ATTORNEYS FEES

Canon 20.
A lawyer shall charge
only fair and reasonable fees.
Rule 20.01.
A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees:
a. The time spent and the extent of the
services rendered or required;
b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
c. The importance of the subject matter;
d. The skill demanded;
e. The probability of losing other employment
as a result of acceptance of the professed
case;
f. The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP Charter
to which he belongs;
g. The amount involved in the controversy and
the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
h. The
contingency
or
certainty
of
compensation;
i. The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
j. The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02.
A lawyer shall, in cases of
referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the
work performed and responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03.
A lawyer shall not, without the
full knowledge and consent of the client, accept
any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest,
rebate or forwarding allowances or other
compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from any one other
than the client.
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.

Rule 138, sec. 24. Compensation of

attorneys.An attorney shall be entitled to have
and recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services, with
a view to the importance of the subject matter
of the controversy, the extent of the services
rendered, and the professional standing of the
attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion
of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the
proper compensation, but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

75 of 158

services shall control the amount to be paid

therefore unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.

Rule 138, sec. 32. Compensation for

attorneys de oficio.Subject to availability of
funds as may be provided by law the court may,
in its discretion, order an attorney employed as
counsel de oficio to be compensated in such
sum as the court may fix in accordance with
section 24 of this rule. Whenever such
compensation is allowed, it shall not be less
than P30 in any case, nor more than the
following amounts:
1) P50 in light felonies;
2) P100 in less grave felonies;
3) P200 in grave felonies other than capital
offenses;
4) P500 in capital offenses.

RA 5185, sec. 6 (An act granting

further
autonomous
powers
to
local
governments) Prohibition Against Practice. - A
member of the Provincial Board or City or
Municipal Council shall not appear as counsel
before any court in any civil case wherein the
province, city or municipality, as the case may
be, is the adverse party: Provided, however,
That no member of the Provincial Board shall so
appear except in behalf of his province in any
civil case wherein any city in the province is the
adverse party whose voters are en-franchised
to vote for provincial officials, nor shall such
member of the Provincial Board or City or
Municipal Council appear as counsel for the
accused in any criminal case wherein an officer
or employee of said province, city or
municipality is accused of an offense committed
in relation to the latter's office, nor shall he
collect any fee for his appearance in any
administrative proceedings before provincial,
city or municipal agencies of the province, city
or municipality, as the case may be, of which he
is an elected official.
The provisions of this Section shall likewise
apply to provincial governors and city and
municipal mayors.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
A.

Right to Attorneys Fees

Generally

That the practice of law is a profession and

not a money-making trade does not operate
to deny a lawyer the right to attorneys fees
for his professional services. He has the
right to have and recover from his client a
fair and reasonable compensation for his
services, except in cases where he has
agreed to render service gratuitously or has
been appointed counsel de oficio.

Compensation of lawyer should be a mere

incident of the practice of law; the primary
purpose should be public service. Being an
officer of the court, what a lawyer may

ONE UP LAW

collect as his fees is always subject to

judicial control.

Lawyers
should
avoid
controversies
concerning compensation so far as shall be
compatible with self-respect and with right
to receive a reasonable recompense for
services. Resort to law suits with clients
should only be done to prevent injustice,
imposition or fraud. The impression is that
those instituting suits are mercenaries.

Right to protection for counsel fees

Because the practice of law is not a

business and attorneys vital role in
administration of justice there is the need
to secure the lawyer his honorarium
lawfully earned as a means to preserve the
decorum and respectability of the legal
profession.

Duty of court not only to see that a lawyer

acts in a proper and lawful manner but also
to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees.

With his capital consisting only of his brains

and skill acquired at tremendous cost in
money, time and energy, he is entitled to
protection of any judicial tribunal against
any attempt on the part of his client to
escape payment of his just compensation.
(ironic if, after putting the best in him to
secure justice for his client, he himself
would not get his due)

GENERALLY: right of lawyer to reasonable

compensation for services requires the
following:
1. that attorney-client relationship exists;
and
2. that he rendered services to the client.

Written agreement

A written agreement is not necessary to

establish a clients obligation to pay
attorneys fees. As long as the lawyer is
honestly and in good faith trying to serve
and represent the interest of his client, an
absence of express undertaking does not
defeat recovery of fees.

Acts of recognition, acquiescence by a client

in his attorneys conduct may take the place
of a request to act, provided that the case
was such that the client might reasonably
know that he would be expected to pay the
service.

Clients obligation to pay attorneys fees

arises from the inanimate contract of facis
ut des (I do and you give) which is based
on the principle that no one shall unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another.

Quantum meruit

When no price is stipulated for lawyers

service, courts will fix amount on quantum
meruit basis, or such amount which his
service merits.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

76 of 158

Requisite for principle: that there is an

acceptance of the benefits by one sought to
be charged for the services rendered under
circumstances as reasonably to notify him
that the lawyer performing the task is
expecting to be paid compensation.

Doctrine of quantum meruit is a device to

prevent undue enrichment based on the
equitable postulate that it is unjust for a
person to retain benefit without paying for
it.

Other times when doctrine applicable:

where
amount
stipulated
in written
agreement is found to be unconscionable or
where client dismissed counsel before
termination of case or where the lawyer
withdrew therefrom for valid reasons.

Who is liable for attorneys fees

General rule: only the client who engaged

the services of counsel either personally or
through an authorized agent is liable for
attorneys fees.

Exceptions rest on equitable principle that a

person who accepts the benefits of the legal
representation impliedly agrees to pay the
lawyers service for he may not unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of the lawyer.

Liability of persons benefited by counsels

services

General rule: a person who had no

knowledge of, or objected to, the lawyers
representation may not be held liable for
attorneys
fees
even
though
such
representation redounded to his benefit..
The objection should be raised before and
not after beneficial services shall have been
rendered by the lawyer; otherwise, the
party who benefited may be required to pay
counsel fees. For it is neither just that client
who retained lawyer should alone pay nor is
it fair that those who, investing nothing and
assuming no risk, received benefits should
not contribute their proportionate share to
counsel fees (based on equity).

That a person who employed lawyer as

counsel for a party has not been duly
authorized to do so does not necessarily
exempt latter from liability to pay attorneys
fees. If legal representation redounded to
his benefit, retention or acceptance of the
benefit cures defect of lack of authority on
part of agent to retain the lawyer on partys
behalf and creates obligation to pay lawyer.
Exception: employment of lawyer to
represent government entity by an official
who has no authority in law. Since the
benefits secured by the legal representation
cannot take the place of the law and will
not create an obligation on the part of the
government entity to pay the private lawyer
for his services.

Liability of assignee

Since assignee of all interests

pendente lite usually steps into shoes of

ONE UP LAW

assignor and acquires all of latters rights

and obligations in the action, assignee may
be held liable for counsel fees from out of
the proceeds of favorable judgment. This
obligation gives the assignee the right to
intervene in fixing amount of fees which
may be a proper charge against the
judgment rendered in the action.
Liability in labor cases

Lawyer who represented a union and its

members and with whom he has a retained
for payment of a fixed percentage of
amounts recovered from the company is
entitled to be paid not only by union
members but by non-union members as
well who derived benefits from his services.
But where benefits were given not because
of lawyers services but because of
company policy, lawyer is not entitled to
claim attorneys fees.

Attorneys fees in labor cases may not be

more than what the law provides and they
may not be checked off from any amount
due the employees without their written
consent.

Liability in derivative suits

Where, in a derivative suit, the professional

services of counsel who instituted the
action upon request of a stockholder are
beneficial to the corporation, counsel fees
may be properly charged against corporate
funds. But as any stockholder may file a
derivative suit on behalf of the corporation,
any other stockholder may intervene and
oppose the grant of such fees as a charge
against funds of the corporation.

the estate, seek reimbursement from the

estate if he has already paid them or
include them in his account with due notice
to all parties interested.

Ultimately, estate will answer

for the fees of lawyer whose services are
beneficial to estate, and if the assets have
been distributed, distributees or heirs will
contribute their share to the counsel fees as
the obligs of the estate follow the assets
wherever they are except in hands of a
purchaser in good faith.

To hold the estate ultimately

liable for attorneys fees requires that the
person to whom the services were rendered
was at the time the executor or
administrator and the services were
rendered to him in that capacity.

Where administrator is himself

counsel for the heirs, heirs must pay
attorneys fees.

The person who retained the

lawyer and not the estate is the one liable
for AF arising out of a litigation in the
protection of a particular person or between
beneficiaries
or
an
executor
or
administrator and an heir except with
respect to those services which were
rendered for the benefit of the estate prior
to the controversy provoked by the heir.

Attorneys fees of a lawyer

employed by an executor to secure
approval of a will may, if the lawyer is
successful, be properly charged against
estate. But the estate may not be liable for
counsel fees for services rendered to annul
a will at the request of the executor
(executor liable). Rationale: executors duty
is to enforce and not invalidate the will (will
desire, command of owner of the estate
as to how the inheritance shall be
distributed).

Lawyer who acted as counsel

for administrator to secure invalidation of
will may have his fees charged against the
estate if its disapproval would mean bigger
share in the inheritance of the administrator
as an heir and other heirs similarly
situated. Benefit of legal representation to
estate: difference between what they would
receive without a will and what they would
have received under the will.

Liability in receivership proceedings

Assets under receivership may be liable for

fees of lawyer employed by a receiver to
help him in the discharge of his duties.

But attorneys fees of the counsel for a

defendant in a receivership proceeding are
personal obligations of defendant and may
not be paid out of the funds in the hands of
the receiver, unless services rendered by
lawyer have redounded to benefit of
receivership or of plaintiff who asked for the
appointment of the receiver.

Liability
in
trusteeship
or
guardianship
proceedings

Same rule for trusteeship and

guardianship proceedings: trustee may be
indemnified out of the trust estate for his
expenses in rendering and proving his
accounts and for the related counsel fees in
the same way that property of the ward
may lawfully answer for counsel fees of the
lawyer employed by guardian. Both are,
however, subject to court approval.
Liability in estate proceedings

Executor or administrator who

employs services of an attorney may not
hold estate directly liable for his fees. He
may, however, if services are beneficial to

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

77 of 158

Who are entitled to or to share in attorneys

fees

Lawyer engaged by client is one entitled to

have and recover no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services.
If more than one lawyer employed, general
rule: lawyers who jointly represent a
common client for a give fee, in the
absence of agreement as to division of fees,
share equally as they are special partners
for a special purpose.

ONE UP LAW

Fees of lawyers separately employed by

client will depend upon their respective fee
arrangements with client. But if there is no
such arrangement, or if they have rendered
services at one time or another, each of
them will be entitled to no more than what
his
services
actually
performed
are
reasonably worth.

Right of lawyer to share in the professional

fees rests on services performed or on his
being, based on an agreement, a partner of
another or in a law firm.

Improper for an attorney to receive

compensation for merely recommending
another lawyer to his client because such
practice would tend to germinate evils of
commercialism and to destroy proper
appreciation of professional responsibility.

Attorneys conduct affecting his right to fees

Misconduct on part of lawyer may affect or

negate his right to recover from client a
reasonable compensation for services
already performed. (examples: negligence,
carelessness,
misrepresentation,
unfaithfulness
or
abuse
of
clients
confidence). Basis: good morals and public
policy

Non-lawyer not entitled to fees

Non-lawyer cannot recover attorneys fees

even if there is a law authorizing him to
represent a litigant in court because basis
of reasonable compensation is the existence
of attorney-client relationship and the
rendition of services.
Restrictions on some lawyers to charge fees

Lawyer who is absolutely disqualified from

engaging in private practice of law by
reason of his government position may
neither practice law nor, should he do so
illegally, charge attorneys fees for such
services. Exception: fees for services
already performed before lawyer qualified
for public office even though payment is
made thereafter.

Executor or administrator is prohibited from

charging
the
estate
under
his
administration of his professional fees for
services rendered by him as a lawyer.
Basis: One acting in a fiduciary capacity
must no place himself in such a position as
to make his interests antagonistic with
those of his principal. This principle, even in
absence of an express statutory prohibition,
also restricts right to or limits amount of
attorneys fees which a lawyer who occupies
a fiduciary position may otherwise collect
from his principal for his services as an
advocate.

Right of counsel de oficio to fees

Lawyer designated by court to render

professional services, in the absence of law
allowing compensation, cannot charge
government nor the indigent litigant for his
professional services. Appointment neither
violates constitutional restriction against
taking
of
property
without
just
compensation or the due process of law nor
imposes upon the government the oblig to
pay him his fees because one of the obligs
of an attorney willingly assumed when he
took his oath as lawyer is to render free
legal services whenever required by the
court to do so.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

78 of 158

Rules of Court: Court, in its discretion, may

grant (token) compensation subject to
availability of funds: P30-P50 in light
felonies; P100 in less grave felonies; P200
in grave felonies other than capital
offenses; P500 in capital offenses. This is
not intended as a source of regular income

Adverse result of litigation does not in itself

deprive a lawyer of right to claim a
reasonable compensation unless it is due to
lawyers misconduct or fee stipulated is
contingent upon favorable outcome of
action. Honest mistake does not defeat
right to fees.

Withdrawal of counsel from the case

Unceremonious
withdrawal
from
or
abandonment of action which prejudices
client negates right to compensation for
services rendered. It is a breach of implied
undertaking to prosecute or defend until
termination of litigation.

Lawyer who is forced to resign, with clients

conformity or in accordance with prescribed
procedure, because of his own fault or
misconduct loses right to fees earned.

Withdrawal of counsel who has done work

faithfully does not affect his right to fees.
If with clients written consent, it is
presumed that they mutually agreed to
terminate services and to compensate
lawyer for services until termination.
Lawyer should refund part of retainer as
has not been clearly earned. If without
clients written consent but for a justifiable
cause made after due notice to client,
lawyer may recover reasonable worth of his
services up to date of withdrawal unless fee
is contingent and contingency has not
arisen.

Representation of adverse interests

Simultaneous representation of opposing

parties, in the absence of clients consent to
the dual representation made after full
disclosure of the facts, negates right to fees
from both.

Lawyers acceptance of employment from

new client against a former client in a
matter related to former controversy
precludes recovery of fees from the former
client only if the latter objected to
representation. But new client could not
defeat right to fees in the absence of
concealment and prejudice by reason of

ONE UP LAW

lawyers previous relationship with adverse

party.

compensation, in the same way that client

cannot, by entering into a compromise
agreement, deprive lawyer of his fees in the
absence of waiver on lawyers part.

Lawyers right unaffected by clients conduct

Although a client has right to discharge

lawyer anytime, dismiss or settle action or
even waive the whole of his interest in favor
of adverse party, he cannot, in the absence
of lawyers fault, consent or waiver, deprive
the lawyer of his just fees already earned.
Attorneys discharge by client

Discharge of lawyer by his client without a

valid cause before conclusion of litigation
does not negate lawyers right to recover
payment for services. Whether it will affect
right to fees or not will depend on existence
or absence of a valid written contract for
professional services and nature of that
contract.

No express written agreement as to fees:

reasonable value of services till date of
dismissal.

In bad faith or in fraud of counsel: full

amount stipulated in valid contract or, in its
absence, reasonable worth of services

B.

Client has no right to compromise or waive

so much of acknowledged claim secured
through efforts of lawyer as would prejudice
stipulated
fee,
whether
absolute
or
contingent, and adverse party has no right
to accept such compromise or waiver
unqualifiedly.

Contract for Attorneys Fees

Express agreement as to fees not reduced

to writing: reasonable value of services till
date of dismissal. Except: where dismissal
comes after successful prosecution or
defense: full amount

Forms of Contract for Legal Service

Contract in writing and fee stipulated is

absolute and reasonable: full amount.
Fee stipulated in valid written contract
contingent: reasonable value of services
rendered. If contingency occurs or client
prevents its occurrence by dismissing,
settling or waiving his cause: full amount

Lawyer should question discharge to entitle

him to recover under the contract,
otherwise quantum meruit basis will be
applied. Discharge of lawyer for cause does
not necessarily deprive lawyer of right to be
paid for his services. He may only be
deprived if cause for dismissal constitutes in
itself a sufficient legal obstacle to recovery.

Clients dismissal of action

Client may dismiss action even without

consent of lawyer but he cannot deprive
lawyer of his attorneys fees for services
rendered, in the absence of a waiver.
In good faith and based on honest belief
that client has no valid cause: reasonable
worth of services, except: fee is contingent
no recovery
In bad faith and intended to defraud lawyer
of compensation: full amount stipulated in
valid written contract or, in its absence,
reasonable value of services based on
quantum meruit

With consent of lawyer: reasonable value

based on quantum meruit

Lawyers consent to dismissal does not

negate right to compensation unless such
consent amounts to waiver of right.

Clients compromise of action

Lawyer cannot prevent client from settling

case
due
to
right
to
reasonable

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

79 of 158

1.
2.

Oral
Written this is more advantageous for
lawyers,
hence,
most
contracts
for
attorneys fees are in this form.
Advantages of a Written Retainer Contract:
there is control of amount of fee; if lawyers
service is terminated without justifiable
cause, lawyer is entitled to full amount of
fees

When lawyer cannot recover full amount despite

existence of retainer

Situations wherein Counsel Cannot Recover

Full Amount Despite a Written Retainer
Contract: when the services called for were
not performed as when the lawyer withdrew
before case is finished, unless withdrawal
justified; when there is a justified dismissal
of the attorney, the contract will be nullified
and payment shall be based on quantum
meruit; when the stipulated attorneys fees
are
unconscionable;
when
stipulated
attorneys fees are in excess of what is
expressly fixed by law; when lawyer is
guilty of fraud and bad faith toward client in
the matter of employment; when the
counsels services were worthless because
of his negligence; when contract of
employment is illegal, against morals and
public policy; serving adverse interests,
unless lawyer proves he acted with consent
and acquiescence of both parties
Kinds of Attorneys Fee Stipulation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Absolute
Contingent
Fixed Fee payable per appearance
Fixed Fee computed by number of hours
spent
Fixed Fee based on piece work
Combinations of other stipulations

ONE UP LAW

Concepts of Attorneys Fees

1. Ordinary: an attorneys fee is the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer
for the legal services he has rendered to
client. Basis is employment by client
2. Extraordinary: an attorneys fee is an
indemnity for damages ordered by court to
be paid by losing party to the prevailing
party in litigation; payable not to lawyer
but to the client, unless otherwise agreed
upon; also known as attorneys fee as
damages

Generally, attorneys fees in concept of

damages are not recoverable due to public
policy. There are however exceptions to the
rule.

client to pay, and is directly commensurate

with the value of the legal services
rendered.

Contingent Fee Contract

A contingent fee contract is an agreement

in writing in which the fee, usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in
action is made to depend upon the success
in the effort to enforce or defend a
supposed right.

Lawyer gets paid only if he wins the case

for the client unless the client prevents the
successful prosecution or defense of the
action, in which case the lawyer will be
entitled to recover on quantum meruit basis
or to the full amount as fixed in a valid
written agreement.

A much higher compensation is allowed as

contingent fees in consideration of the risk
that the lawyer will get nothing if case fails.
Contingent fee of 30% of money judgment
is still considered valid.

A lawyer usually advances expenses of

litigation as more often than not the client
is not in a financial capacity to pay. This
contract is often the only way that a poor
litigant may have his right enforced or
protected by a lawyer.

In contrast to a champertous contract, a

contingent fee contract is allowed by law. A
champertous contract is one wherein the
lawyer during litigation will shoulder all the
expenses and by the end of the case, if a
favorable decision is rendered, the lawyer
will get all the rewards, including monetary
and non-monetary claims.

Kinds of Retainer
1.

General Retainer (retaining fee): Fee paid

to a lawyer to secure his future services as
general counsel for any ordinary legal
problem that may arise in the routinary
business of the client and referred to him
for legal action.
This could be paid monthly or annually,
depending on lawyer-client arrangement.
This is considered as compensation for lost
opportunity.

2.

Special Retainer: Fee which client will pay

to his lawyer for a specific matter
(case/service), possibly in addition to a
general retainer.

Rationale for Adequate Compensation

Adequate compensation is necessary in

order to enable lawyer to serve his client
effectively and to preserve the integrity and
independence of the profession. The legal
profession cannot remain a viable force in
fulfilling its role in our society unless
lawyers receive adequate compensation for
his services. A lawyer like all human beings
has a right to livelihood.

Effects of Nullity of Contract

1.
2.

preclude a lawyer from recovering fees for

such services (if nullity based on illegality of
object sought to be achieved)
lawyer entitled to recover what is justly due
him for his services based on quantum
meruit ( if nullity not based on illegality of
object)

Validity of Contingent Fee Contract

Effects of Unconscionability of Amount

The Court protects the client by monitoring

the amount paid to lawyers. Such amount
must always be reasonable to avoid abuse
of clients by lawyers.
Reasonability of fee is determined from the
facts of each case. It is considered as
reasonable if it is within the capacity of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

80 of 158

In contrast, amount is considered as

unconscionable if it is such that no man in
his right senses would offer on one hand
and no honest and fair man would accept
on the other.
1. contract for attorneys fees invalidated
2. recovery of attorneys fees based on
quantum meruit

Validity depends on reasonableness of the

amount fixed as contingent fee based on
circumstances of the case. It is generally
valid and binding unless it is obtained by
fraud, imposition or suppression of facts, or
the fee is so clearly excessive as to amount
to extortion.

Construction of Professional Contract

General rule to be followed is that to adopt

such a construction as would be more
favorable to client even if it would work
prejudice to lawyer.

ONE UP LAW

A lawyer who prepares a contract of

professional services is presumed to have
seized up the entire situation before
entering into agreement.

Words inserted by client in his own

handwriting are to be taken in his favor, the
insertion presumed to have been made for
his benefit.

It is interpreted in accordance with its

terms and in favor of greatest reciprocity of
interest.

Research and Services Realty V. CA

(1997)
F:
After termination, Atty. Fonacier filed
suit for Urgent Motion to Direct Payment of
Attorneys Fees &/or Register Attorneys
Charging Lien claiming that non-collection cases
were
included
in
the
contingent
fee
arrangement specified in his retainer contract
wherein
there
was
to
be
contingent
compensation for any award arising from any
lawsuit handled by him. This was acted upon
favorably by RTC ordering Research and
Services Realty (RSR) to pay Fonacier P600,
000 as attorneys fees based on quantum
meruit. RSR appealed and contended that
Fonacier has no justification to claim attorneys
fees as: he was not entitled to attorneys fees in
the retainer contract and he did not exert effort
to amicably settle the specific case nor was he
even present during negotiation of the same.
The SC held that Fonacier is entitled to claim
attorneys fees for non-collection cases but that
his attorneys fee on a contingent basis is
unwarranted.
H:
The absence of stipulation of additional
attorneys fees cannot be construed as a bar to
the collection of additional attorneys fees in
non-collection cases. Nothing therein shows
that
Atty.
Fonacier
agreed
to
render
professional services in such cases gratuitously.
The civil case in question is not yet resolved
and no judgment has yet been rendered in
favor of RSR. If at all Fonacier may be entitled
to attorneys fees, it would be on the basis if
quantum meruit as of the expiration of his
retainer contract on 31 March 1993.

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v

CA (1990)
F:
Lawyers filed verified motion to enter in
the records their charging lien. Attorneys liens
were annotated on the certificate of land titles.
Consequently, the other partys petition against
sale of land was granted with prejudice and a
new certificate of title with his name was made
wherein attorneys liens were annotated. The
Court held that the lawyers were not entitled to
the enforcement of charging lien for payment of
its attorney's fees and also held that a separate
civil suit is not necessary for the enforcement of
such lien.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

81 of 158

H:
A charging lien, to be enforceable as
security for the payment of attorney's fees,
requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment
for money and execution in pursuance of such
judgment secured in the main action by the
attorney in favor of his client. A lawyer may
enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary
petition as an incident in the main action in
which his services were rendered when
something is due his client in the action from
which the fee is to be paid. An enforceable
charging lien, duly recorded, is within the
jurisdiction of the court trying the main case
and this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is
settled. There is certainly no valid reason why
the trial court cannot pass upon a petition to
determine attorney's fees if the rule against
multiplicity of suits is to be activated.

Quirante v. IAC (1989)

F:
Atty Quirante filed a motion for
confirmation of attorneys fees in the trial court,
presenting alleged agreement between him and
Casasola about said fee while the main case is
still pending. The case is being heard on appeal.
The Court held that Atty. Quirante cannot have
a confirmation of attorneys fees.
H:
Since the main case from which the
petitioner's claims for their fees may arise has
not yet become final, the determination of the
propriety of said fees and the amount thereof
should be held in abeyance. This procedure
gains added validity in the light of the rule that
the remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an
incident of the main action may be availed of
only when something is due to the client.

Tanhueco v. de Dumo (1989)

F:
de Dumo is Tanhuecos counsel for
recovery of indebtedness from different
debtors. No document about their lawyer-client
relationship but Hilaria offered to give 15% of
what de Dumo may be able to collect from
debtors. Contrary to this, de Dumo contends
that their agreement is to give him 50% of debt
collected. The Court held that the attorneys
fees charged by de Dumo were unacceptable.
H:
The contingent fee here claimed was,
under the facts obtaining in this case, grossly
excessive and unconscionable. Such a fee
structure, when considered in conjunction with
the circumstances of this case, also shows that
an unfair advantage was taken of the client and
legal fraud and imposition perpetrated upon her.
It must be stressed that the mere fact that an
agreement had been reached between attorney
and client fixing the amount of the attorney's
fees, does not insulate such agreement from
review and modification by the Court where the
fees clearly appear to be excessive or
unreasonable. This Court has power to guard a
client, especially an aged and necessitous
client, against such a contract.

ONE UP LAW

Rule 138, 32 Compensation for attorneys

de oficio. Subject to availability of funds as may
be provided by law the court may, in its
discretion, order an attorney employed as
counsel de oficio to be compensated in such
sum as the court may fix in accordance with
section 24 of this rule. Whenever such
compensation is allowed, it shall not be less
than thirty pesos (P30.00) in any case, nor
more than the following amounts: (1) Fifty
pesos (P50.00) in light felonies; (2) One
hundred pesos (P100.00) in less grave felonies;
(3) Two hundred pesos (P200.00) in grave
felonies other than capital offenses; (4) Five
hundred pesos (P500.00) in capital offenses.

Albano v. Coloma (1967)

F:
Coloma was Albanos counsel during
the Japanese occupation. According to Albano,
Coloma failed to expedite hearing and
termination of case. Coloma denied that she did
nothing to expedite the hearing and termination
of such civil case as the records would show
otherwise. After Albanos won in the case,
Coloma intervened to collect attorneys fee
which is computed at 33.3% of what the
Albanos can recover. The Court held that
Coloma may recover attorneys fees.
H:
Counsel, any counsel, if worthy of his
hire, is entitled to be fully recompensed for his
services. With his capital consisting solely of his
brains and his skill, acquired at tremendous cost
not only in money but in the expenditure of
time and energy, he is entitled to the protection
of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on
the part of a client to escape payment of his
fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the
best that is in him to secure justice for the
party he represents, he himself would not get
his due. Such an eventuality this Court is
determined to avoid.
RULE 20.01
FEE GUIDE

Rule 20.01.
A lawyer shall be
guided by the following factors in determining
his fees:
a. The time spent and the extent of the
services rendered or required;
b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
c. The importance of the subject matter;
d. The skill demanded;
e. The probability of losing other employment
as a result of acceptance of the professed
case;
f. The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP Charter
to which he belongs;
g. The amount involved in the controversy and
the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
h. The
contingency
or
certainty
of
compensation;

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

82 of 158

i.
j.

The character of the employment, whether

occasional or established; and
The professional standing of the lawyer.

NOTES
(Agpalo)
Amount Fixed in a Valid Contract

A valid written contract is conclusive as to

amount of compensation. Unless both
parties set aside contract and submit
question of reasonableness of amount of
fees for court to resolve on quantum meruit
basis, neither client nor lawyer may
disregard amount fixed.
Rule 20.01 as guide only

none of the factors is controlling but are

guides only. Other factors:
a) actual purchasing power of Philippine
peso
b) omission or fault of lawyer
c) loss of opportunity on part of lawyer for
other employment
d) financial capacity of client
Amount based on Quantum Meruit

Quantum Meruit means as much as a

lawyer deserves. Its essential requisite is
acceptance of the benefits by one sought to
be charged for services rendered under
circumstances as reasonably to notify him
that lawyer expects compensation.
Instances when Court will fix Amount of
Attorneys Fees based on Quantum Meruit
1.
agreement is invalid for some reason
other
than
illegality
of
object
of
performance
2.
amount stipulated is unconscionable
3.
no agreement as to fees existed
between parties
4.
client rejects amount fixed in contract
as unconscionable and is found to be so
5.
lawyer, without fault, was unable to
conclude litigation

Agpalo adds (1) the results secured and (2)

whether of not the fee is contingent, it
being recognized as a rule that an attorney
may properly charge a higher fee when it is
contingent that when it is absolute.

Even other consideration may be the actual

purchasing power of the Philippine Peso,
the omission of fault of the lawyer in the
discharge of his duties, the loss of
opportunity on the part of a lawyer for
other employment of the financial capacity
of the client.

Loss of Opportunity for other employment

may be due to (1) the acceptance of a
retainer or (2) that the work may require
tedious details and considerable time.

ONE UP LAW

Nature of services

Value of lawyers services determined in

large measure by nature, quality and
quantity of services. Competence judged by
character of work.

Hotly-litigated action requires more work

and higher fee than a simple money claim.

Lawyers services should be taken as a

whole.

Time employed not in itself an appropriate

basis for fixing amount but length of
employment which runs for years is
significant as the longer the period of
employment the more work it entails and
the lesser the opportunity lawyer has for
other profitable retainers.

Time devoted for study and research must

also be considered.

That lawyer has been helped by assistants

in his office cannot reduce compensation as
he is paying his assistants and is not
expected to do everything personally. (like
an
army general
who directs
and
supervises, and deserves credit for victory
won)

Skill and standing of attorney

Skill, experience and standing of lawyer

bear a direct proportion to amount of
attorneys fees.

Reputation for professional capacity and

fidelity to trust acquired through years of
hard labor and devotion to duty, evidenced
by quality of work and eminent standing in
community.

Argument made in a pleading or brief or

orally in court acquires a different meaning
and import according to persuasive ability
of professional and personal prestige of
lawyer.

Ability, skill and competence cannot be

measured by lawyers income or length of
practice.
Lawyers competence and ability must be
judged by character and quality of his work
and services not only in the field of law but
in other fields of public and private
endeavors. Court may take judicial notice of
the prestige of a lawyer as a distinguished
member of the bar.

Value of interest involved

The bigger the size or value of interest or

property involved the higher the attorneys
fees. Reason: the higher the stakes the
more case is hotly litigated and the greater
the efforts the lawyer exerts.

But: in a million peso litigation, percentage

fee contingent upon recovery becomes

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

83 of 158

smaller as amount of recovery gets bigger

because amount of work required remains
the same even though interest in
controversy exceeds several million pesos.

In the last analysis, value of interest

depends upon extent of the special and
additional services and efforts demanded of
the case.

Loss of opportunity for other employment

Loss of opportunity for other employment

on part of lawyer should be considered.

Two ways: (1) acceptance of retainer from

client will preclude a lawyer from appearing
for others in cases likely to arise out of the
transaction in view of prohibition against
representation of adverse interests; (2)
work may require tedious details and
considerable time that may deprive him of
opportunity to render legal services in other
cases

Difficulty of issues involved

Novel or difficult issues require greater

efforts on part of lawyer in terms of
preparation, study and research to convince
court as to the soundness of clients cause.

In fixing lawyers fees, court looks at

novelty or difficulty of issue and the
demands they impose on lawyers part.

Test case

Where there are several identical actions or

possible disputes and one case is litigated
as a test case, value in controversy of all
actions
should
bear
its
appropriate
proportion to the amount due as fees to
lawyer who prosecuted test case (totality of
the amounts in all the actions dependent
upon the result of test case).

A test case is usually litigated with energy

and diligence even if the actual amount is
insignificant because the resolution of the
other actions which involve large sums of
money is made to depend on the favorable
outcome of the test case.

Those who may be benefited by the result

of the test case may be required to
contribute a proportionate share to fees of
lawyer who prosecuted test case.

Results secured

Winning client may be more than willing to

pay for stipulated amount while losing client
may hesitate. In fixing what a lawyer is
reasonably entitled to, result of case is
given much weight.

That a lawyer, in spite of his efforts, failed

to secure for his client what he desires,
does not, however, deprive him of the right
to recover compensation for his services
except when fee agreed upon is contingent.
(Practice of law would cease to be dignified
and honorable if all professional fees
contingent fees.)

ONE UP LAW

Whether fee is contingent

Contingent fee: lawyer entitled to higher

compensation than if fee were absolute.
Reason: risks borne by lawyer as to
reimbursement of expenses advanced
Capacity of client to pay

Financial ability of client to pay may be

considered in determining amount of fees,
not to enhance what is reasonable but to
ascertain whether client is able to pay a fair
and just compensation. It may be looked
into as an incident in determining
importance
and
gravity
of
interests
involved.

Poor, ignorant client may not be in a

position to appreciate what a reasonable
fee is and may likely agree, because of his
necessities, to anything his counsel
proposes. While a wealthy client can deal
with lawyer at arms length.

Statutory limitation as to fees

Legislature, in the exercise of its police

power, may by law prescribe the limit of the
amount of attorneys fees which a lawyer
may charge. A contract beyond the limit is
null and void, and the lawyer who collects
in excess of the limit may be criminally held
liable.

Law should be interpreted strictly and not

extended
beyond
what
it
expressly
comprehends.

RULE 20.02
CLIENTS
CONSENT
REFERRAL

OF

FEES

FOR

Rule 20.02.
A lawyer shall, in cases
of referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the
work performed and responsibility assumed.
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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Lawyers sometimes use the lawyer-referral

system. It is an aid to selection of qualified
lawyers. This system helps individuals in
locating lawyers competent to handle their
particular problem. It enables laymen to
have informed selection of competent
lawyers who have experience in the subject
matter involved in a particular case.

It is however stressed that it is improper for

a lawyer to receive compensation for
merely recommending another lawyer to his
client for if such practice is permitted, it
would
tend
to
germinate
evils
of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

84 of 158

commercialism and to destroy proper

appreciation of professional responsibility.

It is only when, in addition to referral, he

performs
legal
service
or
assumes
responsibility in case that he will be entitled
to a fee.

Urban Bank, Inc. v. Pena (2001)

F:
Atty. Pena was issued a letter of
authority which gave him the right to represent
Urban Bank in any court action connected with
eviction. But Pena, before doing so, made clear
that it is ISC which availed of his service. This
letter was later on altered. After eviction, Pena
filed collection suit versus Urban Bank. With
this, Urban Bank filed case versus Pena,
alleging that they were not the one who availed
of Penas legal services. The Court did not agree
that Pena should be disbarred on the ground of
deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct.
H:
Atty. Pena can hardly be faulted and
accused of deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct for invoking the aid of the court in
recovering recompense for legal services which
he claims he undertook for the bank and which
the latter does not deny to have benefited from.
RULE 20.03
CLIENTS CONSENT OF ACCEPTANCE FEE
FROM THIRD PERSONS

Rule 20.03.
A lawyer shall not,
without the full knowledge and consent of the
client,
accept
any
fee,
reward,
costs,
commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
allowances or other compensation whatsoever
related to his professional employment from
any one other than the client.

Rule 138, sec. 20(e). Duties of

attorneys.It is the duty of an attorney: (e)
to accept no compensation in connection with
his client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

The reason for the rule is to ensure

protection of lawyers in collection of fees.
Moreover, it is designed to secure the
lawyers wholehearted fidelity to the clients
cause and to prevent that situation in which
the receipt by him of a rebate or
commission from another in connection
with the clients cause may interfere with
the full discharge of his duty to the client. It
must be noted that the amount received by
lawyer from opposite party or third persons
in the service of his client belongs to the
client except when the latter has full
knowledge and approval of lawyers taking.

RULE 20.04
AVOID COMPENSATION CONTROVERSY
WITH CLIENT

ONE UP LAW


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.

administrator or executor or (2) a petition

for allowance of his fees with probate court,
but not against substitute or new
administrator.

When to enforce right to fees: before estate

proceeding is definitely closed. General
rule: probate court loses jurisdiction to
entertain
and
adjudicate
fees
after
proceeding closes.
Exceptions: (1) when petition for allowance
of fees filed before closure (2) distribution
of assets made without prejudice to claim
for attorneys fees

Allowance of counsel fees in estate

proceedings rests on sound discretion of
probate court but it may be modified by
appellate court when fee allowed is
inadequate or excessive.

Order fixing fees continue to be under

control of probate court until proceeding is
closed and may increase or decrease
depending on facts and circumstances even
though fee has been fully or partially paid.
But an order of probate court which has
been affirmed or modified by appellate
court can no longer be changed by probate
court. The latter cannot order immediate
payment of fees after perfection of an
appeal from order allowing it.

In case where probate court has lost

jurisdiction after final closure of estate
proceeding, lawyer may file independent
civil action against administrator in his
personal capacity and against distributees
of the assets of the estate.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Suits to collect fees should be avoided and

only when the circumstances imperatively
require should a lawyer resort to lawsuit to
enforce payment of fees. This is but a
logical consequence of the legal profession
not
primarily
being
for
economic
compensation. Lawyers should avoid the
appearance of fulfilling duty merely for the
compensation.
Take note of Rule 138, Secs 24, 32 above

Corpuz v. CA (2001)
F:
Atty David and Corpuz were good
friends. In Corpuzs civil case, David became his
counsel. Prior to rendering of final judgment,
Corpuz gave the lawyer a check which the latter
returned. After favorable decision was rendered,
Atty. David demanded attorneys fee which
Corpuz refused to deliver alleging that Davids
services were offered gratuitously. The Court
decided that Atty. David should be paid
attorneys fees.
H:
An attorney-client relationship can be
created by implied agreement, as when the
attorney actually rendered legal services for a
person who is a close friend. The obligation of
such a person to pay attorneys fees is based on
the law of contracts concept of facio ut des (no
one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense
of others.) Absence of an express contract for
attorneys fees between respondent David and
petitioner Corpus is no argument against the
payment of attorneys fees, considering their
close relationship which signifies mutual trust
and confidence between them.
ETCETERA NOTES.
(Agpalo)
Remedies in estate proceedings

Lawyer should first administrator

executor to pay.

If administrator or executor refuses, lawyer

may: File independent civil action against
administrator or executor in his personal
capacity. If latter is ordered to pay, he may
in turn include the amount paid in his
account filed with probate court.

If administrator or executor dies before

lawyers fees could be paid, he may file
claim against (1) estate of deceased

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

85 of 158

If court has no jurisdiction or has lost it,

court can have no power to award and fix
attorneys fees. Lawyer may, however,
enforce claim in separate civil action
subject to same jurisdictional req as any
other ordinary civil suit.

But if client not only fails to object to

exercise by court of jurisdiction to entertain
an action for recovery of attys fees but also
asks for some affirmative reliefs, he may be
estopped, on appeal, to assail the propriety
of action taken by trial court in fixing and
allowing counsel fees

or

File petition with probate court praying that

court, after due notice to all persons
interested, allow his claim and direct
administrator or executor to pay.

Court jurisdiction

Court having jurisdiction to try main action

in which lawyer rendered services also has
jurisdiction to pass upon the question of
fees even though the total sum thereof is
less
than
the
jurisdictional
amount
cognizable by the court and continues to
have jurisdiction until the proceeds of the
judgment shall have been delivered to the
client.

Necessity of hearing

Petition for recovery of attys fees has to be

prosecuted and allegations established.

ONE UP LAW

Persons entitled to or must pay attys fees

have the right to be heard upon question of
their propriety or amount.

Who may have right to intervene and be

heard: lawyer himself, client, clients
assignee of the interest in litigation,
stockholders in a derivative suit concerning
attys fees sought to be charged against
corporate
funds,
and
administrator,
executor, heir and creditor in an estate
proceedings.

Burden of proof is upon lawyer to establish

his allegations.

Trial court who awards smaller fee than that

sought without allowing lawyer to adduce
evidence commits a reversible error
correctable by certiorari.

Where there is written agreement for attys

fees, no other piece of evidence is
necessary to prove amount. Opinions of
lawyers as expert witnesses are not binding
upon court but may be taken into account
along with professional knowledge and
various factors affecting compensation.

Court cannot authorize payment until all

parties are given opportunity to be heard.
In the absence of evidence, court is
presumed to have granted award for
counsel fees only after it has heard all
parties involved.
Court may not order immediate payment
where question as to propriety or amount is
pending resolution by appellate court.

Defenses

Usual defenses apply: res judicata, want of

jurisdiction, prescription of action, nullity of
contract, negligence in discharge of lawyers
duties, lack of atty-client relationship,
payment or unconscionableness of amount
claimed.
Application of clients funds

Lawyer who has in his possession funds of

the client may not apply them to pay his
fees without clients consent, express or
implied.

If client refuses to give consent, lawyer

should secure court order for the allowance
of fees with notice to client to give client
opportunity to be heard. After securing
award, he may lawfully apply clients funds
in his possession for payment of his fees as
fixed by court.

Execution

Final award of attys fees may be enforced

by execution. Award may be enforced
against any property of client, including
proceeds from judgment secured for client
in the main action.
Attorneys Fees as Damages

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

86 of 158

Two concepts of attorneys fees compared

Indemnification: given by court to winning

litigant in the form of damages. It may be
decreed in favor of party, not his lawyer, in
any of the instances authorized by law.

Compensation: attys fee paid by client to

his counsel.

Liability of losing party for attys fees

(indemnification) awarded to winning party
not bound by or dependent upon fee
arrangement of winning party with his
lawyer but court may take that fee
arrangement into account as an element of
damages.

Fee as item of damages belongs to client,

not to his lawyer. But client and lawyer may
agree that whatever may be awarded by
court as attys fees will go directly to
lawyer, in which case, losing party shall pay
directly to lawyer of prevailing party.

Similarities: both require, as a prerequisite

to grant, the intervention of or rendition of
professional services by lawyer, both fees
subject to judicial control and modification,
and rules governing determination of their
reasonable amount applicable to both.

Fee as damages not recoverablegeneral rule

General rule: attys fees as damages not

recoverable because it is not the fact of
winning that ipso facto justifies the award
but the attendance of any of the special
circumstances and, in case of public
litigant, the existence of the right to private
counsel.

Public policy requires that no penalty be

placed on the right to litigate, even if done
erroneously. Otherwise, it will put a
premium on right to redress grievances and
tempt a party and his counsel to swell the
fees to undue proportion and discourage
out-of-court settlement.

Fees as damages recoverableexception to the

rule

New Civil Code provides 13 exceptions to

the rule:
1. When there is agreement
Court may reduce if fee unreasonable
or unconscionable.
2. When exemplary damages are awarded
Exemplary damages awarded by way of
example.
3. When defendants action or omission
compelled plaintiff to litigate
Act or omission of other party must be
in gross bad faith.
Plaintiff (in his complaint) or defendant
(in his counterclaim) is entitled to
award.
4. In
criminal
cases
of
malicious
prosecution
Show that (1) he was acquitted and (2)
person who charged him knowingly
made a false statement of facts or that

ONE UP LAW

5.

6.

7.

8.
9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

filing was prompted by sinister design

to vex him.
When action is clearly unfounded
Action or proceeding must be so
untenable as to amount to gross and
evident bad faith depending on
circumstances of case; good faith a
defense.
When defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith
Refusal to pay valid claim must be
made in gross and evident bad faith.
In actions for support
Person obliged to give support is also
obliged to pay attorneys fees as may
be necessary to enable person entitled
to such support to enforce his rights.
In cases of recovery of wages
Covers household helpers, laborers and
skilled workers
In
actions
for
indemnity
under
workmens
compensation
and
employees liability laws
In a separate civil action arising from a
crime
Party entitled to recover damages
arising from a crime can only do so in a
separate civil action or in a civil suit to
enforce subsidiary civil liability.
When at least double costs are awarded
Usually awarded in frivolous action or
appealone
which
presents
no
justiciable question or is so readily
recognizable as devoid of merit on its
face.
When the court deems it just and
equitable
There should be factual, legal or
equitable justification which appears on
record.
When a special law so authorizes
Purpose:
to
lessen
unnecessary
litigation

Right to private counsel a precondition

Two reqs to recover attys fees as an item

of damages: (1) case falls under any of the
exceptions and (2) he must have employed
and, in the case of public litigant, must
show his right to employ a private counsel.
Award of attorneys fees discretionary

Exercise of discretion by court on awarding

of attys fees as damages must be based on
facts appearing on the text of decision.
Decisions body, not just the disposition,
must state reason for award, unless text
shows case comes within one of the
exceptions.

In the absence of showing that trial court

abused discretion, grant or denial of attys
fees may not be disturbed on appeal.
Appellate court may, in the exercise of its
discretion, award attys fees or increase or
reduce
amount
whenever
law
and
circumstances warrant.

Pleading and practice

Trial and appellate court will not grant attys

fees if claim of attys fees in the concept of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

87 of 158

damages and the grounds relied upon are

not pleaded.

But with claim for attys fees having been

set up, appellate court may grant such fees
even if party did not appeal from lower
courts decision denying such award.

Claim for attys fees must not only be

alleged, factual basis and amount must also
be proved. That grant is discretionary does
not dispense with need for proof even if
party against whom it is asserted does not
deny claim. Exception: when what is sought
is in the nature of liquidated damages fixed
in a valid written agreement.

Amount must be proved and specifically

prayed for, not just in such other relief and
remedy as the court may deem just and
equitable.

Since award of attys fees is the exception,

not the rule, trial court should make
findings of fact and law to bring case within
the exception and justify the award.

CANON 21
PRESERVE CLIENTS CONFIDENCE

Canon 21.
A lawyer shall preserve
the confidence and secrets of his client even
after
the
attorney-client
relationship
is
terminated.
Rule 21.01.
A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidence 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 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

ONE UP LAW

disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the

client.

This duty exists because unless the client

knows that his attorney cannot be
compelled to reveal what is told to him, he
will suppress what he thinks to be
unfavorable and the advice which follows
will be useless if not misleading.

This canon also applies to prospective

clients.
Formerly,
in
order
that
a
communication shall be privileged, the
attorney-client relationship should exist at
the time of communication. But at present,
communication made by prospective client
is covered for as long as it is made to the
lawyer in his professional capacity.

Exists where legal advice is sought in a

lawyers professional capacity with respect
to communications relating to that purpose.
This is called: evidentiary privilege.

Rule 21.06.
A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a clients affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07.
A lawyer shall not reveal that
he has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interests.

Rule 138, 20(e). Duties of attorneys.

It is the duty of an attorney: (e) To maintain
inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
himself, to preserve the secrets of his client,
and to accept no compensation in connection
with his client's business except from him or
with his knowledge and approval;

Rule
130,
sec.
21(b).
Privileged
communication. An attorney cannot, without
the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or
his advice given thereon in the course of
professional employment; nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity.

Art. 209 Revised Penal Code.

Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor
Revelation of secrets.In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period, or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or
solicitor ( procurador judicial) who, by any
malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall
prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets
of the latter learned by him in his professional
capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an
attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial)
who, having undertaken the defense of a client
or having received confidential information from
said client in a case, shall undertake the
defense of the opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his first client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Neither attorney nor client nor anyone who

stands in a peculiar relation of confidence
with either of them can be compelled to
disclose any privileged communication.
The lawyers duty to maintain inviolate his
clients confidence is perpetual. It outlasts
even the lawyers employment. He may not
do anything which will injuriously affect his
former client nor may he at any time
disclose or use against him any knowledge
or information acquired by virtue of
professional relationship.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

88 of 158

Confidentiality

A confidential communication refers to

information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which so far as
the
client
is
aware,
discloses
the
information to no third person other than
one
reasonably
necessary
for
the
transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which it
was given. Covers all actions, signs, means
of communication

There is a difference between confidences

and secrets of clients. While confidences
refer to information protected by attorneyclient privilege under the Revised Rules of
Court (information pertinent to the case
being handled), secrets are those other
information gained in the professional
relationship that the client has requested to
be held inviolate or the disclosure of which
would be embarrassing or would likely be
detrimental to client (information not
exactly pertinent to case).

The intent of client to make communication

confidential must be apparent. But once
conveyed to lawyer, confidentiality attaches
not only to statements but also to other
forms of communication.

Requisites for Privilege Communication to

Attach

if person to whom information is given is a

lawyer

there is legal relationship existing (may be

disregarded for prospective clients

legal advice must be sought from the

attorney in his professional capacity

Some privileged communication may lose

privileged character (e.g. client gave it to
3rd person). Client must intend the
communication be confidential.

ONE UP LAW

Question of privilege determined by court.

The burden of proof: party who asserts
privilege

Applies to attorneys, no attorney-client

relation when person is not a lawyer, unless
pretending to be a lawyer

Not privileged if advice is

lawyers professional capacity

not

within

Persons Entitled to claim Privilege

The privilege is intended primarily to

protect
client
and
incidentally
in
consideration for oath and honor of
attorney. Hence, the work product of the
lawyer, including his effort and researches,
contained in his files is confidential even
after his death. Contents of lawyers files
may not be disclosed without a clients
consent.

Generally, the attorney-client privilege

covers the lawyer, client and third persons
who by reason of their work have acquired
information about the case being handled.
This includes the following: (1) attorneys
secretary, stenographer and clerk; (2)
interpreter,
messengers,
or
agents
transmitting
communication
(3)
an
accountant, scientist, physician, engineer
who
has
been
hired
for
effective
consultation.
Assignee may claim the privilege

Identification of client privilege extends

when the ff are not present:
(1) commencement of litigation on behalf of the
client,
(2) identification relating to employment of 3 rd
person,
(3) employment of attorney with respect to
future criminal/ fraudulent transaction,
(4) prosecution of a lawyer for a criminal
offense

This rule does not cover those kept for

custodial purposes only nor contracts
relating to attorneys fees

Genato v. Silapan (2003)

F:
Atty. Silapan and Genato had an
attorney-client
relationship.
Genato
filed
charges against Silapan due to the latters
failure to pay amortization fees. Silapan alleged
in his answer that Genato is a businessman in
real estate business, who traded and buys and
sells deficiency taxed imported cars, provides
shark loan and engages in other shady deals.
He also alleged that Genato has many pending
cases and had attempted to bribe officials to lift
the case. The SC held that Silapan had violated
confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship.
Held: Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him. The rule is that an attorney is not

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

89 of 158

permitted to disclose communications made to

him in his professional character by a client,
unless the latter consents. This obligation to
preserve the confidences and secrets of a client
arises at the inception of their relationship. The
protection given to the client is perpetual and
does not cease with the termination of the
litigation nor is it affected by the partys ceasing
to employ the attorney and retaining another,
or by any other change of relation between
them. It even survives the death of the client.
It must be stressed, however, that the
privilege against disclosure of confidential
communications or information is limited only to
communications which are legitimately and
properly within the scope of a lawful
employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to
those made in contemplation of a crime or
perpetration of a fraud. It is not within the
profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to
how he may commit a crime. Thus, the
attorney-client privilege does not attach, there
being no professional employment in the strict
sense.
Nevertheless, respondents explanation that it
was necessary for him to make the disclosures
in his pleading fails to satisfy the Court. The
disclosures were not indispensable to protect
his rights, as they were not pertinent to the
foreclosure case.
It was improper for the
respondent to use it against the complainant in
the foreclosure case as it was not the subject
matter of litigation therein and respondents
professional competence and legal advice were
not being attacked in said case.

Hilado v. David (1949)

F:
Prior to Atty Franciscos rendering of
legal service to Assad, Hilado consulted the
same lawyer and even presented him with
documents about case against Assad.
Hilado and her counsel want Francisco
disqualified as counsel for Assad. The SC found
that an attorney-client relationship existed
between Hilado and Francisco and that the
latter had violated the confidence of client.
H:
To constitute professional employment
it is not essential that the client should have
employed the attorney professionally on any
previous occasion. If a person, in respect to his
business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults
with his attorney in his professional capacity
with the view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits
or acquiesces in such consultation, then the
professional employment must be regarded as
established. Information so received is sacred
to the employment to which it pertains, and to
permit to be used in the interest of another, or,
worse still, in the interest of the adverse party,
is to strike at the element of confidence which
lies at the basis of, and affords the essential
security in, the relation of attorney and client.
Rationale behind this prohibition: not only to
prevent
the
dishonest
practitioner
from

ONE UP LAW

fraudulent conduct, but also to protect the

honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
unprofessional practice. It is founded on
principles of public policy, on good taste. The
question is not necessarily one of the rights of
the parties, but as to whether the attorney has
adhered to proper professional standard.
RULE 21.01
WHEN REVELATIONS OF CONFIDENCE AND
SECRETS ALLOWED

Rule 21.01.
A lawyer shall not
reveal the confidence 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.

officer may be disclosed to directors but not

to others

Exceptions to the General Rule

There are however instances when lawyer

may disclose clients secrets. These
exceptions to the general rule are found in
Rule 21.01.

A lawyer may disclose commission of

contemplated crimes or perpetuation of
fraud
considering
that
professional
relationship should only be for lawful
purposes. A person who is committing a
crime or is about to commit a crime can
have no privileged witness. For the
application of the privilege to attach, the
period to be considered is the date when
the privileged communication was made by
the client to the attorney in relation to
either a crime committed in the past or with
respect to a crime intended to be
committed in the future.

A waiver of the privilege must be made in

entirety. A client may waive protection of
privilege through lawyer except where the
controversy involves the attorneys relation
with his client. In such case, only the client
may waive privilege.

However, in case client files complaint

against his lawyer or unreasonably refuses
to pay his fees, client waives privilege in
favor of lawyer who may disclose so much
of clients confidences as may be necessary
to protect himself or to collect fees. It must
be noted that a client may not be permitted
to take advantage of the attorney-client
relation to defeat the just claim of his
lawyer.

Consent given by client to lawyers

secretary (staff/employees) will not give
him/her the right to reveal confidences.
Lawyers consent is necessary.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts

connected with his clients case. Such
knowledge must be considered sacred and
must be guarded with care to ensure the
confidence of the client is not abused. Only
when client consents will a lawyer be
allowed to make use of said information.
Use of said information, whether privileged
or not, is prohibited if it is to the:
a) disadvantage of the client;
b) lawyers advantage;
c) advantage of third persons.

A lawyer may not disclose any information

concerning the clients case, which he
acquired from the client in confidence,
other than what may be necessary to
prosecute or defend his clients cause.

In fact, loyalty to the court may not

override this privilege as said loyalty
involves steadfast maintenance of principles
which the courts themselves have evolved
for the effective administration of justice;
one of these principles is that of
preservation
of
clients
confidence
communicated to lawyer in his professional
capacity. Breach of this fidelity is sufficient
to warrant disciplinary sanction against the
lawyer.

If a lawyer manages to acquire info

regarding the opposing partys cause, he
must withdraw

If obtained by 3rd person counsel must

not call (question of impropriety)

Client may not make communications to

opposing counsel to silence him (such
communication is not privileged)

If corporate client, secret of 1 corporate

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

90 of 158

Involves a balancing of loyalties (e.g. client

committed perjury, should lawyer disclose?)

RULE 21.02
WHEN USE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED IN
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT IS ALLOWED

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 advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto.
RULE 21.03
PROHIBITION
TO
GIVING
INFORMATION TO OUTSIDE AGENCY

OF

ONE UP LAW


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.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

The reason for the rule is that the work and

product of a lawyer, such as his effort,
research, and thought, and the records of
his client, contained in his files are
privileged matters.
Neither the lawyer nor, after his death, his
heir, or legal representative may properly
disclose the contents of such file cabinet
without clients consent

RULE 21.04 AND 21.05

PROTECTION FROM DISCLOSURE

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 the
client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

Professional employment of a law firm is

equivalent to retainer of the members
thereof even though only one partner is
consulted. When one partner tells another
about the details of the case, it is not
considered as disclosure to third persons
because members of a law firm are
considered as one entity.
The clients secrets which clerical aids of
lawyers learn of in the performance of their
services
are
covered
by
privileged
communication. It is the duty of lawyer to
ensure that this is being followed. The
prohibition against a lawyer from divulging
the confidences and secrets of his clients
will become futile exercise if his clerical aids
are given liberty to do what is prohibited of
the lawyer. (EX. Signing of confidentiality
contract)

RULE 21.06
PROHIBITION
OF
COVERSATION

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

91 of 158

RULE 21.07
NOT TO REVEAL
CONSULTED

THAT

LAWYER

WAS

Rule 21.07.
A lawyer shall not
reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict
of interests.

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.
Rule 14.03.
A lawyer may refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client if:
a) he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
b) he labors under a conflict of interests
between him and the prospective client or
between
a present
client and
the
prospective client.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

This
rule
clarifies
that
privilege
communication applies even to prospective
clients. Moreover, the prohibition applies
even if the prospective client did not
thereafter actually engage the lawyer. By
the consultation, the lawyer already learned
of the secrets of prospective client. It is not
fair if he will not be bound by the rule on
privileged communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client. This rule, of course, is subject to
exception of representation of conflicting
interests.

CANON 22
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES
FOR GOOD CAUSE

INDISCREET

Rule 21.06.
A lawyer shall avoid
indiscreet conversation about a clients affairs
even with members of his family.
NOTES
(Agpalo)

A lawyer must not only preserve the

confidences and secrets of his clients in his
law office but also outside including his
home.
He
should
avoid
committing
calculated indiscretion, that is, accidental
revelation of secrets obtained in his
professional employment. Reckless or
imprudent disclosure of the affairs of his
clients may jeopardize them. Not every
member of the lawyers family has the
proper orientation and training for keeping
clients confidences and secrets.

Canon 22.
A
lawyer
may
withdraw his services only for good cause and
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 22.01.
A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following case:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling;

ONE UP LAW

b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

When the client insists that the lawyer

pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules;
When his inability to work with co-counsel
will not promote the best interest of the
client;
When the mental or physical condition of
the lawyer renders it difficult for him to
carry out the employment effectively;
When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
Other similar cases.

Rule 22.02.
A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property
to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Causes of Termination of Attorney-Client
Relation
1. Withdrawal of the lawyer under Rule 22.01
2. Death of the lawyer
3. Death of client
4. Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the
client
5. Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits private
practice of law
6. Full termination of the case
7. Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer
from the practice of law
8. Intervening incapacity or incompetence of
the client during pendency of case
9. Declaration of presumptive death of lawyer
10. Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of
lawyer

party refers to natural and not juridical

persons. Ex. death of a partner does not
terminate atty-client relationship but legal
dissolution of corporate client or its
insolvency and the appointment of a
receiver may bring about that result

Death of Attorney

A contract for legal services being personal,

it terminates upon death of the lawyer.
However, if the lawyer is a member of a law
firm, which firm appears as counsel for the
client, the death of the attending lawyer will
not terminate the relation. The firm will
continue to appear as counsel for client
unless there has been agreement that
services were to be rendered only by the
said attorney.
Who may Terminate Attorney-Client Relation
1. Client
Client has absolute right to discharge his
attorney with or without just cause or even
against lawyers consent. Existence or nonexistence of a just cause is important only in
determining right of an attorney to
compensation for services rendered.
Discharge of an attorney or his substitution
by another without justifiable cause will not
operate to extinguish the lawyers right to
full payment of compensation as agreed
upon in writing.
2. Attorney
3. Court
4. Circumstances beyond control of parties
Limitations on clients right

Lawyer has right to full payment of

compensation agreed in writing if dismissal
or substitution is without justifiable cause.

Lawyer may, in the discretion of court,

intervene in the case to protect his right to
fees.

Note: Except for items 2 and 6, the lawyer has

duty to notify the court in case of termination of
attorney-client relationship.

Right to discharge counsel not allowed if

intended to extend time to file pleading or
to indefinitely avoid trial.

Death or Incapacity of the Client

Upon the death of the client, the attorneyclient relation terminates as the relationship
is personal. This relation also concludes
upon incapacity of a client during pendency
of the litigation, the reason being that the
client loses legal capacity to contract.

If client has transferred whole of his

interests in the litigation pendente lite and
case is continued by him without the
transferee being substituted in his place, he
may not, without consent of transferee,
dismiss his attorney.

If lawyer acquired from client interest in the

subject matter of litigation before he
became involved, he can in his own right
and independently of the clients right
intervene as party litigant to protect his
interests. If attorney acquired such interest
from client during pendency of litigation,
transaction is not only null and void
(contrary to law) but may subject lawyer to
disciplinary action for acquiring that
interest.

The death of the administrator or executor

of estate does not terminate the relation as
the true client in such a situation is the
estate
and
not
the
estates
legal
representative.

Lawyer should inform court promptly about

death, incapacity or incompetency of client
and to give name and residence of his
executor, administrator, guardian or other
legal rep.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

92 of 158

Necessity of notice of discharge

ONE UP LAW

No need for formal notice of discharge as

between client and attorney as any act
indicating an unmistakable purpose to
terminate relation is sufficient.

have acted on the motion filed by Atty. Yuseco

because he no longer represented Eduardo, et
al. The Court held that the trial court could act
on the motion filed by Atty. Yuseco.

Not implied revocation of authority: if

another attorney appears without stating
that services of prior counsel has been
dispensed with by client or in pleading by
new counsel, client condemned conduct of
original counsel

Notice necessary and a copy must be

served as to court and adverse party.

If client has not filed notice of discharge,

lawyer should file notice of withdrawal with
clients conformity or application to retire
from case.

H:
Representation continues until the court
dispenses with the services of counsel in
accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Counsel may be validly
substituted only if the following requisites are
complied with: (1) New counsel files a written
application for substitution; (2) The clients
written consent is obtained; (3) The written
consent of the lawyer to be substituted is
secured, if it can still be; if the written consent
can no longer be obtained, the application for
substitution must carry proof that notice of the
motion has been served on the attorney to be
substituted in the manner required by the
Rules.
Court is convinced that Eduardo did not dismiss
Atty. Yuseco. In fact, Eduardo manifested that
he had been tricked by Petitioner Obando into
signing the aforesaid Compromise Agreement.
In any case, at the discretion of the court, an
attorney who has already been dismissed by
the client is allowed to intervene in a case in
order to protect the clients rights. In the
present case, had there been any irregularity, it
should have been raised by Eduardo, not by
Obando. Eduardo had no reason to complain,
the Motion to Dismiss was not prejudicial but
beneficial to him.

Effect of discharge of attorney

Discharge of attorney must be made known

to the court and adverse party through a
formal notice. This is unnecessary between
the lawyer and client, himself. But insofar
as the court and other party are concerned,
the severance of the relation of attorney
and client is not effective until a notice of
discharge by the client or a manifestation
clearly indicating that purpose is filed with
the court and a copy thereof served upon
the adverse party.

Before discharge is recorded in the court,

the lawyers power is limited to (1) making
that fact known to court and to adverse
party, and to (2) preserving and protecting
clients interest until final discharge or new
counsel enters appearance. He cannot
pretend to continue representing client.

If attorney reappears to file pleading, it is

presumed that he has been reemployed.

Exception: to prevent failure or miscarriage

of justice

Acceptance of incompatible office

Lawyer who accepts public office ceases, by

operation of law, to engage in private
practice and becomes disqualified from
continuing to represent a client in those
cases which the law prohibits him from
doing so or requires his entire time to be at
the disposal of the government. His
qualification to public office terminates
attorney-client relationship.

Court however does not take judicial notice.

Without a withdrawal or manifestation,
court may regard him as counsel of record
upon whom written notice may be served
which will bind the client.

Obando v. Figueras (2000)

F:
Eduardos counsel, Atty. Yuseco filed a
Motion to Dismiss against Obandos petition to
nullify sale of a land. This motion was granted.
Obando now alleges that trial court should not

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

93 of 158

F:

Laput v. Remotigue (1962)

supra at Rule 8.01

H:
The solicitor general found that before
respondents filed their appearance, the client
had already filed with the court a pleading
discharging the complainant.
The fact that
complainant was not able to get a copy was not
the fault of respondents. Also, it was found
that Mrs. Barrera dismissed complainant as
lawyer because she no longer trusted him
because she found out that some checks were
sent to the complainant instead of her and that
several withdrawals were made by complainant
in her account without her permission.
There is no irregularity in the appearance of
respondents
as
counsel.
Complainants
withdrawal and his filing of a motion for the
payment of his attorneys fees estop him from
now complaining that the appearance of
respondent Patlinghug is unprofessional. As for
the respondents, they only entered their
appearance after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed of
the complainants services and after the
petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn.
RULE 22.01
GOOD CAUSES FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES

Rule 22.01.
A
lawyer
may
withdraw his services in any of the following
case:

ONE UP LAW

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

When the client pursues an illegal or

immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling;
When the client insists that the lawyer
pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules;
When his inability to work with co-counsel
will not promote the best interest of the
client;
When the mental or physical condition of
the lawyer renders it difficult for him to
carry out the employment effectively;
When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
Other similar cases.

NOTES
(Agpalo)

Lawyer cannot just withdraw from case

since he has impliedly stipulated that he will
prosecute case to conclusion and he owes
the duty to assist in administering justice as
an officer of the court.

Lawyer may retire from action with written

consent of client filed in court and a copy
served to adverse party. Such withdrawal
does not require approval of court to take
effect especially if new counsel has entered
appearance. If theres no new counsel yet,
court may require lawyers withdrawal be
held in abeyance until appearance of new
counsel.

Lawyer may retire from case without

clients consent if court, on notice to the
client and the attorney and on hearing,
determines that he ought to be allowed to
retire on good cause.

The grounds for withdrawal without clients

consent are enumerated in Rule 22.01.

Grounds for withdrawal without clients consent

Other similar instances include: conflict of

interests; when lawyer finds it impracticable
or difficult to perform duties due to clients
actions; ethical proscription against lawyer
acting as witness and advocate at the same
time.

Lawyer should not presume petition for

withdrawal will be granted. He must still
appear on date of hearing since attorneyclient relationship does not terminate
formally until there is a withdrawal of
record.

In criminal case, counsel for accused should

not ask to be relieved on mere trivial
ground. Nor may he retire from action
because accused has confessed to him his
guilt. Lawyers right and duty to extend the
best legal assistance to an accused demand
that
he
continue
representing
him

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

94 of 158

irrespective of his personal opinion as to his

clients guilt.
Procedure for withdrawal

If without written consent from client,

lawyer should file petition for withdrawal in
court and he must serve copy of his petition
upon his client and the adverse party at
least 3 days before date set for hearing. He
should also give time to client to secure
services from another lawyer in the case
from which he is withdrawing.

Ordinarily, court will not relieve lawyer

without notice to client, except under
peculiar circumstances.

Any notice served upon lawyer is notice to

and is binding upon client.

Change or Substitution of Counsel

Change of counsel
1) client discharges attorney with or without
cause: no consent or notice to lawyer
needed, nor court approval
2) attorney may initiate move by withdrawing
his appearance with written consent of
client or with leave of court on some
justifiable ground
3) substitution of counsel in the form of
application for that purpose: constitutes an
appearance of the substituting counsel and
is a polite way of effecting change;
compliance with formalities is necessary
since it involves ethical considerations
Requirements for substitution
1) written application for substitution
2) written consent of client
3) written consent of attorney to be
substituted
* in case written consent of attorney cannot be
secured, proof of service of notice of application
upon attorney to be substituted.
** in case of death of original attorney,
additional requirement of verified proof of death
necessary

usually initiated by substituting counsel

hence the need to obtain conformity of
original lawyer or at least notice to original
lawyer of substitution

consent of original lawyer or notice

requirement is designed to afford the
lawyer the opportunity to protect his right
to attorneys fees. If he gives consent, it is
presumed he has settled that question. If
not, he can ask in same action that his
chance to have his right to attorneys fees
be preserved and protected.

Effects of Defective Substitution

A defective substitution is one which lacks

any of the requisites for a valid substitution.

It does not effect a change of counsel; nor

constitute an appearance of new lawyer,
both of whom shall be deemed counsel of

ONE UP LAW

record; pleadings filed by the new lawyer

deemed effective.
Employment of additional counsel

Client has right to as many lawyers as he

can afford. Clients proffer of assistance of
additional counsel should not be regarded
as evidence of want of confidence.

Professional courtesy requires that a lawyer

retained as collaborating counsel should at
least communicate with counsel of record
before entering his appearance and should
decline association if objectionable to
original counsel.
But if first lawyer is relieved by client,
another lawyer may come into the case.

Montano v. IBP (2001)

F:
Atty. Dealca and Montano agreed that
50% attorneys fees shall be paid upon case
acceptance and the other half upon its
termination. Despite agreement, Atty. Dealca
asked for payment of balance during the course
of case. Upon failure to give balance of P3, 500,
Dealca withdrew appearance as counsel. The
Court found that Dealca had not withdrawn for
good cause.
H:
A lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances; a lawyer shall
avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action
only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
Atty. Dealcas withdrawal was unjustified as
complaint did not deliberately fail to pay him
the attorneys fees. In fact, complainant exerted
honest
efforts
to
fulfill
his
obligation.
Respondents contemptuous conduct does not
speak well of a member of the bar considering
that the amount owing to him was only P3,
500.00.

Domingo v. Aquino (1971)

F:
Atty. Unson, the estates counsel,
denied having received notice and copy of the
CFI judgment rendering a favorable decision to
Aquinos money claim. The estates new
administrator wants to file motion for
reconsideration and prays that a copy of the CFI
decision be given to her counsel and not to Atty.
Unson, former special administrators counsel.
The court held that Atty. Unson was the estates
counsel and that notice of judgment had been
duly served.

appellate court. He continued to be authorized

to represent the estate as its counsel, until the
new administrator should terminate his services
which she never did. The court was never
informed of the change in counsel or partyadministrator.
RULE 22.02
DUTIES OF A LAWYER WHO WITHDRAWS

Rule 22.02.
A
lawyer
who
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers
and property to which the client is entitled, and
shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Rule 16.03.
A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property to 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.
NOTES
(Agpalo)
Duties of a Discharged Lawyer or One who
Withdraws
1. Immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled and
cooperate with successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter.
2. cooperate with the succeeding lawyer in
orderly transfer of case
Lawyers withdrawal or discharge shall be
without prejudice to his attorneys lien

Purpose of Rule 22.02 (lawyer entitled to

retaining lien) and Rule 16.03 (lawyer
entitled to retaining and charging lien) is to
insure payment of lawyers professional
fees and the reimbursement of his lawful
disbursements in keeping with his dignity
as an officer of the court.
Kinds of Liens
1.
Retaining Lien (general lien)
2.
Charging Lien (special lien)

H:
Party in the subject case was the
intestate estate of the deceased Luis C.
Domingo, Sr. and that Atty. Unson represented
the estate as counsel in the said case. The fact
that Luis Domingo Jr. was the administrator
when the legal services of Unson were availed
of does not make Unson the counsel for Luis
Domingo Jr. Thus, notwithstanding Luis
removal as administrator, Atty. Unson continued
to represent the estate as counsel in the

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

95 of 158

ONE UP LAW

Retaining Lien
Nature
Passive lien. It cannot
be actively enforced. It
is a general lien.
Basis
Lawful possession of
funds,
papers,
documents,
property
belonging to client
Coverage
Covers
only funds,
papers,
documents,
and property in the
lawful possession of
the attorney by reason
of
his
professional
employment
Effectivity
As soon as the lawyer
gets possession of the
funds,
papers,
documents, property
Notice
Client need not be
notified to make it
effective
Applicability
May
be
exercised
before judgment or
execution,
or
regardless thereof

Charging Lien
Active lien. It can be
enforced by execution.
It is a special lien.
Securing
of
a
favorable
money
judgment for client
Covers all judgments
for the payment of
money and executions
issued in pursuance of
such judgment

As soon as the claim

for attorneys fees had
been entered into the
records of the case
Client and adverse
party need to notified
to make it effective

Generally,
it
is
exercisable only when
the
attorney
had
already
secured
a
favorable judgment for
his client
* Sourced from Pinedas Annotations.

Requisites for validity (of retaining lien)

1. attorney-client relationship
2. lawful possession by lawyer of the clients
funds, documents and papers in his
professional capacity
3. unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees or
disbursements
Presence of all requirements makes counsels
right to retain funds and muniments of title of
the client in his possession until payment of his
fees
incontestable.
Attorney
cannot
be
compelled to surrender them without proof of
payment or, in appropriate cases, without
requiring that client put up an adequate
security for their satisfaction.
Property to which lien attaches

All property, papers, books, documents or

securities of the client that lawfully come to
the lawyer professionally or in the course of
his
professional
employment,
not
necessarily in connection with a particular
case but any case or matter handled for the
client

Clients money which comes into his

possession by way of a writ of execution
ordered by the court or funds collected by
the attorney for his client in the course of
his employment, whether or not upon a
judgment or award.

Element constitutive of retaining lien: that

funds, documents and papers of client
come into lawyers possession in his
professional capacity (as a lawyer)

Does not attach to: funds, documents and

papers which come into lawyers possession
in some other capacity; funds, documents
and papers of clients principal; subject
matter of the action which court adjudged
in favor of clients adversary; documents
introduced as exhibits in court

Retaining Lien

A retaining lien is the right of an attorney to

retain the funds, documents and papers of
his client which have lawfully come into his
possession until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid and to apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof.

It is a general lien for the balance of the

account due to the attorney from client for
services rendered in all matters he may
have handled for the client, regardless of
outcome.

It is dependent upon and takes effect from

time of lawful possession and does not
require notice thereof upon client and the
adverse party to be effective.

Passive right and cannot be actively

enforced; amounts to a mere right to retain
funds, documents and papers as against
the client until the attorney is fully paid his
fees. However, lawyer may apply so much
of clients funds in his possession to satisfy
his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client.

Reason and essence of lien: inconvenience

or disadvantage caused to the client
because of exercise of such lien may induce
client to pay the lawyer his fees and
disbursements.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

96 of 158

When lien attaches

Retaining lien attaches from the moment

the attorney lawfully obtains and retains
possession of the funds, documents and
papers of the client and does not depend on
notice being entered in the record of the
case and copy served on adverse party.

That client transfers property evidenced or

covered by the document or title in the
lawful possession of the clients attorney
does not defeat the retaining lien. Lawyers
position is similar to that of creditor who
holds lien over the property and the clientdebtor must discharge the lien before he
can dispose of the property to third
persons.

Retaining lien not affected by existence of

dispute as to the amount of attorneys fees.

Bond for return of documents

ONE UP LAW

General rule: attorney retaining lien

uncontestable once it has lawfully attached
to funds, documents and papers of the
client, hence, court may not compel lawyer
to surrender such without prior proof of
satisfaction of fees

Exception: court may require surrender of

such funds, documents and papers but only
after client posts adequate bond or security
to guarantee payment of lawyers fees.
Otherwise: grave abuse of discretion or
authority
because it is courts duty to
protect, not destroy, attorneys lien

Extinguishment of retaining lien

Retaining lien expires when possession

lawfully ends, as when the lawyer
voluntarily parts with funds, documents or
papers of client or offers them in evidence
in court.

If such were improperly or illegally taken

from custody of attorney, his lien is not lost
unless by his act or omission he waives his
right. Mandamus will lie to restore
possession.

Satisfaction of lien

If client does not dispute claim and amount

for attys fees: lawyer need not file action
to enforce retaining lien; he may lawfully
apply clients funds in satisfaction of his
claim for attys fees; he only needs to send
client accounting and remitting the balance,
if any, to the client.

If client questions right and amount to

attys fees: lawyer should file necessary
action or motion to fix the amount of fees
and can apply clients fund to pay his fees
only after final adjudication of such action.
Otherwise,
he
may
be
liable
for
misappropriation of funds.

Charging Lien

A charging lien is a right which the attorney

has upon all judgments for the payment of
money and executions issued in pursuance
thereof, secured in favor of his client.
Covers only services rendered by attorney
in the action in which the judgment was
obtained and takes effect only after a
statement of claim has been entered upon
record of the particular action with written
notice to his client and adverse party.

A charging lien is a special lien in a

particular case and presupposes favorable
judgment secured for the client in that
particular case. Gives attorney who secured
or contributed some effort to secure
favorable judgment same right and power
as his client over such judgments and
executions to enforce lien and secure
payment of fees and disbursements.

Nature and essence of charging lien

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

97 of 158

A charging lien is an abstract but potential

right made active and operative by
recording a statement of claim in the case
and serving notice thereof upon the client
and the adverse party. It gives lawyer same
right and power as client over such
judgment and is based on equity.

It does not depend upon possession of

judgment recovered nor is it of a nature
which attaches to the property in litigation.
It is at most a personal claim enforceable
by a writ of execution.

It is limited only to money judgments and

presupposes
that
attorney
secured
favorable money judgment for his client.

[drama] It is a device invented by law for

the protection of attorneys against the
knaveries of their clients by disabling them
from receiving the fruits of recoveries
without paying for the valuable services by
which the recoveries were obtained.

Requisites for validity of charging lien

1. attorney-client relationship
2. attorney has rendered services
3. money judgment favorable to the client has
been secured in the action
4. attorney has a claim for attorneys fees or
advances
5. statement of his claim has been duly
recorded in the case with notice thereof
served upon the client and adverse party

Lawyer asserting claim need not be the one

that concluded the action; it is enough that
he has rendered some services at any stage
of the proceeding.

That the amount of attorney lien is

unliquidated does not militate against its
establishment as it is not necessary to the
existence of the lien that the amount due
the lawyer be fixed.

Recordal and notice of charging lien

Attorneys charging lien takes effect from

and after the time the attorney has caused
a notice of his lien to be duly entered in the
records of the case. For the recordal to be
valid, it should be made while the court still
has jurisdiction over case and before full
satisfaction of judgment. Recordal may be
entered before judgment is made but it
could only be enforced after a judgment is
rendered. Lawyer may record his claim
before rendition of judgment (to establish
his right to lien), as opposed to
enforcement which takes place only after a
judgment is secured in favor of client.

A copy of the statement of claim is served

upon client to give him the opportunity to
object to the lien or to the amount of
attorneys fees claimed by lawyer. In case
of dispute, the court shall hear the parties
and determine the lawyers right to the
charging lien and the amount. A copy is
also served to the adverse party so that the
charging lien shall bind him.

ONE UP LAW

Notice of lien on all parties interested

confers upon the court jurisdiction to
determine lien.

Purpose of notice to adverse party: to bind

adverse party/judgment debtor since the
latter is a stranger to the contract for
professional
fees
between
judgment
creditor and his lawyer. Adverse party who
should be notified of the claim for attys
fees is one whose interest is adverse to the
claim presented or the judgment debtor
against whom the client secures a favorable
judgment. Adverse party cannot raise lack
of or defective notice to client as a defense;
neither can he contest the validity of the
lien.

To what charging lien attaches

Charging lien attaches to the judgment for

the payment of money and the executions
issued in pursuance of such judgment (i.e.
money judgments).

The lien does not comprise sums of money

which according to the same judgment,
must be applied to satisfy a legitimate debt
of the client. A lawyer cannot have
preference over and better right than the
judgment creditor (his client) in the
payment of professional fees.

The lien does not extend to property of

client in the hands of an officer of court.

Effects of charging lien

Similar to collateral security or a lien on

real or personal property, the charging lien
gives the lawyer the right to collect, in
payment of his professional fees and
disbursements, a certain amount from out
of the judgment or award rendered in favor
of client. He has same right and power as
his client to enforce his lien and secure
payment.

Charging lien follows proceeds of the

judgment obtained for the client in the case
wherever they may be and whoever
received them. Exception: purchaser in
good faith.

Judgment debtor who, in disregard of

charging lien, satisfies judgment debt
without reserving funds to pay attorneys
fees may be liable for full value of the lien.

A lawyers duly recorded charging lien

enjoys preference of credit over that of a
creditor who subsequently recorded it.
Conversely, a third party who obtains a
judgment against attys client before the
attys lien comes into being has preference
over the lawyer.

Lien survives death of client and need not

be enforced in the settlement of the clients
estate.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

98 of 158

Extinguishment of charging lien

Charging lien extinguished when client

loses action. Remedy: file separate civil
action

Client cannot defeat attorneys right to

charging
lien
by
dismissing
case,
terminating services of counsel, waiving his
cause or interest in favor of adverse party,
compromising his action, or assigning the
subject matter thereof, except: (1) when
lawyer waives his right by acts or
omissions, and (2) when termination or
dismissal is upon instance of adverse party.

Assignment of charging lien

General rule: attorneys charging lien may

be
assigned
or
transferred
without
preference being extinguished. Exception:
when
assignment
carries
breach
of
attorneys duties to preserve clients
confidence inviolate. Assignee steps into
shoes of lawyer and enjoys all rights of the
latter in the charging lien.
Satisfaction of judgment

Satisfaction judgment in favor of client does

not by itself extinguish the attorneys
charging lien. If satisfaction was made in
disregard of attorneys right when notice
had been previously given to judgment
debtor, the court may, upon motion of the
attorney, vacate such satisfaction and
enforce the lien by issuing a writ of
execution for the full amount against
judgment debtor.

Satisfaction of judgment will extinguish

charging lien when lawyer waives right
thereto either by active conduct or by
passive omission.

Enforcement

Lawyer may have his charging lien

established, declared and enforced by the
court which has jurisdiction of the case by
filing proper motion before judgment for
client is satisfied.

Attorney need not be a party to the action

but in a proper case, he may be permitted
to intervene. In such a case, it is proper for
lawyer to file petition in his own name
against both plaintiff and defendant setting
the particulars of his claim and lien. Notice
of charging lien or petition filed for its
registration in the record of the case that
confers jurisdiction upon court.

Without a valid written contract fixing the

amount of professional fees, lawyer must
both allege and prove that the amount
claimed is unpaid and that it is reasonable
and just with notice served upon client and
adverse party/judgment debtor.

When client contests attorneys right to

receive compensation or the amount
thereof, court must first resolve that
question in full dress trial before it should
order registration of charging lien. At all

ONE UP LAW

events, exact amount of attorneys fees

should be determined before enforcing lien.

a)
Civil contempt failure to do
something ordered by the court which
is for the benefit of the party.

Client who fails to contest will be bound by

attorneys claim even though it may appear
unjust.
Charging lien may be enforced, upon proper
motion, by execution against (1) client who
receives proceeds of judgment without
paying his lawyer, and (2) judgment debtor
who, for disregarding charging lien properly
served on him, becomes liable to the extent
of lawyers claim.

(Ateneo Bar Review 2006 & San Beda Bar

Review 2006)
LIABILITIES OF LAWYERS
CIVIL LIABILITY
1) Client is prejudiced
by lawyers
negligence and misconduct.
2) Breach of fiduciary obligation
3) Civil liability to third persons
4) Libelous words in pleadings; violation of
communication privilege
5) Liability for costs of suit (treble costs)
when lawyer is made liable for insisting
on clients patently unmeritorious case
or interposing appeal merely to delay
litigation
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1) Prejudicing client through malicious
breach of professional duty
2) Revealing client secrets
3) Representing adverse interests
4) Introducing false evidence
5) Misappropriating clients funds (Estafa)
CONTEMPT OF COURT (1998 BAR EXAM)
Nature
It is exercised on preservative and not
on vindictive principles and on corrective rather
than the retaliatory idea of punishment. It is
criminal in nature.
The power to punish for contempt is
inherent in all courts. It is essential in the
observance of order in judicial proceedings and
to enforcement of judgment, orders and writs.

Kinds of Contempt
1) Direct Contempt
Consists of misbehavior in the presence
of or near a court or judge as to interrupt or
obstruct the proceedings before the court or the
administration of justice.
2) Indirect or Constructive Contempt
One committed away from the court
involving disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, judgment or
command of the court, tending to belittle,
degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the
court.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

99 of 158

b)
Criminal contempt consists
of any conduct directed against the
authority or dignity of the court.
ACTS OF
CONTEMPT
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

LAWYER

CONSTITUTING

Misbehavior as officer of court

Disobedience or resistance to court
order
Abuse or interference with judicial
proceedings
Obstruction in administration of justice
Misleading courts
Making false allegations, criticisms,
insults, veiled threats against the
courts
Aiding in unauthorized practice of law
(suspended or disbarred)
Unlawful retention of clients funds
Advise client to commit contemptuous
acts

DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
Power to Discipline Errant Lawyers
1) The Supreme Court has the full
authority and power to
WARN
ADMONISH
REPRIMAND
SUSPEND and
DISBAR a lawyer
(Rule 138, Sec. 27, ROC)
2) The Court of Appeals and the Regional
Trial Courts are also empowered to
WARN
ADMONISH
REPRIMAND and
SUSPEND an attorney who appears
before them from the practice of law for
any of the causes mentioned in Rule 138,
Sec. 27. (Rule 139-B, Sec. 16, ROC)
NOTE: But they cannot disbar a lawyer.
Forms of Disciplinary Measures
1) WARNING an act or fact of putting
one on his guard against an impending
danger, evil consequences or penalties.
2) ADMONITION a gentle or friendly
reproof, mild rebuke, warning or reminder,
counseling, on a fault, error or oversight;
an expression of authoritative advice.
3) REPRIMAND a public and formal
censure or severe reproof, administered to
a person in fault by his superior officer or a
body to which he belongs.
4)
SUSPENSION

a
temporary
withholding of a lawyers right to practice
his profession as a lawyer for a certain
period or for an indefinite period of time.
a. Definite

ONE UP LAW

b. Indefinite qualified disbarment;

lawyer determines for himself for how long
or how short his suspension shall last by
proving to court that he is once again fit to
resume practice of law.
5) CENSURE Official reprimand
6) DISBARMENT It is the act of the
Philippine Supreme Court in withdrawing
from an attorney the right to practice law.
The name of the lawyer is stricken out from
the roll of attorneys.
SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT (1990,
1992, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 BAR EXAMS)
Nature of Proceedings
1) Neither a civil action nor a criminal
proceeding;
2) SUI GENERIS, it is a class of its own since it
is neither civil nor criminal (2002 BAR EXAMS)
3) Confidential in nature
4) Defense of double jeopardy is not available
5) Can be initiated by the SC, motu proprio, or
by the IBP. It can be initiated without a
complaint.
6) Can proceed regardless of interest of the
complainants
7) Imprescriptible
8) It is itself due process of law
In Re: Almacen, supra
Disciplinary
proceedings
against
lawyers are sui generis: neither purely civil nor
purely criminal. It is notand does not involve
a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an
investigation by the Court in the conduct of its
officers.
Not
being
intended
to
inflict
punishment, it is no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a
plaintiff nor a prosecutor.xxxxx Public interest is
its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is
still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as
such.
Objectives of Suspension and Disbarment
1) To compel the attorney to deal fairly and
honestly with his clients;
2) To remove from the profession a person
whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
belonging to the office of an attorney;
3) To punish the lawyer;
4) To set an example or warning for the other
members of the bar;
5) To safeguard the administration of justice
from dishonest and incompetent lawyers;
6) To protect the public;
GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT
1) Deceit
2) Malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
office any malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer
3) Grossly immoral conduct

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

100 of 158

4) Conviction of a crime involving moral

turpitude (e.g. estafa, bribery, murder, bigamy,
seduction, abduction, concubinage, smuggling,
falsification of public document, violation of BP
22)
5) Violation of oath of office
6) Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court
7) Corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to case without an
authority to do so.
GROUNDS
EXCLUSIVE!

FOR

DISBARMENT

NOT

Quingwa vs. Puno, Admin. Case No. 398,

Feb. 28, 1967
The statutory enumeration of the
grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to
be taken as a limitation on the general power of
courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The
inherent power of the court over its officers
cannot be restricted.
Sta. Maria vs. Tuazon, Admin. Case No.
396, July 31, 1964
The Supreme Court has disbarred or
suspended lawyers for reasons not found in the
statute as when their acts are contrary to
honesty and good morals or do not approximate
the highest degree of morality and integrity
expected of the members of the bar.
Aquino vs. Mangaoang, 425 SCRA 572
In disbarment proceedings, the burden
of proof is upon the complainant and this court
will exercise its disciplinary power only if the
complainant establishes his case by clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence.
Amaya vs. Tecson, 450 SCRA 510
Disbarment should not be decreed
where any punishment less severe such as
reprimand, suspension or fine would accomplish
the end desired.
OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE
DISBARMENT CASES
1) Supreme Court
2) IBP through its Commission on Bar Discipline
or authorized investigators
3) Office of the Solicitor General
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: DISBARMENT,
SUSPENSION & DISCIPINE OF ATTORNEYS
(Rule 139-B)
A. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension
and discipline of attorneys may be taken:
1) by the Supreme Court motu proprio or,
2) by the IBP upon the verified complaint of any
person.
B. The IBP Board of Governors may initiate and
prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys including those in the govt:
1) motu proprio or
2) upon referral by the SC or
3) by a Chapter Board of Officers or at the
instance of any person.
C. The complaint must be:
1) verified;

ONE UP LAW

2) state clearly and concisely the facts

complained of;
3) supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged,
or by such documents as may substantiate it;
4) six copies shall be filed with the Secretary of
the IBP or any of the Chapters.
D. Investigation by the National Grievance
Investigators.
E. Submission of the investigative report to the
IBP Board of Governors.
F. Board of Governors decides within 30 days.
G. Investigation by the Solicitor General.
H.
SC
renders
final
decision
on
disbarment/suspension/dismissal.

Modifying Circumstances
Extent of disciplinary action depends on
attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstance.
Mitigating Circumstances
1) Good Faith in the acquisition of a property of
the client subject of the litigation (In Re: Ruste,
70 Phil 243)
2) Inexperience of a lawyer (Munoz vs. People,
53 SCRA 190)
3) Age (Lantos vs. Gan, 196 SCRA 16)
4) Apology (Munoz vs. People, 53 SCRA 190)
5) Lack of Intention to slight or offend the court
(Rheem of the Phil., Inc. vs. Ferrer, 20 SCRA
441)
Aggravating Circumstances
1) Abuse of authority or of attorney-client
relationship
2) sexual intercourse with a relative
3) charge of gross immorality
4) Previous dismissal as member of the bar
EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE PARDON (1994,
1998 BAR EXAMS)
If during the pendency of the
disbarment proceeding the respondent was
granted executive pardon, the dismissal of the
case on that sole basis will depend on whether
the executive pardon is absolute or conditional.
If the pardon is absolute, the disbarment case
will be dismissed. However, if the executive
pardon is conditional, the disbarment case will
not be dismissed on the basis thereof.
Absolute pardon by the President may
wipe out conviction as well as offense itself and
the grant thereof in favor of a lawyer is a bar to
a proceeding for disbarment against him based
solely on commission of such offense.
The reason is that the respondent
lawyer, after the absolute pardon, is as guiltless
and innocent as if he never committed the
offense at all.
If absolute pardon is given to lawyer
after being disbarred for conviction of a crime,
it does not automatically entitle him to
reinstatement to the bar. It must be shown by
evidence aside from absolute pardon that he is
now a person of good moral character and fit
and proper person to practice law. In case of a

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

101 of 158

conditional pardon, there will be a remission of

unexpired period of sentence.
REINSTATEMENT
It is the restoration in disbarment
proceedings to a disbarred lawyer the privilege
to practice law.
Const art. VIII, sec. 5(5).
The power of the Supreme Court to
reinstate is based on its constitutional
prerogative to promulgate rules on the
admission of applicants to the practice of law.
In order that there is reinstatement,
the following must be taken into consideration:
1) the applicants character and standing prior
to disbarment;
2) the nature or character of the misconduct for
which he is disbarred;
3) his conduct subsequent to disbarment (Cui
vs. Cui, 11 SCRA 755)
4) including his efficient government service (In
Re: Adriatico, 17 Phil 324)
5) the time that has elapsed between
disbarment
and
the
application
for
reinstatement and the circumstances that he
has been sufficiently punished and disciplined
(Prudential Bank vs. Benjamin Grecia, 192
SCRA 381)
6) applicants appreciation of significance of his
dereliction and his assurance that he now
possesses the requisite probity and integrity;
7) favorable endorsement of the IBP, pleas of
his loved ones (Yap Tan vs. Sabandal, 170 SCRA
207)
Cui vs. Cui, 11 SCRA 755; In Re: Rusiana,
56 SCRA 240
The court may require applicant for
reinstatement to enroll in and pass the required
fourth year review classes in a recognized law
school.
NOTE: A previously disbarred lawyer who is
given absolute pardon by the President is not
automatically reinstated, he must still file a
petition for reinstatement with the SC.
CONDITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
A lawyer who has been suspended or
disbarred may be reinstated when the SC is
convinced that he has already possessed the
requisites of probity and integrity necessary to
guarantee his worth to practice his possession.
EFFECTS OF REINSTATEMENT
1) Recognition of moral rehabilitation and
mental fitness to practice law;
2) Lawyer shall be subject to same law, rules
and regulations as those applicable to any other
lawyer;
3) Lawyer must comply with the conditions
imposed on his readmission.

NEW CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
ONE UP LAW

CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE

Canon 1.
Judicial independence
is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a
fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge
shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with
a conscientious understanding of the law, free
of any extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or
indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Sec. 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges
shall be independent from judicial colleagues in
respect of decisions which the judge is obliged
to make independently.
Sec. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative
agency.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct
or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others
to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with, and influence
by, the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.
Sec. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation
to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she
has to adjudicate.

People v. Veneracion (1995)

F:
Judge Veneracion found the defendants
Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape
with Homicide and sentenced both accused with
the "penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessories provided for by law." Disagreeing
with the sentence imposed, the City Prosecutor
of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
praying that the decision be "modified in that
the penalty of death be imposed" against
respondents Lagarto and Cordero, in place of
the original penalty (reclusion perpetua). The
SC found that the respondent judge acted with
grave abuse of discretion and in excess of
jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to
impose the mandatory penalty of death under
R.A. 7659, after finding the accused guilty of
the crime of rape with homicide.
H:
Obedience to the rule of law forms the
bedrock of our system of justice. If judges,
under the guise of religious or political beliefs
were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond
boundaries within which they are required by
law to exercise the duties of their office, then
law becomes meaningless. A government of
laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad
discretionary powers by those acting under its
authority. In the case at bench, respondent
judge, after weighing the evidence of the
prosecution and the defendant at trial, found
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape with homicide. Since the law
in force at the time of the commission of the
crime for which respondent judge found the
accused guilty was Republic Act No. 7659, he
was bound by its provisions. The law plainly and
unequivocably provides that "[w]hen by reason
or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death." We are
aware of the trial judge's misgivings in imposing
the death sentence because of his religious
convictions. While this Court sympathizes with
his predicament, it is its bounden duty to
emphasize that a court of law is no place for a
protracted debate on the morality or propriety
of the sentence, where the law itself provides
for the sentence of death as a penalty in
specific and well-defined instances.

Sec. 7
Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional
and operational independence of the judiciary.
Sec. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high
standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary
which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence.

RE:
SEC 1.
EXERCISE
JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENTLY

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

102 of 158

FUNCTION

Tahil v. Eisma (1975)

F:
Respondent Municipal Judge Carlito A.
Eisma is charged by complainant Hadjirul Tahil
with dishonesty in not reporting regularly to his
office, contrary to the recitals of his daily time
record. According to the findings of the
investigating judge, the filing of this complaint
is motivated by hatred, anger and revenge on
the part of the complainant. Complainants
anger stems from the disapproval of the bail
bond he brought for his nephew. But this
disapproval is warranted due to the non-

ONE UP LAW

appearance of bondsmen. His anger is because

he expected the judge to approve the bail bond
simply because they are friends. It appears
however that respondent admitted having
granted bail to an accused upon the request of
a congressman, despite his belief that the
evidence of guilt against the accused was
strong. The SC found that the respondents act
of granting bail upon the request of a
congressman was reprehensible. The SC thus
admonished him.
H:
The discretion of the court to grant bail
must be based upon the Courts determination
as to WON the evidence of guilt is strong. This
discretion may only be exercised after the
evidence is submitted at the summary hearing
conducted pursuant to Sec 7 of Rule 114 of the
Rules. Respondents admission that he granted
bail to an accused upon the request of a
congressman, despite his belief that the
evidence of guilt against the accused was
strong is indeed reprehensible. But it is not
clear WON a summary hearing was conducted
by respondent Judge for the purpose of bail
and, on the basis of the evidence submitted,
granted bail to the accused. Moreover,
respondent was not specifically charged and
investigated in this regard, and in the absence
of any specific finding that respondent gravely
abused his discretion in granting bail to the
accused, this court has no basis to impose a
fine upon respondent.

RE:
SEC 3.
REFRAIN FROM INFLUENCING OUTCOME
OF LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING

OCA v. de Guzman (1997)

F:
Judge Cosico denied a partys motion to
cancel notice of lis pendens. When case was reraffled due to Cosicos retirement, the
annotation of lis pendens was eventually
cancelled by Judge de Guzman. Upon
investigation, Cosico said that while he was
hearing the case, Judge de Guzman approached
him and asked him to grant the motion to lift
the notice of lis pendens. When the motion was
denied, Judge de Guzman was said to have
come back to Cosicos office asking him (Cosico)
to reconsider the order of denial. The Court
found that Judge de Guzman tried to influence
the outcome of the case.
H:
YES. Judge de Guzman approached
Judge Cosico at least twice asking him to cancel
the notice of lis pendens, thereby, trying to
influence the course of the litigation in the case
in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct. Being
the dispensers of justice, judges should not act
in a way that would invite suspicion in order to
preserve faith in the administration of justice.
Acts of interference by Judge de Guzman with
the subject case pending in the sala of Judge
Cosico clearly tarnishes the integrity and
independence of the judiciary and subverts the
peoples faith in the judicial process.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

103 of 158

Contreras v. Solis (1996)

F:
One Rufino Mamangon was charged for
the murder of complainant's brother. The RTC
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The
accused Mamangon however was not released
and so a petition for habeas corpus was filed.
Respondent presided over the petition. He
initially dismissed it and a motion for
reconsideration was filed. Later, respondent
ordered the release of the accused upon posting
of a P25, 000 cash bond. He subsequently
canceled the bond and ordered the re-arrest of
the accused after the public prosecutor filed a
motion for reconsideration. Thereupon, the
complainant filed this administrative complaint.
According to the assigned investigating officer,
after the accused filed his motion for
reconsideration
on
the
denied
petition,
complainant had a meeting with respondent
inside the latter's office at around 7 am (at this
hour, court employees are not yet in for work).
Respondent informed complainant of the motion
for reconsideration filed by the accused and his
willingness to pay P25,000 as bail bond. It
appeared to complainant that what the
respondent was actually saying was that if the
former was willing to pay the same amount, the
accused would not be released. Respondent
insists that the purpose of such meeting was to
inform the complainant of the motion for
reconsideration so he could participate. He did
not ask any money from the complainant and
the latter admits that he did not give any. The
amount that the respondent mentioned was
what the complainant was going to spend for a
lawyer. The investigating officer however was
not convinced. Respondent could have informed
complainant
about
the
habeas
corpus
proceedings at an earlier stage by simply
furnishing him a copy of the first order. Why did
he wait at the last working hour on a Friday to
schedule a meeting on 7 am Monday? The acts
of
the
respondent,
according
to
the
investigating officer lends to suspicions of
dishonesty. She recommends that respondent
be advised to avoid such occasions. As to the
order issued by the judge to release the
accused upon bail and the subsequent
cancellation of the bail and re-arrest, the
investigating officer found that the respondent
committed errors. The SC agreed with the
findings of the investigating officer.
H:
As to the alleged extortion: The
respondent's seemingly benign conduct of
meeting with the complainant to advise him of a
pending case is puzzling since the records do
not show any reason that would justify
respondent's special interest/concern over the
complainant. A reasonable person would deduce
that respondent's mention of the potency of the
accused's motion for reconsideration and the
amount that the complainant would spend for
an attorney means that the respondent is
actually suggesting that complainant should just
give the money to respondent for a favorable
decision. A proposal to pay the judge need not
only be stated expressly. This can also be
implied. Respondent's pretended innocence of

ONE UP LAW

the message perceived by complainant is

unconvincing considering the fact that he has
been in the practice of law for years. As a
judicial officer he should avoid the slightest hint
of anomaly and corruption. He should conduct
himself in a manner to avoid any suspicion of
irregularity.
Whatever
may
have
been
respondent's motive in meeting with the
complainant, such action certainly gave rise to
questions of honesty.
With regard to the erroneous orders, it appears
that the legal basis used by the judge was
incorrectly applied. A bond was not necessary
since the accused, after the dismissal of the
criminal case, was supposed to have been set
free. However, an erroneous decision cannot be
the sole basis for disciplining a judge. It must
be clearly shown that such judgment was unjust
as being contrary to law and the judge rendered
it with conscious and deliberate intent to do
injustice. The respondent cannot be held liable
for an erroneous order. Issuing it was an official
act and is presumed to have been done in good
faith. The court is unable to find a clear and
definite connection between the attempt at
extortion and the subsequent issuance of the
erroneous orders. It would be unjust to
presume wrong intentions on the part of the
respondent.
RE: SEC 4.
REFRAIN FROM BEING INFLUENCED BY
FAMILY,
SOCIAL
OR
OTHER
RELATIONSHIPS

Padilla v. Zantua (1994)

F:
Mayor Padilla charged Judge Zantua,
with serious irregularities and grave misconduct
in the performance of his official duties for: (1)
failure to decide cases within the prescribed
period; (2) unreasonable delay in the
disposition of cases which have been prejudicial
to litigants; (3) manifest partiality in favor of a
litigant and (4) fraternizing with lawyers who
have pending cases in his sala. Mayor Padilla
complains that these cases have been pending
since 1991; some have not even been tried and
because of delays in the disposition of these
cases and the perceived partiality of respondent
Judge for Atty. Schneider, the people's
confidence in the Judiciary is being eroded.
Respondent Judge denies that he is fraternizing
with lawyers with pending cases in his sala,
explaining that in the case of Atty. Schneider, he
is the only lawyer in the municipality and it is
but natural for respondent Judge to be friendly
with him but maintains that their friendship has
never been a hindrance to the proper
disposition of the cases in his sala as his
impartially is known not only in the Municipality
of Jose Panganiban, but also in the province of
Camarines Norte. The SC held that the
respondent judge was guilty of serious
irregularities and grave misconduct in the
performance of his official duties for manifest
partiality in favor of a litigant and fraternizing
with lawyers who have pending cases in his
sala.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

104 of 158

H:
Respondent Judge does not deny his
close friendship and association with Atty.
Augusto Schneider. Constant company with a
lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie
to the point that favors in the future may be
asked from respondent judge which he may find
hard to resist. The actuation of respondent
Judge of eating and drinking in public places
with a lawyer who has pending cases in his sala
may well arouse suspicion in the public mind,
thus tending to erode the trust of the litigants
in the impartiality of the judge. This eventuality
may undermine the people's faith in the
administration of justice. It is of no moment
that Atty. Augusto Schneider is the only lawyer
in the locality. A judge should behave at all
times as to inspire public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. The
prestige of judicial office shall not be used or
lent to advance the private interests of others,
nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge. We find this case as an
occasion to remind members of the Judiciary to
so conduct themselves as to be beyond
reproach and suspicion, and be free from any
appearance of impropriety in their personal
behavior not only in the discharge of their
official duties but also in their everyday life.
Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by
irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. A
judge must avoid all impropriety and the
appearance thereof. Being the subject of
constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely
and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that
might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen.

RE: SEC. 5
INDEPENDENCE FROM
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE

In re Cunan (1954)
RA 972 (the Bar Flunkers Act) aims to admit to
the Bar, those candidates who suffered from
insufficiency
of
reading
materials
and
inadequate preparation. By its declared
objective, the law is contrary to public interest
because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who
confessedly had inadequate preparation for the
practice of the profession, as was exactly found
by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations.
An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital
requisites for the practice of law that should be
developed constantly and maintained firmly. To
the legal profession is entrusted the protection
of property, life, honor and civil liberties. It is
obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to
grant license for the practice of law belongs
exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
Congress on the matter is of permissive
character, or as other authorities say, merely to
fix the minimum conditions for the license. Laws
are unconstitutional on the following grounds:
first, because they are not within the legislative
powers of Congress to enact, or Congress has
exceeded its powers; second, because they
create or establish arbitrary methods or forms

ONE UP LAW

that infringe constitutional principles; and third,

because their purposes or effects violate the
Constitution or its basic principles. As has
already been seen, the contested law suffers
from these fatal defects. Summarizing, we are
of the opinion and hereby declare that RA. 972
is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and
without any force or effect for the following
reasons, to wit:
1. Because its declared purpose is to admit
810 candidates who failed in the bar
examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it
admits, are certainly inadequately prepared
to practice law, as was exactly found by this
Court in the aforesaid years.
2.

3.

4.

Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking

the resolution of this Court on the petitions
of these 810 candidates, without having
examined their respective examination
papers, and although it is admitted that this
Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at
any time for justifiable reasons, only this
Court and no other may revise and alter
them. In attempting to do it directly RA 972
violated the Constitution.
By the disputed law, Congress has
exceeded its legislative power to repeal,
alter and supplement the rules on
admission to the Bar.
The reason advanced for the pretended
classification of candidates, which the law
makes, is contrary to facts which are of
general knowledge and does not justify the
admission to the Bar of law students
inadequately prepared. The pretended
classification is arbitrary. It is undoubtedly
a class legislation.

RE: SEC 8
PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

Macalintal v. Teh (1997)

F:
Atty. Macalintal related to the Court in a
letter the actuations of Judge Teh, relative to
Election Case No. R-95-001. Judge Teh issued a
resolution adverse to the client of complainant.
He questioned the resolution via certiorari with
the COMELEC. While case was pending in the
COMELEC, Teh actively participated in the
proceedings by filing his comment on the
petition, as well as an urgent manifestation.
Complainant filed a motion for inhibition but
instead, Teh hired his own lawyer and filed
answer before the court with prayer. The SC
found that Judge Tehs actuations eroded public
confidence in the administration of justice.
H:
Evidently, the active participation of the
respondent judge, being merely a nominal or
formal party in the certiorari proceedings is not
called for. xxx Under Sec 5 of Rule 65 of the
ROC, a judge whose order is challenged in an
appellate court does not have to file any answer
or take active part in the proceeding unless
expressly directed by order of this court. It is
the duty of respondent to appeal and defend,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

105 of 158

both in his/her behalf and in behalf of the Court

or judge whose order or decision is at issue.
xxx Respondents folly did not stop there.
When complainant filed for respondents
inhibition, he hired his own lawyer. Respondent
judge should be reminded that decisions of
courts need not only be just but must be
perceived to be just and completely free from
suspicion or doubt both in its fairness and
integrity.

CANON 2
INTEGRITY

Canon 1. Integrity is essential not only

to the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Sec. 1. 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.
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.
Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against
lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become
aware.

RE: SEC. 1.
CONDUCT ABOVE REPROACH

Alfonso v. Juanson (1993)

F:
Dr. Alfonso filed this complaint for
immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial
Ethics against Judge Juanson. Alfonso alleges
that Juanson has been maintaining an illicit
affair with Alfonsos wife, Sol. The SC, however,
did not dismiss Judge Juanson.
H:
There is no doubt in the Courts mind
that there is a very special relationship between
Sol and Modesto. Though it started as relations
before Sols marriage, it developed into an
extra-marital affair. It must, however, be
stressed that Juanson is not charged with
immorality or misconduct committed before he
was appointed to the judiciary. As to the postappointment period, the court finds the
evidence for Norbert insufficient to prove that
Juanson and Sol continued their extra-marital
affair. Since Norberts narration was only
treated as narration and not put into evidence,
they are considered as proof that Sol made
statements, but not proof that the facts
revealed are true. As such, the acts of sexual
intercourse admitted by Sol cannot be deemed
proven. There is no direct and competent
evidence against Juanson that he had illicit sex

ONE UP LAW

with Sol. The imputation of illicit sexual acts

upon the incumbent judge must be proven by
substantial evidence, which is the quantum of
proof required in administrative cases.
Also, it may be that Juanson has undergone
moral reformation after his appointment, or his
appointment could have completely transformed
him upon the solemn realisation that a public
office is a public trust. Nevertheless, considering
their prior relationship, Juanson and Sols
meetings could reasonably incite suspicion of
either its continuance or revival and the
concomitant intimacies expressive of such
relationship. Juanson became indiscreet, he
encumbered to the sweet memories of the past
and he was unable to disappoint Sol when she
asked for his legal advice. Such indiscretions
indubitably cast upon his conduct as appearance
of impropriety.

Romero v. Valle (1987)

F:
All this started over an argument on
whether to label an evidence as exhibit F or
exhibit G. The facts are stated by the
investigating officer assigned. Complainant was
one of the two lawyers in a civil case tried by
the respondent judge. During a hearing,
complainant asked that an evidence be marked
exhibit F. Respondent interrupted and said that
there was already an exhibit F so the evidence
should be marked exhibit G. Complainant in a
loud voice insisted that his proposed marking
was correct. This irritated the respondent and
he admonished the complainant that the latter
should come to court prepared. Respondent
also told complainant that he should not bring
his passion to the court and if complainant does
not respect the judge, he should respect the
court. Complainant continued insisting in a loud
voice that the evidence be marked exhibit F.
The respondent banged his gavel, left the
rostrum
and
went
to
his
chamber.
Complainant's
version
states
that
the
respondent unceremoniously removed his coat
and challenged complainant to step out and
they will settle the matter. Respondent's version
states that when the respondent left the
rostrum all he said was five minute recess. One
of complainant's own witness, which the
investigating officer found to be the most
impartial, said that respondent did not remove
his coat and that all the witness heard from him
was, step out. Respondent, after coming out of
his chamber, holding his revolver inside its
holster with his right hand, looked at the
courtroom where the lawyers were. The gun
was not really pointed at anyone but he did look
at the people inside the courtroom. Respondent
had a permit for carrying a licensed gun
because of death threats he had received from
the NPA. The complainant now charges
respondent
with
grave
misconduct
and
oppression. The SC dismissed the Judge from
the service but also required the complainant to
show why disciplinary proceedings should not
be taken against him.
H: The relations between judge and counsel
should be based on mutual respect and a deep

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

106 of 158

appreciation by one of the duties of the other.

Both are expected to maintain the high esteem
for the courts. Counsel should observe respect
due to the court, to opposing counsel and to
judicial officers.
In our culture, raising one's voice is a sign of
disrespect, improper to one whose investiture
into the legal profession places upon his
shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting
and more imperative than that of respectful
behavior towards the courts. Complainant, as
an active law practitioner and leader of several
law organizations in the community should
provide an example of proper decorum to his
brothers in the profession. He should have
observed humility and accepted mistakes
graciously.
Respondent judge was also at fault for his
shortness of temper and impatience, contrary to
the duties and restriction imposed upon him by
reason of his office. He failed to observe the
proper decorum expected of judicial officers.
Judicial officers are given contempt powers so
that they can remind counsels of their duties in
court without being arbitrary, unreasonable or
unjust. Respondent should have cited the
complainant in contempt of court instead of
throwing tantrums by banging his gavel loudly
and unceremoniously walking out of the
courtroom. Although respondent had a valid
explanation for carrying a gun, his act of
carrying it in plain view of the lawyers
(including the complainant) and considering
what just happened, cannot be taken as an
innocent gesture. It was calculated to instill fear
and intimidate the complainant. Respondent's
behavior constitutes grave misconduct. A
judge's conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety not only in his official
duties but in his everyday life. One who lives by
the precept that might is right is unworthy to
be a judicial officer.
RE: SEC. 2
REAFFIRM PEOPLES FAITH

Castillo v. Calanog (1991)

F:
In a sworn letter complaint, Castillo
alleged that Judge Calanog and her have an
affair and that she was convinced by the judge
to be his mistress due to promises of giving her
a condominium to live in and financial support
for her daughters. Castillo further alleged that
when she conceived their son, the judge
suddenly left her and failed to provide financial
support despite several pleadings. After Judge
Calanog denied allegations, Castillo also sent
formal Affidavit of Desistance denying her
initial allegations.
H:
Calanog established an intimate, albeit
immoral, relationship with Castillo although
Calanog is a married man. Calanog behaved in
a manner not becoming of his robes and as a
model of rectitude, betrayed the peoples high
expectations, and diminished the esteem in
which they hold the judiciary in general. The

ONE UP LAW

circumstances show a lack of circumspection

and delicadeza on the part of Calanog by failing
to avoid situations that make him suspect to
committing immorality and worse, having that
suspicion confirmed.
A judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety
not only with respect to his performance of his
judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside
his sala and as a private individual. There is no
dichotomy of morality: a public official is also
judged by his private morals.
Calanog also committed a grave
injustice when he took advantage of Castillos
state of material deprivation and helplessness
when he persuaded her to be his mistress. He
used the brute force of his position of power
and authority.

CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY

Canon 1.
Impartiality
is
essential to the proper discharge of the judicial
office. It applies not only to the decision itself
but also to the process by which the decision is
made.
Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their
duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

judicial

Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her

conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
Sec. 3. 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.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before, or could come before,
them make any comment that might reasonably
be expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of
the process. Nor shall judges make any
comment in public or otherwise that might
affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they
are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer
that they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but are
not limited to, instances where
(a)
The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(b)
The judge previously served as a
lawyer or was a material witness in the
matter in controversy;
(c)
The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy;

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

107 of 158

(d)

The
judge
served
as
executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in
the case or matter in controversy, or a
former associate of the judge served as
counsel during their association, or the
judge or lawyer was a material witness
therein;
(e)
The judge's ruling in a lower court is
the subject of review;
(f)
The judge is related by consanguinity
or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth
civil degree or to counsel within the fourth
civil degree; or
(g)
The judge knows that his or her
spouse or child has a financial interest, as
heir,
legatee,
creditor,
fiduciary,
or
otherwise, in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding,
or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceedings;
Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above
may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure,
the parties and lawyers independently of the
judge's participation, all agree in writing that
the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in
the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all
parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the
record of the proceedings.

RE: SEC. 2
PROMOTE
CONFIDENCE
IMPARTIALITY

AND

Talens-Dabon v. Arceo (1996)

F:
Talens-Dabon, Clerk of Court of the RTC
of San Fernando Pampanga, charged Judge
Hermin E. Arceo, the Executive Judge thereat
with
gross
misconduct
and
immorality.
Respondent Judge had a reputation in the office
as being "bastos" and "maniakis". There were
instances were the judge talked in a loud voice
and shouted and used offensive words such as
walang isip and tanga; told green jokes;
made bodily contact ("chancing") with her and
certain female employees; kissed complainant
on the cheeks; respondent summoned the
stenographer to his chamber and she found him
clad only in briefs. Judge gave the complainant
a poem, locked her in his chambers and tried to
take advantage of her. The SC found the
respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct
H:
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not
only upon the fact that it is able to administer
justice but also upon the perception and
confidence of the community that the people
who run the system have done justice. Hence,
in order to create such confidence, the people
who run the judiciary, particularly judges and
justices, must not only be proficient in both the
substantive and procedural aspects of the law,
but more importantly, they must possess the

ONE UP LAW

highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable

moral uprightness, both in their public and
private lives. Only then can the people be
reassured that the wheels of justice in this
country run with fairness and equity, thus
creating confidence in the judicial system. With
the avowed objective of promoting confidence
in the Judiciary, we have the following
provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule
2.01: A judge should so behave at all times as
to promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Court has adhered and set forth the
exacting standards of morality and decency
which every member of the judiciary must
observe. A magistrate is judged not only by his
official acts but also by his private morals, to
the extent that such private morals are
externalized. Respondent has failed to measure
up to these exacting standards. He has
behaved in a manner unbecoming of a judge
and as model of moral uprightness. He has
betrayed the people's high expectations and
diminished the esteem in which they hold the
judiciary in general. We need not repeat the
narration of lewd and lustful acts committed by
respondent judge in order to conclude that he is
indeed unworthy to remain in office. The
audacity under which the same were committed
and the seeming impunity with which they were
perpetrated shock our sense of morality. All
roads lead us to the conclusion that respondent
judge has failed to behave in a manner that will
promote confidence in the judiciary.
His
actuations, if condoned, would damage the
integrity of the judiciary, fomenting distrust in
the system. Hence, his acts deserve no less
than the severest form of disciplinary sanction
of dismissal from the service. The actuations of
respondent are aggravated by the fact that
complainant is one of 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. Instead of he
being in loco parentis over his subordinate
employees, respondent was the one who preyed
on them, taking advantage of his superior
position.
RE: SEC. 5
DISQUALIFICATIONS

Masadao v. Elizaga (1987)

F:
On May 4, 1987, Judge Masadao
rendered a decision finding the accused, Jaime
Tadeo, guilty of estafa. Justice JBL Reyes
entered his appearance for the accused. Judge
Masadao issued an order inhibiting himself from
further sitting in the case on the ground that
retired Justice Reyes has been among those
who had recommended him to the bench. A
raffle was conducted and the case was assigned
to Judge Elizaga. Judge Elizaga returned the
records with a letter stating his refusal to act
and assailing the re-raffling of the case as
uncalled for and impractical.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

108 of 158

H:
It is clear from the reading of the law
that intimacy or friendship between a judge and
an attorney of record of one of the parties to a
suit is no ground for disqualification. To allow it
would unnecessarily burden other trial judges to
whom the cases would be transferred.
In fact, this is one rare opportunity for Masadao
to show that JBL Reyes did not err in
recommending him for his competence and
known probity; that he has conducted himself
with the cold impartiality of an impartial judge;
that no one can sway his judgment whoever he
may be.
However, men of the Bench are not without
imperfections. A judge experiences the tug and
pull of purely personal preferences and
prejudices which he shares with the rest of his
fellow mortals. Especially for Filipinos whose
sense of gratitude is one trait which invariably
reigns supreme over any and all considerations
in matters upon which such tender sentiment
may
somehow
inexorably
impinge.
The
circumstances before Judge Masadao are not
ordinary ones. Thus, this is one certain
circumstance where a case could well be heard
by another judge and where a voluntary
inhibition may prove to be the better course of
action. Judge Masadaos actuations are within
par 2 sec 1 rule 137.

Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988)

F:
Lorenzo, with an indorsement by the
NBI, executed a sworn statement against Judge
Marquez charged him with violation of Sec Rule
137 ROC in deciding KBP v. Balid. Marquez was
a member of the board of directors of the
plaintiff in said case and served as counsel.
When Marquez took over the case, he set the
case for hearing and rendered a decision
favourable to the plaintiff. He proceeded to
decide on the case since there was no objection
from the parties.
The SC found that indeed, Judge Marquez was
not impartial and should have been disqualified
in the case.
H:
The judgment in this case was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. Clearly, according to Sec. 1 Rule 137
of the ROC, no judge or official shall sit in any
case in which he, or his wife, or child is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor
or otherwise, or in which he is related to either
party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth
degree computed according to the rules of civil
law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel
From the foregoing provision, a judge cannot sit
in any case in which he was a counsel without
the written consent of all parties. The rule is
explicit that he must secure the written consent
of all parties, not a mere verbal consent much
less a tacit acquiescence. The written consent
must be signed by them and entered upon the
record. The failure of the respondent to observe
these elementary rules of conduct betrays his
unusual personal interest in the case which

ONE UP LAW

prevailed over and above his sworn duty to

administer the law impartially.
Grounds for Disqualification and Inhibition
of Judges Under the Rules of Court
1) Mandatory or Compulsory
Disqualification (Rule 131, ROC)
a) when he or his wife or his child is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise;
b) when he is related to either party within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity or to
counsel within the 4th civil degree;
c) when he has been an executor, guardian,
administrator, trustee or counsel;
d) when he has presided in an inferior court
where his ruling or decision is subject to review.
2) Voluntary Inhibition (1991, 199, 2005
BAR EXAMS)
A judge may, in the exercise of his
sound discretion disqualify himself, for just and
valid reasons other than those mentioned
above. (Rule 137, Section 1)
This leaves the discretion to the judge
to decide for himself questions as to whether he
will desist from sitting in case for other just and
valid reasons with only his conscience to guide
him, unless he cannot discern for himself his
inability to meet the test of the cold neutrality
required of him, in which event the appellate
court will see to it that he disqualifies himself.
A decision to disqualify himself is not
conclusive and his competency may be
determined on application for mandamus to
compel him to act. Judges decision to continue
hearing a case in which he is not legally
prohibited
from
trying
notwithstanding
challenge to his objectivity may not constitute
reversible error.
The filing of an administrative case
against a judge does not disqualify him from
hearing a case. The court has to be shown other
than the filing of administrative complaint, act
or conduct of judge indicative of arbitrariness or
prejudice before the latter being branded as the
stigma of being biased or partial.
DISQUALIFICATION
The Rules enumerate
the specific and
exclusive grounds
under which any judge
or judicial officer is
disqualified from acting
as such.
Rule gives the judicial
officer no discretion to
try or sit in a case

INHIBITION
The Rules does not
expressly enumerate
the specific grounds
for
inhibition
but
merely gives a broad
basis
thereof,
i.e.
good, sound of ethical
grounds
Rules leave the matter
of inhibition to the
sound discretion of
the judge

CANON 4
PROPRIETY

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

109 of 158

Canon 4.
Propriety
and
the
appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a. judge.
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 shall conduct
themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations
with individual members of the legal profession
who practice regularly in their court, avoid
situations which might reasonably give rise to
the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated
in any manner with the case.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their
residence by a member of the legal profession
to receive clients of the latter or of other
members of the legal profession.
Sec. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
Sec. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of their
family.
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.
Sec. 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be
used or disclosed by for any other purpose
related to their judicial duties.
Sec. 10.
Subject
to
the
proper
performance of judicial duties, judges may
(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in
activities concerning the law, the legal
system, the administration of justice or
related matters;
(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official
body concerned with matters relating to the

ONE UP LAW

law, the legal system, the administration of

justice or related matters;
(c) Engage in other activities if such activities
do not detract from the dignity of the
judicial office or otherwise interfere with the
performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 11.
Judges shall not practice law
whilst the holder of judicial office.
Sec. 12.
Judges may form or join
associations of judges or participate in other
organizations representing the interests of
judges.
Sec. 13.
Judges and members of their
families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any
gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to be
done by him or her in connection with the
performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 14.
Judges shall not knowingly
permit court staff or others subject to their
influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in
relation to anything done or to be done or
omitted to be done in connection with their
duties or functions.
Sec. 15.
Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made
provided that such gift, award or benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of
judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an
appearance of partiality.

RE: SEC. 1
AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

Lao v. Abelita (1998)

F:
Two administrative cases were filed
against respondent Judge. The first complaint
accused respondent judge of abuse of authority,
grave misconduct, oppression and harassment.
The second complaint charged him with serious
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
judge. In the first case, the complainant alleged
that respondent judge forcibly entered and
gained entrance without his knowledge in his
office, residence and bodega, and that he
removed the padlock to the residence-bodega
and replaced it, depriving complainant of
access, possession and use of the residence and
bodega. In the second case, during the
pendency of the first case, respondent ordered
some people to (a) enter the nursery
compound, one of the properties subject matter
in the first case, build a shanty to take
possession of property; (b) cut off electric
power of the water pump to deprive water

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

110 of 158

supply and (c) respondent ordered his man,

Agao, to shoot, with a shotgun, the workers of
the complainant who were about to install water
pipes in the nursery resulting in the injury of his
nephew, William Lao.
H:
Respondent judged failed to measure
up to what could well be expected of him as an
officer of the judiciary. It was shown that (a)
respondent
Judge
took
possession,
by
destroying the lock to the door, of the bodega
then being used and occupied by complainant.
After celebrating his party, respondent Judge
closed the place using a new padlock and
effectively evicting complainant from the
premises. (b) respondent Judge ordered
Policronio Agao to fire his shotgun, hitting
William Lao in the process. (c) although the
shotgun used in the shooting incident was a
licensed firearm, respondent had no authority,
however, to bring that gun outside residence.
(d) Instead of acceding to the request of
Superintendent Doria to forthwith go with him
to the police headquarters to shed light on the
shooting incident, respondent Judge sped away
from them. (e) finally, when police officers
caught up with respondent Judge and his wife,
he was found to be in possession of an
unlicensed .45 caliber handgun. As the court
held in Saburnido vs. Madrono, it was highly
improper for a judge to have wielded a highpowered firearm in public and besieged the
house of a perceived defamer of character and
honor in warlike fashion and berated the object
of his ire, with his firearm aimed at the victim

Arban v. Borja (1989)

F:
Ponciano A. Arban, the then District
Engineer for Camarines Sur, Ministry of Public
Works and Highways, filed an administrative
case for grave misconduct against Judge
Melecio B. Borja, on the ground that in the
presence of people taking their lunch and
others, the said respondent, without any
justification whatever, hit with the pistol he was
carrying the herein petitioner on the left side of
his head, sending him sprawling to the floor and
rendering him momentarily unconscious. The
SC found that the respondent Judge committed
an act of serious misconduct, one which
degrades the integrity of the judicial office and
serves as a demoralizing example to the public.
H:
The complainant's avowal that his
'personal
interests'
have
been
'already
satisfied,' is not all there is to this case. There is
the matter of the public interest involved in the
case. The respondent is not just an ordinary
citizen, but a highly visible member of the
judicial branch of the government, particularly,
an incumbent judge of the RTC stationed in
Naga City. The complainant is, himself, an
official of the government an engineer of the
Ministry of Public Works and Highways. The fact
that the incident was accorded with widest
possible publicity in both regional and national
newspapers attests to the very sensitive
position occupied by the respondent. There is,
thus, not only the complainant's private
interests involved, but also the public interest
involved in the act of an official whom position

ONE UP LAW

carries with it great responsibility and which

position demanded the highest norm of conduct
from the incumbent both in his public and
private capacities, whether in court or out of it.
Whatever the motive may have been, the
violent action of the respondent in a public
place constitutes serious misconduct and the
resultant outrage of the community in Naga City
is a blow to the image of the entire judiciary.
Judge Borja violated the established norm for
judicial behavior that "a judge's official conduct
should be free from appearance of impropriety,
and his personal behavior not only upon the
bench and in the performance of judicial duties,
but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach (Sec. 3, Cannon of Judicial Ethics)
RE: SEC. 6
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Vistan v. Nicolas (1991)

F:
Vistan filed administrative cases against
Judge Nicolas for gross ignorance of the law and
grave abuse of discretion (Judge acquitted
accused in a criminal case despite not having
ruled yet on accuseds written offer of
evidence), for maintaining an illicit relationship
and for having violated election laws when he
sent out letters showing intent to run for
Congress prior to the date given by COMELEC.
The SC dismissed Vistan from office.
H:
Judge Nicolas also violated Rule 5.10,
Canon 5, of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
states: ...to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not...participate in
other partisan political activities. Judge took
advantage of his position to boost his
candidacy, demeaned stature of his office and
must be pronounced guilty of gross misconduct.
A Judges official conduct should be free from
impropriety or any appearance thereof. His
personal behavior in the performance of official
duty, as well as everyday life, should be beyond
reproach. High ethical principles and a sense of
propriety should be maintained, without which
the faith of the people in the judiciary so
indispensable in an orderly society cannot be
preserved. Moral integrity is more than a virtue;
it is a necessity in the Judiciary.
RE: SEC. 8
INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Aquino v. Lontok (1990)

F:
Petitioners, of the Provincial Auditors
office of Camarines Sur, conducted an audit of
the Municipal Treasurer of Libmanan, Camarines
Sur and found a cash shortage. Pursuant to BP
337, they seized the treasurers cash, books,
papers and accounts. He was also suspended
from office. The Treasurer filed a petition with
the trial court, presided over by respondent
judge, for prohibition with injunction and with a
prayer for a restraining order and damages.
Judge Lontok issued a TRO, extended its

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

111 of 158

effectivity twice, and finally granted an

application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioners argue that the writ is void for being
in reality a fourth restraining order issued
beyond the 20-day effectivity of the preceding
TRO. The SC upheld the writ of preliminary
injunction but reprimanded the Judge.
H:
Except for delay in the resolution of the
application for and the subsequent issuance of
the writ, the other requisites provided by the
rules for the grant thereof have been observed,
hence, grant of writ must be upheld. Present
state of law which allows court to do by
indirection what should not be done directly
should be remedied by amendment of the rule if
intent is to nullify a writ of preliminary
injunction belatedly issued. Dubious orders of
judge and other circumstances show that he
violated Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, which calls for a judge to be
faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence, and Rule 3.05 which admonishes
all judges to dispose of the court's business
promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.
RE: SEC. 9
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Umale v. Villaluz (1973)

F:
Leon Umale filed a robbery case against
16 accused before the Circuit Criminal Court in
Pasig, Rizal presided by Judge Onofre Villaluz.
Judge Villaluz had issued several orders
regarding the case from Jan. 19 to April 12,
1971 when, on April 15, 1971, he voluntarily
inhibited himself without any party moving for
it. His reason: before filing of the case, he
already had personal knowledge of it. Judge
Villaluz then directed immediate forwarding of
records of case to the Executive Judge of CFI
Pasig, Rizal for proper disposition. Petitioner
Umale opposed inhibition but his motions for
reconsideration, for deferment of raffling of
case, and for return of case to Circuit Criminal
Court were denied. He filed the case before the
SC. The SC held that Judge Villaluz could
voluntarily inhibit himself without any motion by
the parties.
H:
Personal knowledge of the case pending
before him is not one of the causes for the
disqualification of a judge under the first
paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 137 of the Revised
Rules of Court (took effect Jan. 1, 1964). But
paragraph 2 of said section authorizes the
judge, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
to disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for
just or valid reason other than those
mentioned in par. 1. Before 1964, a judge
could not just voluntarily inhibit himself from a
case. But in cases decided in 1961 and 1962, a
judge was allowed to inhibit for fear that an
opinion expressed by him in a letter as counsel
might influence his decision and for being
related to a counsel within the 4th civil degree.
In 1967, a judge was allowed to voluntarily
disqualify himself on grounds other than those

ONE UP LAW

mentioned in par. 1 of cited section. Pimentel v.

Salanga: Judge should make a careful selfexamination whether to disqualify himself or not
in a case before him. He should exercise his
discretion in a way that peoples faith in the
courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary
norm is that he reflects on the probability that a
losing party might nurture at the back of his
mind the thought that the judge had
unmeritoriously titled the scales of justice
against him. Judge should be commended for
heeding SC ruling in Geotina v. Gonzales: A
judge, sitting on a case must at all times be
fully
free,
disinterested,
impartial
and
independent. Elementary due process requires a
hearing before an impartial and disinterested
tribunal. A judge has both the duties of
rendering a just decision and of doing it in a
manner completely free from suspicion as to his
fairness and as to his integrity. Mater, Jr. v.
Hon. Onofre Villaluz: Outside of pecuniary
interest, relationship or previous participation in
the matter that calls for adjudication, there may
be other causes that could conceivably erode
trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. If
such causes appear and prove difficult to resist,
it is better for judge to disqualify himself. That
way, his reputation for probity and objectivity is
preserved; even more important, ideal of an
administration of justice is lived up to.
RE: SEC. 11
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION

respondent judge, in signing and filing a

comment with the court on behalf of one of the
parties, engaged in the private practice of law.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases in court or participation in court
proceedings but includes preparation of
pleadings or papers in anticipation of litigation.
Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court, and Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging
in the private practice of law. This is based on
public policy because the rights, duties,
privileges and functions of the office of an
attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with
the high official functions, duties, powers,
discretion and privileges of a judge.
RE: SEC. 13
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS

Ompoc v. Torre (1989)

F:
A sworn letter of complaint was filed by
Atty. Ompoc against Judge Torres. According to
Atty. Ompoc, Judge Torres invited him and his
client to the judges house while their case was
being tried in Judge Torress sala. The judge
gave them a guide of what evidence to present
to be able to win the case. In exchange, Judge
Torres asked Atty. Ompocs client to install an
air-con unit in the latters lite-ace. The
investigating judge found the complainants
stories valid and true. The SC dismissed him
from the service.

Tuzon v. Cloribel (2001)

F:
Victor G. Tuzon filed with the CA a
petition for certiorari assailing the order of
Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan, which denied
Tuzons motion to allow cross-examination of
his witness and directed that the case be
submitted for resolution. Respondent Judge
went further and filed the comment for the
Raymundo Catral and herself, and affixed her
name and signature on the comment. Tuzon
also averred that respondent judge antedated
her decision in the decision and alleged that
complainant failed to present any evidence to
support such accusation. The SC found that the
respondent Judge is guilty of illegal practice of
law.

R:
Receiving money from a party litigant is
the kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on
the part of the judge, who is charged with the
responsibility of administering the law and
rendering justice. Members of the judiciary
should display not only the highest integrity but
must, at all times, conduct themselves in such
manner as to be beyond reproach and
suspicion.

H:
The Court has reminded judges of the
lower courts that a judge whose order is
challenged in an appellate court need not file
any answer, or take an active part in the
proceedings unless expressly directed by order
of the Court. In the case at bar, it is undisputed
that respondent judge filed a comment on
behalf of the respondent Raymundo E. Catral in
the case on review with the CA. Respondent
judge signed the pleading herself and submitted
it to the court notwithstanding that it was her
decision that was the subject of the petition in
the said court. A judge must maintain a
detached attitude from the case and shall not
waste his time by taking an active part in a
proceeding that relates to official actuations in a
case. He is merely a nominal party and has no
personal interest or personality therein. Further,

Canon 5.
Ensuring equality of
treatment to all before the courts is essential to
the due performance of the judicial office.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

112 of 158

CANON 5
EQUALITY

Sec. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and

understand, diversity in society and differences
arising from various sources, including but not
limited to race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status
and other like causes.
Sec. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of
judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest
bias or prejudice towards any person or group
on irrelevant grounds.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties

with appropriate consideration for all persons,
such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court
staff
and
judicial
colleagues,
without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such
duties.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff or others subject to his or her influence,
direction or control to differentiate between
persons concerned, in a matter before the
judge, on any irrelevant ground.
Sec. 5. Judges
shall
require
lawyers
in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except
such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of
legitimate advocacy.
RE: SEC. 2
BIAS OR PREJUDICE

In re Judge Rojas (1998)

F:
This case refers to the inhibition which
Respondent Judge Rojas of the RTC issued, in
Crim Case entitled People vs. Tauro. Initially,
the case was tried in the RTC, with Judge Rojas
as public prosecutor. While the case was
pending, Rojas was appointed judge. The
original counsel for the accused did not
interpose any objection, so Judge Rojas tried
the case. On April 13, 1998, he decided to
inhibit himself. In his explanation, he said that
to avoid legal implications, he has to voluntarily
inhibit himself. The Court found that it was
improper for Judge Rojas to have heard the
criminal case at all.
H:
Rule 137 1 of the Rules of Court
expressly states that no judge shall sit in any
case which he has been counsel (for a party)
without the written consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record. The prohibition is not limited to cases in
which a judge hears the evidence but includes
as well cases where he acts by resolving
motions, issuing orders and the like as Judge
Rojas has done in the criminal case. For almost
one and a half years, he issued various orders
resetting the dates of the hearing and of the
reception of additional evidence for the
prosecution and for the defense. The failure of
Judge Rojas to observe these elementary rules
of judicial conduct betrays his interest in the
case which he allowed to prevail over his sworn
duty to administer the law impartially without
any fear or favor.
RE: SEC. 5

ATTITUDE PARTIES APPEARING IN COURT

In re Aguas (1901)
F:
While on witness stand, Atty. Aguas
witness was allegedly seized by the Judge after
the witness failed to heed the Judges warning

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

113 of 158

that he should look at Judge instead of Atty.

Aguas while testifying. In view of this, Aguas
allegedly protested with a voice and body
trembling. The Judge held him Atty. Aguas in
contempt. The SC found that the Judge had
acted improperly towards Aguas witness.
H:
The action of the judge in seizing the
witness, Alberto Angel, by the shoulder and
turning him about was unwarranted and an
interference with that freedom from unlawful
personal violence to which every witness is
entitled while giving testimony in a court of
justice. Against such conduct the appellant had
the right to protest and to demand that the
incident be made a matter of record. That he
did so was not contempt, providing protest and
demand were respectfully made and with due
regard for the dignity of the court.

CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Canon. 6.
Competence
diligence are prerequisites to the
performance of judicial office.

and
due

Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take

precedence over all other activities.
Sec. 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only
the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court's operations.
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills
and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage
for this purpose of the training and other
facilities which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
Sec. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed
about relevant developments of international
law, including international conventions and
other instruments establishing human rights
norms.
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently,
fairly
and
with
reasonable
promptness.
Sec. 6. 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.
Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject
to their influence, direction or control.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct

incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.

RE: SEC. 2
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES

Longboan v. Polig (1990)

F:
A letter-complaint was addressed to the
Court Administrator charging Judge Polig with
gross negligence of duty or abuse of authority
for his failure to apprise complainant of the
status of Civil Case No. 641 despite the former's
registered letters requesting the status.
Meanwhile, Longbuan had sent five registered
letters inquiring about the status of Civil Case
No. 641. Due to respondent Judge's failure to
make any reply as requested, the Office of the
Court Administrator sent respondent judge
three tracers in relation to the records of Civil
Case No. 641. Still, the respondent judge made
no reply. The SC found the respondent judge
guilty of gross negligence of duty and dismissed
him from the service.
H:
Respondent judge's continued silence
as to the status of Civil Case No. 641 despite
repeated written queries from one of the
parties, his failure to reply to the tracers of the
Office of the Court Administrator, and his willful
disobedience and disregard to our show-cause
resolutions constituted grave and serious
misconduct affecting his fitness and the
worthiness of the honor and integrity attached
to his office. Once again, we hold with great
emphasis that: ...The Judge is the visible
representation of the law of justice. From him,
the people draw their will and awareness to
obey the law ..." How can the respondent judge
expect others to respect the law when he
himself cannot obey orders as simple as the
show cause resolution? Moreover, it is not
enough that the complaining litigant was
eventually
appeased
by
the
turn
of
circumstances. What is more important is
whether or not in the course of the judicial
process, judicial norms have been maintained.
It is with this end in view that we stress
diligence and efficiency attendant to the
discharge of a judge's function in the present
Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of
the said Code provides that: A judge should
diligently
discharge
administrative
responsibilities,
maintain
professional
competence in court management and facilitate
the performance of the administrative functions
of other judges and court personnel. In the
instant case, respondent judge even impeded
the speedy disposition of cases by his successor
on account of missing records of cases. This
fact reflects an inefficient and disorderly system
in the recording of cases assigned to his sala.
Proper and efficient court management is as
much the judge's responsibility for the Court
personnel are not the guardians of a Judge's
responsibilities. With respect to the inventoried
4 criminal cases without prisoners and four 4
civil cases missing, we find no justification for
the failure to present them to the Deputy Court
Administrator when required and their absence

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

114 of 158

from the place where court records are stored.

A judge is expected to ensure that the records
of cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is
no justification for missing records save
fortuitous events. The loss of not one but eight
records is indicative of gross misconduct and
inexcusable negligence unbecoming of a judge.
For true professionalism in the bench to exist,
judges whose acts demoralize the ethical
standards of a judicial office and whose acts
demonstrate unfitness and unworthiness of the
prestige and prerequisites attached to said
office must be weeded out. Lastly, the report on
the physical inventory of the records of the
cases in RTC, Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao, which
was respondent judge's last assignment before
his suspension revealed that a total of 35 cases
submitted
for
decision
have
remained
unresolved beyond the 90-day reglementary
period. We have consistently held that failure to
decide a case within the required period is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.
RE: SEC. 3
MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

In re Judge Baltazar Dizon (1989)

F:
This is a motion for reconsideration
filed by respondent Judge Dizon praying that
the resolution, finding him guilty of rendering
an erroneous decision, be reconsidered. Dizon
ruled that the state must first prove criminal
intent to find the accused, Lo Chi Fai, guilty of a
violation of a Central Bank Circular. He also
ordered the return of the seized foreign
currency from the accused. This Court pointed
out that in offenses punished by special laws,
proof of malice or deliberate intent is not
necessary. Respondent manifestly disregarded
and failed to apply this plain and fundamental
basic principle. Respondent admits that his
decision is erroneous but pleads that his
mistaken judgment proceeded from good faith
and not from deliberate desire to pervert his
position.
H:
In a court resolution, the SC stated that
no judge can be held to account for an
erroneous decision rendered by him in good
faith. However, his act remains unjustified.
While the court does not require perfection and
infallibility, it reasonably expects a faithful and
intelligent discharge of duty by those who are
selected to fill the positions of administrators of
justice. Respondent judge has sincerely evinced
a humble repentance and prays for a
reconsideration of the resolution. Thus, we feel
that he has been sufficiently punished for his
administrative infraction.

Abad v. Bleza (1986)

F:
The administrative case arose out of a
case that Bleza decided, where complainant Col.
Gregorio Abad and a certain Potenciano Ponce
were petitioners and defendants in a criminal
case. Based on testimonies and evidence, Judge
Bleza acquitted Ponce for attempted homicide,
and charged Sabater guilty of Frustrated

ONE UP LAW

Homicide. According to the investigation of the

IAC, they found that Bleza has not committed
any wrongdoing to evoke disciplinary action.
The acquittal was based on insufficiency of
evidence. The SC held that Judge Bleza was not
incompetent in deciding the cases before him.
H:
Judge
Blezas
appreciation
as
mitigating circumstance the lack of intent to kill
in favor of Sabater is palpably out of place.
Presumably, what respondent had in mind was
to consider the mitigating circumstance of lack
of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed under Art. 13 of the RPC this is
different from lack of intent to kill. As a matter
of public policy, in the absence of fraud,
dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in
his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though such acts are
erroneous. Yet it is highly imperative that they
should be controverted with basic legal
principles. They are called upon to exhibit more
than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and to keep themselves abreast of the latest
laws, rulings, jurisprudence affecting their
jurisdiction. Even in the remaining years of his
stay in the judiciary, he should keep abreast
with the changes in the law and with the latest
decisions and precedents. Although a judge is
nearing retirement, he should not relax in his
study of the law and court decisions. The
records fail to show malice, ill-will or even bias
on part of the respondent judge. A judicial
officer cannot be called to account in a civil
action for acts done by him in the exercise of
his judicial function, however erroneous.
RE: SEC. 5
PROMPT DECISION MAKING

Aquino v. Lontok (1990)

supra at Canon 3, Sec. 8

CHAPTER I
THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any mans 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.
CANON 2
A lawyer shall make his legal services available
in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
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 doe
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 latters
rights.
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.

CANON 3

ANNEXED CODES OF
ETHICS

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
(June 21, 1988)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

115 of 158

A lawyer in making known his legal services

shall use only true, honest, fair, dignifies and
objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the
use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement of claim regarding his qualifications
of 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

ONE UP LAW

deceased partner is permissible provided that

the firm indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased.

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity

and dignity of the legal profession and support
the activities of the integrated bar.

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
concurrently.

Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for

knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact, in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.

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 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 information regarding the law
and jurisprudence.

CANON 6

These canons shall apply to lawyers in

government service in the discharge of their
official tasks.

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 of
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.

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 in said service.

CHAPTER II
THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

116 of 158

Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the

application for admission to the bar of any
person known by him to be unqualified in
respect to character, education, or other
relevant attribute.
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.
CANON 8
A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
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 advise and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
counsel.
CANON 9
A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist
in the unauthorized practice of law.
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.
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)

b)
c)

Where there is a pre-existing agreement

with a partner or associate that, upon the
latters death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to
the persons specified in the agreement; or
Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
Where a lawyer or law firm includes nonlawyer employees in a retirement plan,
even if the plan is based in whole or in part,
on a profit-sharing agreement.

CANON 10
A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith
to the court

ONE UP LAW

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
mislead 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, of the text of a decision or
authority, 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 misuse them to defeat
the ends 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 conduce by others.
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
property 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.
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.
CANON 12
A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
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 well adduce and the order of its profference.
He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, 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.
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from talking
to this witness during a break or recess in the

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

117 of 158

trial, while
examination.

the

witness

is

still

under

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.
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.
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.
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.
CHAPTER IV
THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
CANON 14
A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except
for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment
as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a
request from the IBP 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 unless:
a) he is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently
b) he labours under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client or

ONE UP LAW

between a present
prospective client

client

and

the

Rule 14.04. A lawyer who accepts 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
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.
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule
on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective 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.
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as a 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 clients case,
neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
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 to his
possession.
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the
client.
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.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

118 of 158

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 in the ROC.
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the clients interests 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 17
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
Rule 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.
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.
CANON 19
A lawyer shall keep represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law.
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.

ONE UP LAW

Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to

dictate the procedure in handling the case.
CANON 20
A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable
fees.
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees.
a) The time spent and the extent of the
service rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment
as a result of acceptance of the proffered
case;
f) The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter
to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and
the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
h) The
contingency
or
certainty
of
compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
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.
Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any
fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate
or forwarding allowance or other compensation
whatsoever
related
to
his
professional
employment from anyone other than the client.
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.
CANON 21
A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorneyclient relation is terminated.
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.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

119 of 158

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 the clients.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client's affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he
has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.

CANON 22
A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for a
good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services
in any of the following case:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer
pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel
will not promote the best interest of the
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of
the lawyer renders it difficult for him to
carry out the employment effectively;
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 withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property
to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperative with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC

ADOPTING THE NEW CODE OF
JUDICIAL
CONDUCT
FOR
THE
PHIL. JUDICIARY
ONE UP LAW

(June 1, 2004)

pending before another court or administrative

agency.

WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief

Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague,
on 25-26 November 2002, at which the
Philippine Supreme Court was represented by
the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Reynato
S. Puno, the Bangalore Draft of the Code of
Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group
on
Strengthening
Judicial
Integrity
was
deliberated
upon
and
approved
after
incorporating therein several amendments;

Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or

other relationships to influence judicial conduct
or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others
to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.

WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is

intended to be the Universal Declaration of
Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon
a universal recognition that a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary is essential
if the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding
constitutionalism and the rule of law; that
public confidence in the judicial system and in
the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary
is of utmost importance in a modern democratic
society; and that it is essential that judges,
individually and collectively, respect and honor
judicial office as a public trust and strive to
enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial
system;
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal
declaration of standards for ethical conduct of
judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as
revised at the Round Table Conference of Chief
Justices at The Hague is imperative not only to
update and correlate the Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics
adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress
the Philippines' solidarity with the universal
clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics.
Now, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary:
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the
rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a
fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects.
Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with
a conscientious understanding of the law, free
of any extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or
indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
Sec. 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges
shall be independent from judicial colleagues in
respect of decisions which the judge is obliged
to make independently.
Sec. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

120 of 158

Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from

inappropriate connections with, and influence
by, the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer. .
Sec. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation
to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she
has to adjudicate.
Sec. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional
and operational independence of the judiciary.
Sec. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high
standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary
which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence.
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper
discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
Sec. 1. 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.
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.
Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against
lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become
aware.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge
of the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which
the decision is made.
Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice.
Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 3. 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.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before, or could come before,
them make any comment that might reasonably
be expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of
the process. Nor shall judges make any
comment in public or otherwise that might
affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they
are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer
that they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but are
not limited to, instances where
(h)
The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(i)
The judge previously served as a
lawyer or was a material witness in the matter
in controversy;
(j)
The judge, or a member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the outcome
of the matter in controversy;
(k)
The
judge
served
as
executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the
case or matter in controversy, or a former
associate of the judge served as counsel during
their association, or the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein;
(l)
The judge's ruling in a lower court is
the subject of review;
(m)
The judge is related by consanguinity
or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or
(n)
The judge knows that his or her spouse
or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceedings;
Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above
may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure,
the parties and lawyers independently of the
judge's participation, all agree in writing that
the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in
the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all
parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the
record of the proceedings.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities
of a. judge.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

121 of 158

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 shall conduct
themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations
with individual members of the legal profession
who practice regularly in their court, avoid
situations which might reasonably give rise to
the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated
in any manner with the case.
Sec. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their
residence by a member of the legal profession
to receive clients of the latter or of other
members of the legal profession.
Sec. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
Sec. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of their
family.
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.
Sec. 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be
used or disclosed by for any other purpose
related to their judicial duties.
Sec. 10. Subject to the proper performance of
judicial duties, judges may
(d) Write, lecture, teach and participate in
activities concerning the law, the legal system,
the administration of justice or related matters;
(e) Appear at a public hearing before an official
body concerned with matters relating to the
law, the legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;
(f) Engage in other activities if such activities
do not detract from the dignity of the judicial
office
or
otherwise
interfere
with
the
performance of judicial duties.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the

holder of judicial office.
Sec. 12. Judges may form or join associations of
judges or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
Sec. 13. Judges and members of their families
shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done or to be done or omitted to be done by
him or her in connection with the performance
of judicial duties.
Sec. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff or others subject to their influence,
direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any
gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to be
done in connection with their duties or
functions.
Sec. 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made
provided that such gift, award or benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of
judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an
appearance of partiality.
CANON 5
EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of
the judicial office.
Sec. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and
understand, diversity in society and differences
arising from various sources, including but not
limited to race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status
and other like causes.
Sec. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of
judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest
bias or prejudice towards any person or group
on irrelevant grounds.
Sec. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for all persons,
such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court
staff
and
judicial
colleagues,
without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such
duties.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff or others subject to his or her influence,
direction or control to differentiate between
persons concerned, in a matter before the
judge, on any irrelevant ground.
Sec. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or
prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

122 of 158

such as are legally relevant to an issue in

proceedings and may be the subject of
legitimate advocacy.
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to
the due performance of judicial office.
Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
Sec. 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only
the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court's operations.
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills
and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage
for this purpose of the training and other
facilities which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
Sec. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed
about relevant developments of international
law, including international conventions and
other instruments establishing human rights
norms.
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently,
fairly
and
with
reasonable
promptness.
Sec. 6. 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.
Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject
to their influence, direction or control.
Sec. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
DEFINITIONS
In this Code, unless the context otherwise
permits or requires, the following meanings
shall be attributed to the words used:
"Court staff" includes the personal staff of the
judge including law clerks.
"Judge" means any person exercising judicial
power, however designated.
"Judge's family" includes a judge's spouse, son,
daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any
other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a
companion or employee of the judge and who
lives in the judge's household.

ONE UP LAW

This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to

as the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
heretofore applied in the Philippines to the
extent that the provisions or concepts therein
are embodied in this Code: Provided, however,
that in case of deficiency or absence of specific
provisions in this New Code, the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
shall be applicable in a suppletory character.
This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary shall take effect on the first
day of June 2004, following its publication not
later than 15 May 2004 in two newspapers of
large circulation in the Philippines to ensure its
widest publicity.
Promulgated this 27th day of April 2004.

ANNEXED RULES OF
COURT
RULE 138
ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO BAR

[As amended by SC Resolutions dated May 20,

1968 and February 13, 1992.]
Sec 1. Who may practice law.Any person
heretofore duly admitted as a member of the
bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, and
who is in good and regular standing, is entitled
to practice law.
Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for
admission to the bar.Every applicant for
admission as a member of the bar must be a
citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one
years of age, of good moral character, and a
resident of the Philippines; and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence
of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.
Sec. 3. Requirements for lawyers who are
citizens of the United States of America.
Citizens of the USA who, before July 4, 1946,
were duly licensed members of the Philippine
Bar, in active practice in the courts of the
Philippines and in good and regular standing as
such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts
before the Supreme Court, be allowed to
continue such practice after taking the following
oath
of
office:
"I,
_________________________, having been
permitted to continue in the practice of law in
the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I
recognize the supreme authority of the Republic
of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God."
Sec. 4. Requirements for applicants from other
jurisdictions.Applicants for admission who,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

123 of 158

ONE UP LAW

being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in

good standing in the Supreme Court of the
United States or in any circuit court of appeals
or district court therein, or in the highest court
of any State or Territory of the United States,
and who can show by satisfactory certificates
that they have practiced at least five years in
any of said courts, that such practice began
before July 4, 1946, and that they have never
been suspended or disbarred, may, in the
discretion of the Court, be admitted without
examination.
Sec. 5. Additional requirements for other
applicants.All applicants for admission other
than those referred to in the two preceding
sections shall, before being admitted to the
examination, satisfactorily show that they have
regularly studied law for four years, and
successfully completed all prescribed courses, in
a law school or university, officially approved
and recognized by the Secretary of Education.
The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by
a certificate from the university or school of law,
shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and
further evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar
examinations unless he has satisfactorily
completed the following courses in a law school
or
university
duly
recognized
by
the
government: civil law, commercial law, remedial
law,
criminal
law,
public
and
private
international law, political law, labor and social
legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and
legal ethics.
Sec. 6. Pre-Law.No applicant for admission to
the bar examination shall be admitted unless he
presents a certificate that he has satisfied the
Secretary of Education that, before he began
the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for
admission thereto the completion of a four-year
high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in
arts or sciences with any of the following
subjects as major or field of concentration:
political science, logic, english, spanish, history
and economics.
Sec. 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications.
All applicants for admission shall file with the
clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence
required by section 2 of this rule at least 15
days before the beginning of the examination. If
not embraced within sections 3 and 4 of this
rule they shall also file within the same period
the affidavit and certificate required by section
5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they
shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of
their admission to practice, satisfactory
evidence that the same has not been revoked,
and certificates as to their professional
standing. Applicants shall also file at the same
time their own affidavits as to their age,
residence, and citizenship.
Sec. 8. Notice of applications.Notice of
applications for admission shall be published by
the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

124 of 158

published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at

least 10 days before the beginning of the
examination.
Sec. 9. Examination; subjects.Applicants, not
otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of
this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in
the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and
Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal
Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public
Corporations, and Public Officers); International
Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial
Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and
Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(in Pleading and Conveyancing).
Sec. 10. Bar examination, by questions and
answers, and in writing.Persons taking the
examination shall not bring papers, books or
notes into the examination rooms. The
questions shall be the same for all examinees
and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall
be given to each examinee. Examinees shall
answer the questions personally without help
from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee
stating that his penmanship is so poor that it
will be difficult to read his answers without
much loss of time, the Supreme Court may
allow such examinee to use a typewriter in
answering the questions. Only noiseless
typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
The committee of bar examiners shall take such
precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other
frauds. Examinees shall not place their names
on the examination papers. No oral examination
shall be given.
Sec. 11. Annual examination.Examinations for
admission to the bar of the Philippines shall
take place annually in the City of Manila. They
shall be held in four days to be designated by
the chairman of the committee on bar
examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as
follows:
1st day: Political
and
International
Law
(morning) and Labor and Social
Legislation (afternoon);
2nd day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation
(afternoon);
3rd day: Mercantile
Law
(morning)
and
Criminal Law (afternoon);
4th day: Remedial Law (morning) and Legal
Ethics
and
Practical
Exercises
(afternoon).
Sec.
12.
Committee
of
examiners.
Examinations shall be conducted by a
committee of bar examiners to be appointed by
the Supreme Court. This committee shall be
composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court,
who shall act as chairman, and who shall be
designated by the court to serve for one year,
and eight members of the bar of the Philippines,
who shall hold office for a period of one year.
The names of the members of this committee
shall be published in each volume of the official
reports.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 13. Disciplinary measures.No candidate

shall endeavor to influence any member of the
committee, and during examination the
candidates shall not communicate with each
other nor shall they give or receive any
assistance. The candidate who violates this
provision, or any other provision of this rule,
shall be barred from the examination, and the
same to count as a failure against him, and
further disciplinary action, including permanent
disqualification, may be taken in the discretion
of the court.
Sec. 14. Passing average.In order that a
candidate may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have
obtained a general average of 75 % in all
subjects, without falling below 50 % in any
subject. In determining the average, the
subjects in the examination shall be given the
following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 %;
Labor and Social Legislation, 10 %; Mercantile
Law, 15 %; Criminal Law; 10 %; Political and
International Law, 15 %; Taxation, 10 %;
Remedial Law, 20 %; Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises, 5 %.
Sec. 15. Report of the committee; filing of
examination papers.Not later than February
15th after the examination, or as soon
thereafter as may be practicable, the committee
shall file its reports on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes
of the committee shall be fixed with the clerk
and may there be examined by the parties in
interest, after the court has approved the
report.
Sec. 16. Failing candidates to take review
course.Candidates who have failed the bar
examinations for three times shall be
disqualified from taking another examination
unless they show to the satisfaction of the court
that they have enrolled in and passed regular
fourth year review classes as well as attended a
pre-bar review course in a recognized law
school.
The professors of the individual review subjects
attended by the candidates under this rule shall
certify under oath that the candidates have
regularly attended classes and passed the
subjects under the same conditions as ordinary
students and the ratings obtained by them in
the particular subject.
Sec. 17. Admission and oath of successful
applicants.An applicant who has passed the
required examination, or has been otherwise
found to be entitled to admission to the bar,
shall take and subscribe before the Supreme
Court the corresponding oath of office.
Sec. 18. Certificate.The SC shall thereupon
admit the applicant as a member of the bar for
all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct
an order to be entered to that effect upon its
records, and that a certificate of such record be
given to him by the clerk of court, which
certificate shall be his authority to practice.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

125 of 158

Sec. 19. Attorneys' roll. - The clerk of the SC

shall keep a roll of all attorneys admitted to
practice, which roll shall be signed by the
person admitted when he receives his
certificate.
Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys.--It is the duty of
an attorney:
j) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines;
k) To observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers;
l) To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be
just, and such defenses only as he believes
to be honestly debatable under the law;
m) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining
the causes confided to him, such means
only as are consistent with truth and honor,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;
n) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at
every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
o) To abstain from all offensive personality and
to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor
or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;
p) Not to encourage either the commencement
or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from
any corrupt motive or interest;
q) Never to reject, for any consideration
personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
r) In the defense of a person accused of
crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the
guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end
that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.
Sec. 21. Authority of attorney to appear.An
attorney is presumed to be properly authorized
to represent any cause in which he appears,
and no written power of attorney is required to
authorize him to appear in court for his client,
but the presiding judge may, on motion of
either party and on reasonable grounds
therefore being shown, require any attorney
who assumes the right to appear in a case to
produce or prove the authority under which he
appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to
any issue, the name of the person who
employed him, and may thereupon make such
order as justice requires. An attorney willfully
appearing in court for a person without being
employed, unless by leave of the court, may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the court
who has misbehaved in his official transactions.
Sec. 22. Attorney who appears in lower court
presumed to represent client on appeal.An

ONE UP LAW

attorney who appears de parte in a case before

a lower court shall be presumed to continue
representing his client on appeal, unless he files
a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in
the appellate court.
Sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients.
Attorneys have authority to bind their clients
in any case by any agreement in relation
thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals,
and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure.
But they cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client's litigation, or receive
anything in discharge of a client's claim but the
full amount in cash.
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement
as to fees.An attorney shall be entitled to
have and recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services, with
a view to the importance of the subject matter
of the controversy, the extent of the services
rendered, and the professional standing of the
attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion
of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the
proper compensation, but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for
services shall control the amount to be paid
therefore unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.
Sec. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds;
contempt.When an attorney unjustly retains
in his hands money of his client after it has
been demanded, he may be punished for
contempt as an officer of the Court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions; but
proceedings under this section shall not be a
bar to a criminal prosecution.
Sec. 26. Change of attorneys.An attorney
may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding, by the written consent of his
client filed in court. He may also retire at any
time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the
court, on notice to the client and attorney, and
on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the
name of the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place of
the former one, and written notice of the
change shall be given to the adverse party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or
substitute another in his place, but if the
contract between client and attorney has been
reduced to writing and the dismissal of the
attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall
be entitled to recover from the client the full
compensation stipulated in the contract.
However, the attorney may, in the discretion of
the court, intervene in the case to protect his
rights. For the payment of his compensation the
attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments
for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered
in the case wherein his services had been
retained by the client.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

126 of 158

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by

Supreme Court on what grounds.A member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
Appeals or a Court of First Instance.The Court
of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may
suspend an attorney from practice for any of
the causes named in the last preceding section,
and after such suspension such attorney shall
not practice his profession until further action of
the Supreme Court in the premises.
Sec. 29. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals
or Court of First Instance, further proceedings
in Supreme Court.Upon such suspension, the
Court of Appeals or the Court of First Instance
shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a
certified copy of the order or suspension and a
full statement of the facts upon which the same
was based. Upon the receipt of such certified
copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall
make full investigation of the facts involved and
make such order revoking or extending the
suspension, or removing the attorney from his
office as such, as the facts warrant.
Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal
or suspension.No attorney shall be removed
or suspended from the practice of his
profession, until he has had full opportunity
upon reasonable notice to answer the charges
against him, to produce witnesses in his own
behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel.
But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear
and answer the accusation, the court may
proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
Sec. 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants.A
court may assign an attorney to render
professional aid free of charge to any party in a
case, if upon investigation it appears that the
party is destitute and unable to employ an
attorney, and that the services of counsel are
necessary to secure the ends of justice and to
protect the rights of the party. It shall be the
duty of the attorney so assigned to render the
required service, unless he is excused
therefrom by the court for sufficient cause
shown.
Sec. 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio.
Subject to availability of funds as may be
provided by law the court may, in its discretion,
order an attorney employed as counsel de oficio
to be compensated in such sum as the court
may fix in accordance with section 24 of this

ONE UP LAW

rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it

shall not be less than thirty pesos (P30.00) in
any case, nor more than the following amounts:
(1) Fifty pesos (P50.00) in light felonies; (2)
One hundred pesos (P100.00) in less grave
felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200.00) in
grave felonies other than capital offenses; (4)
Five hundred pesos (P500.00) in capital
offenses.
Sec. 33. Standing in court of persons
authorized to appear for Government.Any
official or other person appointed or designated
in accordance with law to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall have all the
rights of a duly authorized member of the bar
to appear in any case in which said government
has an interest direct or indirect.
Sec. 34. By whom litigation conducted.In the
court of a justice of the peace a party may
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any
other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must be either personal or by a
duly authorized member of the bar.
Sec. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice.No
judge or other official or employee of the
superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor
General, shall engage in private practice as a
member of the bar or give professional advice
to clients.
Sec. 36. Amicus curiae.The court may, in
special cases, and upon proper application,
permit the appearance, as amici curiae, of those
lawyers who in its opinion can help in the
disposition of the matter before it; or it may, on
its own initiative, invite prominent attorneys to
appear as amici curiae in such special cases.
Sec. 37. 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.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

127 of 158

RULE 138-A
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
(Dec. 18, 1986)

Sec 1. Conditions for student practice.A law

student who has successfully complete his 3rd
year of the regular 4 year prescribed law
curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
schools clinical legal education program
approved by the SC, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court,
tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent
clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law
school.
Sec 2. Appearance.The appearance of the law
student authorized by this rule, shall be under
the direct supervision and control of a member
of the IBP duly accredited by the law school.
Any pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or
other papers to be filed, must be signed by the
supervising attorney for and in behalf of the
legal clinic.
Sec 3. Privileged Communication.The Rules
safeguarding
privileged
communications
between attorney and client shall apply to
similar communications made to or received by
the law student, acting for the legal clinic.
Sec 4. Standards of conduct and supervision.
The law student shall comply with the standards
of professional conduct governing members of
the Bar.
Failure of an attorney to provide
adequate supervision of student practice may
be a ground for disciplinary action.

RULE 139-B
DISBARMENT
&
ATTORNEYS
(June 1, 1988)
[Outlined]

A.

DISCIPLINE

OF

HOW INSTITUTED AND BY WHOM

Sec 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for

disbarment,
suspension
or
discipline
of
attorneys may be taken by the SC motu
proprio, or by the IBP upon the verified
complaint of any person. The complaint shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained
of and shall be supported by affidavits of
persons having personal knowledge of the facts
therein alleged and/or by such documents as
may substantiate said facts.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio

ONE UP LAW

or upon referral by the SC or by a Chapter

Board of Officers, or at the instance of any
person, initiate and prosecute proper charges
against erring attorneys including those in the
government service;
Provided, however, that all charges against
Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax
Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are
jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the
Supreme Court;
Provided, further, that charges filed against
Justices and Judges before the IBP, including
those filed prior to their appointment in the
Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be
filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the
Secretary of any of its chapters who shall
forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of
Governors for assignment to an investigator.
B. GROUNDS
See Rule 138 Sec. 27 supra
C.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE IBP

1.

Assignment to Investigator

Sec. 2. National Grievance Investigator. - The

Board of Governors shall appoint from among
IBP members an Investigator or, when special
circumstances so warrant, a panel of 3
investigators to investigate the complaint. All
Investigators shall take an oath of office in the
form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A
copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason
of
relationship within the 4th degree of
consanguinity or affinity to any of the parties or
their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias,
or his having acted as counsel for either party,
unless the parties sign and enter upon the
record their written consent to his acting as
such Investigator.
Where the Investigator does not disqualify
himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of
Governors, which by majority vote of the
members present, there being a quorum, may
order his disqualification. Any Investigator may
also be removed for cause, after due hearing,
by the vote of at least 6 members of the IBP
Board Governors. The decision of the Board of
Governors in all cases of disqualification or
removal shall be final.
Sec. 3. Duties of the National Grievance
Investigator.
The
National
Grievance
Investigators shall investigate all complaint
against members of the Integrated Bar referred
to them by the IBP Board of Governors.
Sec. 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. The proper IBP Chapter may assist the
complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of
his complaint(s).
2.

Service on Respondent

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

128 of 158

Sec. 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint

appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall
direct that a copy thereof be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer the same
within 15 days from the date of service.
If the complaint does not merit action, or if the
answer shows to the satisfaction of the
Investigator that the complaint is not
meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the
Board of Governors upon his recommendation.
A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be
furnished the complainant and the SC which
may review the case motu proprio or upon
timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15
days from notice of the dismissal of the
complainant.
No investigation shall be interrupted or
terminated by reason of the (1) desistance, (2)
settlement, (3) compromise, (4) restitution, (5)
withdrawal of the charges, or (6) failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same.
3.

Answer

Sec. 6. Verification and service of answer. - The

answer shall be verified. The original and 5
legible copies of the answer shall be filed with
the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy
thereof on the complainant or his counsel.
4.

Investigation Proper

Sec. 7. Administrative counsel. - The IBP Board

of Governors shall appoint a suitable member of
the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the
complainant or the respondent during the
investigation in case of need for such
assistance.
Sec. 8. Investigation. - Upon joinder of issues
or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed,
proceed with the investigation of the case. He
shall have the power to issue subpoenas and
administer oaths.
The respondent shall be
given full opportunity to defend himself, to
present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by
himself and counsel.
However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to
appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The
Investigator
shall
terminate
the
investigation within 3 months from the date of
its commencement unless extended for good
cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or
any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect
contempt of court. The corresponding charge
shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP
Board of Governors which shall require the
alleged contemptor to show cause within ten
(10) days from notice. The IBP Board of
Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if
necessary, in accordance with the procedure set
forth in this Rule for hearings before the
Investigator. Such hearing shall, as far as
practicable, be terminated within fifteen (15)
days from its commencement. Thereafter, the

ONE UP LAW

IBP Board of Governors shall within like period

fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth
its findings and recommendations, which `shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court
for final action and if warranted, the imposition
of penalty.
c.
Sec. 9. Depositions. - Depositions may be taken
in accordance with the Rules of Court with leave
of the investigator(s).
Within the Philippines, depositions may be
taken before any member of the Board of
Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any
officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
Depositions may be taken outside the
Philippines before a diplomatic or consular
representative of the Philippine Government or
before any person agreed upon by the parties
or designated by the Board of Governors.
Any suitable members of the Integrated Bar in
the place where a deposition shall be taken may
be designated by the Investigator to assist the
complainant or the respondent in taking a
deposition.
5.

Report

Sec. 10. Report of Investigator. - Not later than

30 days from the termination of the
investigation, the Investigator shall submit a
report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations to the IBP Board of
Governors, together with the stenographic
notes and the transcripts thereof and all the
evidence presented during the investigation.
The submission of the report need not await the
transcription of the stenographic notes, it being
sufficient that the report reproduce substantially
from the Investigator's personal notes any
relevant and pertinent testimonies.
Sec. 11. Defects. - No defect in a complaint,
notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the
Investigator's Report shall be considered as
substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon
considering the whole record, finds that such
defect has resulted or may result in a
miscarriage of justice, in which event the Board
shall take such remedial action as the
circumstance
may
warrant,
including
invalidation of the entire proceedings.
6

Decision or Review

Sec. 12. View and decision by the Board of

Governors.
a. Every case heard by an investigator shall be
reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors
upon the record and evidence transmitted
to it by the Investigator with his report. The
decision of the Board upon such review
shall be in writing and shall clearly and
distinctly state the facts and the reasons on
which it is based. It shall be promulgated
within a period not exceeding thirty (30)
days from the next meeting of the Board
following the submittal of the Investigator's
Report
b. If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its
total membership, determines that the

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

129 of 158

d.

respondent should be suspended from the

practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the
whole record of the case, shall forthwith be
transmitted to the SC for final action.
If the respondent is exonerated by the
Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed
by it is less than suspension or disbarment
(such as admonition, [warning,] reprimand,
or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating
respondent or imposing such sanction. The
case shall be deemed terminated unless
upon petition of the complainant or other
interested party filed with the Supreme
Court within 15 days from notice of the
Boards resolution, the Supreme Court
orders otherwise.
Notice of the resolution or decision of the
Board shall be given to all parties through
their counsel. A copy of the same shall be
transmitted to the Supreme Court.

D. PROCEEDINGS
COURT

IN

THE

SUPREME

Sec. 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In

proceedings initiated motu proprio by the SC in
other proceedings when the interest of justice
so requires, the SC may refer the case for
investigation to the Solicitor General or to any
officer of the SC or judge of a lower court, in
which case, the investigation shall proceed in
the same manner provided in Sections 6 to 11
hereof, save that the review report of the
investigation shall be conducted directly by the
Supreme Court.
Sec. 14. Report of the Solicitor General or other
Court designated investigator. - Based upon the
evidence adduced at the investigation, the
Solicitor
General
or
other
Investigator
designated by the SC shall submit to the SC a
resolution containing his findings of fact and
recommendations together the record and all
the evidence presented in the investigation for
the final action of the SC.
E.

EFFECTS

Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court. - After receipt of respondent's answer or
lapse of the period therefore, the Supreme
Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of the
IBP
Board
of
Governors
upon
the
recommendation of the Investigator, may
suspend an attorney from the practice of his
profession for any of the causes specified in
Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of
the investigation until such suspension is lifted
by the Supreme Court.
Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court. - The Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an
attorney from practice for any of the causes
named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further
action of the Supreme Court in the case.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals

or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in
Supreme Court. - Upon such suspension, the
Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall
forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a
certified copy of the order of suspension and a
full statement of the facts upon which the same
was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy
and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a
full investigation of the case and may revoke,
shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the
attorney as the facts may warrant.
Sec. 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings against
attorneys shall be private and confidential.
However, the final order of the Supreme Court
shall be published like its decisions in other
cases.
Sec. 19. Expenses. - All reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in relation to
disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are
lawful charges forthwith the parties may be
taxed as costs.
EFFECTIVITY
Sec. 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. This Rule shall take effect on June 1, 1988 and
shall supersede the present Rule 139 entitled
"DISBARMENT
OR
SUSPENSION
OF
ATTORNEYS". All cases pending investigation by
the Office of the Solicitor General shall be
transferred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors for investigation
and disposition as provided in this Rule except
those cases where the investigation has been
substantially completed.

RULE 140
CHARGES AGAINST JUDGES OF
INSTANCE
(as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC)
(Oct. 1. 2001)

FIRST

Sec. 1. How Instituted.Proceedings for the

discipline of Judges of regular and special courts
and Justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan
may be instituted (1) motu propio by the SC or
(2) upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said
allegations or (3) upon an anonymous
complaint, supported by public records of
indubitable integrity.
The complaint shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct
prescribed for Judges by law, the ROC, or the
Code of Judicial Conduct.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

130 of 158

Sec. 2. Action on complaint.If the complaint is

sufficient in form and substance, a copy thereof
shall be served upon the respondent and he
shall be required to comment within 10 days
from the date of service. Otherwise, the same
shall be dismissed.
Sec. 3. By whom complaint investigated.Upon
the filing of respondents comment, or upon the
expiration of the time for filing the same and
unless other pleading or documents are
required, the Court shall (1) refer the matter to
the Office of the Court Administrator for
evaluation, report and recommendation or (2)
assign the case for investigation, report and
recommendation to a retired member of the SC,
if the respondent is a Justice of the CA and the
Sandiganbayan, or (3) to a Justice of the CA if
the respondent is a Judge of a RTC or of a
special court of equivalent rank, or (4) to a
Judge of the RTC if the respondent is a Judge of
an inferior court.
Sec. 4. Hearing. The investigating Justice or
Judge shall set a day for the hearing and send
notice thereof to both parties. At such hearing,
the parties may present oral and documentary
evidence. If after due notice, the respondent
fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed
ex parte.
Investigating Justice of Judge shall terminate
the investigation within 90 days from the date
of its commencement or within an extension as
the SC may grant.
Sec. 5. Report.
Within 30 days from the
termination
of
the
investigation,
the
investigating Justice or Judge shall submit to
the SC a report containing the findings of fact
and recommendation.
The report shall be
accompanied by the record containing the
evidence and the pleadings filed by the parties.
The report shall be confidential and shall be for
the exclusive se for the Court.
Sec. 6. ActionThe Court shall take such notice
on the report as the facts and the law may
warrant.
Sec.
7.
Classification
of
Charges.
Administrative charges are classified as serious,
less serious or light.
Sec. 8. Serious Charges.
Serious charges
include:
1. Bribery, direct of indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Law (RA 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or
order as determined by a competent court
in an appropriate proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers
and litigants in a case pending before the
court;

ONE UP LAW

8.
9.
10.
11.

Immorality;
Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
Partisan political activities; and
Alcoholism and / or vicious habits.

Sec. 9. Less Serious ChargesLess serious

charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or
order, or in transmitting the records of a
case;
2. Frequent and unjustified absences without
leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violations of SC rules, directives and
circulars;
5. Receiving
additional
or
double
compensation, unless specifically authorized
by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of
service; and
7. Simple misconduct.
Sec. 10 Light ChargesLight charges include:
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
2. Gambling in public;
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with
pending case / cases in his court; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly
reports.
Sec. 11 Sanctions
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge, any of the following sanctions may
be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualifications
from reinstatement or appointment to
any
public
office,
including
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations. Provided, however, that
the forfeiture of benefits shall in no
case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension form office without salary
and other benefits for more than 3 but
not exceeding 6 months, or
3. A fine of more than P20,000 but not
exceeding P40,000
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious
charge, any of the following sanctions shall
be imposed.
1. Suspension form office without salary
and other benefits for not less than 1
month not more than 3 months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000 but not
exceeding P20,000
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge,
any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed.
1. A fine of not less than P1,000 but not
exceeding 10,000 and / or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.
Sec. 12. Confidentiality of Proceedings.
Proceedings against Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the CA and the
Sandiganbayan
shall
be
private
and
confidential, but a copy of the decision or

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

131 of 158

resolution of the Court shall be attached to the

record of the respondent in the Office of the
Court Administrator.
These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect
on Oct. 1, 2001 following their publication in 2
newspapers of general circulation on or before
Sept. 15, 2001.

ANNEXED ETC.
SUPREME COURT
ISSUANCES

(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)

CIRCULAR NO. 28-91
TO: THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ALL OTHER BAR
ASSOCIATIONS, THE OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REQUISITES FOR
PETITIONS FILED WITH THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
PREVENT
FORUM
SHOPPING
OR
MULTIPLE FILING OF PETITIONS AND
COMPLAINTS
The attention of the Court has been called to
the filing of multiple petitions and complaints
involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or different
Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, with the result that said tribunals or
agency have resolve the same issues.
To avoid the foregoing, every petition or
complaint filed with the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, shall
comply with the following requirements,
aside from pertinent provisions of the Rules
of Court and existing circulars:
1. Caption of petition or complaint. the
caption of the petition or complaint must
include the docket number of the case in the
lower court of quasi-judicial agency whose
order or judgment is sought to be reviewed.
2. Certification. the party must certify
under oath that he has not commenced any
other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or
any other tribunal or agency, and that to the
best of his knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If

ONE UP LAW

there is any other action pending, he must

state the status of the same. If he should
learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different
Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, he should notify the court, tribunal
or agency within five (5) days from such
notice.
3. Penalties.
(a) Any violation of this Circular
shall be a cause for the summary
dismissal of the, multiple petition
or complaint;
(b) Any willful and deliberate
forum shopping by any party and
his lawyer with the filing of
multiple petitioners or complaints
to ensure favorable action shall
constitute direct contempt of
court.
(c) The submission of a false
certification under Par. 2 of the
Circular shall likewise constitute
contempt
of Court,
without
prejudice to the filing of criminal
action against the guilty party.
The
lawyer
may
also
be
subjected
to
disciplinary
proceedings.
4. Effectivity Date- This Circular shall take
effect on January 1, 1992.
September 4, 1991.
(Sgd.) MARCELO B. FERNAN
Chief Justice

(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)

CIRCULAR NO. 1-90
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURTS (METC), MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES (MTCC),
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS (MTC),
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
(MCTC) SHARIA COURTS, AND THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
(IBP)
SUBJECT: POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT
AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO.
For the information and guidance of all
concerned,
quoted
hereunder,
is
the
Resolution of the Court En Banc, dated
December 19, 1989, in Administrative Matter
No. 89-11-1303 MTC, "Re: Request for
clarification on the power of municipal trial
court judges and municipal circuit trial court
judges to act as Notaries Public Ex Officio";

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

132 of 158

"Acting on a query regarding the power of

municipal trial court judges and municipal
circuit trial court judges to act in the capacity
of notaries public ex officio in the light of the
1989 Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court
Resolved to issue a clarification on the
matter.
Municipal trial court (MTC) and municipal
circuit trial court (MCTC) judges are
empowered to perform the function of
notaries public ex officio under Section 76 of
Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise
known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and
Section 242 of the Revised Administrative
Code. But the Court hereby lays down the
following qualifications on the scope of this
power:
MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries
public ex officio in the notarization of
documents connected only with the exercise
of their official functions and duties [Borne v.
Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October
17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; Penera v.
Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April
22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] They may not, as
notaries public ex officio, undertake the
preparation and acknowledgment of private
documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyances which bear no direct relation to
the performance of their functions as judges.
The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only
enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial
activities in order to minimize the risk of
conflict with their judicial duties, but also
prohibits them from engaging in the private
practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).
However, the Court, taking judicial notice of
the fact that there are still municipalities
which have neither lawyers nor notaries
public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges
assigned to municipalities or circuits with no
lawyers or notaries public may, in the
capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform
any act within the competency of a regular
notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial
fees charged be for the account of the
Government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos,
Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982,
114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be
made in the notarized documents attesting to
the lack of any lawyer or notary public in
such municipality or circuit."
Feliciano, J., is on leave
February 26, 1990.
(Sgd.) MARCELO B FERNAN
Chief Justice

ONE UP LAW

program on these Codes be pursued and

carried out through seminars-workshops.
A.M. No. 02-9-02

A.M. No. 02-9-02 Re: Automatic conversion of

some administrative cases against Justices of
the CA and the Sandiganbyan; Judges of
Regular and Special Courts; and court officials
who are lawyers as disciplinary proceedings
against them both as such officials and as
Members of the Philippine Bar.
Some administrative cases against Justices of
the CA and the Sandiganbayan; judges of
regular and special courts; and court officials
who are lawyers are based on grounds which
are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action
of members of the Bar for violation of the
Lawyers Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, or for such other forms or breaches of
conduct that have been traditionally recognized
as grounds for discipline of lawyers.
In any of the foregoing instances, the
administrative case shall also be considered a
disciplinary action against the respondent
Justice, judge or court official concerned as a
member of the Bar.
The respondent may
forthwith be required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the
Bar.
Judgment in both respects may be
incorporated in one decision or resolution.
This resolution shall supplement Rule 140 of the
ROC and shall take effect on the first day of
Oct. 2002.
It shall apply to administrative
cases already filed where the respondents have
not yet been required to comment on the
complaints.
This resolution shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.

(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR
2005

NO.

WHEREAS, on 1 June 2004 the New

Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary and the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel took effect;
WHEREAS, these Codes must govern
the conduct of judges and court personnel,
respectively;
WHEREAS, it is thus necessary that an
effective extensive orientation and immersion

133 of 158

1.

The PHILJA shall include

orientation
or
immersion
sessions on the Codes as a
special
component
of
its
regular
Regional
Judicial
Career Enhancement Program;
and if this would prove to be
less
effective,
it
should
conduct lectures on the Codes
by province or group of
provinces.

2.

The OAS of the Supreme

Court, in coordination with the
PMO, should complete the
orientation program on the
Codes for the officials and
personnel of the Supreme
Court,
the
Presidential
Electoral Tribunal (PET), the
OCA, the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC), and the PHILJA.

3.

The Presiding Justices of the

Court
of
Appeals,
the
Sandiganbayan, and the Court
of Tax Appeals, through their
respective Clerks of Court,
shall coordinate with the
PHILJA, OAS, and the PMO of
the Supreme Court for the
conduct
of
seminarsworkshops on the Codes for
their officials and personnel to
be
completed
before
31
December 2005.

4.

For the conduct of these

seminars-workshops,
the
PHILJA, the PMO, and the OAS
of the Supreme Court are
enjoined to tap the expert
lectures on the Codes, such as
Court of Appeals Justice Jose
C. Sabio, retired Court of
Appeals
Justices
Hector
Hofilea and Hilarion Aquino,
Deputy Court Administrator
Jose P. Perez, and officials
from the pool of lectures

35-

EXTENSIVE ORIENTATION PROGRAM ON

THE NEW CODE
OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE
PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT
PERSONNEL

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

NOW, THEREFORE, the Philippine

Judicial Academy (PHILJA), the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), the Program
Management Office (PMO), and Office of
Administrative
Services
(OAS) of the
Supreme Court are hereby directed to work
together,
coordinate,
and
prepare
a
consolidated seminar-workshop program to
ensure that before August 2006 all judges
and court personnel shall have already
attended a seminar-workshop on the New
Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
To attain this objective

ONE UP LAW

formed by the OAS headed by

Atty. Ma. Carina C. Cunanan.
The funding for the seminars-workshops
on the Codes shall be charged against the
P25 million appropriation granted by the
Court to the PHILJA if sponsored by the
latter; the WB-JRSP loan and other grants
received by the Court through the PMO for
the purpose; or against the respective
regular appropriations for seminars and
conferences of the Supreme Court and the
lower courts, the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax
Appeals, as the case may be.
For the effective implementation of this
Administrative Circular, the abovementioned
offices shall submit a schedule of seminarsworkshops for the period from August to
December 2005 and from January to July
2006.
This Administrative Circular shall take
effect upon its issuance.
Issued this 26th day of July 2005.

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

(Aug. 1, 2004)

RULE I
IMPLEMENTATION
Sec. 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Sec. 2. Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied
and construed to advance the following
purposes:
a.
to promote, serve, and protect public
interest;
b.
to simplify, clarify, and modernize the
rules governing notaries public; and
c.
to foster ethical conduct among
notaries public.
Sec. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of
these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the
singular include the plural, and words in the
plural include the singular.
RULE II
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 1. Acknowledgment. - "Acknowledgment"
refers to an act in which an individual on a
single occasion:
a.
appears in person before the notary
public and presents an integrally complete
instrument or document;
b.
is attested to be personally known to
the notary public or identified by the notary

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

134 of 158

c.

public through competent evidence of

identity as defined by these Rules; and
represents to the notary public that the
signature on the instrument or document
was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or
document, declares that he has executed
the instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a
particular representative capacity, that he
has the authority to sign in that capacity.

Sec. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term

"Affirmation" or "Oath" refers to an act in which
an individual on a single occasion:
a.
appears in person before the notary
public;
b.
is personally known to the notary public
or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules; and
c.
avows under penalty of law to the
whole truth of the contents of the
instrument or document.
Sec. 3. Commission. - "Commission" refers to
the grant of authority to perform notarial acts
and to the written evidence of the authority.
Sec. 4. Copy Certification. - "Copy Certification"
refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:
a.
is presented with an instrument or
document that is neither a vital record, a
public record, nor publicly recordable;
b.
copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
c.
compares the instrument or document
with the copy; and
d.
determines that the copy is accurate
and complete.
Sec. 5. Notarial Register. - "Notarial Register"
refers to a permanently bound book with
numbered pages containing a chronological
record of notarial acts performed by a notary
public.
Sec. 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which
an individual on a single occasion:
a.
appears in person before the notary
public and presents an instrument or
document;
b.
is personally known to the notary public
or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules;
c.
signs the instrument or document in
the presence of the notary; and
d.
takes an oath or affirmation before the
notary public as to such instrument or
document.
Sec. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - "Notarial
Act" and "Notarization" refer to any act that a
notary public is empowered to perform under
these Rules.
Sec. 8. Notarial Certificate. - "Notarial
Certificate" refers to the part of, or attachment
to, a notarized instrument or document that is
completed by the notary public, bears the

ONE UP LAW

notary's signature and seal, and states the facts

attested to by the notary public in a particular
notarization as provided for by these Rules.
Sec. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - "Notary
Public" and "Notary" refer to any person
commissioned to perform official acts under
these Rules.
Sec. 10. Principal. - "Principal" refers to a
person appearing before the notary public
whose act is the subject of notarization.
Sec. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. The term "regular place of work or business"
refers to a stationary office in the city or
province wherein the notary public renders legal
and notarial services.
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The
phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers
to the identification of an individual based on:
a.
at least one current identification
document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of
the individual; or
b.
the oath or affirmation of one credible
witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally
known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two
credible witnesses neither of whom is privy
to the instrument, document or transaction
who each personally knows the individual
and
shows
to
the
notary
public
documentary identification.
Sec. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - "Official seal" or
"Seal" refers to a device for affixing a mark,
image or impression on all papers officially
signed by the notary public conforming the
requisites prescribed by these Rules.
Sec. 14. Signature Witnessing. -The term
"signature witnessing" refers to a notarial act in
which an individual on a single occasion:
a.
appears in person before the notary
public and presents an instrument or
document;
b.
is personally known to the notary public
or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules; and
c.
signs the instrument or document in
the presence of the notary public.
Sec. 15. Court. - "Court" refers to the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
Sec. 16. Petitioner. - "Petitioner" refers to a
person who applies for a notarial commission.
Sec. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. "Office of the Court Administrator" refers to the
Office of the Court Administrator of the
Supreme Court.
Sec. 18. Executive Judge. - "Executive Judge"
refers to the Executive Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of a city or province who issues a
notarial commission.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

135 of 158

Sec. 19. Vendor - "Vendor" under these Rules

refers to a seller of a notarial seal and shall
include a wholesaler or retailer.
Sec. 20. Manufacturer. - "Manufacturer" under
these Rules refers to one who produces a
notarial seal and shall include an engraver and
seal maker.
RULE III
COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission
may be issued by an Executive Judge to any
qualified person who submits a petition in
accordance with these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary
public, the petitioner:
1. must be a citizen of the Philippines;
2. must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
3. must be a resident in the Philippines for at
least one (1) year and maintains a regular
place of work or business in the city or
province where the commission is to be
issued;
4. must be a member of the Philippine Bar in
good standing with clearances from the
Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme
Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines; and
5. must not have been convicted in the first
instance of any crime involving moral
turpitude.
Sec. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting
Documents. - Every petition for a notarial
commission shall be in writing, verified, and
shall include the following:
a) a statement containing the petitioner's
personal
qualifications,
including
the
petitioner's date of birth, residence,
telephone number, professional tax receipt,
roll of attorney's number and IBP
membership number; ,
b) certification of good moral character of the
petitioner by at least two (2) executive
officers of the local chapter of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he
is applying for commission;
c) proof of payment for the filing of the
petition as required by these Rules; and
d) three (3) passport-size color photographs
with light background taken within thirty
(30)
days
of
the
application.
The
photograph should not be retouched. The
petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom
part of the photographs.
Sec. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a
notarial commission shall pay the application
fee as prescribed in the Rules of Court.
Sec. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The
Executive Judge shall conduct a summary
hearing on the petition and shall grant the same
if:
a) the petition is sufficient in form and
substance;
b) the petitioner proves the allegations
contained in the petition; and

ONE UP LAW

c)

the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction

of the Executive Judge that he has read and
fully understood these Rules.
The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a
commission and a Certificate of Authorization to
Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the
petitioner.
Sec. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing.
a) The notice of summary hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city or province where the
hearing shall be conducted and posted in a
conspicuous place in the offices of the
Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court.
The cost of the publication shall be borne
by the petitioner. The notice may include
more than one petitioner.
b)
The notice shall be substantially in the
following form;
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing
on the petition for notarial commission of (name
of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place)
at (time). Any person who has any cause or
reason to object to the grant of the petition
may file a verified written opposition thereto,
received by the undersigned before the date of
the summary hearing.
______________
Executive Judge
Sec. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who
has any cause or reason to object to the grant
of the petition may file a verified written
opposition thereto. The opposition must be
received by the Executive Judge before the date
of the summary hearing.
Sec. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The
commissioning of a notary public shall be in a
formal order signed by the Executive Judge
substantially in the following form:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________
This is to certify that (name of notary public) of
(regular place of work or business) in (city or
province) was on this (date) day of (month) two
thousand and (year) commissioned by the
undersigned as a notary public, within and for
the said jurisdiction, for a term ending the
thirty-first day of December (year)
_______________
Executive Judge
Sec. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a
Notarial Seal shall be valid for a period of three
(3) months from date of issue, unless extended
by the Executive Judge.
A mark, image or impression of the seal that
may be purchased by the notary public
pursuant to the Certificate shall be presented to
the Executive Judge for approval prior to use.
Sec. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to
Purchase a Notarial Seal. -The Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall
substantially be in the following form:

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

136 of 158

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________
CERTIFICATE
OF
AUTHORIZATION
TO
PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL
This is to authorize (name of notary public) of
(city or province) who was commissioned by the
undersigned as a notary public, within and for
the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the
thirty-first of December (year) to purchase a
notarial seal.
Issued this (day) of (month) (year).
_______________
Executive Judge
Sec. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every
person commissioned as notary public shall
have only one official seal of office in
accordance with these Rules.
Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person
commissioned as 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 the first
day of January of the year in which the
commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked
or the notary public has resigned under these
Rules and the Rules of Court.
Sec. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The
Executive Judge shall keep and maintain a
Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction
which shall contain, among others, the dates of
issuance or revocation or suspension of notarial
commissions, and the resignation or death of
notaries public. The Executive Judge shall
furnish the Office of the Court Administrator
information and data recorded in the register of
notaries public. The Office of the Court
Administrator shall keep a permanent, complete
and updated database of such records.
Sec. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary
public may file a written application with the
Executive Judge for the renewal of his
commission within forty-five (45) days before
the expiration thereof. A mark, image or
impression of the seal of the notary public shall
be attached to the application.
Failure to file said application will result in the
deletion of the name of the notary public in the
register of notaries public.
The notary public thus removed from the
Register of Notaries Public may only be
reinstated therein after he is issued a new
commission in accordance with these Rules.
Sec. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of
Commission. - The Executive Judge shall, upon
payment of the application fee mentioned in
Section 3 above of this Rule, act on an
application for the renewal of a commission
within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. If
the application is denied, the Executive Judge
shall state the reasons therefore.
RULE IV
POWERS
PUBLIC

AND

LIMITATIONS

OF

NOTARIES

Sec. 1. Powers.

ONE UP LAW

a)

b)

c)

A notary public is empowered to perform

the following notarial acts:
1) acknowledgments;
2) oaths and affirmations;
3) jurats;
4) signature witnessings;
5) copy certifications; and
6) any other act authorized by these
Rules.
A notary public is authorized to certify the
affixing of a signature by thumb or other
mark on an instrument or document
presented for notarization if:
1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in
the presence of the notary public and of
two (2) disinterested and unaffected
witnesses
to
the
instrument
or
document;
2) both witnesses sign their own names in
addition to the thumb or other mark;
3) the notary public writes below the
thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other
Mark affixed by (name of signatory by
mark) in the presence of (names and
addresses
of
witnesses)
and
undersigned notary public"; and
4) the
notary
public
notarizes
the
signature by thumb or other mark
through an acknowledgment, jurat, or
signature witnessing.
A notary public is authorized to sign on
behalf of a person who is physically unable
to sign or make a mark on an instrument or
document if:
1) the notary public is directed by the
person unable to sign or make a mark
to sign on his behalf;
2) the signature of the notary public is
affixed in the presence of two
disinterested and unaffected witnesses
to the instrument or document;
3) both witnesses sign their own names ;
4) the notary public writes below his
signature: "Signature affixed by notary
in presence of (names and addresses of
person and two \2] witnesses)"; and
5) the
notary
public
notarizes
his
signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

Sec. 2. Prohibitions.
a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial
act outside his regular place of work or
business; provided, however, that on
certain exceptional occasions or situations,
a notarial act may be performed at the
request of the parties in the following sites
located within his territorial jurisdiction:
(1) public offices, convention halls, and
similar places where oaths of office
may be administered;
(2) public function areas in hotels and
similar places for the signing of
instruments or documents requiring
notarization;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions
where a party to an instrument or
document is confined for treatment;
and
(4) any place where a party to an
instrument or document requiring
notarization is under detention.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

137 of 158

b)

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
the
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.

Sec. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is

disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:
(a) is a party to the instrument or document
that is to be notarized;
(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result,
any commission, fee, advantage, right,
title, interest, cash, property, or other
consideration, except as provided by these
Rules and by law; or
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the
fourth civil degree.
Sec. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public
shall not perform any notarial act described in
these Rules for any person requesting such an
act even if he tenders the appropriate fee
specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction
is unlawful or immoral;
(b) the signatory shows a demeanor which
engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's
knowledge of the consequences of the
transaction requiring a notarial act; and
(c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is
not acting of his or her own free will.
Sec. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A
notary public shall not:
(a) execute a certificate containing information
known or believed by the notary to be
false.
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a
notarial certificate that is incomplete.
Sec. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. A notary public shall not notarize:
(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or
document; or
(b) an instrument or document without
appropriate notarial certification.
RULE V
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For
performing a notarial act, a notary public may
charge the maximum fee as prescribed by the
Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in
whole or in part.
Sec. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary
public may charge travel fees and expenses
separate and apart from the notarial fees
prescribed in the preceding section when
traveling to perform a notarial act if the notary

ONE UP LAW

public and the person requesting the notarial

act agree prior to the travel.
Sec. 3. Prohibited Fees. - No fee or
compensation of any kind, except those
expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall
be collected or received for any notarial service.
Sec. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary
public shall not require payment of any fees
specified herein prior to the performance of a
notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon.
Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary
public prior to the performance of a notarial act
are not subject to refund if the notary public
had already traveled but failed to complete in
whole or in part the notarial act for reasons
beyond his control and without negligence on
his part.
Sec. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who
charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a
receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He
shall enter in the journal all fees charged for
services rendered.
A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place
in his office a complete schedule of chargeable
notarial fees.
RULE VI
NOTARIAL REGISTER
Sec. 1. Form of Notarial Register.
(a) A notary public shall keep, 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 register shall be kept in books to be
furnished by the Solicitor General to any
notary public upon request and upon
payment of the cost thereof. The register
shall be duly paged, and on the first page,
the Solicitor General shall certify the
number of pages of which the book
consists.
For
purposes
of
this
provision,
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
or
Understanding may be entered into by the
Office of the Solicitor General and the Office
of the Court Administrator.
(b) A notary/ public shall keep only one active
notarial register at any given time.
Sec. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register.
(a) For every notarial act, the notary shall
record in the notarial register at the time of
notarization the following:
(1) the entry number and page number;
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial
act;
(3) the type of notarial act;
(4) the
title or
description
of
the
instrument, document or proceeding;
(5) the name and address of each
principal;
(6) the competent evidence of identity as
defined by these Rules if the signatory
is not personally known to the notary;

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

138 of 158

(b)
(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(7) the name and address of each credible

witness swearing to or affirming the
person's identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular
place of work or business; and
(10)
any
other
circumstance the notary public may
deem of significance or relevance.
A notary public shall record in the notarial
register the reasons and circumstances for
not completing a notarial act.
A notary public shall record in the notarial
register the circumstances of any request to
inspect or copy an entry in the notarial
register, including the requester's name,
address, signature, thumb mark or other
recognized identifier, and evidence of
identity. The reasons for refusal to allow
inspection or copying of a journal entry
shall also be recorded.
When the instrument or document is a
contract, the notary public shall keep an
original copy thereof as part of his records
and enter in said records a brief description
of the substance thereof and shall give to
each entry a consecutive number, beginning
with number one in each calendar year. He
shall also retain a duplicate original copy for
the Clerk of Court.
The notary public shall give to each
instrument or document executed, sworn
to, or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and
shall also state on the instrument or
document the page/s of his register on
which the same is recorded. No blank line
shall be left between entries.
In case of a protest of any draft, bill of
exchange or promissory note, the notary
public shall make a full and true record of
all proceedings in relation thereto and shall
note therein whether the demand for the
sum of money was made, by whom, when,
and where; whether he presented such
draft, bill or note; whether notices were
given, to whom and in what manner; where
the same was made, when and to whom
and where directed; and of every other fact
touching the same.
At the end of each week, the notary public
shall certify in his notarial register the
number of instruments or documents
executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or
protested before him; or if none, this
certificate shall show this fact.
A certified copy of each month's entries and
a duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public
shall, within the first ten (10) days of the
month following, be forwarded to the Clerk
of Court and shall be under the
responsibility of such officer. If there is no
entry to certify for the month, the notary
shall forward a statement to this effect in
lieu of certified copies herein required.

Sec. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the

time of notarization, the notary's notarial

ONE UP LAW

register shall be signed or a thumb or other

mark affixed by each:
(a) principal;
(b) credible witness swearing or affirming to
the identity of a principal; and
(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other
mark, or to a signing by the notary public
on behalf of a person physically unable to
sign.
Sec. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal.
(a) In the notary's presence, any person may
inspect an entry in the notarial register,
during regular business hours, provided;
(1) the person's identity is personally
known to the notary public or proven
through competent evidence of identity
as defined in these Rules;
(2) the person affixes a signature and
thumb or other mark or other
recognized identifier, in the notarial
.register in a separate, dated entry;
(3) the person specifies the month, year,
type of instrument or document, and
name of the principal in the notarial act
or acts sought; and
(4) the person is shown only the entry or
entries specified by him.
(b) The notarial register may be examined by a
law enforcement officer in the course of an
official investigation or by virtue of a court
order.
(c) If the notary public has a reasonable
ground to believe that a person has a
criminal intent or wrongful motive in
requesting information from the notarial
register, the notary shall deny access to any
entry or entries therein.
Sec. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial
Register.
(a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost,
destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered
unusable or illegible as a record of notarial
acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10)
days after informing the appropriate law
enforcement agency in the case of theft or
vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by
any means providing a proper receipt or
acknowledgment, including registered mail
and also provide a copy or number of any
pertinent police report.
(b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial
commission, or death of the notary public,
the notarial register and notarial records
shall immediately be delivered to the office
of the Executive Judge.
Sec. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The
notary public shall supply a certified true copy
of the notarial record, or any part thereof, to
any person applying for such copy upon
payment of the legal fees.
RULE VII
SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Official Signature. - In notarizing a
paper instrument or document, a notary public
shall:

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

139 of 158

(a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only

the name indicated and as appearing on the
notary's commission;
(b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing
device; and
(c) affix his official signature only at the time
the notarial act is performed.
Sec. 2. Official Seal.
(a) Every person commissioned as notary
public shall have a seal of office, to be
procured at his own expense, which shall
not be possessed or owned by any other
person. It shall be of metal, circular in
shape, two inches in diameter, and shall
have the name of the city or province and
the word "Philippines" and his own name on
the margin and the roll of attorney's
number on the face thereof, with the words
"notary public" across the center. A mark,
image or impression of such seal shall be
made directly on the paper or parchment
on which the writing appears.
(b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the
time the notarial act is performed and shall
be clearly impressed by the notary public
on every page of the instrument or
document notarized.
(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be
kept safe and secure and shall be accessible
only to the notary public or the person duly
authorized by him.
(d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of
a notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or
other otherwise rendered unserviceable in
affixing a legible image, the notary public,
after
informing
the
appropriate
law
enforcement agency, shall notify the
Executive Judge in writing, providing proper
receipt
or acknowledgment,
including
registered mail, and in the event of a crime
committed, provide a copy or entry number
of the appropriate police record. Upon
receipt of such notice, if found in order by
the Executive Judge, the latter shall order
the notary public to cause notice of such
loss or damage to be published, once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city
or province where the notary public is
commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive
Judge shall issue to the notary public a new
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a
Notarial Seal.
(e) Within five (5) days after the death or
resignation of the notary public, or the
revocation or expiration of a notarial
commission, the official seal shall be
surrendered to the Executive Judge and
shall be destroyed or defaced in public
during office hours. In the event that the
missing, lost or damaged seal is later found
or surrendered, it shall be delivered by the
notary public to the Executive Judge to be
disposed of in accordance with this section.
Failure to effect such surrender shall
constitute contempt of court. In the event
of death of the notary public, the person in
possession of the official seal shall have the
duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge.

ONE UP LAW

Sec. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall

affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and
photographically reproducible mark, image or
impression of the official seal beside his
signature on the notarial certificate of a paper
instrument or document.
Sec. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal.
(a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals
may not sell said product without a written
authorization from the Executive Judge.
(b) Upon written application and after payment
of the application fee, the Executive Judge
may issue an authorization to sell to a
vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals
after verification and investigation of the
latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge
shall charge an authorization fee in the
amount of Php 4,000 for the vendor and
Php 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a
manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only
pay the manufacturer's authorization fee.
(c) The authorization shall be in effect for a
period of four (4) years from the date of its
issuance and may be renewed by the
Executive Judge for a similar period upon
payment of the authorization fee mentioned
in the preceding paragraph.
(d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a
seal to a buyer except upon submission of a
certified copy of the commission and the
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a
Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge.
A notary public obtaining a new seal as a
result of change of name shall present to
the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy
of the Confirmation of the Change of Name
issued by the Executive Judge.
(e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or
manufacturer for each Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal,
(f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer
shall affix a mark, image or impression of
the seal to the Certificate of Authorization
to Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the
completed Certificate to the Executive
Judge. Copies of the Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal
and the buyer's commission shall be kept in
the files of the vendor or manufacturer for
four (4) years after the sale.
(g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a
result of change of name shall present to
the vendor a certified copy of the order
confirming the change of name issued by
the Executive Judge.
RULE VIII
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES
Sec. 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The
notarial form used for any notarial instrument
or document shall conform to all the requisites
prescribed herein, the Rules of Court and all
other provisions of issuances by the Supreme
Court and in applicable laws.
Sec. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the
Notarial Certificate. - The notarial certificate
shall include the following:

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

140 of 158

(a) the name of the notary public as exactly

indicated in the commission;
(b) the serial number of the commission of the
notary public;
(c) the words "Notary Public" and the province
or city where the notary public is
commissioned, the expiration date of the
commission, the office address of the
notary public; and
(d) the roll of attorney's number, the
professional tax receipt number and the
place and date of issuance thereof, and the
IBP membership number.
RULE IX
CERTIFICATE
PUBLIC

OF

AUTHORITY OF

NOTARIES

Sec. 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial

Act. - A certificate of authority evidencing the
authenticity of the official seal and signature of
a notary public shall be issued by the Executive
Judge upon request in substantially the
following form:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL
ACT
I, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive
Judge), certify that (name of notary public), the
person named in the seal and signature on the
attached document, is a Notary Public in and for
the (City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic
of the Philippines and authorized to act as such
at the time of the document's notarization.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my
signature and seal of this office this (date) day
of (month) (year).
_________________
(official signature)
(seal of Executive Judge)
RULE X
CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 1. Change of Name and Address.
Within ten (10) days after the change of name
of the notary public by court order or by
marriage, or after ceasing to maintain the
regular place of work or business, the notary
public shall submit a signed and dated notice of
such fact to the Executive Judge.
The notary public shall not notarize until:
(a) he receives from the Executive Judge a
confirmation of the new name of the notary
public and/or change of regular place of
work or business; and
(b) a new seal bearing the new name has been
obtained.
The foregoing notwithstanding, until the
aforementioned steps have been completed, the
notary public may continue to use the former
name or regular place of work or business in
performing notarial acts for three (3) months
from the date of the change, which may be
extended once for valid and just cause by the
Executive Judge for another period not
exceeding three (3) months.
Sec. 2. Resignation. - A notary public may
resign his commission by personally submitting
a written, dated and signed formal notice to the
Executive Judge together with his notarial seal,

ONE UP LAW

notarial register and records. Effective from the

date indicated in the notice, he shall
immediately cease to perform notarial acts. In
the event of his incapacity to personally appear,
the submission of the notice may be performed
by his duly authorized representative.
Sec. 3. Publication of Resignation. - The
Executive Judge shall immediately order the
Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place in
the offices of the Executive Judge and of the
Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who
have resigned their notarial commissions and
the effective dates of their resignation.
RULE XI
REVOCATION
OF
COMMISSION
DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS

AND

Sec.
1.
Revocation
and
Administrative
Sanctions.
(a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be
denied.
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may
revoke the commission of, or impose
appropriate administrative sanctions upon,
any notary public who:
(1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(2) fails to make the proper entry or
entries
in
his
notarial
register
concerning his notarial acts;
(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to
the Executive Judge within the first ten
(10) days of the month following;
(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the
date of expiration of his commission;
(5) fails to submit his notarial register,
when filled, to the Executive Judge;
(6) fails to make his report, within a
reasonable time, to the Executive Judge
concerning the performance of his
duties, as may be required by the
judge;
(7) fails to require the presence of a
principal at the time of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis
of personal knowledge or competent
evidence;
(9) executes
a
false
or
incomplete
certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;
(10)
knowingly performs or fails to
perform any other act prohibited or
mandated by these Rules; and
(11)
commits any other dereliction
or act which in the judgment of the
Executive Judge constitutes good cause
for revocation of commission or
imposition of administrative sanction.
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested,
affected or aggrieved person, the notary
public shall be required to file a verified
answer to the complaint.
If the answer of the notary public is not
satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall
conduct a summary hearing. If the
allegations of the complaint are not proven,
the complaint shall be dismissed. If the
charges are duly established, the Executive
Judge
shall
impose
the
appropriate

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

141 of 158

administrative sanctions. In either case, the

aggrieved party may appeal the decision to
the Supreme Court for review. Pending the
appeal, an order imposing disciplinary
sanctions shall be immediately executory,
unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme
Court.
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio
initiate
administrative
proceedings
against a notary public, subject to the
procedures prescribed in paragraph (c)
above and impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions on the grounds
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs
(a) and (b).
Sec. 2. Supervision and Monitoring of Notaries
Public. - The Executive Judge shall at all times
exercise supervision over notaries public and
shall closely monitor their activities.
Sec. 3. Publication of Revocations and
Administrative Sanctions. - The Executive Judge
shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to
post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the
Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the
names of notaries public who have been
administratively sanctioned or whose notarial
commissions have been revoked.
Sec. 4. Death of Notary Public. - If a notary
public dies before fulfilling the obligations in
Section 4(e), Rule VI and Section 2(e), Rule
VII, the Executive Judge, upon being notified of
such death, shall forthwith cause compliance
with the provisions of these sections.
RULE XII
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge
shall cause the prosecution of any person who:
(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a
notary public;
(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or
destroys the seal, notarial register, or
official records of a notary public; and
(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way
influences a notary public to commit official
misconduct.
Sec. 2. Reports to the Supreme Court. - The
Executive Judge concerned shall submit
semestral reports to the Supreme Court on
discipline and prosecution of notaries public.
RULE XIII
REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONS
Sec. 1. Repeal. - All rules and parts of rules,
including issuances of the Supreme Court
inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed or
accordingly modified.
Sec. 2. Effective Date. - These Rules shall take
effect on the first day of August 2004, and shall
be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines which provides
sufficiently wide circulation.
Promulgated this 6th day of July, 2004.

ONE UP LAW

(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 4-94
TO: COURT OF APPEALS,
SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, THE SOLICITOE
GENERAL, THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL, ALL MEMBERS OF
THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION
SERVICE, AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REQUISITES FOR
CIVIL COMPLAINTS, PETITIONS AND
OTHER INITIATORY PLEADINGS FILED
IN ALL COURTS AND AGENCIES, OTHER
THAN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS, TO PREVENT
FORUM SHOPPING OR MULTIPLE FILING
OF SUCH PLEADINGS.
Revised Circular No. 28-91, dated February
8, 1994, applies to anf governs the filing of
petitions in the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals and is intended to prevent the
multiple filing of petitions or complaints
involving the same issues in other tribunals
or agencies as a form of forum shopping.
Complementary thereto and for the same
purpose, the following requirements, in
addition to those in pertinent provisions of
the Rules of Court and existing circulars,
shall be strictly complied with in the filing of
complaints, petitions, applications or other
initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies
other than the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeals and shall be subject to the
sanctions provided hereunder.
1. The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or
principal party seeking relief in the
complaint, petition, application or other
initiatory pleading shall certify unedr aoth in
such original pleading, or in a sworn
certification
annexed
thereto
and
simultaneously filed therewith, to thr truth of
the following facts and undertakings: (a) he
has not the same issue in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his
knowledge, no such action or proceedings is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (c)
if there is any such action or proceeding
which is either pending or may heve
terminated, he must state the status thereof;
and (d) if he should thereafter learn that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or
agency, he undertakes to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court or
agency wherein the original pleading and
sworn certification contemplated herein have
been filed.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

142 of 158

The complaint and the initiatory pleadings

referred to and the subject of this Circular
are the original civil complaint, counterclaim,
cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party
complaint,
or
complaint-in-intervention,
petition, or applivation wherein a party
asserts his claim for relief.
2. Any violation of this Circular shall be a
cause for the dismissal of the complaint,
petition, application or other initiatory
pleading, upon motion and after hearing.
However, any clearly willful and deliberate
forum shopping by any party and his counsel
through the filing of multiple complaints or
other initiatory pleadings to obtain favorable
action shall be a ground for summary
dismissal thereof and shall cosntitute direct
contempt
of
court.
Furthermore,
the
submission of false certification or noncompliance with the undertakings therein, as
provided in Paragraph 1 hereof, shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to disciplinary proceeding against
the counsel and the filing of a criminal action
against the guilty party.
This Circular shall take effect on April 1,
1994.
February 8, 1994.
(Sgd.) ANDRES R. NARVASA
Chief Justice
(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-96
(Amending Adm. Circular No. 6 dated
October 11, 1988)
TO : ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT
:
CONTINUING
EDUCATION PROGRAM

JUDICIAL

In the interest of the service and in view of

the
growing
complexities
in
the
administration and delivery of justice, the
Immersion
Program
prescribed
under
Administrative Circular No. 6, dated October
11, 1996, is extended from one (1) week to
one (1) month.
November 19, 1996.
(Sgd.)
ANDRES
Chief Justice

R.

NARVASA

B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000

MANDATORY
CONTINUING
LEGAL
EDUCATION (MCLE)
ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR

ONE UP LAW

MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF

THE PHILIPPINES

thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day

after the end of the previous compliance period.

EN BANC
RESOLUTION

Sec. 2. Compliance Group 1. Members in the

National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila
shall be permanently assigned to Compliance
Group 1.

Considering the Rules on Mandatory Continuing

Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the
Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and
passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee
on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves
to adopt, as it hereby adopts, the following
rules for proper implementation:
RULE 1
PURPOSE
Sec. 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal
education is required of members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure
that throughout their career, they keep abreast
with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics
of the profession and enhance the standards of
the practice of law.
RULE 2
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Sec. 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee.
Within two (2) months from the approval of
these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the
MCLE Committee shall be constituted in
accordance with these Rules.
Sec. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE.
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7
shall complete, every three (3) years, at least
thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal
education activities approved by the MCLE
Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a)
At least six (6) hours shall be devoted
to legal ethics.
(b)
At least (4) hours shall be devoted to
trial and pretrial skills.
(c)
At least five (5) hours shall be devoted
to alternative dispute resolution.
(d)
At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted
to updates on substantive and procedural
laws, and jurisprudence.
(e)
At least four (4) hours shall be devoted
to legal writing and oral advocacy.
(f)
At least two (2) hours shall be devoted
to international law and international
conventions.
(g)
The remaining six (6) hours shall be
devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 3
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Sec. 1. Initial compliance period. The initial
compliance period shall begin not later than
three (3) months from the constitution of the
MCLE Committee. Except for the initial
compliance period for members admitted or
readmitted after the establishment of the
program, all compliance periods shall be for

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

143 of 158

Sec. 3. Compliance Group 2. Members in Luzon

outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to
Compliance Group 2.
Sec. 4. Compliance Group 3. Members in
Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently
assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Sec. 5. Compliance period for members
admitted or readmitted after establishment of
the program. Members admitted or readmitted
to the Bar after the establishment of the
program shall be permanently assigned to the
appropriate Compliance Group based on their
Chapter membership on the date of admission
or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or
readmission shall begin on the first day of the
month of admission or readmission and shall
end on the same day as that of all other
members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of
the initial compliance period after admission
or readmission, the member is not required
to comply with the program requirement for
the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain
of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member
shall be required to complete a number of
hours
of
approved
continuing
legal
education activities equal to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period
in which the member is admitted or
readmitted. Such member shall be required
to complete a number of hours of education
in legal ethics in proportion to the number
of months remaining in the compliance
period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded
up to the next whole number.
RULE 4
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS
Sec. 1. Guidelines The following are the
guidelines for computation of credit units (CU):
PROGRAMS; CREDIT UNITS; SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
1.
SEMINARS,
CONVENTIONS,
CONFERENCES,
SYMPOSIA,
IN-HOUSE
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS,
WORKSHOPS,
DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER RULE 7
AND OTHER RELATED RULES
PARTICIPANT
1
CU
PER
HOUR
CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR
PHOTOCOPY
OF
PLAQUE
OR
SPONSOR'S CERTIFICATION
RESOURCE
3
CU
PER
HOUR
PHOTOCOPY
OF
PLAQUE
OR
SPONSOR'S SPEAKER CERTIFICATION

ONE UP LAW

2.

3.

ASSIGNED
2
CU
PER
HOUR
CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING
PENALIST/
ORGANIZATION
REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
MODERATOR/
2
CU
PER
HOUR
CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING
COORDINATOR/
ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY
CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED
INNOVATIVE
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
PROGRAM/CREATIVE PROJECT
BOOK 50-100 PP 101+ PUBLISHED
BOOK SINGLE AUTHOR 12-16 CU 1720 CU
2 AUTHORS 10-12 CU 13-16 CU
3 OR MORE 5-6 CU 7-11 CU
BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF
PUBLISHED
BOOK
WITH
PROOF
AUTHORSHIP AS EDITOR CATEGORY
LEGAL
ARTICLE
5-10
PP
11+
PUBLISHED ARTICLE SINGLE AUTHOR
6 CU 8 CU
2 AUTHORS 4 CU 6 CU
3 OR MORE 2 CU 4 CU
LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL EDITOR
PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR
CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN CHAIR/BAR
1 CU PER LECTURE OR BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW
TEACHING

Sec. 2. Limitation on certain credit units. In

numbers 2 and 3 of the guidelines in the
preceding Section, the total maximum credit
units shall not exceed twenty (20) hours per
three (3) years.
RULE 5
CATEGORIES OF CREDIT
Sec. 1. Classes of credits The credits are either
participatory or non-participatory.
Sec.
2. Claim
for
participatory
credit.
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a)
Attending approved education activities
like seminars, conferences, symposia, inhouse education programs, workshops,
dialogues or round table discussions.
(b)
Speaking or lecturing, or acting as
assigned panelist, reactor, commentator,
resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or
facilitator in approved education activities.
(c)
Teaching in a law school or lecturing in
a bar review class.
Sec. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit Nonparticipatory credit may be claimed per
compliance period for:
(a)
Preparing, as an author or co-author,
written materials published or accepted for
publication, e.g., in the form of an article,
chapter, book, or book review which
contribute to the legal education of the
author member, which were not prepared in
the ordinary course of the member's
practice or employment.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

144 of 158

(b)

Editing a law book, law journal or legal

newsletter.

RULE 6
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS
Sec. 1. Computation of credit hours. Credit
hours are computed based on actual time spent
in an activity (actual instruction or speaking
time), in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour.
RULE 7
EXEMPTIONS
Sec. 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. The
following members of the Bar are exempt from
the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the
Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries
of
Executives
Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired
members of the judiciary, incumbent
members of the Judicial and Bar Council,
incumbent members of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Committee,
incumbent court lawyers who have availed
of the Philippine Judicial Academy program
of continuing judicial education; (as
amended by July 14, 2004 Resolution of the
SC en banc)
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State
Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant
Solicitor General;
(f) The
Government
Corporate
Counsel,
Deputy
and
Assistant
Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and
the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising
quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent
deans,
bar
reviews
and
professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least 10 years accredited
law schools;
(k) The
Chancellor,
Vice-Chancellor
and
members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lectures of the Philippine
Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
Sec. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE.
The following Members of the Bar are likewise
exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private
or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice
with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors.
Sec. 3. Good cause for exemption from or
modification of requirement. A member may file

ONE UP LAW

a verified request setting forth good cause for

exemption (such as physical disability, illness,
post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in
law, etc.) from compliance with or modification
of any of the requirements, including an
extension of time for compliance, in accordance
with a procedure to be established by the MCLE
Committee.
Sec. 4. Change of status. The compliance period
shall begin on the first day of the month in
which a member ceases to be exempt under
Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on
the same day as that of all other members in
the same Compliance Group.

provider for a term of two (2) years, which may

be renewed, upon written application. All
providers
of
continuing
legal
education
activities, including in-house providers, are
eligible to be approved providers. Application
for approval shall:
(a)
Be submitted on a form provided by the
IBP;
(b)
Contain all information requested on
the form;
(c)
Be accompanied by the approval fee;

Sec 1. Approval of providers. Approval of

providers shall be done by the MCLE
Committee.

Sec. 3. Requirements of all providers. All

approved providers shall agree to the following:
(a)
An
official
record
verifying
the
attendance at the activity shall be
maintained by the provider for at least four
(4) years after the completion date. The
provider shall include the member on the
official record of attendance only if the
member's signature was obtained at the
time of attendance at the activity. The
official record of attendance shall contain
the member's name and number in the Roll
of Attorneys and shall identify the time,
date, location, subject matter, and length of
the education activity. A copy of such
record shall be furnished the IBP.
(b)
The provider shall certify that:
(1)
This
activity
has
been
approved for MCLE by the IBP in the
amount of ________ hours of which
hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.),
as appropriate to the content of the
activity;
(2)
The activity conforms to the
standards for approved education
activities prescribed by these Rules and
such regulations as may be prescribed
by the IBP pertaining to MCLE.
(c)
The provider shall issue a record or
certificate to all participants identifying the
time, date, location, subject matter and
length of the activity.
(d)
The provider shall allow in-person
observation of all approved continuing legal
education activities by members of the IBP
Board of Governors, the MCLE Committee,
or designees of the Committee and IBP
staff for purposes of monitoring compliance
with these Rules.
(e)
The
provider
shall
indicate
in
promotional materials, the nature of the
activity, the time devoted to each devoted
to each topic and identify of the instructors.
The provider shall make available to each
participant
a
copy
of
IBP-approved
Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f)
The provider shall maintain the
completed Education Activity Evaluation
Forms for a period of not less than one (1)
year after the activity, copy furnished the
IBP.
(g)
Any person or group who conducts an
unauthorized activity under this program or
issues a spurious certificate in violation of
these Rules shall be subject to appropriate
sanctions.

Sec. 2. Requirements for approval of providers.

Any persons or group may be approved as a

Sec. 4. Renewal of provider approval. The

approval of a provider may be renewed every

Sec. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for

exemption from or modification of the MCLE
requirement shall be under oath and supported
by documents.
RULE 8
STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF EDUCATION
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to
the rules as may be adopted by the MCLE
Committee, continuing legal education program
may be granted approval in either of two (2)
ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an
approved provider and certifies that the activity
meets the criteria of Section 3 of this Rules;
and (2) the provider is specially mandated by
law to provide continuing legal education.
Sec. 2. Standards for all education activities. All
continuing legal education activities must meet
the following standards:
(a)
The activity shall have significant
current intellectual or practical content.
(b)
The
activity
shall
constitute
an
organized program of learning related to
legal subjects and the legal profession,
including cross profession activities (e.g.,
accounting-tax
or
medical-legal)
that
enhance legal skills or the ability to practice
law, as well as subjects in legal writing and
oral advocacy.
(c)
The activity shall be conducted by a
provider
with
adequate
professional
experience.
(d)
Where the activity is more than one (1)
hour
in
length,
substantive
written
materials must be distributed to all
participants. Such materials must be
distributed at or before the time the activity
is offered.
(e)
In-house education activities must be
scheduled at a time and location so as to be
free from interruption like telephone calls
and other distractions.
RULE 9
APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

145 of 158

ONE UP LAW

two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider

fails to comply with any of the requirements of
these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory
education activities for the preceding period.
Sec. 5. Revocation of provider approval. The
approval of any provider referred to in Rule 9
may be revoked by a majority vote of the IBP
Board of Governors, upon recommendation of
the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing
and for good cause.
RULE 10
ACTIVITY AND PROVIDER APPROVAL FEE
Sec. 1. Payment of fees. Application for
approval of an education activity or as a
provider requires payment of an appropriate
fee.
RULE 11
GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 1. Compliance card. Each member shall
secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance
Card before the end of his compliance period.
He shall complete the card by attesting under
oath that he has complied with the education
requirement or that he is exempt, specifying
the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance
Card must be returned to the address indicated
therein not later than the day after the end of
the member's compliance period.
Sec. 2. Member record keeping requirement.
Each member shall maintain sufficient record of
compliance or exemption, copy furnished the
MCLE Committee. The record required to be
provided to the members by the provider
pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 9 should be
sufficient record of attendance at a participatory
activity. A record of non-participatory activity
shall also be maintained by the member, as
referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
RULE 12
NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The
following shall constitute non-compliance
(a)
Failure to complete the education
requirement within the compliance period;
(b)
Failure to provide attestation of
compliance or exemption;
(c)
Failure to provide satisfactory evidence
of compliance (including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed
period;
(d)
Failure
to
satisfy
the
education
requirement and furnish evidence of such
compliance within sixty (60) days from
receipt of a non-compliance notice;
(e)
Any other act or omission analogous to
any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the
MCLE requirements.
Sec. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day
period to attain compliance. A member failing to
comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice
stating the specific deficiency and will be given

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

146 of 158

sixty (60) days from the date of notification to

explain the deficiency or otherwise show
compliance with the requirements. Such notice
shall contain, among other things, the following
language in capital letters:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE
60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE),
SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING AS A
DELINQUENT MEMBER.
The Member may use this period to attain the
adequate
number
of
credit
hours
for
compliance. Credit hours earned during this
period may only be counted toward compliance
with the prior compliance period requirement
unless hours in excess of the requirement are
earned, in which case, the excess hours may be
counted toward meeting the current compliance
period requirement.
RULE 13
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Sec. 1. Non-compliance fee. A member who, for
whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the
end of the compliance period shall pay a noncompliance fee.
Sec. 2. Listing as delinquent member. Any
member who fails to satisfactorily comply with
Section 2 of Rule 12 shall be listed as a
delinquent member by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the
MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A of
the Rules of Court shall apply.
RULE 14
REINSTATEMENT
Sec. 1. Process. The involuntary listing as a
delinquent member shall be terminated when
the member provides proof of compliance with
the MCLE requirement, including payment of
non-compliance fee. A member may attain the
necessary credit hours to meet the requirement
for the period of non-compliance during the
period the member is on inactive status. These
credit hours may not be counted toward
meeting
the
current
compliance
period
requirement. Credit hours attained during the
period of non-compliance in excess of the
number needed to satisfy the prior compliance
period requirement may be counted toward
meeting
the
current
compliance
period
requirement.
Sec. 2. Termination of delinquent listing
administrative process. The termination of
listing as a delinquent member is administrative
in nature but it shall be made with notice and
hearing by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 15
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
COMMITTEE
Sec 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall
be composed of five (5) members, namely: a
retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as Chair,

ONE UP LAW

and four (4) members, respectively, nominated

by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a
law center designated by the Supreme Court
and associations of law schools and/or law
professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of
proven probity and integrity. They shall be
appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of
three (3) years and shall receive such
compensation as may be determined by the
Court.
Sec. 2. Duty of the Committee. The MCLE
Committee shall administer and adopt such
implementing rules as may be necessary
subject to the approval by the Supreme Court.
It shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of
Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees
with the approval of the Supreme Court.
Sec. 3. Staff of the IBP. The IBP shall employ
such staff as may be necessary to perform the
record-keeping, auditing, reporting, approval
and other necessary functions.
Sec. 4. Submission of annual budget. The IBP
shall submit to the Supreme Court an annual
budget for a subsidy to establish, operate and
maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect in October
2000, following its publication in two (2)
newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000.

ANNEXED
LEGISLATIVE AND
EXECUTIVE
ISSUANCES
R.A. 6033 (1969)

AN

ACT

REQUIRING

COURTS

TO

GIVE

THE PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVE ARE

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

147 of 158

Sec. 2. As used in this Act, the term "indigent"

shall refer to a person who has no visible means
of income or whose income is insufficient for
the subsistence of his family, to be determined
by the fiscal or judge, taking into account the
members of his family dependent upon him for
subsistence.
Sec. 3. An indigent who is the offended party,
respondent or an accused in a criminal case and
who desires to avail of the preference granted
under this Act shall file a sworn statement of
the fact of his being indigent and the said sworn
statement shall be sufficient basis for the court
or fiscal to give preference to the trial and
disposition of such criminal case.
Sec. 4. Any willful or malicious refusal on the
part of any fiscal or judge to carry out the
provisions of this Act shall constitute sufficient
ground for disciplinary action which may include
suspension or removal.

Sec. 5. This Act shall take effect upon its

approval.
Approved: August 4, 1969

RA 6034 (1969)

PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES WHERE

INDIGENTS.

Sec. 1. Any provision of existing law to be

contrary notwithstanding and with the exception
of habeas corpus and election cases and cases
involving detention prisoners, and persons
covered by Republic Act Numbered Four
thousand nine hundred eight, all courts shall
give preference to the hearing and/or
disposition of criminal cases where an indigent
is involved either as the offended party or
accused. The trial in these cases shall
commence within three days from date of
arraignment and no postponement of the
hearings shall be granted except on the ground
of illness of the accused or other similar
justifiable grounds. City and provincial fiscals
and courts shall forthwith conduct the
preliminary investigation of a criminal case
involving an indigent within three days after its
filing and shall terminate the same within two
weeks.

AN ACT PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION AND

OTHER
ALLOWANCES
FOR
INDIGENT
LITIGANTS.
Sec. 1. Any provision of existing law to the
contrary notwithstanding, any indigent litigant
may, upon motion, ask the Court for adequate
travel allowance to enable him and his indigent
witnesses to attendant the hearing of a criminal
case commenced by his complaint or filed
against him. The allowance shall cover actual

ONE UP LAW

transportation expenses by the cheapest means

from his place of residence to the court and
back. When the hearing of the case requires the
presence of the indigent litigant and/or his
indigent witnesses in court the whole day or for
two or more consecutive days, allowances may,
in the discretion of the Court, also cover
reasonable expenses for meal and lodging.
For the purpose of this Act, indigent litigants
shall include anyone who has no visible means
of income or whose income is insufficient for his
family as determined by the Court under
Section 2, hereof.
Sec. 2. If the court determines that the petition
for transportation allowance is meritorious, said
court shall immediately issue an order directing
the provincial, city or municipal treasurer to pay
the indigent litigant the travel allowance out of
any funds in his possession and proceed without
delay to the trial of the case. The provincial, city
or municipal treasurer shall hold any such
payments as cash items until reimbursed by the
national government.
Sec. 3. All payments of travel allowances made
by provincial, city and municipal treasurer
under this Act as of October 31 each year, shall
be transmitted to the Commissioner of the
Budget not later than November 30 each year
for
inclusion
in
the
annual
General
Appropriations Act. The necessary sum is
hereby authorized to be appropriated out of the
funds in the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its
approval.
Approved: August 4, 1969

RA 6035 (1969)

AN ACT REQUIRING STENOGRAPHERS TO

GIVE FREE TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES TO
INDIGENT AND LOW INCOME LITIGANTS
AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE
VIOLATION THEREOF.
Sec. 1. A stenographer who has attended a
hearing before an investigating fiscal or trial
judge or hearing commissioner of any quasijudicial body or administrative tribunal and has
officially taken notes of the proceeding thereof
shall, upon written request of an indigent or low
income litigant, his counsel or duly authorized
representative in the case concerned, give
within a reasonable period to be determined by
the fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal
hearing the case, a free certified transcript of
notes take by him on the case.
Sec. 2. A litigant who desires to avail himself of
the privilege granted under Section one hereof
shall, at the investigation, hearing, or trial,
establish his status as an indigent or low

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

148 of 158

income litigant and the investigating fiscal or

judge or commissioner or tribunal hearing the
case shall resolve the same in the same
proceeding.
For the purpose of this Act, an "indigent or low
income litigant" shall include anyone who has
no visible means of support or whose income
does not exceed P300 per month or whose
income even in excess of P300 per month is
insufficient for the subsistence of his family,
which fact shall be determined by the
investigating
fiscal
or
trial
judge
or
commissioner or tribunal hearing the case
taking into account the number of the members
of his family dependent upon him for
subsistence.
Sec. 3. Any stenographer who, after due
hearing in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of R.A. 2260, as amended, has been
found to have violated the provisions of Section
one of this Act or has unreasonable delayed the
giving of a free certified transcript of notes to
an indigent or low income litigant shall be
subject to the following disciplinary actions:
b.
suspension from office for a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days upon
finding of guilt for the first time;
c.
(b) suspension from office for
not less than thirty (30) days and not more
than sixty (60) days upon finding of guilt
for the second time; and
d.
removal from office upon
finding of guilt for the third time.
Sec. 4. This Act shall apply to all indigent or low
income litigants who, at the time of its
approval, have pending cases in any fiscal
office, court, or quasi-judicial body or
administrative tribunal.
Sec. 5. The Department of Justice shall
prescribe such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act,
and the Department Head concerned shall
provide the necessary supplies and authorize
the use of government equipment by the
stenographers concerned.
Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its
approval.
Approved: August 4, 1969.

P.D. 543 (1974)

AUTHORIZING THE DESIGNATION OF

MUNICIPAL JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN ANY
BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
TO ACT AS COUNSEL DE OFICIO FOR THE
ACCUSED WHO ARE INDIGENT IN PLACES
WHERE
THERE
ARE
NO
AVAILABLE
PRACTICING ATTORNEYS

ONE UP LAW

WHEREAS, under existing law, Municipal Judges

and other lawyers in the government service
are prohibited from practicing law;
WHEREAS, there are some places where there
are no available legal practitioners, as a result
of which the trial of cases in court is delayed to
the
prejudice
particularly
of
detention
prisoners;
WHEREAS, for the protection of the rights of the
accused who cannot afford to hire lawyers from
other places and to prevent miscarriage of
justice, it is necessary that they be provided
with counsel;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers in me vested by the Constitution as
commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No.
1081, dated September 21, 1972, and General
Order No. 1, dated September 22, 1972, as
amended, do hereby order and decree as
follows:
Sec. 1. Designation of Municipal Judges and
lawyers in any branch of the government
service, as counsel de oficio. In places where
there are no available practicing lawyers, the
District Judge or Circuit Criminal Court Judge
shall designate a municipal judge or a lawyer
employed in any branch, subdivision or
instrumentality of the government within the
province, as counsel de oficio for an indigent
person who is facing a criminal charge before
his court, and the services of such counsel de
oficio shall be duly compensated by the
Government in accordance with Section thirtytwo, Rule One Hundred Thirty Eight of the Rules
of Court.
If the criminal case wherein the services of a
counsel de oficio are needed is pending before a
City or municipal court, the city or municipal
judge concerned shall immediately recommend
to the nearest District Judge the appointment of
a counsel de oficio, and the District Judge shall
forthwith appoint one in accordance with the
preceding paragraph.
For purposes of this Decree an indigent person
is anyone who has no visible means of support
or whose income does not exceed P300 per
month or whose income even in excess of P300
is insufficient for the subsistence of his family,
which fact shall be determined by the Judge in
whose court the case is pending, taking into
account the number of the members of his
family dependent upon him for subsistence.
Sec. 2. Repealing Clause. All laws and decrees
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby
repealed.
Section 3. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 21st day of
August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-four.

P.D. 1829. (1981)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

149 of 158

PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION

AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to
proliferate despite the sustained vigorous
efforts of the government to effectively contain
them;
WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or
apathy
towards
the
apprehension
and
prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary
to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or
tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful
apprehension and prosecution of criminal
offenders;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by law do hereby decree
and order the following:
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in
its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases by committing
any of the following acts:
(a)
preventing witnesses from testifying in
any criminal proceeding or from reporting
the commission of any offense or the
identity of any offender/s by means of
bribery,
misrepresentation,
deceit,
intimidation, force or threats;
(b)
altering, destroying, suppressing or
concealing any paper, record, document, or
object, with intent to impair its verity,
authenticity,
legibility,
availability,
or
admissibility
as
evidence
in
any
investigation of or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
(c)
harboring or concealing, or facilitating
the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect,
has committed any offense under existing
penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
(d)
publicly using a fictitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime, evading
prosecution or the execution of a judgment,
or concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
(e)
delaying the prosecution of criminal
cases by obstructing the service of process
or court orders or disturbing proceedings in
the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
courts;
(f)
making, presenting or using any
record, document, paper or object with
knowledge of its falsity and with intent to
affect the course or outcome of the
investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
(g)
soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to
accept any benefit in consideration of

ONE UP LAW

abstaining from, discounting, or impeding

the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h)
threatening
directly
or
indirectly
another with the infliction of any wrong
upon his person, honor or property or that
of any immediate member or members of
his family in order to prevent such person
from appearing in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or
imposing a condition, whether lawful or
unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i)
giving of false or fabricated information
to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the
data
gathered
in
confidence
by
investigating authorities for purposes of
background information and not for
publication and publishing or disseminating
the same to mislead the investigator or to
the court.
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized
by any other law with a higher penalty, the
higher penalty shall be imposed.
Sec. 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed
by a public official or employee, he shall in
addition to the penalties provided thereunder,
suffer perpetual disqualification from holding
public office.
Sec. 3. This
immediately.

Decree

shall

take

effect

Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of

January, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and eighty-one.

(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)

RECENT
ETHICS

DEVELOPMENT

I.
CODE
OF
RESPONSIBILITY

IN

LEGAL

PROFESSIONAL

A. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) states, A lawyer shall
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.
Rule 1.01 under this Canon
prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct from members of the legal
profession.
In Quijano v. Bartolabac and Quimpo (Adm.
Case No. 5649, January 27, 2006), it was
held that respondent lawyers who are labor
arbiter and commissioner, do not have
latitude to depart from the Courts previous
ruling that the complainant must be
reinstated to his former position as
warehouseman. It was emphasized that the

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

150 of 158

implementation of final
decision is mandatory.

and

executory

The case of Soriano v. Dizon (A.C. No. 6792,

January 25, 2006) also demonstrates
application of this rule. In this case, Atty.
Dizon was disbarred when he was found to
have violated Canon 1 of the CPR through his
illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm
and his refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.
Mondejar v. Rubia (A.C. Nos. 5907 and 5942,
July 21, 2006) shows not only a violation of
Canon 1, but also a violation of the 2004
Rules of Notarial Practice. In the decision it
was stated that a graver responsibility is
placed upon lawyers commissioned as
notaries public by reason of their solemn
oath to obey the laws, do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any, and to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangement,
and other duties and responsibilities.
Canon 1 must be read in relation to Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which
cites grossly immoral conduct as a ground for
disbarment. This was discussed in the case
of St. Louis University Laboratory High
School Faculty and Staff v. dela Cruz (A.C.
No. 6010, August 28, 2006).
Immoral
conduct has been defined as that which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
the good and respectable members of the
community. On the other hand, to be grossly
immoral, it must be so corrupt and false as
to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree. In
the case, it was ruled that the acts of the
respondent constitutes immoral conduct, but
not so gross as to warrant disbarment.
Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of the CPR prohibits
employment after government service. 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.
The disbarment case Lim-Santiago v.
Sagucio (A.C. No. 6705, March 2006) is a
case where Atty. Sagucio was suspended for
six months for violation of Canon 1. He also
admitted that he rendered legal services to
complainant Lim-Santiago while working as a
government prosecutor.
Canon 6 also means that lawyers in
government service are under an even
greater obligation to observe the basic tenets
of legal profession because public office is a
public trust. This was stated in Pimentel v.
Fabros and Paas (A.C. No. 4517, September
11, 2006).
It was a disbarment case
against Attys. Fabros and Paas in relation to
the discharge of their duties as chairman and

ONE UP LAW

vice chairman, respectively, of the provincial

board of canvassers.
The case Soriano v. Reyes (A.C. No. 4676,
May 4, 2006) discussed the nature of
suspension and disbarment cases which,
according to the ruling, may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainant. It further stated that A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is
not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent
lawyer is a defendant.
Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance. They
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare.
B.
THE LAWYER
PROFESSION

AND

THE

LEGAL

Canon 7 of the CPR, particularly Rule 7.03,

prohibits conduct adversely affecting the
legal profession.
In PAGCOR v. Carandang (A.C. No. 5700,
January 30, 2006), the lawyer was held to
have violated this rule when he issued 24
checks which were subsequently dishonored
by the bank.
Also relevant is the case Ramientas v. Reyala
(A.C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006), which
stated the guidelines to be observed by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines in respect of
disciplinary cases against lawyers:
1.
The IBP must first
afford a chance to either
party to file a motion for
reconsideration of the IBP
resolution
containing
its
findings
and
recommendations
within
fifteen (15) days from notice
of receipt by the parties
thereon;
2.
If
a
motion
for
reconsideration
has
been
timely filed by an aggrieved
party, the IBP must first
resolve the same prior to
elevating to this Court the
subject resolution together
with the whole record of the
case;
3.
If no motion for
reconsideration
has
been
filed
within
the
period
provided for, the IBP is
directed to forthwith transmit
to this Court, for final action,
the
subject
resolution
together with the whole
record of the case;

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

151 of 158

4.
A party desiring to
appeal from the resolution of
the IBP may file a petition for
review before this Court
within fifteen (15) days from
notice of said resolution
sought to be reviewed; and
5.
For records of cases
already transmitted to this
Court where there exist
pending
motions
for
reconsideration filed in due
time before the IBP, the
latter is directed to withdraw
from this Court the subject
resolutions together with the
whole records of the cases,
within 30 days from notice,
and, thereafter, to act on
said motions with reasonable
dispatch.
Canon 9 prohibits lawyers from assisting in
the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 9.02
prohibits dividing or stipulating to divide legal
fees with persons unauthorized to practice
law, except in some cases. This was shown
in the case Lijauco v. Terrado (A.C. No.
6317, August 31, 2006), where Atty.
Terrado was suspended for violation of this
Canon and other related Canons as well.
C. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
Canon 12 of the CPR mandates all members
of the legal profession to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice, in
relation to Rule 138, Section 20(g) of the
Rules of Court and Article III, Section 16 of
our Constitution. In line with this, the Court
has time and again ruled against the practice
of forum-shopping.
In the case PAL v. FASAP (G.R. No. 143088,
January 24, 2006), when the petitioners
filed their petition with the Court of Appeals,
it was accompanied by a Certification of nonforum shopping, which, however, lacked
proof that the two affiants had authority to
sign. As a result, the case was dismissed. It
was ruled that only individuals with authority
by a valid board resolution may sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of
a corporation. Proof of this authority must
also be attached. It was also stated that
subsequent compliance with the requirement
of proof of authority may be accepted
provided that at the time of the execution of
the certification of non-forum shopping, the
individuals were in fact authorized. However,
this is not what happened in the cases
because at the time of signing, the affiants
were not duly authorized by the Board of
Directors.
In another case, Foronda v. Guerrero (A.C.
No. 5469, January 27, 2006), the Court

ONE UP LAW

found Atty. Guerrero guilty of forum

shopping, but later on granted his ex-parte
plea for clemency, believing that Atty.
Guerrero has realized the gravity of his
actuations.
D. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
Canon 15 reminds lawyers to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in their dealings. Rules
15.01 and 15.03 warns lawyers against
instances where conflict of interest is
present.
In Gonzales v. Cabucana (A.C. No. 6836,
January 23, 2006), it was held that one of
the tests of inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty.
Another case worth mentioning is LimSantiago v. Sagucio (supra), where the
lawyer was alleged to have represented
conflicting interests.
It was held that a
government lawyer is also bound by the rule
against representing conflicting interests,
subject to limitations, such as when a written
consent of all parties is given after full
disclosure of facts or when no true attorneyclient relationship exists. In that case, there
was no conflict of interest when the lawyer
handled the preliminary investigation of the
criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees.
The issue is about non-payment of wages
from 1996-1997, when respondent was no
longer connected with Taggat. He also did
not use any confidential information which he
acquired through his previous employment
with the said company. The lawyer was thus
exonerated from charges of violating Canon
15 of the CPR.
Canon 17 reads: A lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him.
In a 2004 case, Suspension from the Practice
of Law In The Territory of Guam of Atty.
Leon G. Maquera (B.M. No. 793, July 30,
2004), the Court was confronted with the
question of whether or not a member of the
Philippine Bar, who is concomitantly an
attorney in a foreign jurisdiction and who
was suspended in said jurisdiction, can be
sanctioned as member of Philippine Bar for
the same infraction committed in the foreign
jurisdiction. This case was taken one notch
higher in the 2006 case Velez v. de Vera
(A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006).
The
difference lies in the fact that unlike the
Maquera case, there was no final judgment
against
Atty.
de
Vera
despite
a

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

152 of 158

recommendation of suspension as he
surrendered his license before his case could
be taken up by the Supreme Court of
California. Our Supreme Court ruled:
In herein case, considering
that there is technically no
foreign judgment to speak
of, the recommendation by
the hearing officer of the
State Bar of California does
not constitute prima facie
evidence
of
unethical
behavior by Atty. de Vera.
Complainant must prove by
substantial evidence the facts
upon
which
the
recommendation
by
the
hearing officer was based. If
he is successful in this, he
must then prove that these
acts are likewise unethical
under Philippine law.
Canon 18, on the other hand, deals with the
lawyers competence and diligence.
It
requires adequate preparation in every case
and tells that lawyers should not neglect
legal matters entrusted to them.
This Canon, together with Canon 17, was
held to have been violated in the case
Somosot v. Pontevedra (A.C. No. 4285, May
2, 2006). In the decision, it was affirmed
that the respondent failed to exercise the
required degree of diligence.
While it was impossible for
him
to
prepare
a
memorandum without the
transcripts of stenographic
notes and his case folder,
and while respondent may
have
been
constrained
simply to enter into an
agreement with the opposing
counsel to submit the case
for
decision
without
memorandum,
respondent
failed to inform the trial court
of said agreement.
He
should
have
filed
a
manifestation before the trial
court informing it of the
agreement instead of leaving
the trial court waiting and
wondering
whether
said
memoranda will be filed at
all.
His omission not only
gave
complainant
much
anxiety, it also needlessly
compounded the long delay
in the resolution of the 23year-old
case.
Worse,
respondent did not inform
complainant that the case
had been submitted for

ONE UP LAW

decision
without
memorandum
despite
complainants
repeated
requests
for
information
regarding the status of her
case.
Also, in Dalisay v. Mauricio (A.C. No. 5655,
January 23, 2006), it was stated that no
lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to
become his client.
He has the right to
decline employment. But once he accepts
money from a client, an attorney-client
relationship is established, and the lawyer
becomes responsible for his client.
II.
THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL
COINDUCT
FOR
THE
PHILIPPINE
JUDICIARY
Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
puts emphasis on propriety and the
appearance of propriety in all activities of a
judge.
Abadesco v. Rafer (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1622,
January
27,
2006)
differentiated
impropriety from misconduct. It explained
that
misconduct
affects
an
officers
performance of duties and not his character
as an individual. To merit disciplinary action,
the conduct must be related to the
performance of the judges judicial duties.
The requirement of propriety is also violated
by demanding and receiving money from a
litigant in consideration of a favorable
judgment, as shown in Rafols v. Dizon (A.M.
No. RTJ-98-1426, January 31, 2006)

but merely suggested the benefits of reading

the Bible. Also, there was no compulsion
involved whenever the judge questioned his
litigants. It was also considered that even
some of these litigants appreciated the
judges practice of reading verses from the
Bible.
Canon 6, on the other hand, focuses on
competence
and
diligence,
particularly
performing judicial duties efficiently, fairly
and promptly.
In OCA v. Gaudiel (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1825),
the Court said that the Judge cannot blame
the Court for refusing to extend his service
beyond the compulsory retirement age as
prescribed by the Constitution. It also said
that failing health, heavy caseload and lack
of research materials serve only to mitigate
the penalty.
And in OCA v. Alumbres (A.M. No. RTJ-051965, January 23, 2006), it was held that
even if the judge was suffering from failing
health, it was still incumbent upon him to
inform the Court of his inability to seasonably
decide the cases assigned.
However, not all delays can be considered as
violation of the rule on promptness in
decision-making, as shown in Avilla v. Reyes
(A.M. No. 01-34-CA-J, January 23, 2006).
In the determination of whether or not that
right has been violated, the factors that may
be considered and balanced are the length of
delay, the reasons for such delay, the
assertion or failure to assert such right by
the accused, and the prejudice caused by the
delay.

Section 6 under the same Canon recognizes

the fact that judges are also entitled to
freedom of belief, as shown by Re:
Application for Optional Retirement under RA
910 of Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion (A.M.
No. 10425-Ret., April 26, 2006). In that
case, the complainants questioned the
Judges alleged reluctance to grant petitions
for the declaration of nullity of marriage
despite their alleged merit. It was said that
the Judge made complainants read and
interpret verses from the Bible, and
castigated them for failure to give the
interpretation that he wanted. The Court
said that even if they preferred that the
Judge refrain from this practice of reading
Bible verses, it also said that the same was
an exercise of the Judges religious freedom.
Canon 5 talks about equality; and Section 1
of the same directs judges to be aware of
diversity and differences arising from various
sources such as religion. In the Veneracion
case (supra), the judge was held not to have
violated this provision because he did not
impose his religious convictions on others,

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

153 of 158

ONE UP LAW

law or fact which might otherwise escape its

notice and in regard to which it might go wrong.
An amicus curiae appears in court not
to represent any particular party but only to
assist the court. (1993, 1996, 1998 BAR
EXAMS)
AMICUS CURIAE PAR EXCELLENCE
Bar associations who appear in court as
amici curiae or friends of the court. Acts merely
as a consultant to guide the court in a doubtful
question or issue pending before it.
APPEARANCE
The coming into court as a party either
as a plaintiff or as a defendant and asking relief
therefrom.
a) GENERAL APPEARANCE
When the party comes to court either
as a plaintiff or as a defendant and seeks
general reliefs from the court for
satisfaction of his claims or counterclaims
respectively.

(TERE PLS FORMAT heading)

GLOSSARY OF
TERMS
ADMONITION
A form of disciplinary measure which
consists of a gentle or friendly reproof, mild
rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on a
fault, error or oversight; an expression of
authoritative advice.
AMBULANCE CHASER
A lawyer who haunts hospitals and
visits the homes of the afflicted, officiously
intruding their presence and persistently
offering his service on the basis of a contingent.
AMBULANCE CHASING
A lawyers act of chasing the victims of
an accident for the purpose of talking to the
same victim or the latters relatives and offering
his legal services for the filing of the case
against the person who caused the accident.
(1993 BAR EXAMS)
AMICUS CURIAE
(Plural: Amici Curiae)
An experienced and impartial attorney
invited by the court to appear and help in the
disposition of the issues submitted to it. It
implies friendly intervention of counsel to call
the attention of the court to some matters of

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

154 of 158

b) SPECIAL APPEARANCE
When a defendant appears in court
solely for the purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person.
The aim is simply the dismissal of the
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
If the defendant seeks other reliefs, the
appearance, even if qualified by the word
special, is equivalent to a general
appearance.
ATTORNEY AD HOC
A person named appointed by the court
to defend an absentee defendant in the suit in
which the appointment is made.
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
That class of persons who are licensed
officers of the courts empowered to appear,
prosecute and defend, and upon whom peculiar
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
developed by law as a consequence.
ATTORNEY IN FACT
He is simply an agent whose authority
is strictly limited by the instrument appointing
him. His authority is provided in a special power
of attorney or general power of attorney or
letter of attorney. He is not necessarily a lawyer.
ATTORNEY OF RECORD
The attorney whose name is entered in
the records of an action or suit as the lawyer of
a designated party thereto. (1999 BAR
EXAMS)
ATTORNEYS FEES
a) Ordinary: an attorneys fee is the
reasonable compensation paid to a
lawyer for the legal services he has
rendered to client. Basis is employment
by client
b) Extraordinary: an attorneys fee is an
indemnity for damages ordered by

ONE UP LAW

court to be paid by losing party to the

prevailing party in litigation; payable
not to lawyer but to the client, unless
otherwise agreed upon; also known as
attorneys fee as damages
BAR AND BENCH
Bar refers to the whole body of
attorneys and counselors collectively, the
members of the legal profession.
Bench denotes the whole body of
judges.
BAR ASSOCIATION
An association of members of the legal
profession like the IBP where membership is
integrated or compulsory.
BARRATRY
Offense of frequently inciting and
stirring up quarrels and suits. The lawyers acts
of fomenting suits among individuals and
offering legal services to one of them. (1993
BAR EXAMS)
CENSURE
Official reprimand
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT
One where the lawyer agrees to
conduct the litigation on his own account and to
pay the expenses thereof, and to receive as his
fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment.
It is contrary to public policy and invalid
because it violates the fiduciary relationship
between the lawyer and his client. (Bautista vs.
Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151, 1990) (1990, 2000
BAR EXAMS)
CHAMPERTY
A bargain by a stranger (the lawyer)
with a party to a suit (the client) by which such
third person undertakes to carry on the
litigation at his own expense and risk, in
consideration of receiving, if successful, a part
of the proceeds or subject sought to be
recovered.
CHARGING LIEN
It is an equitable right to have the fees
and lawful disbursements due a lawyer for his
services in a suit secured to him out of the
judgment for the payment of money and
execution issued in pursuance thereof in the
particular suit. (1994 BAR EXAMS)
CLIENT

One who engages the services of a

lawyer for legal advice or for purposes of
prosecuting or defending a suit in his behalf and
usually for a fee.
COMPETENCE
Sufficiency of lawyers qualifications to
deal with the matter in question and includes
knowledge and skill and the ability to use them
effectively in the interest of the client.
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Refers to information transmitted by
voluntary act of disclosure between attorney

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

155 of 158

and client in confidence and by means which so

far as the client is aware, discloses the
information to no third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the transmission of
the information or the accomplishment of the
purpose for which it was given.
CONTINGENT FEE
Fee that is conditioned on the securing
of a favorable judgment and recovery of money
or property and the amount of which may be on
a percentage basis
CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACT
It is an agreement in which the
lawyers fee, usually a fixed percentage of what
may be recovered in the action, is made to
depend upon the success in the effort to
enforce or defend the clients right. It is a valid
agreement. It is different from a champertous
contract in that the lawyer does not undertake
to shoulder the expenses of the litigation.
(1990, 2000, 2002 BAR EXAMS)
COUNSEL/ATTORNEY DE OFICIO
An attorney appointed by the court to
defend an indigent defendant in a criminal
action.
In a criminal action, if the defendant
appears without an attorney, he must be
informed by the court that it is his right to have
an attorney before being arraigned and must be
asked if he desires the aid of an attorney. If he
desires and is unable to employ an attorney, the
court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend
him. He is also designated as counsel of
indigent litigants. The appointment of a counsel
de oficio in that instance is a matter of right on
the part of the defendant.
On appeal in a criminal case, the
appellate court must also appoint a counsel de
oficio if, as shown by the certificate of the clerk
of court of the trial court, a defendant is
(a)
confined in prison
(b)
without means to
employ an attorney
(c)
desires
to
be
defended de oficio
COURT

A board or other tribunal which decides

a litigation or contest
DE FACTO JUDGE
An officer who is not fully invested with
all the powers and duties conceded to judges,
but exercising the office of a judge under some
color of right
DE JURE JUDGE
One who is exercising the office of a
judge as a matter of right; an officer of a court
who has been duly and legally appointed
DILIGENCE
It is the attention and care required of
a person in a given situation and is the opposite

ONE UP LAW

of negligence (Edquibal vs. Ferrer, 450

SCRA 406)

the public in the place where he is known

(subjective).

DIRECT CONTEMPT
Consists of misbehavior in the presence
of or near a court or judge as to interrupt or
obstruct the proceedings before the court or the
administration of justice.

GROSS IMMORALITY
A grossly immoral act is one that is so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.

DISBARMENT
It is the act of the Philippine Supreme
Court in withdrawing from an attorney the right
to practice law. The name of the lawyer is
stricken out from the roll of attorneys.

HOUSE COUNSEL (or IN-HOUSE COUNSEL)

One who acts as attorney for business
though carried as an employee of that business
and not as an independent lawyer

DISHONEST ACT
It is an act of lying or cheating (Agpalo)
EXECUTIVE JUDGE
Refers to the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of a city or province who
issues a notarial commission. (2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice)
FIDUCIARY DUTY
The principle that an attorney derives
no undue advantage that may operate to the
prejudice or cause an occasion for loss of a
client.

IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT

That which is willful, flagrant or
shameless
and
which
shows
a
moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.
INDIRECT OR CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT
One committed away from the court
involving disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, judgment or
command of the court, tending to belittle,
degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the
court.
c) CIVIL CONTEMPT
Failure to do something
ordered by the court which is for
the benefit of the party.

FIXED OR ABSOLUTE FEE

Payable regardless of the result of the
case.

d)

FORUM SHOPPING
The act of filing repetitious suits in
different courts. It is committed through the
following:
1) Going from one court to another in the
hope of securing a favorable relief in
one court, which another court has
denied.
2) Filing repetitious suits or proceedings in
different courts concerning the same
subject matter after one court has
decided the suit with finality.
3) Filing a similar case in a judicial court
after
receiving
an
unfavorable
judgment
from
an
administrative
tribunal.
(1991, 1997, 1998, 2002 BAR EXAMS)

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
Consists
of
any
conduct
directed against the authority or
dignity of the court.
JUDGE

A public officer who, by virtue of his

office, is clothed with judicial authority
JUDICIAL ETHICS
It is the branch of moral science which
treats of the right and proper conduct to be
observed by all judges and magistrates in trying
and deciding controversies brought to them by
adjudication
which
conduct
must
be
demonstrative
of
impartiality,
integrity,
competence, independence, and freedom from
improprieties.

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

It is the absence of a proven conduct or
act which has been historically and traditionally
considered as a manifestation of moral
turpitude. The act or conduct showing moral
turpitude need not amount to a crime; and
even if it does constitute an offense, a
conviction upon a criminal charge is not
necessary to demonstrate bad moral character
although it may show moral depravity.

LAWYER
The general term for a person trained
in the law and authorized to advice and
represent others in legal matters.
One who:
a)
passed the bar exams
b)
registered in the roll of
attorneys
c)
received a certificate of license
to practice law from the Clerk of Court of the
Supreme Court
d)
taken an oath.

GOOD REPUTATION
It is the opinion generally entertained
of a person, the estimate in which he is held by

LEAD COUNSEL
The counsel on either side of a litigated
action who is charged with the principal

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

156 of 158

ONE UP LAW

management and direction of a partys case as

distinguished from his juniors or subordinates.
LEGAL ETHICS
Legal Ethics denotes that body of
principles by which the conduct of members of
the legal profession is controlled.
It is that branch of moral science which
treats of the duties which an attorney at law
owes to his clients, to the courts, to the bar and
to the public. [G.A. Malcolm, Legal and
Judicial Ethics 8 (1949)].
MAINTENANCE
Consists in maintaining, supporting or
promoting the litigation of another.
MORAL CHARACTER
It is what a person really is
(corresponds to objective reality). It exhibits
qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of
honor, full candor, intellectual honesty, and the
strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility
(Justice Felix Frankfurter)
MORAL TURPITUDE
It means anything which is done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals, or to any act of vileness, baseness or
depravity in the private and social duties that a
man owes his fellowmen or to society, contrary
to the accepted rule of right and duty between
man and man.
NOTARY and NOTARY PUBLIC
Refer to any person commissioned to
perform official acts under these Rules. (2004
Rules on Notarial Practice)
OF COUNSEL
An experienced lawyer, usually a retired
member of the judiciary, employed by law firms
as consultants. (supplemented by San Beda
Reviewer 2006)
PLEA OF GUILTY
An admission by the accused of his
guilt of a crime as charged in the information
and of the truth of the facts alleged, including
the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
PRACTICE OF LAW
Any activity, in or out of court, which
requires
the
application
of
law,
legal
procedures,
knowledge,
training
and
experience. (Ulep v Legal Clinic, Inc (1993)
PRACTICING LAWYER
One engaged in the practice of law who
by license are officers of the court and who are
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend a
clients cause.
PRO SE

An appearance by a lawyer in his own

behalf. (1995 BAR EXAMS)
QUANTUM MERUIT (as much as he deserves)

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

157 of 158

Its essential requisite is acceptance of the

benefits by one sought to be charged for
services rendered under circumstances as
reasonably to notify him that lawyer expects
compensation.
Doctrine of quantum meruit is a device to
prevent undue enrichment based on the
equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person
to retain benefit without paying for it.
REINSTATEMENT
It is the restoration in disbarment
proceedings to a disbarred lawyer the privilege
to practice law.
REPRIMAND
A form of disciplinary measure which
consists of a public and formal censure or
severe reproof, administered to a person in fault
by his superior officer or a body to which he
belongs.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR (the thing speaks for
itself)
This principle or doctrine applies to
both judges and lawyers. Judges had been
dismissed from the service without the need for
a formal investigation because based on the
records, the gross misconduct or inefficiency of
the judges clearly appears. (Uy vs. Mercado,
154 SCRA 567)
RETAINER (embraces two concepts)
(1) an act of client by which he engages
services of an attorney to render legal advice,
defend or prosecute his cause in court;
(2) fee which a client pays to an attorney when
latter is retained (retaining fee)
a) GENERAL RETAINER
Fee paid to a lawyer to secure his
future services as general counsel for any
ordinary legal problem that may arise in
the routinary business of the client and
referred to him for legal action. This could
be paid monthly or annually, depending
on lawyer-client arrangement. This is
considered as compensation for lost
opportunity.
b)SPECIAL RETAINER
Fee which client will pay to his lawyer
for a specific matter (case/service),
possibly in addition to a general retainer.
RETAINING FEE (same as retainer)
Preliminary fee paid to insure and
secure future services, to remunerate him for
being deprived, by being retained by one party.
It prevents undue hardship resulting from the
rigid observance of the rule forbidding him from
acting as counsel for other party
RETAINING LIEN
A right merely to retain the funds,
documents, and papers as against the client
until the attorney is fully paid his fees and to
apply such funds to the satisfaction. (1995,
2000 BAR EXAMS)

ONE UP LAW

SUSPENSION
A form of disciplinary measure which
consists of a temporary withholding of a
lawyers right to practice his profession as a
lawyer for a certain period or for an indefinite
period of time.
a) DEFINITE
B) INDEFINITE -qualified disbarment;
lawyer determines for himself for how long
or how short his suspension shall last by
proving to court that he is once again fit to
resume practice of law.
TRIAL LAWYER
One who personally handles cases in
courts and administrative agencies of boards
which means engaging in actual trial work,
either for the prosecution or for the defense of
cases of clients. (supplemented by San Beda
Reviewer 2006)
WARNING
A form of disciplinary measure which
consists of an act or fact of putting one on his
guard against an impending danger, evil
consequences or penalties.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

158 of 158

ONE UP LAW