LEGAL ETHICS

I. Preliminary considerations
a. Legal Ethics defined

That branch of moral science which treats of the

duties that an attorney owes to the court, to his,
clients, to his colleagues in the profession and to the
public. (Justice Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics,
1949)

Legal ethics is deemed as a prescribed standard of

behavior, a code of conduct or discipline, looked
upon and observed by members of the bar, serving
as guideposts in their dealings with the public, the
court, with each other, and to one’s client. (Legal and
Judicial Ethics, Arcega and Aquino, 2017 ed)

b. Fourfold duty of a lawyer:

1. To society or public- to be an example in the

community for uprightness and ready to render
legal aid, foster legal reforms, be a guardian of
due process, and aware of his/her special role in
the solution of social problems.

2. To the Legal Profession- to observe candor,

fairness, courtesy and truthfulness in his conduct
towards fellow lawyers and uphold the honor of
the profession.
 3. To the Court – to maintain towards it a respectful
attitude, defend it from unjust criticism, uphold
its authority and dignity, obey its orders and
processes and assist in the administration of
justice.

4. To the Client – to devote his/her actions to the

interest of the client, manifest warmth and zeal in
the maintenance of the defense of his client’s
rights and exertion of utmost learning ability to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from
the client except in accordance with law. To
provide zealous representation and preserve the
client’s secrets, funds and property and avoid
conflict of interests. (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by
Arcega and Aquino)

c. Study of Legal Ethics includes:

1. The 1987 Constitution,

2. Rules of Court, (Rule 138 and 139-A and 139-B;
BM No. 1153 (Amendments to Rule 138, Sections 5
and 6); Rules on Legal Fees, Rule 141)
3. The Code of Professional Responsibility,
4. Canons of Professional Ethics,
5. Jurisprudence,
6. Statutes like R.A. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act); RA 6713 (An Act
Establishing a Code of Conduct And Ethical
Standards For Public Officials And Employees, etc),
7. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
8. BM No. 1922
 9. BM No. 850 (The Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education)

Since its adoption by the Supreme Court in 1988, the

Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) has been
the foundation of legal ethics in the Philippines,
binding and applicable to all lawyers in the country.
Prior to said adoption of the CPR, the Canons of
Professional Ethics was the basis and while it has
been superceded by the CPR, the Canons are still
helpful for a better understanding of legal ethics.

II. DISCIPLINARY OR DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

LAWYERS

1. The legal profession, a privilege not a right-

Conditions for admission and continuing qualification-

In Bernardo v. Mejia, 531 SCRA 639 (2007) the Court said

that being a privilege the practice of law is burdened with
conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental
fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal
profession are the continuing requirements for enjoying the
privilege to practice law.

In Cojuangco v. Palma, 438 SCRA 306 (2004) citing In re

Gutierrez, Admin. Case No. L-363, 5 SCRA 661 (1962), the
Court states: “The practice of law is a privilege accorded
only to those who measure up to certain rigid standards of
mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate
to the bar, the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of
academic preparation but also require satisfactory
testimonials of good moral character. These standards are
neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the
lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk
of suspension or removal.”

In Chu v. Guico, 745 SCRA 257 (2015), the Court declared

that any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional
or private capacity renders him unfit to manage the affairs of
others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of
suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is
an essential qualification for the admission of an attorney
and for the continuance of such privilege.

Being a legal professional and remaining as such is not a

right but a privilege granted only to those of good moral
character (Barcenas v. Alvero, 619 SCRA 1 [2010]. Being a
privilege, the Supreme Court is vested with the exclusive
and constitutional authority to determine who should be
admitted to the Philippine Bar or the practice of law and any
member who is in good standing may practice law anywhere
and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or
administrative in the Philippines. (Phil. Lawyers Association
v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 75 [1959]). Admission to practice as an
attorney at law is almost without exception conceded to be a
judicial function. A petition is filed in court invoking judicial
action.

Because the practice of law is a privilege enjoyed not only by

those who pass the Bar examinations but more importantly
by those who are and continue to be of good moral
character, said privilege can, therefore, be revoked, subject
to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his
oath and the dictates of legal ethics.
Cases:
In re Lanuevo 66 SCRA 245 (1975);
In re Cunanan 94 Phil 534 (1954);
In re Argosino B.M. No. 712 (1997);
In re Salazar 92 SCRA 1 (1979);
Omico Mining and Industrial Corporation v. Vallejos, GR No.
L-38974 (1975);
People v. Villanueva GR No. L-1945 (1965);
Dia- Anonuevo v. Bercacio AM No. 177-MJ (1975);
Cayetano v. Monsod GR No. 100113 (1991).

No dichotomy of standards-

It should also be further noted that the law profession does

not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members.
There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be attorney at one time and a mere
citizen at another. Thus, not only his profession activities but
even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect
unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the
profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities (St. Louis
Laboratory High School Faculty and Staff v. dela Cruz, 499
SCRA 614 [2006]).

2.Nature of Disbarment or Disciplinary Proceedings

A disciplinary proceeding against lawyers is a class all its own, or

sui generis. They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they
involve investigations by the Supreme Court into the conduct of
one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit (Jardeleza v.
Sereno, 733 SCRA 279 [2014]. Accordingly, there is neither a
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court
motu proprio. 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 their privileges as such. Hence, in the
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for its actuations as an officer of the
court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice (In
re Almacen 31 SCRA 562 [1970]).

ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA v. ATTY ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-

TENORIO A.C. No. 6290 July 14, 2004

Why a case of suspension or disbarment may

proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainant-

What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts

borne out of the record, the charge of deceit and
grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This
rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceeding. 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. They are undertaken for the purpose of
preserving courts of justice from the official
ministrations of persons unfit to practice them.
The attorney is called to answer to the court for
his conduct as an officer of the court. The
complainant or the person who called the attention of
 the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the
proper administration of justice. Hence, if the
evidence or record warrants, the respondent may be
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges”

Finally, proceedings to discipline erring members of the bar are not

instituted to protect and promote the public good only but also to
maintain the dignity of the profession by the weeding out of those
who have been proven themselves unworthy thereof (Amatorio v.
Yap, 752 SCRA 230 [2015]).

No prescriptive period-

In Bengco v. Bernardo 672 SCRA 8 (2012), the Court said that

putting a prescriptive period on administratie cases involving
members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to
disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the
fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately
come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated
from whatever administrative liablility they ought to answer for
(Heirs of Pedro Alilano v. Examen, 754 SCRA 187 [2015]).

With respect to the causes for disciplinary proceedings against

lawyers, the Supreme Court has held that they do not prescribe
(Heck v. Santos 423 SCRA 329 (2004).

3. Policy of Court in disbarment

Power to disbar to be exercised with great caution-

Violeta Flores Alitagtag vs. Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia A.C. No. 4738
June 10, 2003

“The power to disbar must be exercised with

great caution, and may be imposed only in a
clear case of misconduct that seriously affects
the standing and the character of the lawyer as
an officer of the Court and as a member of the
Bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where
any lesser penalty could accomplish the end
desired. Without doubt, a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, including
suspension and disbarment. However, the said
penalties are imposed with great caution, because
they are the most severe form of disciplinary action
and their consequences are beyond repair.”

4. Presumption of innocence-
In Perez v. Atty. Tristan Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo
(AC No. 5816, March 10, 2015, the Court said:

“The Court has consistently held that in suspension or

disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer
enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden
of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the
allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in
suspension or disbarment proceedings is
preponderance of evidence.”

5. Procedure- Amendment to rules governing

administrative cases against lawyers-

BAR MATTER N0. 1645 (RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE

139-B), dated October 13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued
new rules governing administrative disciplinary cases
against lawyers. It effectively amended Sections 1, 5, 12, 13
and 15 of Rule 139-B.

The premises of Bar Matter 1645 are as follows:

1. Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution confers

upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate
rules concerning the admission to the practice of law.

2. The Supreme Court's power relating to the admission to

the practice of law inherently includes the power to
discipline and remove from the rolls, lawyers who have
transgressed their oath and violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

3. Dismissal of complaints filed against lawyers is a power

of the Supreme Court that cannot be delegated to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

4.The motive of the complainant and his or

her action/inaction after the filing of a verified complaint
against a lawyer are not essential to the proceedings.

Most significant amendment-

Significantly, the amendment consolidated in the Supreme

Court the ultimate decision about the course of action that
may be taken in such disciplinary proceedings. Whereas
under the previous framework, it is only when the penalty is
suspension or disbarment that the matter would have to be
elevated to the Supreme Court, the new rules now provide
that whether it is dismissal or any other disciplinary action
that may be taken, the matter must be decided by the High
Court itself. As for the role of the IBP in this regard, it would
take on an investigatory and recommendatory nature only.

The new rules under Bar Matter 1645 are as follows:

1. Sections 1, 5, 12, 13, and 15 of Rule 139-B of the Rules

of Court are amended to read as follows:

RULE 139-B Disbarment and RULE 139-B Disbarment

Discipline of Attorneys and Discipline of Attorneys (
as amended by Bar Matter
1645)
Section 1. How instituted. -
Proceedings for disbarment, Section 1. How Instituted. -
suspension or discipline of Proceedings for the
attorneys may be taken by disbarment, suspension, or
the Supreme Court motu discipline of attorneys may
proprio, or by be taken by the Supreme
the Integrated Bar of the Court motu propio, or
Philippines (IBP) upon the upon the filing of a verified
verified complaint of any complaint of any person
person. The complaint shall before the Supreme Court
state clearly and concisely or the Integrated Bar of
the facts complained of and the Philippines (IBP). The
shall be supported by complaint shall state clearly
affidavits of persons having and concisely the facts
personal knowledge of the complained of and shall be
facts therein alleged and/or supported by affidavits of
by such documents as may persons having personal
substantiate said facts. knowledge of the facts
. therein alleged and/or by
such documents as may
The IBP Board of substantiate said facts.
Governors
may, motu proprio or The IBP shall forward to
upon referral by the the Supreme Court for
Supreme Court or by appropriate disposition all
a Chapter Board of complaints for disbarment,
Officers, or at the suspension and discipline
instance of any filed against incumbent
person, initiate and Justices of the Court of
prosecute proper Appeals, Sandiganbayan,
charges against erring Court of Tax Appeals and
attorneys including judges of lower courts, or
those in the against lawyers in the
government government service,
service; Provided, whether or not they are
however, that all charged singly or jointly with
charges against other respondents, and
Justices of the Court whether or not such
of Appeals and complaint deals with acts
the Sandiganbayan, unrelated to the discharge of
and Judges of the their official functions. If the
Court of Tax Appeals complaint is filed before the
and lower courts, even IBP, six ( 6) copies of the
if lawyers are jointly verified complaint shall be
charged with them, filed with the Secretary of
shall be filed with the the IBP or the Secretary of
Supreme any of its chapter who shall
Court; Provided, forthwith transmit the same
further, that charges to the IBP Board of
filed against Justices Governors for assignment to
 and Judges before an investigator.”
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. (As amended by
Bar Matter No. 1960).
A. PROCEEDINGS IN A. PROCEEDINGS IN
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE INTEGRATED BAR
THE PHILIPPINES OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sec. 5. Service or “Section 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 fifteen (15) days
from the date of service. If
the complaint does not merit
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 fifteen (15) days
from the date of service.
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
Supreme Court 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 desistance,
settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the
same. 
 determines that there is no
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 Investigator will
recommend to the Board
of Governors the
dismissal of the
complaint.
Thereafter, the procedure in
Section 12 of this Rule shall
apply. No investigation shall
be interrupted or terminated
by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute
the same, unless the
Supreme Court motu propio
or upon recommendation of
the IBP Board of Governors,
compelling reason to
continue with the disbarment
or suspension proceedings
against the respondent.”

(Amendment pursuant to
Supreme Court Resolution
dated May 27, 1993 re Bar
Matter No. 356)
Sec. 12. View and decision “Section 12. Review and
by the Board of Governors. - recommendation by the
Board of Governors.
• (a) Every case heard by an a) Every case heard by an
investigator shall be investigator shall be
reviewed by the IBP reviewed by the IBP Board
Board of Governors of Governors upon the
upon the record and record and evidence
evidence transmitted to transmitted to it by the
it by the Investigator Investigator with his report.
with his report. The
decision of the Board b) After its review, the
upon such review shall Board, by the vote of a
be in writing and shall majority of its total
clearly and distinctly membership, shall
state the facts and the recommend to the Supreme
reasons on which it is Court the dismissal of the
based. It shall be complaint or the imposition
promulgated within a of disciplinary action against
period not exceeding the respondent.
thirty (30) days from the
next meeting of the The Board shall issue a
Board following the resolution setting forth its
submittal of the findings and
Investigator's recommendations, clearly
Report 
 
 (b) If the and distinctly stating the
Board, by the vote of a facts and the reasons on
majority of its total which it is based.
membership,
determines that the The resolution shall be
respondent should be issued within a period not
suspended from the exceeding thirty (30) days
practice of law or from the next meeting of the
disbarred, it shall issue Board following the
a resolution setting submission of the
forth its findings and Investigator's report.
recommendations
which, together with c) The Board's resolution,
the whole record of together with the entire
the case, shall forthwith records and all evidence
be transmitted to the presented and submitted,
Supreme Court for final shall be transmitted to the
action. 
 
 (c) If the Supreme Court for final
respondent is action within ten (10) days
exonerated by the from issuance of the
Board or the disciplinary resolution.
sanction imposed by it is
less than suspension or i) Notice of the resolution of
disbarment (such as the Board shall be
admonition, reprimand, given to all parties
or fine) it shall issue a through their counsel, if
decision exonerating any.”
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 fifteen (15) days
from notice of the
Board’s resolution, the
Supreme Court orders
otherwise. 
 
 (d) 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.


B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE
SUPREME COURT

“Section 13. Investigation of

B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE complaints. - In proceedings
SUPREME COURT initiated by the Supreme

 Sec. 13. Supreme Court Court, or in other
Investigators. - In proceedings when the
proceedings initiated motu interest of justice so
proprio by the Supreme requires, the Supreme
Court or in other proceedings Court may refer the case
when the interest of justice for investigation to the
so requires, the Supreme Office of the Bar
Court may refer the case for Confidant, or to any officer
investigation to the of the Supreme Court or
Solicitor General or to any judge of a lower court, in
officer of the Supreme Court which case the investigation
or judge of a lower court, in shall proceed in the same
which case, the investigation manner provided in sections
shall proceed in the same 6 to 11 hereof, save that the
manner provided in Sections review of the report of
6 to 11 hereof, save that the investigation shall be
review report of the conducted directly by the
investigation shall be Supreme Court.
conducted directly by the
Supreme Court. The complaint may also be
referred to the IBP for
investigation, report, and
recommendation.”
 C. COMMON
PROVISIONS

“Section 15. Suspension of

attorney by Supreme
Court. - After receipt of
respondent's answer or
C. COMMON PROVISIONS lapse of the period therefor,

Sec. 15. Suspension of the Supreme Court, motu
attorneys by Supreme propio, or upon the
Court. - After receipt of recommendation of the
respondent's answer or lapse IBP Board of Governors,
of the period therefor, the may suspend an attorney
Supreme Court, motufrom the practice of his
proprio, or at the instance ofprofession for any of the
the IBP Board of
causes specified in Rule
Governors upon the
138, section 27, during the
recommendation of the pendency of the
Investigator, may suspend investigation until such
an attorney from the practice suspension is lifted by the
of his profession for any of Supreme Court.”
the causes specified in Rule
138, Section 27, during the The amendments
pendency of the investigation shall take effect fifteen
until such suspension is lifted (15) days after publication
by the Supreme Court. in a newspaper of general
circulation.

The Integrated Bar of

the Philippines is ordered to
revise its rules of procedure
in accordance with
the amendments to Rule
 139-B.

4. Reinstatement
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A
MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.A.C. No. 5161,
August 25, 2015
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for
Judicial Clemency21 the Court laid down the
following guidelines in resolving requests for
judicial clemency, to wit:

• There 'must be proof of remorse and

reformation. These shall include but should
not be limited to certifications or
testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s)
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
judges or judges associations and
prominent members of the community with
proven integrity and probity. A subsequent
finding of guilt in an administrative case for
the same or similar misconduct will give
rise to a strong presumption of non-
reformation.
• Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period
of reform.
• The age of the person asking for clemency
must show that he still has productive
years ahead of him that can be put to good
use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself.
• There must be a showing of promise (such as
intellectual aptitude, learning or legal
acumen or contribution to legal scholarship
and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as
well as potential for public service.
• There must be other relevant factors and
circumstances that may justify
clemency.22 (emphases and underscoring
supplied)
•
While more than ten (10) years had already passed
since his disbarment on April 14, 2004, respondent's
present petition has failed to show substantial proof
of his reformation as required in the first guideline
above.

The principle which should hold true not only
for judges but also for lawyers, being officers
of the court, is that judicial "[c]lemency, as an
act of mercy removing any disqualification,
should be balanced with the preservation of
public confidence in the courts. Thus the Court
will grant it only if there is a showing that it is
merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of
potential and promise are indispensable."