2016
University of the Philippines
College of Law
Bar Reviewer
Dean
Dean Danilo L. Concepcion
Overall Head
Desiree Sokoken
Associate Dean
Prof. Concepcion L. Jardeleza
Faculty Adviser
Prof. Concepcion L. Jardeleza
College Secretary
Prof. Ma. Gisella N. Dizon-Reyes
Subject Head
Nadaine Tongco
Bar Operations Commissioner
Lazaro Kevin G. Pabiona
Academics Committee Heads
Evert Callueng
Paulo Faustino
Carlos Hernandez
Audrey Ng
Desiree Sokoken
4TH WEEK
LEGAL AND
JUDICIAL
ETHICS
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2016
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2016
UP LAW
BAR OPS 2016
Table of Contents
LEGAL ETHICS
1
I. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION
2
A. Constitutional Basis
B. Regulatory Powers
2
2
II. PRACTICE OF LAW
2
A. Concept
A.1. Privilege
A.2. Profession, not business
B. Qualifications
B.1. Citizenship
B.2. Residence
B.3. Age
B.4. Good Moral Character
B.5. Legal Education
B.6. Bar Examinations
C. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
C.1. Law student practice
C.2. Non-lawyers in courts
C.3. Self-representation
C.4. Agent or friend
C.5. Non-lawyers in administrative
tribunals
C.6. Proceedings where lawyers are
prohibited from appearing
D. Sanctions for Practice or Appearance
Without Authority
D.1. Lawyers without authority
D.2. Persons not lawyers
E. Public Officials and Practice of Law
E.1. Prohibition or disqualification of
former government attorneys
E.2. Public officials who cannot practice
law or with restrictions
F. Lawyers Authorized to Represent the
Government
G. Lawyer’s Oath
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
8
8
8
9
9
11
11
III. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A
LAWYER
12
A. In General
B. To Society
B.1. Respect for law and legal processes
B.2. Efficient, convenient legal services
B.3. True, honest, fair, dignified &
objective information on legal services
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
B.4. Participation in the improvement
and reforms in the legal system
B.5. Participation in legal education
program
C. To the Legal Profession
C.1. Involvement in the IBP
C.2. Upholding the dignity & integrity of
the profession
C.3. Courtesy, fairness & candor towards
professional colleagues
C.4. No assistance in unauthorized
practice of law
D. To the Courts
D.1. Candor, fairness & good faith
towards the courts
D.2. Respect for courts & judicial officers
D.3. Assistance in the speedy & efficient
administration of justice
D.4. Reliance on merits of his cause &
avoidance of any impropriety which tends
to influence or gives the appearance of
influence upon the courts
E. To the Clients
E.1. Availability of service without
discrimination
E.2. Candor, fairness and loyalty to clients
E.3. Client’s moneys and properties
E.4. Fidelity to client’s cause
E.5. Competence and diligence
E.6. Representation with zeal within legal
bounds
E.7. Attorney’s fees
E.8. Preservation of client’s confidences
E.9. Withdrawal of services
IV. SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT, AND
DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
18
18
21
21
22
23
25
27
27
28
30
34
35
38
42
44
44
46
47
51
53
54
11
12
13
13
15
16
A. Nature and Characteristics of Disciplinary
Actions against Lawyers
A.1. Confidential
A.2. Other characteristics
A.3. Prescription
B. Grounds
Misconduct in private capacity
C. Proceedings
D. Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practicing
Abroad
E. Discipline of Lawyers in Government
F. Quantum of Proof
G. Disciplinary Measures
H. Effect of Executive Pardon
54
55
55
55
56
57
57
58
58
58
58
60
UP LAW BOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Effect of Compromise Agreements
60
V. READMISSION TO THE BAR
60
A. Lawyers Who Have Been Suspended
B. Lawyers Who Have Been Disbarred
C. Lawyers Who Have Been Repatriated
60
60
61
VI. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION (MCLE)
61
A. Purpose
B. Requirements
C. Compliance
D. Exemptions
E. Sanctions
F. Bar Matter 2012: The Rule on Mandatory
Legal Aid Service
61
61
62
62
63
VIII. NOTARIAL PRACTICE
65
A. Qualifications of Notary Public
B. Term of Office of Notary Public
C. Powers and Limitations
C.1. Powers
C.2. Limitations
D. Notarial Register
D.1. Entries
D.2. Closing
D.3. Submission
E. Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place of
Notarization
F. Revocation of Commission
G. Competent Evidence of Identity
H. Sanctions
65
65
65
65
66
67
68
68
69
69
69
70
70
IX. CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
71
A. Origin
B. Legal status
71
71
JUDICIAL ETHICS
72
I. SOURCES OF RULES IN JUDICIAL
ETHICS
73
73
73
II. QUALITIES
73
A. Independence
B. Integrity
73
77
C. Impartiality
D. Propriety
E. Equality
F. Competence and Diligence
78
82
87
89
III. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY
92
A. Supreme Court
A.1. Impeachment
A.2. Impeachment of former Chief Justice
Corona
B. Judges of the Lower Courts and Justices
of Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan
C. Grounds and Sanctions
63
A. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)
B. Code of Judicial Conduct
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
ii
92
92
92
93
95
III. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF JUSTICES AND
JUDGES
97
A. Compulsory Disqualification
B. Voluntary Disqualification
97
98
IV. POWERS AND DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
98
A. Administration of Justice
B. Publicity of Proceedings
C. Publicity of Records
D. Enforceability of Court Process
E. Inherent Powers of Courts
F. Means to Carry Jurisdiction into Effect
G. Trial, Hearings and Other Acts
H. Interlocutory Orders out of Province
98
98
98
99
99
99
100
100
V. COURT RECORDS AND GENERAL
DUTIES OF CLERKS AND
STENOGRAPHERS
101
A. Clerks of Court
A.1. Office of the Clerk of Court
A.2. Duties of the Clerk of Court
A.3. Taking of Records from Clerk’s Office
B. Stenographers
C. Dockets and other Records of Inferior
Courts
101
101
101
102
102
102
VI. LEGAL FEES
103
A. Manner of Payment
B. Fees in Lien
C. Persons Authorized to Collect Legal Fees
103
103
103
VII. COSTS
104
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL ETHICS
PAGE 1 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
I.
Supervision
and
Control of the Legal
Profession
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
II. Practice of Law
A. CONCEPT
The practice of law is 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 [Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R.
No. 100113 (1991)].
A. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
[1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Sec. 5(5)]
The Supreme Court has the power to
promulgate rules pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged.
According to Justice Padilla, in his dissent in
Cayetano v. Monsod, the following factors are
considered in determining whether there is
practice of law [HACA]:
The provision recognizes the disciplinary
authority of the Court over the members of
the bar to be merely incidental to the Court's
exclusive power to admit applicants to the
practice of law [Garrido v. Garrido, A.C. 6593
(2010)].
(1) Habituality – Practice of law implies
customarily or habitually holding one's
self out to the public as a lawyer. It is
more than an isolated appearance for it
consists in frequent or customary action.
In the judicial system from which ours has
been evolved, the admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at
law in the practice of the profession and their
supervision have been disputably a judicial
function and responsibility [In re: Cunanan,
94 Phil 534 (1954)].
a. However, an isolated appearance
may constitute practice of law
when there is a rule prohibiting
some persons from engaging in
the exercise of the legal
profession.
of
law,
legal
(2) Application
principles, practice or procedure –
It calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience.
B. REGULATORY POWERS
The power to regulate the practice of law
includes:
(3) Compensation– Practice of law implies
that one must have presented himself to
be in the active and continued practice of
the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the
public for compensation.
(1) Authority to define practice of law;
(2) Prescribe the qualifications of a
candidate to and the subjects of the bar
examinations;
(3) Decide who will be admitted to practice;
(4) Attorney-client
relationship
–
Where no such relationship exists, such
as in cases of teaching law or writing law
books or articles, there is no practice of
law.
(4) Discipline, suspend or disbar any unfit
and unworthy member of the bar;
(5) Reinstate any disbarred or indefinitely
suspended attorney;
In view of the definition of the majority in
Cayetano v. Monsod:
(6) Ordain the integration of the Bar;
(7) Punish for contempt any person for
unauthorized practice of law; and
(1) Giving advice for compensation regarding
the legal status and rights of another and
for one’s conduct with respect thereto
constitutes practice of law [Ulep v. The
Legal Clinic, Inc., A.C. L-553 (1993)].
(8) In general, exercise overall supervision of
the legal profession.
PAGE 2 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(5) Produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence:
(2) Preparation of documents requiring
knowledge of legal principles not
possessed by ordinary layman [Ulep v.
The Legal Clinic, Inc., A.C. L-553 (1993)].
(3) Teaching law is considered practice of
law because the fact of their being law
professors is inextricably intertwined with
the fact that they are lawyers [Re: Letter
of UP Law Faculty, A.M. 10-10-4-SC
(2011)].
a.
Of good moral character;
b.
That no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines [Sec. 2, Rule 138].
Requisites for the practice of law:
(1) Admission to the bar:
A.1. PRIVILEGE
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed
only to those who are morally fit. A bar
candidate who is morally unfit cannot
practice law even if he passes the bar
examinations [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. 1036
(2003)].
(a) Citizenship;
(b) Residence;
(c) Age (at least 21 years old);
(d) Good moral character and no charges
involving moral turpitude; The
purposes for this requirement are:
1.
A.2. PROFESSION, NOT BUSINESS
Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession
in which duty to public service, not money, is
the primary consideration [Burbe v. Magulta,
A. C. 99-634 (2002)].
To protect the public;
2. To protect the public image of
lawyers;
3. To protect prospective clients;
and
4. To protect errant lawyers from
themselves [Dantes v. Dantes,
A.C. 6486 (2004)].
B. QUALIFICATIONS
Any person admitted to the bar and who is in
good and regular standing is entitled to
practice law [Sec. 1, Rule 138].
(e) Legal education (consisting of prelaw and law proper);
Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be:
(f) Pass the bar examinations;
(1) Citizen of the Philippines;
(h) Sign the roll of attorneys.
(g) Take the lawyer’s oath;
(2) At least 21 years of age;
(2) Good and regular standing:
(3) Of good moral character;
(a) Remain a member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP);
(a) This requirement is not only a
condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its
continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the
practice of law [In the Matter of
the Disqualification of Bar
Examinee Haron S. Meling In The
2002 Bar Examinations and For
Disciplinary Action As Member of
The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M.
1154 (2004)].
(b) Regularly pay all IBP dues and other
lawful assessments
(c) Faithful observance of the rules and
ethics of the legal profession (e.g.:
(MCLE));
(d) Be continually subject to judicial
disciplinary control [Agpalo (2004)].
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to
be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
(4) Resident of the Philippines;
PAGE 3 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
person who intends to practice his profession
in the Philippines must apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice. Thus, in pursuance to the
qualifications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC requires the
following:
administered by this Court and his signature
in the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M.
1036 (2003)].
General rule: Only members of the bar are
entitled to practice law.
Exceptions: The following are also allowed
in exceptional circumstances:
1)
(1) Law students;
(2) By an agent/friend;
(3) By the litigant himself.
Petition
for
Re-Acquisition
Philippine Citizenship;
of
2) Order
(for
Re-Acquisition
Philippine citizenship);
of
3) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines;
B.1. CITIZENSHIP
The practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens
save in cases prescribed by law [Sec. 14, Art.
XII, 1987 Constitution].
4) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by
the Bureau of Immigration;
5) Certificate of Good Standing issued
by the IBP;
Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines.
[Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
6) Certification from the IBP indicating
updated
payments
of
annual
membership dues;
Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the
Republic and its laws.
7) Proof of payment of professional tax;
and
The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines except when citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization and reacquired
through RA 9225 [Petition to Resume Practice
of Law of Dacanay, B.M. 1678 (2007)].
8) Certificate of compliance issued by
the MCLE Office. [Petition to Reacquire the Privilege to Practice Law of
Muneses, B.M. 2112 (2012)].
B.2. RESIDENCE
Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be... a resident of the
Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
A Filipino lawyer who has lost and reacquired
his citizenship under RA 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) is
deemed not to have lost his Philippine
citizenship. However, he still needs to apply
with the Supreme Court for a license or
permit to engage in such practice after
compliance with the following:
(1) Updating and payment of
membership dues in the IBP;
Ratio: His/her duties to his client and to the
court will require that he be readily accessible
and available.
annual
B.3. AGE
Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be at least 21 years of age. [Sec.
2, Rule 138, RoC]
(2) Payment of professional tax;
(3) Completion of 36 hours of MCLE;
Ratio: Maturity and discretion are required in
the practice of law.
(4) Retaking of the lawyer’s oath [Sec. 5(4),
RA 9225].
A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country and later re-acquires his
Philippine citizenship under RA 9225,
remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
However, the right to resume the practice of
law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a
PAGE 4 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
B.5. LEGAL EDUCATION
I. Pre-law
B.4. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be of good moral character and
must produce before the SC 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. 2, Rule 138,
RoC]
An applicant for admission to the bar
examination shall present a certificate issued
by the proper government agency that,
before commencing the study of law, he or
she 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.
Good moral character is a continuing
qualification required of every member of the
bar, it is not only a qualification precedent to
the practice of law [Narag v. Narag, A.C. 3405
(1998)].
A Filipino citizen who completed and
obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree
or its equivalent in a foreign law school must
present proof of having completed a separate
bachelor's degree course. [Sec. 6, Rule 138,
RoC; Re: Letter of Atty. Mendoza, B.M. 1153
(2010)].
Absence of a proven conduct or act which has
been historically and traditionally considered
as a manifestation of moral turpitude. The act
or conduct 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 [Agpalo (2004)].
II. Law proper
All applicants for admission shall, before
being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have successfully
completed all the prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent
degree, in a law school or university officially
recognized by the Philippine Government or
by the proper authority in the foreign
jurisdiction where the degree has been
granted.
Good moral character is what a person really
is, as distinguished from good reputation, the
estimate in which he is held by the public in
the place where he is known [In the Matter of
the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S.
Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations and For
Disciplinary Action As Member of The
Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154 (2004)].
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of
Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be
admitted to the bar examination unless he or
she has satisfactorily completed the following
course in a law school or university duly
recognized by the government:
The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oathtaking based on a conviction for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide (hazing
case). But after submission of evidence and
various certifications “he may now be
regarded as complying with the requirements
of good moral character xxx he is not
inherently of bad moral fiber” [In re: Argosino,
A.M. 712 (1997)].
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
Concealment of pending criminal cases
constitutes lack of good moral character (in
petition to take the bar examinations) [In the
Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee
Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar
Examinations and For Disciplinary Action As
Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M.
1154 (2004)].
PAGE 5 OF 104
Civil Law
Commercial Law
Remedial Law
Criminal Law
Public International Law
Private International Law
Political Law
Labor and Social Legislation
Medical Jurisprudence
Taxation
Legal Ethics
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the academic freedom of institutions
of higher learning;
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be admitted to the
bar examination only upon submission to the
Supreme Court of certifications showing:
d) accrediting law schools that meet the
standards of accreditation;
1) Completion of all courses leading to
e) prescribing minimum standards for
law
admission
and
minimum
qualifications and compensation of
faculty members;
the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree;
2) Recognition or accreditation of the
law school by the proper authority;
and
f)
3) Completion of all the fourth year
subjects in the Bachelor of Laws
academic program in a law school
duly recognized by the Philippine
Government. [Sec. 5, Rule 138, RoC;
Re: Letter of Atty. Mendoza, B.M. 1153
(2010)].
prescribing the basic curricula for the
course of study aligned to the
requirements for admission to the
Bar, law practice and social
consciousness;
g) establishing a law practice internship
as a requirement for taking the Bar
which a law student shall undergo
with any duly accredited private or
public law office or firm or legal
assistance group anytime during the
law course for a specific period that
the Board may decide, but not to
exceed a total of twelve (12) months.
For this purpose, the Board shall
prescribe the necessary guidelines for
such
accreditation
and
the
specifications of such internship
which shall include the actual work of
a new member of the Bar; and
Legal Education Board
Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education
Reform Act od 1993), a Legal Education
Board (LEB) was created in order to
undertake appropriate reforms in the legal
education system, require proper selection of
law students, maintain quality among law
schools, and require legal apprenticeship and
continuing legal education.
It is comprised of a former justice of the SC or
CA (who serves as the Chairman), a
representative of the IBP, a representative of
the Philippine Association of Law Schools
(PALS), a representative from the ranks of
active law practitioners, a representative from
the law students' sector (regular members),
and the Secretary of the Department of
Education or his representative (ex
officio member).
h) adopting a system of continuing legal
education.
B.6. BAR EXAMINATIONS
I. W hen to file permit
All applicants for admission shall file with the
clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence
required at least 15 days before the beginning
of the examination. They shall also file within
the same period the affidavit and certificate
required by Sec. 5 [Sec. 7, Rule 138, RoC].
The functions of the Board include:
a) administering the legal education
system in the country;
ii. Notice
b) supervising the law schools in the
country;
Notice of applications for admission shall be
published by the clerk of the Supreme Court
in newspapers published in Filipino, English
and Spanish, for at least ten days before the
beginning of the examination [Sec. 8, Rule
138, RoC].
c) setting the standards of accreditation
for law schools taking into account,
among others, the size of enrollment,
the qualifications of the members of
the faculty, the library and other
facilities, without encroaching upon
PAGE 6 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
iii. Conduct of exam inations
v. Passing average
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.
A candidate is deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully if he obtained a
general average of 75 percent in all subjects,
without falling below 50 percent in any
subject [Sec. 14, Rule 138, RoC].
The relative weights of the subjects used in
determining the average are as follows:
Subject
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 examines 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. 10, Rule 138,
RoC].
iv.
W hen
and
examinations
where
to
Second
Day
Third
Day
Fourth
Day
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%
vi. Com m ittee Of Exam iners
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 as chairman, 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 [Sec. 12, Rule 138, RoC].
take
Examination 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 [Sec. 11, Rule
138, RoC].
First
Day
%
Morning
Political and
International Law
Pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1161 (2009), two
examiners are designated per bar subject.
Afternoon
Labor and Social
Legislation
Morning
Civil Law
Afternoon
Taxation
Morning
Mercantile Law
The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liaison
officer between the court and the Bar
Chairman on the other hand, and the
individual members of the committee on the
other. He is at the same time a deputy clerk of
court.
Afternoon
Criminal Law
Morning
Remedial law
Afternoon
Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises
vii. Results
Not later than February 15th after the
examination, or as soon thereafter as may be
practicable, the committee shall file its report
on the result of such examination. The
examination papers and notes of the
committee shall be filed with the clerk and
PAGE 7 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
may there be examined by the parties in
interest, after the court has approved the
report [Sec. 15, Rule 138, RoC].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
officer, to represent indigent clients accepted
by the legal clinic of the law school [Sec. 1,
Rule 138-A].
The appearance of the law student shall be
under the direct supervision and control of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines 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 [Sec. 2, Rule 138A].
viii. Flunkers
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
Rules
safeguarding
privileged
communications between attorney and client
shall apply [Sec. 3, Rule 138-A].
ix. Disciplinary m easures
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. Any violator
shall be barred from the examination, and
the same to count as a failure against him,
and further disciplinary action may be taken
in the discretion of the court [Sec. 13, Rule 138,
RoC].
x. Civil service eligibility
Under RA 1080, as amended by RA 1844, the
Bar examinations is declared as civil service
examinations equivalent to:
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 [Sec. 4, Rule 138-A].
Sec. 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance
before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is
allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a
law student [Cruz v. Mina, G.R. 154207
(2007)]. Thus, a law student may appear
under the circumstances of Sec. 38, as an
agent or a friend of a party litigant, without
complying with the requirements of Rule 138A, e.g., supervision of a lawyer.
C.2. NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS
In the court of a municipality 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 34, Rule 138].
(1) First grade regular examination for
appointment to a position which requires
proficiency in law; and
(2) Second grade regular examination for
appointment to a position which does not
require proficiency in law.
C. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
Public policy demands that legal work in
representation of parties should be entrusted
only to those possessing tested qualifications
[PAFLU v. Binalbagan, G.R. No. L-23959
(1971)].
C.1. LAW STUDENT PRACTICE
A law student who has successfully
completed third year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme
Court, may appear without compensation in
any civil, criminal or administrative case
before any trial court, tribunal, board or
However, the Supreme Court, in the exercise
of its judicial power, can validly authorize a
layman to represent a litigant in court
[Agpalo (2004)].
PAGE 8 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) The attorney declines for a valid reason
(e.g., conflict of interest) [People v. Serzo,
G.R. No. 118435 (1997)].
A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is
bound by the same rules in conducting the
trial of his case. He cannot, after judgment,
claim that he was not properly represented
[Agpalo (2004)].
C.4. AGENT OR FRIEND
When appointed or chosen, the agent or
friend is not engaged in the practice of law,
since there is no habituality in the activity and
no attorney-client relationship exists. He is
only permitted to appear in the municipal
trial court.
C.3. SELF-REPRESENTATION
In any court, a party may conduct his
litigation in person.
An attorney who is otherwise disqualified to
practice law, or has been disbarred or
suspended from practice, can validly
prosecute or defend his own litigation, he
having as much right as that of a layman
[Danforth v. Egan, 119 N.W. 1021 (1909)].
In criminal cases, in localities where members
of the bar are not available, the court may
appoint any person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a
resident of the province and of good repute
for probity and ability to defend the accused,
in lieu of a counsel de oficio [Sec. 7, Rule 116].
In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, this is only
allowed in the municipal trial court.
When a person conducts his litigation in
person, he is not engaged in the practice of
law [Agpalo (2004)].
A juridical person may also appear through
its non-lawyer agents or officers in the
municipal trial court.
C.5. NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS
A party may also appear on his own behalf,
his organization or members thereof, before
administrative bodies. This is also expressly
allowed in Art. 222 of the Labor Code.
Sec. 34 does not distinguish between civil
and criminal cases. However, in criminal
cases, the rule is qualified:
(1) Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, the accused may
defend himself in person “when it
sufficiently appears to the court that he
can properly protect his rights without
the assistance of counsel.”
There are laws which allow representation of
another by non-lawyers before such bodies.
(1) The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure,
promulgated pursuant to Art 218(a),
Labor Code, allows (a) non-lawyers, who
are not necessarily a party to the case, to
represent a union or members thereof, (b)
non-lawyers who are duly-accredited
members of any legal aid office
recognized by the Department of Justice
or Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
(c) non-lawyer owners of establishments,
to appear before it.
(2) Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, in determining
whether a counsel de oficio should be
appointed, or, for that matter, whether a
counsel de parte should be required
(conversely, whether the accused should
be allowed to defend himself in person),
the gravity of the offense and the
difficulty of the questions that may arise
should be considered.
While the right to be represented by counsel
is immutable, the option to secure the
services of counsel de parte is not absolute.
The court may restrict the accused’s option to
retain a counsel de parte if:
(2) Under Sec. 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a
claimant may appear by himself, or by
some person in his behalf, before a
cadastral court.
In order that these laws will not infringe upon
the power of the Supreme Court to regulate
the practice of law, the following limitations
must be observed:
(1) He insists on an attorney he cannot
afford;
(2) He chose a person not a member of the
bar;
(1) The non-lawyer should confine his work
to non-adversary contentions and should
PAGE 9 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
not undertake purely legal work (i.e.,
examination of witness, presentation of
evidence);
(2) The services should not be habitual;
(3) Attorney’s fees should not be charged
[Agpalo (2004)].
C.6. PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE
PROHIBITED FROM APPEARING
(1) In small claims cases, no attorney shall
appear in behalf of or represent a party at
the hearing, unless the attorney is the
plaintiff or defendant. If the court
determines that a party cannot properly
present his/her claim or defense and
needs assistance, the court may, in its
discretion, allow another individual who
is not an attorney to assist that party
upon the latter's consent [Sec. 17, Rules
of Procedure in Small Claims Cases].
(2) In
all
katarungang
pambarangay
proceedings, the parties must appear in
person without the assistance of the
counsel or representative, except for
minors and incompetents who may be
assisted by their next of kin who are not
lawyers [Sec 415, Local Gov’t Code].
D. SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR
APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
D.1. LAWYERS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so is a ground for
disbarment or suspension.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(5) Administrative complaint against the
erring lawyer or government official;
(6) Criminal complaint for estafa against the
person who falsely represented himself
as a lawyer to the damage of another.
E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE
OF LAW
E.1. PROHIBITION OR DISQUALIFICATION
OF FORMER GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
Under Sec. 7(b), RA 6713, 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;
(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 one year after resignation,
retirement or separation from public office,
except in case of the second.
Also, the one year prohibition applies to
practice of profession in connection with any
matter before the office he used to be with.
D.2. PERSONS NOT LAWYERS
For persons not lawyers as well as lawyers
who appear without authority, the following
may be availed of:
(1) Petition for injunction;
(2) Declaratory relief;
(3) Contempt of court;
(4) Disqualification
disbarment;
and
complaints
for
PAGE 10 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E.2. PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT
PRACTICE LAW OR WITH RESTRICTIONS
agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
E.2.A. ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION
(1) Judges and other officials or employees
of superior courts as [Sec. 35, Rule 148];
b. Appear as counsel in any criminal
case wherein an officer or employee
of the national or local government
is accused of an offense committed
in relation to his office;
(2) Officials and employees of the Office of
the Solicitor General [Sec. 35, Rule 148];
c. Collect any fee for their appearance
in
administrative
proceedings
involving the local government unit
of which he is an official; and
(3) Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v.
Sagucio, A.C. 6705 (2006)];
(4) President,
vice-president,
cabinet
members, their deputies and assistants
[Sec. 15, Art. VII, Consti];
d. Use property and personnel of the
government except when the
sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of the
government [Sec. 90(b), RA 7160].
(5) Chairmen and members of constitutional
commissions [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, Consti];
(6) Members of the Judicial Bar Council [Sec.
2, Art. IX-A, Consti];
(7) Ombudsman and his deputies [Sec. 8 (2),
Art. X, Consti];
(8) All governors, city and municipal mayors
[Sec. 90(a), RA 7160];
(9) Civil service officers or employees whose
duties require them to devote their entire
time at the disposal of the government
[Catu v Rellosa, A.C. 5738 (2008)];
(10) Those who, by special law, are prohibited
from engaging in the practice of their
legal profession.
E.2.B. RELATIVE PROHIBITION
(1) No senator or member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear
as counsel before any court of justice or
before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasijudicial and other administrative bodies
[Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987 Consti];
a. The word “appearance” includes not
only arguing a case before any such
body but also filing a pleading on
behalf of a client [Ramos v Manalac,
G.R. L-2610 (1951)].
(2) Sanggunian members may practice law
except during session hours and provided
they shall not:
a. Appear as counsel before any court
in any civil case wherein a local
government unit or any office,
E.2.C. SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS
Under Sec. 1, RA 910, the pension of justices
therein is provided with a condition that no
retiring justice, during the time that he is
receiving said pension shall:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein the Government or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof is
the adverse party;
(2) In any criminal case wherein and officer
or employee of the government is
accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office; or
(3) Collect any fee for his appearance in any
administrative proceedings to maintain
an interest adverse to the Government,
insular, provincial or municipal, or to any
of its legally constituted officers.
F.
LAWYERS
AUTHORIZED
REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT
TO
Any person appointed to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall be
allowed to appear in court, subject to
pertinent laws.
G. LAWYER’S OATH
An applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to
be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take
PAGE 11 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
and subscribe before the Supreme Court the
corresponding oath of office [Sec. 17, Rule
138].
The lawyer's 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 lawyer's oath. If all lawyers
conducted themselves strictly according to
the lawyer's oath and the Code of
Professional
Responsibility,
the
administration of justice will undoubtedly be
faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned [In re: Argosino, A.M. 712 (1997)].
I, ___________________, do solemnly swear
that:
I will maintain allegiance to 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 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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
III. Duties and
Responsibilities of a
Lawyer
A. IN GENERAL
Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an
attorney:
(1) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines;
(2) To observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
(3) 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;
(4) 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;
(5) 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;
(6) 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 charge;
(7) 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;
(8) Never to reject, for any consideration
personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
PAGE 12 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
(9) 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.
20, Rule 138].
B. TO SOCIETY
B.1. RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES
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.
NOTE: Canon 1 = 3rd top source of Qs on CPR.
It was asked 18 times in the last 20 years as
of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
An unlawful conduct is act or omission which
is against the law. Dishonesty involves lying
or cheating [Agpalo (2004)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to
pay her obligation [Toledo v. Abalos, 315
SCRA 419 (1999)], but unwarranted obstinacy
in evading the payment of a debt has been
considered as a gross misconduct.
[Constantino v. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233
(1993)]. However, issuance of bouncing
checks reflects on the lawyer’s moral
character and he may be disciplined. [Lex
Pareto, Bar 2001, 2002]
A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for
legal processes. This includes order of the
commission on Bar discipline of the IBP. (The
lawyer’s oath likewise says, “I will obey the
duly constituted authorities.”) [Lex Pareto,
Bar 2002]
GROSSLY IMMORAL ACTS
(1) Wanton disregard for the sanctity of
marriage as shown when the lawyer
pursued a married woman and thereafter
cohabited with her [Guevarra v. Eala, A.C.
No. 7136 (2007)]
(2) Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which
constitutes serious moral depravity, even
if his guilt was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt in the criminal
prosecution for rape [Calub v. Suller, A.C.
No. 1474 (2000)]
NOT GROSSLY IMMORAL
IMMORAL AND GROSSLY
CONDUCT DISTINGUISHED
IMMORAL
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the
upright and respectable members of the
community. Immoral conduct is gross when it
is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the community’s sense of decency. The
Court makes these distinctions, as the
supreme penalty of disbarment from conduct
requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral,
conduct. [Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816
(2015)]
(1) Mere intimacy between a man and a
woman, both of whom possess no
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried
and devoid of deceit on the part of the
respondent, even if a child was born out
of wedlock of such relationship; it may
suggest a doubtful moral character but
not grossly immoral [Figueroa v.
Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 (1997)]
(2) Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v.
Macabata, A.C. No. 7204 (2007)]
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
PAGE 13 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
society in general [Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No.
4585 (2004)].
action but ignorant of legal rights and court
procedure.
Murder, estafa, rape, violation of BP 22,
bribery,
bigamy,
adultery,
seduction,
abduction, concubinage and smuggling are
considered crimes involving moral turpitude.
A lawyer may be disciplined in his
professional and private capacity. The filing
of multiple complaints reflects on his fitness
to be a member of the legal profession. His
conduct of vindictiveness a decidedly
undesirable trait especially when one resorts
to using the court not to secure justice but
merely to exact revenge warrants his
dismissal from the judiciary. [Saburnido v.
Madrono, A.C. No. 4497 (2001)]
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.
The promotion of organizations, with
knowledge of their objectives, for the purpose
of violating or evading the laws constitutes
such misconduct in his office [In re: Terrell,
G.R. No. 1203 (1903)]
Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
delay any man’s cause.
AMBULANCE CHASING AND BARRATRY
DISTINGUISHED [Lex Pareto (2014)]
AMBULANCE
CHASING
BARRATRY
Refers to personal
injury
Refers to any action
Refers to cases
brought before
judicial bodies
Refers to suits before
judicial or nonjudicial bodies
BARRATRY OR “MAINTENANCE”
The offense of inciting or stirring up quarrels,
litigation or groundless lawsuits, either at law
or otherwise [Bouvier]
(1) Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits,
except where ties of blood, relationship or
trust make it a duty to do so
(2) Hunting up defects in titles or other
causes of action in order to be employed
to bring suit or breed litigation
AMBULANCE-CHASING
Unethical practice of inducing personal injury
victims to bring suits. The practice of lawyers
in frequenting hospitals and homes of the
injured to convince them to go to court [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal
business by laymen employed by an attorney
for the purpose or by the attorney himself.
Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent
persons by judgments, upon manufactured
causes of actions and the defrauding of
injured persons having proper causes of
Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients
to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.
The function of a lawyer is not only to conduct
litigation but to avoid it where possible, by
advising settlement or withholding suit. He
must act as mediator for compromise rather
than an instigator and conflict [Agpalo
(2004)].
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 client's
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 client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer's
oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior
to his duty to his client; its primacy is
indisputable [Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L28546 (1975)]
PAGE 14 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
B.2. EFFICIENT, CONVENIENT LEGAL
SERVICES
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.
NOTE: Asked 4 times in the last 20 years as
of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
Membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions. It could be that for
some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the
profession, being appointed counsel de
oficio is an irksome chore. For those holding
such belief, it may come as a surprise that
counsel of repute and of eminence welcome
such an opportunity. It makes even more
manifest that law is indeed a profession
dedicated to the ideal of service and not a
mere trade. It is understandable then why a
high degree of fidelity to duty is required of
one so designated. [Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R.
No. L-23815 (1974)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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. [Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to
be done any act designed to primarily solicit
legal business.
A well-known lawyer has been engaged to
run a program in which he encourages
indigent party litigants to consult him free of
charge about their legal problems over a
radio and television network. Has he violated
any ethical rules? – YES, as it involves indirect
advertising and solicitation and is likewise
violative of the confidentiality of lawyer-client
relationship. His act may also be considered
as a form of self-praise hence subject to
discipline [In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil 37, cited in
Lex Pareto (2014); Unsangan v. Tolentino,
598 SCRA 133 (2009)]
Law is not a business but a profession. Unlike
a businessman, the lawyer has:
(1) Relation to the administration of justice
involving sincerity, integrity and reliability
as an officer of the court;
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty. [Sec. 11, Art. III, 1987 Consti]
(2) Duty of public service;
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 [IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing
the Establishment and Operation of the Legal
Aid Office].
(4) Relation to colleagues at the bar
characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to business
methods
of
advertising
and
encroachment on their practice, or
dealing directly with their clients [Agpalo
(2004)]
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer
does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to
render legal advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s rights.
(3) Relation to clients with the highest
degree of fiduciary;
Thus, the practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice [Sec. 27, Rule 138].
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates
lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.
Advice may be on what preliminary steps to
take until the client has secured the services
of counsel. But he shall refrain from giving
PAGE 15 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(c) Address;
Reason for rule 2.04 is that the practice of
law is profession and not a trade. It is
improper to lower your legal rates just
because another lawyer has offered a lower
legal fee. [Lex Pareto (2014)]
(d) Phone numbers;
(e) Branches of law practiced;
(f) Birthday;
This rule prohibits 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 [Agpalo
(2004)]
(g) Day admitted to the bar;
(h) Schools and dates attended;
(i) Degrees and distinctions;
(j) Public or quasi-public offices;
(k) Posts of honor;
(l) Legal authorships;
(m) Teaching positions;
(n) Associations;
B.3. TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED &
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ON LEGAL
SERVICES
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, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
NOTE: Canon 3 = 5th top source of Qs on CPR.
Asked 12 times in the last 20 years as of 2014
[Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
The 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 to trust.
This cannot be forced, but must be the
outcome of character and conduct [Canon 27,
Canons of Professional Ethics; In re: Tagorda,
G.R. No. 32329, (1929)].
ALLOWABLE ADVERTISEMENT
(1)
(o) Legal fraternities and societies;
(p) References and regularly represented
clients must be published for that
purpose [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
B.M. No. 553 (1993)];
(3) Publication of simple announcement of
opening of law firm, change of firm;
(4) Listing in telephone directory but not
under designation of special branch of
law;
(5) If acting as an associate (specializing in a
branch of law), may publish a brief and
dignified announcement to lawyers (law
list, law journal);
(6) If in media, those acts incidental to his
practice and not of his own initiative;
(7)
Writing legal articles;
(8) Activity of an association for the purpose
of legal representation.
The law list must be a reputable law list
published primarily for that purpose; it
cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a
paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical
which is published primarily for other
purposes.
Ordinary simple professional card;
(2) Publication in reputable law list with
brief biographical and other informative
data which may include:
(a) Name;
ENTERING INTO OTHER BUSINESSES
For it to constitute as inconsistent with the
lawyer’s profession, it is advisable that they
be entirely separate and apart such that a
(b) Associates;
PAGE 16 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
layman could distinguish between the two
functions.
The lawyer must make it clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
PROHIBITED ADVERTISEMENTS
[Sec. 27, Canon of Professional Ethics]
(1) Through touters of any kind whether
allied real estate firms or trust companies
advertising to secure the drawing of
deeds or wills;
(2) Offering retainers in exchange for
executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer;
(3) Furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments concerning the manner of
their conduct, the magnitude of the
interests involved, the importance of
lawyer’s position, and all other like selflaudation.
A lawyer may not properly publish his brief
biographical and informative data in a daily
paper, magazine, trade journal or society
program in order to solicit legal business
[Khan v. Simbillo, A.C. 5299 (2003)].
It is highly unethical for an attorney to
advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. The law is a profession
not a business. Solicitation of cases by
himself or through others is unprofessional
and lowers the standards of the legal
profession. [In re: Tagorda, supra].
In the last analysis, where to draw the line is
a question of good faith and good taste.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ratio: All partners by their joint efforts over
a period of years contributed to the goodwill
attached to the firm name, and the removal
of the deceased partner’s name disturbs the
client goodwill built through the years.
Firms may not use misleading names
showing association with other firms to
purport legal services of highest quality and
ties with multinational business enterprise
especially when such firm attached as an
associate cannot legally practice law in the
Philippines [Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie,
A.C. 2131 (1985)].
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.
Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using
his name to attract legal business and to
avoid suspicion of undue influence.
A civil service officer or employee whose duty
or responsibility does not require his entire
time to be at the disposal of the government
may not engage in the private practice of law
without the written permit from the head of
the department concerned [Agpalo (2004)].
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 [Samonte v. Gatdula,
A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)].
If the unauthorized practice on the part of a
person who assumes to be an attorney causes
damage to a party, the former may be held
liable for estafa.
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.
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE PROHIBITION OF
PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM PRACTICE OF
LAW:
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 [Agpalo (2004)].
When any of those absolutely prohibited
officials is appointed/elected/qualified, he
ceases, as a general rule, to engage in the
private practice of law and his right to
PAGE 17 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
practice is suspended during his tenure in
office.
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.
Purpose: To prevent some lawyers from
gaining an unfair advantage over others
through the use of gimmickry, press agentry
or other artificial means.
This rule prohibits from making indirect
publicity gimmick, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, procuring his
photograph to be published in connection
with cases which he is handling, making a
courtroom scene to attract the attention of
newspapermen, or arranging for the purpose
an interview with him by media people
[Agpalo 2004].
It is bad enough to have such undue publicity
when a criminal case is being investigated by
the authorities, even when it is being tried in
court; but when said publicity and
sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged,
when the case is on appeal and is pending
consideration by this Tribunal, the whole
thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent,
and this Court, in the interest of justice, is
constrained and called upon to put an end to
it and a deterrent against its repetition by
meting an appropriate disciplinary measure,
even a penalty to the one liable. [Cruz v. Salva,
G.R. No. L-12871 (1959)]
B.4 PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPROVEMENT
AND REFORMS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM
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.
NOTE: Asked 2 times in the last 20 years as
of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
EXAMPLES
(1) Presenting position papers or resolutions
for the introduction of pertinent bills in
Congress;
(2) Submitting petitions to the Supreme
Court for the amendment of the Rules of
Court.
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has
been commended by the Supreme Court
when it promulgated a resolution wherein it
requested the IBP’s National Committee on
Legal Aid to ask for the exemption from the
payment of filing, docket and other fees of
clients of the legal aid offices in the various
IBP chapters [Re: Request of NCLA to Exempt
Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket
and Other Fees (2009)].
B.5. PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAM
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.
Bar Matter No. 850
(Dated Feb. 15, 2015. Effective Mar. 1, 2015)
Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
xxx The Court Resolved to REQUIRE all
members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to file a written entry of
appearance indicating their MCLE exemption
or compliance number for the current or
immediately preceding compliance period
and date of issuance thereof before
appearing as counsel or engaging in oral
argument in open court or before a quasijudicial body. However, counsels who affixed
their signatures in their pleadings and
indicated their MCLE exemption or
compliance number in their pleadings need
not file a separate entry of appearance.
Henceforth, all counsels, including partners
of law firms whose names appear in the said
PAGE 18 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
pleadings, shall also indicate their MCLE
exemption or compliance number.
This resolution shall take effect on March 1,
2015 following its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation."
MANDATORY
CONTINUING
EDUCATION (MCLE) PROGRAM
LEGAL
A program which requires lawyers to show
proof of having undertaken improvement in
their knowledge as a precondition for
renewing their license to practice [Lex Pareto
(2014)]
There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to
obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of
his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the
several opportunities given him. "Court
orders are to be respected not because the
judges who issue them should be respected,
but because of the respect and consideration
that should be extended to the judicial
branch of the Government. This is absolutely
essential if our Government is to be a
government of laws and not of men. Respect
must be had not because of the incumbents
to the positions, but because of the authority
that vests in them. Disrespect to judicial
incumbents is disrespect to that branch the
Government to which they belong, as well as
to the State which has instituted the judicial
system." [Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C.
No. 8954 (2013)]
APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS
Canon 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers
in government service in the discharge of
their official duties.
NOTE: Asked 5 times in the last 20 years as
of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
Ratio: The rule is a reiteration of the
principal in public law, which is that a public
office is a public trust and a public servant
owes utmost fidelity to the public service.
A member of the bar who assumes public
office does not shed his professional
obligation. Lawyers in government are public
servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
public service. 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
[Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. 4984 (2003)].
May a former government lawyer appear in a
case against the government? – YES, he may
appear in a case unless there is a specific
ethical rule or provision of law which
prohibits him from doing so. [Lex Pareto
(2014 ed)]
When may a former government lawyer be
prohibited
from
accepting
a
legal
engagement? [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
a. A lawyer shall not after leaving the
government
service
accept
engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in said
service;
b. Retired members of the judiciary
receiving
pensions
form
the
government should not practice law
where the government is the adverse
party or in a criminal case involving a
government
employee
in
the
performance of his duties as such
Rule 6.01. The primary duty of a lawyer
engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment of
witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary
action.
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer
with the two-fold aim which is that guilt shall
not escape or innocence suffers. He should
not hesitate to recommend to the court the
acquittal of an accused if the evidence in his
possession shows that the accused is
innocent [Agpalo (2004)].
In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should
be present for the following reasons: [Lex
Pareto (2014 ed)]
PAGE 19 OF 104
1.
To protect the interest of the State (As
the criminal case is in reality a crime
against the State)
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
2. To see to it that justice is done (Rule
6.01) Naturally, the private prosecutor is
interested only to convict the accused.
However, the primary duty of the public
prosecutor is not to convict, but to see
that justice is done.
A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his
office, 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. This is not to discount the
possibility of the commission of abuses on
the part of the prosecutor. But we must have
to recognize that a prosecuting attorney
should not be unduly compelled to work
against his conviction. In case of doubt, we
should give him the benefit thereof. A
contrary rule may result in our courts being
unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious
cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right
to due process - the sporting idea of fair play
- may be transgressed. So it is, that in People
vs. Sope, this Court made the pronouncement
that "[i]t is very logical that the prosecuting
attorney, being the one charged with the
prosecution of offenses, should determine the
information to be filed and cannot be
controlled by the offended party." [People v.
Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222 (1967)]
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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
professional obligations as their disreputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the
public eye [Huyssen v. Gutierrez, A.C. 6707
(2006)].
Sec. 7 of RA 6713 generally provides for the
prohibited acts and transactions of public
officials and employees.
Sec. 7(b)(2)
prohibits them from engaging in the private
practice of their profession during their
incumbency. As an exception, a public official
or employee can engage in the practice of his
or her profession under the following
conditions: first, the private practice is
authorized by the Constitution or by the law;
and second, the practice will not conflict, or
tend to conflict, with his or her official
functions. The prohibitions continue to apply
for a period of one year after the public
official or employee’s resignation, retirement,
or separation from public office, except for
the private practice of profession under
subsection (b)(2), which can already be
undertaken even within the one-year
prohibition period. As an exception to this
exception, the one-year prohibited period
applies with respect to any matter before the
office the public officer or employee used to
work with. [Query of Karen Silverio-Buffe, 596
SCRA 378 (2009)].
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.
HOW GOVERNMENT LAWYERS MAY LEAVE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE: (RREAD)
In relation to Rule 3.03, Canon 3, if the law
allows a public official to practice law
concurrently, he must not use his public
position to feather his law practice. Moreover,
he should not only avoid all impropriety.
Neither should he even inferentially create a
public image that he is utilizing his public
position to advance his professional success
or personal interest at the expense of the
public [Agpalo (2004)].
It bears stressing also that government
lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity
to the public service, a public trust. As such,
they should be more sensitive to their
(1) Retirement;
(2) Resignation;
(3) Expiration of the term of office;
(4) Abandonment;
(5) Dismissal
General rule: Practice of profession is
allowed immediately after leaving public
service.
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as
to matters with which he had connection
during his term. This prohibition lasts:
PAGE 20 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
upgrading of the standards of the legal
profession, and its proper regulation.
(1) For one year, if he had not intervened;
(2) Permanently, if he had intervened.
The “matter” contemplated are those that
are adverse-interest conflicts (substantial
relatedness and adversity between the
government matter and the new client’s
matter in interest) and congruent-interest
representation
conflicts.
“Intervention”
should be significant and substantial which
can or have affected the interest of others
[PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 15180912 (2005)].
C. TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION
C.1. INVOLVEMENT IN THE IBP
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.
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
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
public’s esteem [In re: 1989 Elections of the
IBP, A.M. 491 (1989)].
ii. General Objectives of the IBP
(1) To elevate the standards of the legal
profession;
(2) To improve the administration of justice;
i. Bar Integration
The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court
to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar
under such conditions as it shall see fit in
order to raise the standards of the legal
profession improve the administration of
justice and enable the bar to discharge its
public responsibility more effectively. [Sec. 1,
RA 6397].
Integration does not make a lawyer a
member of any group of which he is not
already a member. He became a member of
the Bar when he passed the Bar
Examinations. All that integration actually
does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and uncohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member [In the
matter of the IBP, 49 SCRA 22 (1973)].
The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental
entity, a private organization endowed with
certain governmental attributes. While it is
composed of lawyers who are private
individuals, the IBP exists to perform certain
vital public functions and to assist the
government particularly in the improvement
of the administration of justice, the
(3) To enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
iii. Purposes of the IBP
(1) To assist in the administration of justice;
(2) To foster and maintain on the part of its
members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public
service and conduct;
(3) To safeguard the professional interest of
its members;
(4) To cultivate among its members a spirit
of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) To provide a forum for the discussion of
law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure, and the relations
of the bar to the bench and to the public,
and publish information relating thereto;
(6) To encourage and foster legal education;
(7) To promote a continuing program of
legal research in substantive and
adjective law, and make reports and
recommendations thereon.
PAGE 21 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
[Note: Purposes of the IBP is one of the
favorite questions asked in the Bar. – Faculty
Ed.]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
such case, his membership in the IBP could
have been terminated and his obligation to
pay dues discontinued [Letter of Atty. Arevalo,
B.M. 1370 (2005)].
iv. Mem bership and Dues
RoC, Rule 139-A, Sec. 9. Every member of the
IBP shall pay such annual dues as the Board
of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court.
A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent of the
collection from each Chapter shall be set
aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled
members of the Chapter and the compulsory
heirs of deceased members thereof.
RoC, Rule 139-A, Sec. 10. Default in the
payment of annual dues:
(1) For six months shall warrant suspension
of membership in the IBP; and
(2) For one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the roll of attorneys.
A membership fee in the IBP is an exaction
for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is
revenue. If the Court has inherent power to
regulate the bar, it follows that as an incident
to regulation, it may impose a membership
fee for that purpose. It would not be possible
to push through an Integrated Bar program
without means to defray the concomitant
expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
necessarily includes the power to impose
such an exaction [In the matter of the IBP, 49
SCRA 22 (1973)].
A lawyer can engage in the practice of law
only by paying his dues, and it does not
matter if his practice is “limited.” Moreover,
senior citizens are not exempted from paying
membership dues [Santos v. Llamas, A.C.
4749 (2000)].
In a case involving a Filipino lawyer staying
abroad, the Supreme Court said that there is
nothing in the law or rules, which allows his
exemption from payment of membership
dues. At most, he could have informed the
Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his
intention to stay abroad before he left. In
C.2. UPHOLDING THE DIGNITY &
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.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a
lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client’s rights and is expected to display the
utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause,
his conduct must never be at the expense of
truth [Young v. Batuegas, A.C. 5379 (2003)].
PENALTIES
(1) Disqualification of the applicant from
taking the bar, if the concealment is
discovered before he takes the bar
examinations;
(2) Prohibition from taking the lawyer’s oath,
if the concealment is discovered after the
candidate
has
taken
the
bar
examinations;
(3) Revocation of license to practice, if the
concealment was discovered after he has
taken his lawyer’s oath [In re: Diao, A.C.
244 (1963)].
A declaration in one’s application for
admission to the bar examinations that the
applicant was “single”, when he was in fact
married, was a gross misrepresentation of a
material fact made in utter bad faith, for
which the applicant should be made
answerable. It indubitably exhibits lack of
good moral character [Leda v. Tabang, A.C.
2505 (1992)].
It is the fact of concealment and not the
commission of the crime itself that makes
PAGE 22 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
him morally unfit to become a lawyer. [In Re:
Galang, A.M. 1162 (1975)]
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.
A lawyer should volunteer information or
cooperate in any investigation concerning
alleged anomaly in the bar examination so
that those candidates who failed therein can
be ferreted out and those lawyers responsible
therefor can be disbarred [In re: Parazo, G.R.
082027 (1948)].
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 [Agpalo (2004)].
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.
It is not necessary for a lawyer to be convicted
for an offense before a lawyer can be
disciplined for gross immorality [Agpalo
(2004)].
There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
professional capacity or in his private life or in
his private transaction because a lawyer may
not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another [Funa].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
ACTS ADVERSELY REFLECTIVE OF A
LAW YER’S FITNESS TO PRACTICE
LAW :
(1) Having adulterous
keeping mistresses;
relationships
or
(2) Siring a child with a woman other than
legal wife [Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. 4921
(2003)];
(3) Conviction of
moral turpitude;
a
crime
involving
(4) Commission of fraud or falsehood.
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act
must not only be immoral, it must be grossly
immoral as well. 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.
[Reyes v. Wong, A.M. 547 (1975)]
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 so corrupt nor so
unprincipled as to warrant imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a
result, the woman begot a child [Soberano v.
Villanueva, A.C. 215 (1962)].
The term “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 between man and man. [In re
Gutierrez, G.R. L-363 (1962)]
In general, all crimes of which fraud and
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. [Agpalo (2004)]
C.3. COURTESY, FAIRNESS & CANDOR
TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
PAGE 23 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
LAWYER DON’Ts:
IMPROPER LANGUAGE
(1) Take advantage of the excusable
unpreparedness or absence of counsel
during the trial of a case;
(1) Behaving without due regard for the trial
court and the opposing counsel and
threatening the court that he would file a
petition for certiorari [Bugaring v.
Espanol, G.R. No. 133090 (2001)];
(2) Make use, to his or to his client’s benefit,
the secrets of the adverse party acquired
through design or inadvertence;
(3) Criticize or impute ill motive to the lawyer
who accepts what in his opinion is a weak
case;
(4) Proceed to negotiate with the client of
another lawyer to waive all kinds of claim
when the latter is still handling the civil
case [Camacho v. Pangulayan, A.C. 4807
(2000)].
(5) Steal another lawyer’s client;
(6) Induce a client to retain him by promise
of better service, good result or reduced
fees for his services;
(7) Disparage
another
lawyer,
make
comparisons or publicize his talent as a
means to further his law practice;
(8) In the absence of the adverse party’s
counsel, interview the adverse party and
question him as to the facts of the case
even if the adverse party was willing;
(9) Sanction the attempt of his client to
settle a litigated matter with the adverse
party without the consent nor knowledge
of the latter’s counsel.
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language, which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel
and his brethren in the law profession with
courtesy, dignity, and civility. They may do as
adversaries do in law: strive mightily but eat
and drink as friends [Valencia v. Cabanting,
A.M. 1302 (1991)].
(2) Filing of a civil case against the opposing
counsel without justification but only to
get a leverage in the pending case [Reyes
v. Chiong, A.C. 5148 (2003)];
(3) Calling an adverse counsel as “bobo” or
using the word “ay que bobo” in
reference to the manner of offering
evidence [Castillo v. Padilla, A.C. 2339
(1984)].
(4) Stating that “justice is blind and also
“deaf and dumb”” [In Re: Almacen, G.R.
L-27654(1970)].
The highest reward that can come to a lawyer
is the esteem of his professional brethren.
That esteem is won in unique conditions and
proceeds from an impartial judgment in
professional trials. It cannot be purchased.
[Agpalo (2004)]
Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. Counsel
cannot escape responsibility by claiming that
his words did not mean what any reader must
have understood them as meaning [Rheem of
the Philippines v Ferrer, G.R. L-22979 (1967)].
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.
A LAWYER MAY:
(1) Accept employment to handle a matter
previously handled by another lawyer:
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but
dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting
an advocate and in keeping with the dignity
of the legal profession [Surigao Mineral
Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. L- 27072
(1970)].
PAGE 24 OF 104
(a) Provided the other lawyer has been
given notice of termination of service
lest it amounts to an improper
encroachment upon the professional
employment of the original counsel
[Laput v. Remotigue, A.M. 219 (1962)];
or
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) Preparation for clients of documents
requiring knowledge of legal principles
not possessed by ordinary laymen;
(b) In the absence of a notice of
termination from the client, provided
he has obtained the conformity of the
counsel whom he would substitute; or
(c) In the absence of such conformity, a
lawyer must at least give sufficient
notice to original counsel so that
original counsel has the opportunity
to protect his claim against the client.
(3) Appearance for clients before public
tribunals,
whether,
administrative,
quasi- judicial or legislative agency.
ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF LAW EXAMPLES
(2) Give advice or assistance to any person
who seeks relief against an unfaithful or
neglectful lawyer;
(1) Appearing as counsel even before taking
lawyer’s oath [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. 1036
(2003)];
(3) Associate as a colleague in a case,
provided he communicate with the
original counsel before making an
appearance as co-counsel:
(2) Using the title “Attorney” in his name
even though he is a Shari’a lawyer [Alawi
v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P (1997)].
(a) Should the original lawyer object, he
should decline association but if the
original lawyer is relieved, he may
come into the case;
(b) Should it be impracticable for him,
whose judgment has been overruled
by his co- counsel to cooperate
effectively, he should ask client to
relieve him.
C.4. NO ASSISTANCE IN UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW
A corporation cannot engage in the practice
law directly or indirectly. It may only hire inhouse lawyers to attend to its legal business.
A corporation cannot employ a lawyer to
appear for others for its benefit. A corporation
cannot perform the conditions required
membership to the bar. In addition, the
confidential and trust relation between an
attorney and his client cannot arise if the
attorney is employed by a corporation.
NOT ALLOW ED:
(1) Automobile
club
that
solicits
membership by advertising that it offers
free legal services of its legal
department to members;
Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.
Generally, to engage in the practice of law is
to do any of those acts which are
characteristic of the legal profession. It
embraces any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal
principle, practice or procedure or calls for
legal knowledge, training and experience.
[Philippine Lawyers Ass’n v. Agrava, G.R. L12426 (1959)]
EXAMPLES OF PRACTICE OF LAW
(1) Legal advice and instructions to clients
to inform them of their rights and
obligations;
(2) Collection agency or credit exchange
that exploits lawyer’s services;
(3) Bank using lawyer’s name as director in
advertising its services in drawing wills
and other legal documents.
Unauthorized practice of law applies to both
non-lawyers and lawyers prohibited from the
private practice of law.
The practice of law is not a natural, property
or constitutional right but a mere privilege [In
Re Edillon, A.M. 1928 (1978)].
The purpose is to protect the public, the court,
the client and the bar from the incompetence
or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice
law and not subject to the disciplinary control
of the court [Phil. Assoc. of Free Labor Union v.
PAGE 25 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., G.R. L-23959
(1971)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or
stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement
with a partner or associate that, upon
the latter’s death, money shall be paid
over a reasonable period of time to his
estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
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.
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
Ratio: The practice of law is limited only to
individuals who have the necessary
educational qualifications and good moral
character. Moreover, an attorney-client
relationship is a strictly personal one.
Lawyers are selected on account of their
special fitness through their learning or
probity for the work at hand.
ACTS THAT MAY ONLY BE DONE BY A
LAWYER
(1) The computation and determination of
the period within which to appeal an
adverse judgment [Eco v. Rodriguez, G.R.
L-16731 (1960)];
(2) The examination of witnesses or the
presentation of evidence [Robinson v.
Villafuerte, G.R. L-5346 (1911)].
MAY BE DELEGATED TO NON-LAWYERS:
(1) The examination of case law;
(2) Finding and interviewing witnesses;
(3) Examining court records;
(4) Delivering papers and similar matters.
(c) 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
profitable
sharing
arrangement.
Ratio: Allowing non-lawyers to get
attorney’s fees would confuse the public as to
whom they should consult. It would leave the
bar in a chaotic condition because nonlawyers are also not subject to disciplinary
action.
An agreement between a union lawyer and a
layman president of the union to divide
equally the attorney’s fees that may be
awarded in a labor case violates this rule, and
is illegal and immoral [Amalgamated
Laborers Assn. v. CIR, G.R. L-23467 (1968)].
A donation by a lawyer to a labor union of
part of his attorney’s fees taken from the
proceeds of a judgment secured by him for
the labor union is improper because it
amounts to a rebate or commission [Halili v.
CIR, G.R. L-24864 (1965)].
A contract between a lawyer and a layman
granting the latter a percentage of the fees
collected from clients secured by the layman
and enjoining the lawyer not to deal directly
with said clients is null and void, and the
lawyer may be disciplined for unethical
conduct [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. 1261
(1983)].
While non-lawyers may appear before the
NLRC or any labor arbiter, they are still not
entitled to receive professional fees. The
statutory rule that an attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client a
reasonable compensation or remuneration
PAGE 26 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
for the services they have rendered
presupposes the existence of an attorneyclient relationship.
Such a relationship cannot exist when the
client’s representative is a non-lawyer [Five J
Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. 111474 (1994)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
should yield to his duty to deal candidly with
the court. For no client is entitled to receive
from the lawyer any service involving
dishonesty to the courts [Comments of IBP
Committee].
Some cases of Falsehood Committed by
Lawyers:
D. TO THE COURTS
1.
D.1. CANDOR, FAIRNESS & GOOD FAITH
TOWARDS THE COURTS
Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.
2. Falsifying a power of attorney to
in collecting the money due to
principal and appropriating
money for his own benefit [In
Rusiana, A.C. 270 (1959)];
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of
the court. Accordingly, should there be a
conflict between his duty to his client and
that to the court, he should resolve the
conflict against the former and in favor of the
latter, his primary responsibility being to
uphold the cause of justice [Cobb Perez v.
Lantin, G.R. L-22320 (1968)].
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a
lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
client’s cause, his conduct must never be at
the expense of truth. [Young v. Batuegas, A.C.
5379 (2003)].
Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court
to be misled by any artifice.
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. His duties to his client
use
the
the
Re:
3. Denying having received the notice to
file brief which is belied by the return
card [Ragasajo v. IAC, G.R. L-69129
(1987)];
4. Presenting falsified documents in
court which he knows to be false
[Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. 1625
(1990)];
Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the
very essence of honorable membership in the
legal profession [Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. L35113 (1975)].
A lawyer’s conduct before the court should be
characterized by candor and fairness. The
administration of justice would gravely suffer
if lawyers do not act with complete candor
and honesty before the courts [Serana v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. 162059 (2008)].
Falsely stating in a deed of sale that
property is free from all liens and
encumbrances [Sevilla v. Zoleta, 96
Phil 979 (1955)];
5. Filing false charges or groundless
suits [Retia v. Gorduiz, A.M. 1388
(1980)].
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.
A lawyer who deliberately made it appear
that the quotations in his motion for
reconsiderations were findings of the
Supreme Court, when they were just part of
the memorandum of the Court Administrator,
and who misspelled the name of the
complainant and made the wrong citation of
authority is guilty of violation of this rule
[COMELEC v. Noynay, G.R. 132365 (1998)].
PAGE 27 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
It is the bounden duty of courts, judges and
lawyers to reproduce or copy the same wordfor-word
and
punctuation
mark-forpunctuation mark the decisions of the
Supreme Court. Ever present is the danger
that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the
decisions and rulings may lose their proper
and correct meaning, to the detriment of
other courts, lawyers and the public who may
thereby be misled [Insular Life Employees Co.
v. Insular Life Association, G.R. L-25291 (1971)].
The legal profession demands that lawyers
thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and
other documents dictated or prepared by
them, typed or transcribed by their
secretaries or clerks, before filing them with
the court. If a client is bound by the acts of his
counsel, with more reason should counsel be
bound by the acts of his secretary who merely
follows his orders [Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
100643 (1992)].
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse
of the court’s processes. Those who file
multiple or repetitive actions subject
themselves to disciplinary action for
incompetence or willful violation of their
duties as attorneys to act with good fidelity to
the courts, and to maintain only such actions
that appear to be just and consistent with
truth and honor [Olivares v. Villalon, A.C. 6323
(2007)].
A lawyer should not abuse his right of
recourse to the courts for the purpose of
arguing a cause that had been repeatedly
rebuffed. [Garcia v. Francisco, A.C. 3923
(1993)].
D.2. RESPECT FOR COURTS & JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Observing respect due to the courts means
that a lawyer should conduct himself toward
judges:
(1) With courtesy everyone is entitled to
expect [Paragas v Cruz, G.R. L-24438
(1965)];
(2) With the propriety and dignity required by
the courts [Salcedo v Hernandez, G.R. L42992 (1935)].
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity
and authority of the Court to promote the
administration of justice. Respect to the
courts guarantees the stability of other
institutions. [In re: Sotto, 82 Phil 595 (1949)].
If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive
and malicious statements is submitted in the
same court or judge in which the proceedings
are pending, it is direct contempt, equivalent
as it is to a misbehavior committed in the
presence of or so near a court or judge as to
interrupt the administration of justice. Direct
contempt is punishable summarily [In re:
Letter of Atty. Sorreda, A.M. 5-3-04 (2006)].
Liberally imputing sinister and devious
motives and questioning the impartiality,
integrity, and authority of the members of the
Court result in the obstruction and perversion
of the dispensation of justice [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. 148560 (2000)].
Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously
propound their points of view, they are bound
by certain rules of conduct for the legal
profession. This Court is certainly not
claiming that it should be shielded from
criticism. All the Court demands are the same
respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to
another under established ethical standards.
There is no exemption from this sworn duty
for law professors, regardless of their status
in the academic community or the law school
to which they belong [Re: Letter of the UP
Faculty, A.M. 10-10-4-SC (2011)].
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court
properly attired.
Respect begins with the lawyer’s outward
physical appearance in court. Sloppy or
informal attire adversely reflects on the
PAGE 28 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
lawyer and demeans the dignity
solemnity of court proceedings.
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
and
Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. L27072 (1970)].
A lawyer who dresses improperly may be
cited with contempt [Agpalo (2004)].
Lawyers may use strong language to drive
home a point; they have a right to be in
pursuing a client’s cause [The British Co. v De
Los Angeles, G.R. L-33720 (1975)].
PROPER ATTIRE
Male: Long-sleeved Barong Tagalog or coat
and tie
Female: Semi-formal or business attires
Judges: Same attire as above under their
robes
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear
a necktie and have prohibited a female
attorney from wearing a hat. However, the
permission of a dress with a hemline five
inches above the knee was held to be
acceptable as such “had become an accepted
mode of dress even in places of worship”
[Aguirre (2006)]
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear
at court hearings.
Punctuality is demanded by the respect
which the lawyer owes to the court, the
parties, and the opposing counsel [Funa].
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated
tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing
may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action
as his actions show disrespect to the court
and are therefore considered contemptuous
behavior [Agpalo (2004)].
Non-appearance at hearings on the ground
that the issue to be heard has become moot
and academic is a lapse in judicial propriety
[De Gracia v. Warden of Makati, G.R. L-42032
(1976)].
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the courts.
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but
dignified, emphatic but respectful, as
befitting an advocate and in keeping with the
dignity of the legal profession [Surigao
However, the use of abusive language by
counsel against the opposing counsel
constitutes at the same time disrespect to the
dignity of the court justice. Moreover, the use
of impassioned language in pleadings, more
often than not, creates more heat than light
[Buenaseda v. Flavier, G.R. 106719 (1993)].
Lawyers cannot resort to scurrilous remarks
that have the tendency to degrade the courts
and destroy the public confidence in them [In
Re: Almacen, G.R. L-27654 (1970)].
The court does not close itself to comments
and criticisms so long as they are fair and
dignified. Going beyond the limits of fair
comments by using insulting, disparaging
and, intemperate language necessitates and
warrants a rebuke from the court. While it is
expected of lawyers to advocate their client’s
cause, they are not at liberty to resort to
arrogance, intimidation and innuendo
[Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. 71169 (1988)].
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
Such act would undermine the confidence of
the people in the honesty and integrity of the
members of the court, and would
consequently lower or degrade the
administration of justice [In Re: Almacen, G.R.
L-27654 (1970)].
The rule allows criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or it is material to the
case. A lawyer’s right to criticize the acts of
courts and judges in a proper and respectful
way and through legitimate channels is well
recognized [Agpalo (2004)].
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
[Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. 79690-707 (1989)].
PAGE 29 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
Any serious accusation against a judicial
officer
that
is
utterly
baseless,
unsubstantiated and unjustified shall not be
countenanced [Go v. Abrogar, G.R. 152672
(2007)].
The constitutional right to freedom of
expression of members of the bar may be
circumscribed by their ethical duties as
lawyers to give due respect to the courts and
to uphold the public’s faith in the legal
profession and the justice system [Re: Letter
of UP Faculty, A.C. 10-10-4-SC (2011)].
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities
only.
The duty to respect does not preclude a
lawyer from filing administrative complaints
against erring judges.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
[Sec.6, Art. III, 1987 Constitution]
It is the duty of an attorney 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.
[Sec. 20(g), Rule 138].
The filing of another action containing the
same subject matter, in violation of the
doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to this
canon [Siy Lim v. Montano, A.C. 5653 (2006)].
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
preference. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the
copies.
Can still act as counsel for clients who have
legitimate grievances against them.
However, the lawyer shall not file an
administrative case until he has exhausted
judicial remedies which result in a finding
that the judge has gravely erred [Agpalo
(2004)].
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer
may not be able to effectively assist the court
in the efficient administration of justice.
NON-OBSERVANCE OF PREPARATION:
It has been held in Maceda v. Vasquez that in
criminal complaints against a judge or other
court employees arising from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must
defer action and refer the same to the
Supreme Court for determination whether
said judges or court employees acted within
the scope of their administrative duties.
Otherwise, in the absence of any
administrative action, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches
into the court’s power of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel,
in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers.
D.3. ASSISTANCE IN THE SPEEDY &
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.
(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;
(3) The judge may consider the case
deemed submitted for decision without
client’s evidence, to his prejudice
[Agpalo (2004)].
Half of the work of the lawyer is done in the
office. It is spent in the study and research.
Inadequate preparation obstructs the
administration of justice [Martin’s Legal
Ethics (1988)].
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case
in the midstream is presumed and obliged to
acquaint himself with all the antecedent
processes and proceedings that have
transpired in the record prior to his takeover
[Villasis v. CA, G.R. L-34369 (1974)].
PAGE 30 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) The institution of involving the same
parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, on
the supposition that one or the other
court would come out with a favorable
disposition [Araneta v. Araneta, G.R.
190814 (2013)].
Some Acts Which Amount to Obstruction in
the Administration of Justice:
1.
Inadequate preparation;
2. Instructing complaining witness in a
criminal action not to appear at the
schedule hearing so that the case
against the client would be
dismissed;
3. Asking a client to plead guilty to a
crime which the lawyer knows his
client did not commit;
4. Advising a client who is detained for
crime to escape from prison;
5. Employing dilatory tactics to frustrate
satisfaction of clearly valid claims;
An indicium of the presence of, or the test for
determining whether a litigant violated the
rule against, forum shopping is where the
elements of litis pendentia are present or
where a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in the other case.
REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such
parties as represent the same interests in
both actions;
6. Prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or
appeals to drain the resources of the
other party and compel him to submit
out of exhaustion;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and relief
prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts; and
7. Filing
multiple
petitions
or
complaints for a cause that has been
previously rejected in the false
expectation of getting favorable
action;
(3) Identity of the two preceding particulars
is such that any judgment rendered in
the pending case, regardless of which
party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other [HSBC v. Catalan,
G.R. 159590 (2004)].
8. Other acts of similar nature [Funa].
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
RES JUDICATA REQUIRES THAT:
(1) There be a decision on the merits;
(2) It be decided by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
Ratio: There is an 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 appropriate disciplinary action or render
him liable for the costs of litigation [Agpalo].
(3) The decision is final; and
(4) The two actions involved identical
parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.
CONTENTS OF CERTIFIED COMPLAINT:
CIRCUMSTANCE OF FORUM SHOPPING
(1) When, as a result or in anticipation of an
adverse decision in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion in another
forum through means other than appeal
or certiorari by raising identical causes of
action, subject matter and issues.
PAGE 31 OF 104
(1) He has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; if there is such
other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present
status thereof;
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
(2) 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 five days there from to the
court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5. 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.
SUBMISSION OF A FALSE CERTIFICATION
OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE
UNDERTAKINGS IN A CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING:
(1) Shall constitute indirect contempt of
court;
(2) Without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions.
IF ACTS OF THE PARTY OR HIS COUNSEL
CONSTITUTE WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE
FORUM SHOPPING:
(1) Be a ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice;
(2) Constitute direct contempt;
(3) Be a cause for administrative sanctions.
The rule against forum shopping and the
requirement that a certification to that effect
be complied with in the filing of complaints,
petitions or other initiatory pleadings in all
courts and agencies applies to quasi-judicial
bodies, such as the NLRC or Labor Arbiter
[Agpalo (2004)].
It is the duty of the lawyer to resist the whims
and caprices of his client and to temper his
client’s propensity to litigate. [Castañeda v.
Ago, G.R. L-28546 (1975)].
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
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
explanation for his failure to do so.
The court censures the practice of counsels
who secures repeated extensions of time to
file their pleadings and thereafter simply let
the period lapse without submitting the
pleading on even an explanation or
manifestation of their failure to do so. There
exists a breach of duty not only to the court
but also to the client [Achacoso v. CA, G.R. L35867 (1973)].
An attorney is bound to protect his client’s
interest to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his
client certainly constitutes inexcusable
negligence on his part [Ford v. Daitol, A.C.
3736 (1995)].
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.
It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s
ability to protect the interest of one’s client. It
is quite another thing to delay if not defeat
the recovery of what is justly due and
demandable due to the misleading acts of a
lawyer [Manila Pest Control v. WCC, G.R. L27662 (1968)].
Once a judgment becomes final and
executory, the prevailing party should not be
denied the fruits of his victory by some
subterfuge devised by the losing part.
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a
judgment sets at naught the role of courts in
disposing justiciable controversies with
finality [Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation,
G.R. 157911 (2006)].
If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the futility
of an appeal in a civil suit, he should not
hesitate to inform his client. He should advise
his client to accept the judgment of the trial
court and thus accord respect to the just
claim of the opposite party. [Agpalo (2001)]
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from talking
to his witness during a break or recess in the
trial, while the witness is still under
PAGE 32 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) Not to be examined except as to matters
pertinent to the issues before the court;
examination.
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law;
Ratio: The purpose is to prevent the
suspicion that he is coaching the witness
what to say during the resumption of the
examination; to uphold and maintain fair play
with the other party and to prevent the
examining lawyer from being tempted to
coach his own witness to suit his purpose
[Callanta].
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Art. 184, RPC. The lawyer who presented a
witness knowing him to be a false witness is
criminally liable for offering false testimony in
evidence. The lawyer is both criminally and
administratively liable.
Subornation of perjury is committed by a
person who knowingly and willfully procures
another to swear falsely and the witness
suborned [or induced] does testify under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury
[US v. Ballena, G.R. L-6294 (1911)].
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
It is the duty of a lawyer to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a
party or witness unless required by the justice
of the cause with which he is charged [Sec
20(f), Rule 138].
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade the witness’ reputation, but a
witness must answer the fact of any
previous final conviction for a criminal
offense.
PD 1829 PENALIZES THE FOLLOWING:
(1) 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;
(2) 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.
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.
RIGHTS OF WITNESSES
[Sec. 3, Rule 132]
(1) To be protected from irrelevant,
improper or insulting questions and from
a harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require
Ratio: The underlying reason for the
impropriety of a lawyer acting in such dual
PAGE 33 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
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 his client as an attorney and his
relation to the party as a witness [Agpalo].
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 [PNB
v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. L-35252 (1932)].
D.4. RELIANCE ON MERITS OF HIS CAUSE
& AVOIDANCE OF ANY IMPROPRIETY
WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR GIVES
THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCE UPON
THE COURTS
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.
A lawyer should avoid marked attention and
unusual hospitality to a judge uncalled for by
the personal relations of the parties because
they subject him and the judge to
misconceptions of motives. [Canon 3].
In order not to subject both the judge and the
lawyer to suspicion, the common practice of
some lawyers of making judges and
prosecutors godfathers of their children to
enhance their influence and their law practice
should be avoided by judges and lawyers
alike [Report of IBP Committee].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
It is improper for a litigant or counsel to see a
judge in chambers and talk to him about a
matter related to the case pending in the
court of said judge [Austria v. Masaquel, G.R.
L-22536 (1967)].
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.
Ratio: Newspaper publications regarding a
pending or anticipated litigation may
interfere with a fair trial, prejudice the
administration of justice, or subject a
respondent or an accused to a trial by
publicity and create a public inference of guilt
against him [Agpalo].
Public statements may be considered
contemptuous when the character of the act
done and its direct tendency to prevent and
obstruct the discharge of official duty.
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. In a concluded
litigation, a lawyer enjoys a wider latitude of
comment or on criticism of the judge’s
decision or actuation. [In re Gomez, 43 Phil
376 (1922)]
In the original decision of the Supreme Court
in Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial
in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases
against Former President Joseph Estrada
(2001), it was stated that the propriety of
granting or denying the petition involve the
weighing out of the constitutional guarantees
of freedom of the press and the right to
public information, on the one hand, and the
fundamental rights of the accused, on the
other hand, along with the constitutional
power of a court to control its proceedings in
ensuring a fair and impartial trial. It was held
that when these rights race against one
another, the right of the accused must be
preferred to win, considering the possibility of
losing not only the precious liberty but also
the very life of an accused.
PAGE 34 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
In the resolution of the motion for
reconsideration, the Supreme Court allowed
the video recording of proceedings, but
provided that the release of the tapes for
broadcast should be delayed. In so doing,
concerns that those taking part in the
proceedings will be playing to the cameras
and will thus be distracted from the proper
performance of their roles – whether as
counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or
judges – will be allayed.
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.
Ratio: The rule is based upon the principle of
separation of powers [Aguirre (2006)].
A complaint against justices cannot be filed
with the Office of the President. [Maglasang v.
People, G.R. No. 90083 (1990)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E.1. AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION
Canon 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his
services to the needy.
i. Services Regardless of a Person’s
Status
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person.
General Rule: A lawyer is not obliged to act
as legal counsel for any person who may wish
to become his client. He has the right to
decline employment.
Exceptions:
(1) A lawyer shall not refuse his services to
the needy [Canon 14]
(2) A lawyer shall not decline to represent a
person solely on account of the latter’s
race, sex, creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person. [Rule 14.01]
E. TO THE CLIENTS
The attorney-client relationship is:
(3) A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client
unless:
(1) Strictly personal;
(2) Highly confidential;
a. He is in no position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
(3) Fiduciary.
b. He labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective
client or between a present client
and the prospective client. [Rule
14.02]
A written contract, although the best evidence
to show the presence of an attorney-client
relationship is not essential for the
employment of an attorney.
Documentary formalism is not an essential
element in the employment of an attorney;
the contract may be express or implied. To
establish the relation, it is sufficient that the
advice and assistance of an attorney is sought
and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession [Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No.
8243 (2009)].
(4) A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client
unless:
PAGE 35 OF 104
a. He is in no position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
b. He labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective
client or between a present client
and the prospective client. [Rule
14.03]
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
It is the duty of an attorney, in the defense of
a person accused of a 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.
20(i), Rule 138]
Ratio: It is a declared policy of the State to
value the dignity of every human person and
guarantee the rights of every individual,
particularly those who cannot afford the
services of counsel [RA 9999 or Free Legal
Assistance Act of 2010].
RA 9999 provides incentives for free legal
service. Thus, a lawyer or professional
partnerships rendering actual free legal
services shall be entitled to an allowable
deduction from the gross income,
(1)
The amount that could have been
collected for the actual free legal
services rendered OR
(2)
Up to 10% of the gross income
derived from the actual performance
of legal profession, whichever is
lower.
This is different from the 60-hour mandatory
legal aid services under Bar Matter 2012.
INDIGENT:
(1) 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. 2, RA 6033]
(2) A person who has no visible means of
support or whose income does not exceed
P300.00 per month or whose income
even in excess of P300.00 per month is
insufficient for the subsistence of his
family [Sec. 2, RA 6035]
LAW S ON INDIGENTS
INCOME LITIGANTS:
OR
LOW
(1) All courts shall give preference to the
hearing and/or disposition of criminal
cases where an indigent is involved either
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
as the offended party or accused [Sec. 1,
RA 6033]
(2) 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
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 [Sec. 1, RA 6034].
(3) A stenographer who has attended a
hearing before an investigating fiscal or
trial judge or hearing commissioner of
any quasi-judicial 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. 1, RA
6035]
ii. Services as 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 amicus
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.
Rules of Court provides:
(1) It is the duty of an attorney never to
reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed [Sec. 20(h), Rule 138];
(2) A court may assign an attorney to render
professional aid free of charge to any
party in a case, if upon investigation it
PAGE 36 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
assign a counsel de officio to defend him,
[Sec. 6, Rule 116];
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. 31, Rule 138]
(2) It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court,
upon filing of a notice of appeal, to
ascertain from the appellant, if confined
in prison, whether he desires the
Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel
de officio [Sec. 13, Rule 122];
(3) The clerk of the CA shall designate a
counsel de oficio if it appears from the
case record that:
Counsel de oficio - one appointed or
assigned by the court.
Counsel de parte- one employed or
retained by the party himself.
(a) The accused is confined in prison,
W HO
MAY
BE
APPOINTED
COUNSEL DE OFICIO:
(c) Has signed the notice of appeal
himself, the clerk of Court of
Appeals shall designate a counsel
de oficio.
(b) Is without counsel de parte on
appeal, or
AS
(1) A member of the bar in good standing
who, by reason of their experience and
ability, can competently defend the
accused;
(2) In localities without lawyers:
(a) Any person resident of the province
and of good repute for probity and
ability [Sec. 7, Rule 116];
(b) A municipal judge or a lawyer
employed in any branch, subdivision
or instrumentality of the government
within the province [Sec. 1, PD 543].
An appellant who is not confined in prison
may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de
officio within ten days from receipt of the
notice to file brief and he establishes his right
thereto [Sec. 2, Rule 124]
iii. Valid Grounds for Refusal
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
(a) He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
CONSIDERATIONS
IN
THE
APPOINTMENT OF A COUNSEL DE
OFICIO:
(b) He labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client
or between a present client and the
prospective client.
(1) Gravity of the offense;
(2) Difficulty of the questions that may arise;
(3) Experience and ability of the appointee.
W HEN THE COURT MAY APPOINT A
COUNSEL DE OFICIO (IN CRIMINAL
ACTIONS):
(1) 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
A lawyer shall not decline 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 except for serious
and sufficient cause.
Reason: One of the burdens of the privilege
to practice law is to render, when so required
by the court, free legal services to an indigent
litigant.
PAGE 37 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he
shall not refuse to render legal advice to the
person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
[Rule 2.02, Canon 2]
Confidences of clients
handled).
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.
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client,
and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees,
he is still bound to attend to a client’s case
with all due diligence and zeal. [Blanza v.
Arcangel, A.C. No. 492 (1967)]
E.2. CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY TO
CLIENTS
Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
i. Confidentiality Rule
Secrets of clients
disclosure of which
would be
embarrassing or
would likely be
detrimental to the
client (i.e.,
information not
exactly pertinent to
the case).
Communication may be transmitted by any
form of agency, such as a messenger, an
interpreter or any other form of transmission.
It is immaterial whether the agent is the
agent of the attorney, the client or both.
Question of privilege is determined by the
court. The burden of proof is on the party who
asserts the privilege.
Canon 21 enjoins a lawyer to preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even after
the attorney-client relation is terminated.
ii. Privileged Com m unications
Purpose: To protect the client from possible
breach of confidence as a result of a
consultation with a lawyer [Hadjula v.
Madianda, A.C. No. 6711 (2007)]
Confidential
com m unicationinformation 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 [Mercado v.
Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108 (2005)].
Confidences of clients
Secrets of clients
Refer to information
protected by
attorney-client
privilege under the
Rules of Court (i.e.,
information pertinent
to the case being
Refer to
information gained
in the profession
relationship that
the client has
requested to be
held inviolate or the
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.
REQUISITES (LRCI)
(1) The person to whom information is given
is a lawyer. However, if a person is
pretending to be a lawyer and client
discloses confidential communications,
the attorney-client privilege applies;
(2) There is a legal relationship existing,
except in cases of prospective clients;
(3) Legal advice must be sought from the
attorney in his professional capacity
with respect to communications relating
to that purpose. The information is not
privileged if the advice is not within
lawyer’s professional capacity;
intend
(4) The
client
must
communication be confidential.
PAGE 38 OF 104
the
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
PERSONS ENTITLED TO PRIVILEGE
(1) The lawyer, client, and third persons who
by reason of their work have acquired
information about the case being
handled, including:
(a) Attorney’s secretary, stenographer
and clerk;
(b) Interpreter, messengers, or agents
transmitting communication;
(c) Accountant, scientist, physician,
engineer who has been hired for
effective consultation;
(2) Assignee of the client’s interest as far as
the communication affects the realization
of the assigned interest.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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 [Sec. 24(b), Rule 130].
General rule: As a matter of public policy, a
client’s identity should not be shrouded in
mystery. Thus, a lawyer may not invoke the
privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
identity of this client.
Exceptions:
(1) When a lawyer is accused by the client
and he needs to reveal information to
defend himself;
SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGE
(1) Does not cover transactions that occurred
beyond the lawyer’s employment with the
client [Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. No. 8242
(2009)].
(2) 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 the crime was
committed in the past, the privilege
applies. If it is still to be committed, the
privilege does not apply, because the
communication between a lawyer and his
client must be for a lawful purpose or in
furtherance of a lawful end to be
privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 115439 (1996)].
(3) 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. [Genato v.
Silapan, A.C. 4078 (2003)].
(2) When the client discloses the intention
to commit a crime or unlawful act
[Aguirre (2006)].
Ratio:
(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 attorney-client privilege
does not attach unless there is a client.
(3) The privilege generally pertains to the
subject matter of the relationship.
(4) Due process considerations require that
the opposing party should, as a general
rule, know his adversary.
Exceptions to exceptions: Client identity
is privileged in the following instances:
(4) Embraces not only oral or written
statements but also actions, signs or
other means of communications.
PAGE 39 OF 104
(1) Where a strong probability exists that
revealing the client's name would
implicate that client in the very activity
for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
(2) Where disclosure would open the client
to civil liability, his identity is privileged.
(3) Where the government's lawyers have no
case against an attorney's client unless,
by revealing the client’s name, the said
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
name would furnish the only link that
would form the chain of testimony
necessary to convict an individual of a
crime, the client's name is privileged.
Information relating to the identity of the
client may fall within the ambit of the
privilege when the client’s name itself has an
independent
significance,
such
that
disclosure would then reveal client
confidences [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 105938 (1996)]
General rule: The protection given to the
client is perpetual and does not cease with
the termination of the litigation, nor is it
affected by the client’s 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 [Bun
Siong Yao v. Aurelio, A.C. No. 7023 (2006)]
Exception:
Some
privileged
communications lose their privileged
character by some supervening act done
pursuant
to
the
purpose
of
the
communication (e.g., a communication
intended by the client to be sent to a third
person
through
his
attorney
loses
confidential character once it reached the
third party).
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
iii. Conflict of Interest
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.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. [Hornilla v. Salunat,
A.C. 5804 (2003)].
REQUISITES
(1) There are conflicting duties;
(2) The acceptance of the new relations
invites or actually leads to unfaithfulness
or double-dealing to another client; or
(3) The attorney will be called upon to use
against his first client any knowledge
acquired in the previous employment.
TESTS OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
EXAMPLES OF PRIVILEGED MATTERS
(1) Work product of lawyer (his effort,
research and thought contained in his
file);
(2) Report of a physician, an accountant, an
engineer or a technician, whose services
have been secured by a client as part of
his communication to his attorney or by
the attorney to assist him render
effective legal assistance to his client;
(3) Records concerning an accident in which
a party is involved;
(4) Consultation which has to do with the
preparation of a client to take the
witness stand.
PAGE 40 OF 104
(1) 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 its performance.
(2) 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 represented
him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against
the first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection [Frias v.
Lozada, A.C. No. 6656 (2005)].
(3) Whether or not in behalf of one client, it
is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue
or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for
the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
opposed by him when he argues for the
other client. This rule covers not only
cases
in
which
confidential
communications have been confided, but
also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used.
(4) 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
[Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. 8243
(2009)].
(5) Whether the lawyer will be asked to use
against his former client any confidential
information acquired through their
connection or previous employment
[Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. 8242 (2009)]
Note: The test to determine whether there is
a conflict of interest in the representation is
probability, not certainty of conflict.
EFFECTS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Representing adverse interest may result in:
(1) Disqualification as counsel in the new
case;
(2) If prejudicial to interests of latter client,
setting aside of a judgment;
(3) Administrative and criminal (for betrayal
of trust) liability;
(4) Forfeiture of attorney’s fees.
General rule: A lawyer may not represent
two opposing parties at any point in time. A
lawyer need not be the counsel-of-record of
either party. It is enough that the counsel had
a hand in the preparation of the pleading of
one party.
Exception: When the parties agree, and for
amicable settlement [Agpalo (2004)]
At a certain stage of the controversy, before it
reaches the court, a lawyer may represent
conflicting interests with the consent of the
parties [Dee v. CA, G.R. No. 77439 (1989)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
An attorney’s 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. [Agpalo (2004)]
iv. Candid
Clients
and
Honest
Advice
to
Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his client
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the client’s
case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.
A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest
opinion on the merit or lack of merit of
client’s 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 [Agpalo (2004)]
The signature of counsel constitutes a
certificate by him that he has read the
pleading; that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief there is good ground
to support it; and that it is not interposed for
delay [Sec. 3, Rule 7]
v. 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.
Ratio: To protect against influence peddling.
[Agpalo (2004)].
vi. Com pliance with Laws
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and
principles of fairness.
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 [Sec. 20(c), Rule 138].
PAGE 41 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
A lawyer is required to represent his client
within the bounds of law. He is enjoined to
employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and not to
allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
A lawyer appears in court in representation of
his client not only as an advocate but also as
an officer of the court. 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 [Agpalo (2004)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Lawyers cannot acquire or purchase, even at
a public or judicial auction, either in person or
through the mediation of another, the
property and rights which may be the object
of any litigation in which they take part by
virtue of their profession [Art. 1491(5), Civil
Code].
Ratio: The prohibition is based on the
existing relation of trust or the lawyer’s
peculiar control over the property.
REQUISITES (RLCP)
(1) There
is
relationship;
vii. Concurrent Practice of Another
Profession
Ratio: Certain ethical considerations may be
operative in one profession and not in the
other [Agpalo (2004)]
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 lawyer’s 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 [Nakpil v.
Valdez, A.C. No. 2040 (1998)]
E.3. CLIENT’S MONEYS AND PROPERTIES
Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession.
attorney-client
(2) The property or interest of the client is in
litigation;
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.
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited
but a lawyer must make it clear when he is
acting as a lawyer or when he is acting in
another capacity, especially in occupations
related to the practice of law [In re: Rothman,
12 N.J. 528 (1953)]
an
(3) The attorney takes part as counsel in
the case;
(4) The attorney purchases or acquires the
property or right, by himself or through
another, during the pendency of
litigation [Laig v. CA, G.R. No. L-26882
(1978)]
Any scheme which has the effect of
circumventing the law comes within the
prohibition [Agpalo (2004)].
INSTANCES W HEN PROHIBITION IN
CIVIL CODE ART. 1491 APPLIES:
(1) Even if the purchase or lease of the
property in litigation is in favor of a
partnership, of which counsel is a
partner [Mananquil v. Villegas, A.C. No.
2430 (1990)]
(2) If the purchase is made by the wife of the
attorney [In re: Calderon, G.R. No. L2409 (1907)]
(3) Mortgage of property in litigation to the
lawyer. In this case, acquisition is merely
postponed until foreclosure but effect is
the same. It also includes assignment of
property [Ordonio v. Eduarte, A.M. No.
3216, (1992)].
The purchase by a lawyer of the property in
litigation from his client is void and could
produce no legal effect [Article 1409(7), Civil
Code]
PAGE 42 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
INSTANCES W HEN PROHIBITION IN
ART. 1491 DOES NOT APPLY:
(1) When the attorney is not a counsel in the
case involving the same property at the
time of acquisition;
(2) When purchaser is a corporation, even if
the attorney was an officer [Tuason v.
Tuason, G.R. No. L-3404 (1951)]
(3) When sale takes place after termination
of litigation, except if there was fraud or
use/abuse of confidential information or
where lawyer exercised undue influence;
(4) Where property in question is stipulated
as part of attorney’s fees, provided that,
the same is contingent upon the
favorable outcome of litigation and,
provided further, that the fee must be
reasonable.
i. Fiduciary Relationship
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
Ratio: The lawyer merely holds said money
or property in trust.
When a lawyer collects or receives money
from his client for a particular purpose (such
as for filing fees, registration fees,
transportation and office expenses), he
should promptly account to the client how
the money was spent. If he does not use the
money for its intended purpose, he must
immediately return it to the client [Belleza v.
Macasa, A.C. No. 7815 (2009)]
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 [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No.
936 (1975)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
his personal purposes without the client’s
consent. [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No. 936
(1975)]
iii. Delivery of Funds
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees
and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
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 Sec. shall not be a bar
to criminal prosecution [Sec. 25, Rule 138]
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 [Busiños v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349
(1997)]
The failure of an attorney to return the
client’s money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his own use to the prejudice of and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by the
client [Jinon v. Jiz, A.C. No. 9615 (2013)]
However, an attorney has 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
[Sec. 37, Rule 138]
iv. Borrowing or Lending
ii. Com m ingling of Funds
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.
A lawyer should not commingle a client’s
money with that of other clients and with his
private funds, nor use the client’s money for
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client’s 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
PAGE 43 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.
A LAW YER IS PROHIBITED FROM
BORROW ING M ONEY FROM HIS
CLIENT
Ratio: The canon presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use
all the legal maneuverings to renege on her
obligation [Frias v. Lozada, A.C. No. 6656
(2005)]
The profession demands of an attorney an
absolute abdication of every personal
advantage conflicting in any way, directly or
indirectly, with the interest of his client
[Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925 (2003)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
confidence reposed in him by complainant.
Instead, he deceived complainant and misled
him into parting with P400,000 for services
that were both illegal and unprofessional
[Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No. 8010 (2009)]
E.5. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Canon 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
DILIGENCE REQUIRED
A LAW YER IS PROHIBITED FROM
LENDING M ONEY TO HIS CLIENT
Ratio: The canon intends to assure the
lawyer’s independent professional judgment,
for if the lawyer acquires a financial interest
in the outcome of the case, the free exercise
of his judgment may be adversely affected.
Exception: When, in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling.
E.4. FIDELITY TO CLIENT’S CAUSE
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.
The failure to exercise due diligence and the
abandonment of a client’s cause make such a
lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client
has reposed on him [Cantilller v. Potenciano,
A.C. No. 3195 (1989)]
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the
client, no fear or judicial disfavor or public
unpopularity should restrain him from the full
discharge of his duty [Santiago v. Fojas, A.M.
No. 4103 (1995)]
By advising complainant that a foreigner
could legally and validly acquire real estate in
the Philippines and by assuring complainant
that the property was alienable, the lawyer
deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client.
He did not give due regard to the trust and
A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or
that reasonable degree of care and skill
having reference to the character of the
business he undertakes to do, as any other
member of the bar similarly situated
commonly possesses and exercises. He is not,
however, bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence [Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L-42927
(1980)]
A client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense authorized by law,
and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense [Garcia v. Bala,
A.C. No. 5309 (2005)]
i. Adequate Preparation
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights
and interests by thorough study and
preparation, mastering applicable law and
facts involved in a case, and keeping
constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence
and developments in all branches of the law
[Agpalo (2004)]
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care
and time to his cases. This is the reason why a
practicing lawyer should accept only so many
cases he can handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No.
94457 (1991)]
PAGE 44 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
ii. Negligence
latter to look for another lawyer to
represent them while counsel was in the
hospital [Ventura v. Santos, 59 Phil. 123
(1993)];
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual
loss has been caused to his client, the latter
has a cause of action against him for
damages. [Callanta]
8) Failure to appear simply because the
client did not go to counsel’s office on
the date of the trial as was agreed upon
(Alcoriza v. Lumakang, A.M. No. 249
(1978)];
General rule: A client is bound by the
attorney’s conduct, negligence and mistake
in handling the 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: He is not so bound where the
ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of
lawyer is so great and error so serious that
the client, who has good cause, is prejudiced
and denied a day in court [People v.
Manzanilla, G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon v.
CA, G.R. No. 126802 (2000)]
EXAMPLES
NEGLIGENCE:
1)
OF
9) Failure to pay the appellate docket fee
after receiving the amount for the
purpose [Capulong v. Alino, A.M. No. 381
(1968)]
iii. 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.
LAW YER’S
Failure of counsel to ask for additional
time to answer a complaint resulting in a
default judgment against his client
(Mapua v. Mendoza, G.R. L-19295
(1923)];
2) Failure to bring suit immediately, as
when it was filed when the defendant
had already become insolvent and
recovery could no longer be had;
W HEN A LAW YER ACCEPTS A CASE,
W HETHER FOR A FEE OR NOT, HIS
ACCEPTANCE
IS
AN
IMPLIED
REPRESENTATION:
3) Failure to ascertain date of receipt from
post office of notice of decision resulting
in the non-perfection of the appellant’s
appeal [Joven-De Jesus v. PNB, G.R. No.
L-19299 (1964)]
4) Failure to file briefs within the
reglementary period [People v. Cawili,
G.R. No. L-30543, (1970)];
5) Failure to attend a trial without filing a
motion for postponement or without
requesting either of his two partners in
the law office to take his place and
appear for the defendants [Gaerlan v.
Bernal, G.R. No. L-4039 (1952)];
6) Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante
v. Patriarca, G.R. No. L-48324 (1990)];
7) Failure of counsel to notify clients of the
scheduled trial which prevented the
PAGE 45 OF 104
1)
That he possesses the requisite degree
of academic learning, skill and ability
necessary in the practice of his
profession;
2) That he will exert his best judgment in
the prosecution or defense of the
litigation entrusted to him;
3) That he will exercise ordinary diligence
or that reasonable degree of care and
skill demanded of the business he
undertakes to do, to protect the client’s
interests and take all steps or do all acts
necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinsin, A.C.
8252 (2009)]; and
4) That he will take steps as will adequately
safeguard his client’s interests [Islas v.
Platon, G.R. No. L-23183 (1924)]
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
A lawyer should not accept an undertaking in
a specific area of law which he knows or
should know he is not qualified to enter.
[Agpalo (2004)]
iv. Duty to Apprise Client
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
client’s request for information.
It was unnecessary to have the clients wait,
and hope, for six long years on their pension
claims. Upon their refusal to cooperate, the
lawyer should have forthwith terminated their
professional relationship instead of keeping
them hanging indefinitely. [Blanza v. Arcangel,
A.C. No. 492 (1967)]
CLIENT SHOULD
INQUIRIES
MAKE
PROPER
The client should not, however, sit idly by. It is
also his duty to make proper inquiries from
his counsel concerning his case, in keeping
with that standard of care which an ordinarily
prudent man bestows upon his important
business.
E.6. REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL WITHIN
LEGAL BOUNDS
Canon 19. A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law.
A lawyer should present every remedy or
defense authorized by law in support of his
client’s cause regardless of his personal views.
[Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]
i. Use of Fair and Honest Means
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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
It is the duty of an attorney 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 [Sec.
20(d), Rule 138]
A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases
against the adversaries of his client designed
to secure a leverage to compel adversaries to
yield or withdraw their own cases against the
lawyer’s client. [Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No.
7298 (2007)]
ii. Client’s Fraud
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.
This rule merely requires the lawyer to
terminate his relationship with the client in
the event the latter fails or refuses to rectify
the fraud. [Agpalo (2004)]
iii. Procedure in Handling The Case
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client
to dictate the procedure on handling the
case.
Within client’s control
The cause of action,
the claim or demand
sued upon, and the
subject matter of the
litigation are all
within the exclusive
control of a client.
An attorney may not
impair, compromise,
settle, surrender, or
destroy them without
his client's consent.
PAGE 46 OF 104
Within counsel’s
control
All the proceedings in
court to enforce the
remedy, to bring the
claim, demand,
cause of action, or
subject matter of the
suit to hearing, trial,
determination,
judgment, and
execution, are within
the exclusive control
of the attorney
[Belandres v. Lopez
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) When
the
stipulated
fees
unconscionable or unreasonable;
Sugar Central Mill,
G.R. No. L-6869
(1955)].
(4) When the stipulated fees are in excess of
what is expressly provided by law;
(5) When the lawyer is guilty of fraud or bad
faith in the manner of his employment;
E.7. ATTORNEY’S FEES
Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
(6) When the counsel’s services
worthless because of negligence;
An attorney is entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services with a view to:
(1) The importance of the subject matter of
the controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional
attorney.
standing
of
are
the
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 am ount to be paid therefore
unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable. [Sec. 24,
Rule 138, RoC]
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 [Tanhueco v. De Dumo, A.M.
No. 1437 (1989)]
W HEN A LAW YER CANNOT RECOVER
THE FULL AMOUNT STIPULATED IN
THE CONTRACT:
(1) When the services were not performed,
and if the lawyer withdrew before the
case was finished, he will be allowed
only reasonable fees;
are
(7) When the contract is contrary to laws,
morals, and good policies.
W HEN THERE
CONTRACT
IS
NO
EXPRESS
In the absence of an express contract,
payment of attorney’s fees may be justified by
virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut
des (I do and you give) which is based on the
principle that “no one shall enrich himself at
the expense of another” [Corpuz v. CA, G.R.
No. L-40424 (1980)]
NOTE: RA 5185. Sec. 6. 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 Sec. shall likewise apply to
provincial governors and city and municipal
mayors.
(2) When there is justified dismissal of an
attorney, the contract will be nullified
and payment will be on quantum meruit
basis;
PAGE 47 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
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
questions involved;
difficulty
of
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
reasonably to notify him that lawyer expects
compensation.
W HEN AUTHORIZED:
the
(1) The agreement as to counsel fees is
invalid for some reason other than the
illegality of the object of performance;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(2) There is no express contract for
attorney’s fees agreed upon between the
lawyer and the client;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other
employment as a result of acceptance of
the proffered case;
(3) When although there is a formal contract
of attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are
found unconscionable or unreasonable
by the court;
(f) The customary charges for similar
services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(4) When the contract for attorney’s fees is
void due to purely formal matters or
defects of execution;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy
and the benefits resulting to the client
from the service;
(h) The contingency
compensation;
or
certainty
(5) When the counsel, for justifiable cause,
was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion;
of
(i) The character of the employment,
whether occasional or established; and
(6) When lawyer and client disregard the
contract of attorney’s fees;
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
(7) When there is a contract but no
stipulation as to attorney’s fees.
MANNER BY W HICH ATTORNEYS MAY
BE PAID
QUANTUM MERUIT GUIDELINES
(1) A fixed or absolute fee which is payable
regardless of the result of the case;
(2) A contingent fee that is conditioned upon
the securing of a favorable judgment and
recovery of money or property and the
amount of which may be on a percentage
basis;
(3) A fixed fee payable per appearance;
(4) A fixed fee computed by the number of
hours spent;
(5) A fixed fee based on a piece of work;
(6) A combination of any of the above
stipulated fees.
QUANTUM MERUIT
Means “as much as a lawyer deserves.”
Essential requisite: Acceptance of the
benefits by one sought to be charged for
services rendered under circumstances as
PAGE 48 OF 104
(1) Time spent and extent of the services
rendered. A lawyer is justified in fixing
higher fees when the case is so
complicated and requires more time and
efforts to finish it.
(2) Importance of subject matter. The more
important the subject matter or the
bigger value of the interest or property in
litigation, the higher is the attorney’s fee.
(3) Novelty and difficulty of questions
involved. When the questions in a case
are novel and difficult, greater efforts,
deeper study, and research are bound to
burn the lawyer’s time and stamina
considering that there are no local
precedents to rely upon.
(4) Skill demanded of the lawyer. The
totality of the lawyer’s experience
provides him the skill and competence
admired in lawyers.
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
A determination of all these factors would
indispensably require nothing less than a
full-blown trial where private respondent can
adduce evidence to establish its right to
lawful attorney's fees and for petitioner to
oppose or refute the same [Metrobank v. CA,
G.R. No. 86100 (1990)]
The above rules apply in the case of a counsel
de parte.
A counsel de oficio may not demand from the
accused attorney’s fees even if he wins the
case. However, subject to availability of funds,
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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Champertous Contract
Contingent Contract
A champertous
contract is one where
the lawyer stipulates
with his client that he
will bear all the
expenses for the
prosecution of the
case, the recovery of
things or property
being claimed, and
the latter pays only
upon successful
litigation.
A contingent
contract is an
agreement in which
the lawyer’s 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 client’s right. The
lawyer does not
undertake to
shoulder the
expenses of
litigation.
This contract is void
for being against
public policy
The criteria in fixing the amount are still:
It is a valid
agreement.
(1) The importance of the subject matter of
the controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional
attorney.
standing
of
the
i. Acceptance Fees
Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-client relationship
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the
client’s cause. [Emiliano Court Townhouses
Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No.
5162 (2003)]
Failure to render the legal services agreed
upon, despite receipt of an acceptance fee, is
a clear violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. [Macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No.
6591 (2005)]
It is the duty of an attorney to accept no
compensation in connection with his client’s
business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval [Sec. 20(e), Rule
138]
ii. Contingency Fee Arrangem ents
A distinction should be made between a
champertous contract and a contingent
contract with respect to attorney’s fees:
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
work performed and responsibility assumed.
The referral of a client by a lawyer to another
lawyer does not entitle the former to a
commission or to a portion of the attorney’s
fees. It is only when, in addition to the referral,
he performs legal service or assumes
responsibility in the case that he will be
entitled to a fee [Agpalo (2004)]
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.
Ratio: The rule is designed to secure the
lawyer’s fidelity to the client’s cause and to
prevent that situation in which receipt by him
of a rebate or commission from another in
connection with the client’s cause may
interfere with the full discharge of his duty to
his client.
PAGE 49 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
iii. Attorney’s Liens
RETAINING LIEN
An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client which
have lawfully come into his possession. Thus:
(1) He may retain the same until his lawful
fees and disbursements have been paid;
(2) May apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof. [Sec. 37, Rule 138]
REQUISITES
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) The attorney has a claim for attorney’s
fees or advances statement of his claim
has been recorded in the case with
notice served upon the client and
adverse party.
Retaining lien
Charging lien
Nature
Passive lien. It
cannot be actively
enforced. It is a
general lien.
Active lien. It can be
enforced by
execution. It is a
special lien.
Basis
(2) Lawful possession by lawyer of the
client’s funds, documents and papers in
his professional capacity; and
(3) Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or
disbursements.
CHARGING LIEN
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. This lien exists from
and after the time when he shall have
caused:
(1) 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
(2) Written notice thereof to be delivered to
his client and to the adverse party.
From then on, 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 [Sec. 37, Rule 138]
Lawful possession
of funds, papers,
documents,
property belonging
to client
Securing of a
favorable money
judgment for client
Coverage
Covers only funds,
papers, documents,
and property in the
lawful possession of
the attorney by
reason of his
professional
employment
Covers all
judgments for the
payment of money
and executions
issued in pursuance
of such judgment
Effectivity
As soon as the
lawyer gets
possession of the
funds, papers,
documents,
property
As soon as the claim
for attorney’s fees
had been entered
into the records of
the case
Applicability
May be exercised
before judgment or
execution, or
regardless thereof
REQUISITES
Generally, it is
exercisable only
when the attorney
had already secured
a favorable
judgment for his
client
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
Notice
(2) The attorney has rendered services;
(3) A money judgment favorable to the
client has been secured in the action;
and
PAGE 50 OF 104
Client need not be
notified to make it
effective
Client and adverse
party need to
notified to make it
effective
UP LAW BOC
iv. Fees
Clients
LEGAL ETHICS
and
Controversies
with
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.
JUDICIAL ACTIONS
ATTORNEY’S FEES:
TO
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E.9.
PRESERVATION
OF
CLIENT’S
CONFIDENCES
Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even after
the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Ratio:
(1) 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;
RECOVER
(1) An appropriate motion or petition as an
incident in the main action where he
rendered legal services;
(2) To encourage a client to make full
disclosure to his attorney and to place
unrestricted confidence in him in matters
affecting his rights or obligations.
(2) A separate civil action for collection of
attorney’s fees.
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.
[Agpalo (2004)]
v. Concepts of Attorney’s Fees
Ordinary concept
Extraordinary concept
An attorney’s fee is
the reasonable
compensation paid
to a lawyer for the
legal services he has
rendered to a client.
Its basis of this
compensation is the
fact of employment
by the client.
An attorney’s fee is
an indemnity for
damages ordered by
the court to be paid
by the losing party to
the prevailing party
in litigation. The
basis of this is any of
the cases authorized
by law and is payable
not to the lawyer but
to the client – unless
they have agreed
that the award shall
pertain to the lawyer
as additional
compensation or as
part thereof [Traders
Royal Bank
Employees UnionIndependent v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 120592
(1997)].
It is the duty of an attorney 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. [Sec. 20(e),
Rule 138]
IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1)
Upon any lawyer who, by any malicious
breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance,
reveals any of the secrets of the latter
learned by him in his professional
capacity.
2) Upon a lawyer who, having undertaken
the defense of a client or having received
confidential information from said client
in a case, undertakes the defense of the
opposing party in the same case, without
the consent of his first client. [Art. 209,
RPC]
i. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
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.
PAGE 51 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
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 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he
has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
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 client’s
consent.
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.
Read in relation to:
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
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.
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 client’s 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 (e.g.,
execution of confidentiality agreements).
Ratio: 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.
(b) He labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective
client.
THE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
RULE
APPLIES
EVEN
TO
PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS
The disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion
thereon create an attorney-client relationship,
even though the lawyer does not eventually
accept the employment or the prospective
client did not thereafter actually engage the
lawyer. By the consultation, the lawyer
already learned of the secrets of prospective
client. This rule, of course, is subject to
exception of representation of conflicting
interests.
ii. Disclosure, W hen Allowed
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
A lawyer must also preserve the confidences
and secrets of his clients outside the law
office, including his home. He should avoid
committing calculated indiscretion, that is,
accidental revelation of secrets obtained in
his professional employment.
PAGE 52 OF 104
(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.
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following cases:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling;
E.9. WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES
Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer
pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with cocounsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
CAUSES
OF
TERMINATION
OF
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
(d) When the mental or physical condition of
the lawyer renders it difficult for him to
carry out the employment effectively;
(1) Withdrawal of the lawyer;
(2) Death of the lawyer;
(3) Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer
from the practice of law;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay
the fees for the services or fails to comply
with the retainer agreement;
(4) Declaration of presumptive death of the
lawyer;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed
to public office; and
(5) Conviction of a crime and imprisonment
of the lawyer;
(g) Other similar cases.
(6) Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by
the client;
(7) Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits
private practice of law;
A lawyer may retire at any time from any
action or special proceeding:
(1) With the written consent of his client
filed in court and copy thereof served
upon the adverse party; or
(8) Death of the client;
(2) 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. [Sec.
26, Rule 138]
(9) Intervening incapacity or incompetence
of the client during pendency of case;
(10) Full termination of the case.
General rule: The client has the right to
discharge his attorney at any time with or
without just cause or even against his consent.
Exceptions:
(1) The client cannot deprive his counsel of
right to be paid services if the dismissal
is without cause.
(2) The client cannot discharge his counsel
as an excuse to secure repeated
extensions of time.
(3) Notice of discharge is required for both
the court and the adverse party.
General rule: The withdrawal in writing,
with the client’s conformity, does not require
the approval of the court to be effective.
Exception: If no new counsel has entered
his appearance, the court may, in order to
prevent a denial of a party’s right to the
assistance of counsel require that the
lawyer’s withdrawal be held in abeyance until
another lawyer shall have appeared for the
party [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)]
Although a lawyer may withdraw his services
when the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services, withdrawal is unjustified
if client did not deliberately fail to pay
[Montano v. IBP, A.C. No. 4215 (2001)]
PAGE 53 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retaining 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.
REQUIREMENTS
OF
A
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
VALID
(1) The filing of a written application for
substitution;
(2) The client’s written consent;
(3) The consent of the substituted lawyer if
such consent can be obtained; and, in
case such written consent cannot be
procured;
(4) A proof of service of notice of such
motion on the attorney to be substituted
in the manner required by the Rules
[Sec. 26, Rule 138]
At the discretion of the court, a lawyer, who
has been dismissed by a client, is allowed to
intervene in a case in order to protect the
client’s rights [Obando v. Figueras, G.R. No.
134854 (2000)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
IV. Suspension,
Disbarment, and
Discipline of Lawyers
A. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS
AGAINST
LAWYERS
(1) Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis.
(2) They are neither purely civil nor purely
criminal. They are not intended to inflict
punishment.
(3) They do not involve a trial of an action or
a suit, but is rather an investigation by
the Court into the conduct of its officers.
There is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor.
(4) They may be initiated by the Court motu
proprio. The Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his
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 the
exercise of its disciplinary powers.
(5) Public interest is the 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 [In Re: Almacen (1970), Itong v.
Florendo, A.C. 4428 (2011)].
The Supreme Court held that the
complainants have personality to file the
disbarment case. Any interested person or
the court motu proprio may initiate
disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute
disbarment proceedings is not confined to
clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged
wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are
matters of public interest and the only basis
for the judgment is the proof or failure of
proof of the charges. [Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C.
9116 (2014)]
PAGE 54 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
A.1. CONFIDENTIAL
Rule 139-B, Sec. 18. 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.
PURPOSE OF THIS RULE
(1)
To enable the Court to make its
investigations free from any extraneous
influence or interference;
(2) To protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from
the baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive, and irresponsible clients and
litigants;
(3) To deter the press from publishing
administrative cases or portions thereof
without authority [Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R.
121404 (2006)].
In the absence of a legitimate public interest
in a disbarment complaint, members of the
media must preserve the confidentiality of
disbarment proceedings during its pendency
[Fortun v. Quinsayas, G.R. 194578 (2013)].
Confidentiality “is a privilege/right which may
be waived by the very lawyer in whom and for
the protection of whose personal and
professional reputation it is vested, pursuant
to the general principle that rights may be
waived unless the waiver is contrary to public
policy, among others” [Villalon v. IAC, G.R.
73751 (1986)].
A.2. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
(1) Proceedings may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu proprio, and the IBP
Board of Governors may also motu
proprio initiate and prosecute proper
charges against erring attorneys [Sec. 1,
Rule 139-B].
(2) Investigation is not interrupted or
terminated by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of the charges, or failure of
the complainant to prosecute the same
[Sec. 5, Rule 139-B].
(3) Laws dealing with double jeopardy or
prescription or with procedure like
verification of pleadings and prejudicial
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
questions have no application to
disbarment proceedings [Pimentel, Jr. v.
Llorente, A.C. 4680 (2000)].
(4) The proceedings are distinct from and
proceed independently of civil or criminal
cases. Thus, whatever has been decided
in the disbarment case cannot be a
source of right that may be enforced in
another action. At best, such judgment
may only be given weight when
introduced as evidence, but in no case
does it bind the court in the civil action
[Esquivias v. CA, G.R. 119714 (1997)].
(5) The disbarment proceeding does not
violate the due process clause. The
proceeding itself, when instituted in
proper cases, is due process of law [In Re:
Montagne, G.R. 1107 (1904)].
(6) In a disbarment proceeding, it is
immaterial that the complainant is in pari
delicto because the proceeding is not to
grant relief to the complainant, but to
purge the law profession of unworthy
members, to protect the public and the
courts [Mortel v. Aspiras, G.R. L-9152
(1956)].
(7) The rule in criminal cases that the penalty
cannot be imposed in the alternative
applies in administrative disciplinary
cases, which also involve punitive
sanctions [Navarro v. Meneses III, CBD
A.C. 313 (1998)].
(8) Monetary claims cannot be granted
except restitution and return of monies
and properties of the client given in the
course of the lawyer-client relationship
A.3. PRESCRIPTION
Sec. 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission on Bar Discipline, which
provided for a prescription period of two (2)
years from the date of the professional
misconduct, was struck down for being
ultra vires. [Frias v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C.
6656 (2006)].
In Isenhardt v. Real (2012), however, the said
prescriptive period was still construed to run
from the discovery of the misconduct.
PAGE 55 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
B. GROUNDS
Rule 138, 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 the
admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willful 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.
GROUNDS
FOR
SUSPENSION:
DISBARMENT
(1) Deceit, malpractice
misconduct in office;
or
other
OR
gross
(2) Grossly immoral conduct;
(3) Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
(4) Any violation of the lawyer’s oath;
(5) Willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court;
(6) Corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney without authority so to do
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
causes damage, it gives rise to an action in
tort [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. 1261 (1983)].
Gross misconduct is any inexcusable,
shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the
part of a person concerned in the
administration of justice which is prejudicial
to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of the cause. Such conduct is
generally motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose [Yap v.
Inopiquez, Jr., A.M. RTJ-03-1760 (2003)].
Immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society
and the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. The conduct
must be “grossly immoral” (i.e., so corrupt
and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree) to warrant disciplinary action [Ui v.
Bonifacio, A.C. 3319 (2000)].
Moral turpitude involves an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes to his fellow men, 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
[Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. 4585 (2004)].
OTHER STATUTORY GROUNDS
Deceit is false representation of a matter of
fact whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of
that which should have been disclosed which
deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury
[Alcantara v. CA, G.R. 147259 (2003)].
Malpractice ordinarily refers to any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed
by a lawyer. It consists of a failture of an
attorney to use such skill, prudence and
diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and
capacity commonly possess and exercise in
the performance of tasks which they
undertake, and when such failure proximately
PAGE 56 OF 104
(1) Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s
property in litigation [Art. 1491, Civil
Code]
constitutes
a
breach
of
professional ethics for which a
disciplinary action may be brought
against him [Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M.
1625 (1990)].
(2) Under Art. 209, Revised Penal Code,
administrative and criminal sanctions
may be imposed upon any attorney-atlaw or solicitor who:
(a) By 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; or
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
(b) 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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
C. PROCEEDINGS
PROCEDURE FOR DISBARMENT
Institution either by:
(a) The Supreme Court, motu proprio, or
(b) The IBP, motu proprio, or
(c) Upon verified complaint by any person
The enumeration is not to be taken as a
limitation to the general power of courts to
suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent
powers of the court over its officers cannot be
restricted [Quingwa v. Puno, A.C. 389 (1967)].
Six copies of the verified complaint shall be filed
with the Secretary of the IBP or Secretary of any of
its chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP
Board of Governors.
MISCONDUCT IN PRIVATE CAPACITY
General rule: Lawyer may not be
suspended or disbarred, and the court may
not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to
discipline him, for misconduct in his nonprofessional or private capacity.
Investigation
investigators.
Exception: Where the misconduct outside of
the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross
a character as to show him morally unfit for
the office and unworthy of the privilege which
his licenses and the law confer on him, the
court may be justified in suspending or
removing him from the office of attorney [Co v.
Bernardino, A.C. 3919 (1998)].
the
National
Grievance
Submission of investigative report to the IBP Board
of Governors.
Board of Governors decides within 30 days
Investigation by the Solicitor-General
MISCONDUCT PRIOR OR INCIDENT TO
ADMISSION
A
lawyer
may
be
disbarred
for
misrepresentation of or false pretense
relative to the requirements for admission to
practice. Thus, the fact that a lawyer lacked
any of the qualifications for membership at
the time he took his oath is a ground for his
disbarment [Agpalo (2004); see In Re: Diao,
A.C. 224 (1963) and Lim v. Antonio, A.C. 848
(1971)].
by
SC renders final decision
suspension/ dismissal.
for
disbarment/
All charges against the following shall be
filed with the Supreme Court:
(1) Justices of the Court of Appeals;
(2) Justices of the Sandiganbayan;
(3) Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals; and
(4) Judges of lower courts [Sec. 1 (2), Rule
139-B].
Charges filed against justices and judges
before the IBP shall immediately be
forwarded to the Supreme Court for
disposition and adjudication, including those
PAGE 57 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
filed prior to their appointment in the
Judiciary [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B].
D. DISCIPLINE OF FILIPINO LAWYERS
PRACTICING ABROAD
The disbarment or suspension of a member
of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or
other disciplinary agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted
as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment
or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove
enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the
foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be
prima facie evidence of the ground for
disbarment or suspension. [Sec. 27, Rule 138,
as amended by Supreme Court Resolution
dated Feb 13, 1992]
E.
DISCIPLINE
GOVERNMENT
OF
LAWYERS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
F. QUANTUM OF PROOF
The proof required is clear, convincing
and satisfactory evidence.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE
The burden of proof in disbarment and
suspension proceedings always rests on the
shoulders of the complainant. The Court
exercises its disciplinary power only if the
complainant establishes the complaint by
clearly preponderant evidence that warrants
the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule,
an attorney enjoys the legal presum ption
that he is innocent of the charges made
against him until the contrary is proved. An
attorney is further presumed as an officer of
the Court to have performed his duties in
accordance with his oath [Joven and Reynaldo
C. Rasing v. Cruz and Magsalin, A.C. 7686
(2013)].
IN
G. DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
General rule: 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 a government
official.
Exception: If that misconduct as a
government official is of such a character as
to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to
show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such
ground
In People v. Castaneda, G.R. 208290 (2013)
the lawyers representing the offices under the
executive branch were reminded that they
still remain as officers of the court from
whom a high sense of competence and fervor
is expected. The Court reminded the lawyers
in the government that the canons embodied
in the Code of Professional Responsibility
equally apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks.
They should exert every effort and consider it
their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
(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 be-longs. It is imposed
on a minor infraction of the lawyer’s duty
to the court or client
(4) Suspension, a temporary withholding of a
lawyer’s right to practice his profession as
a lawyer for:
PAGE 58 OF 104
(a) A definite period; or
(b) An indefinite period, which amounts
to qualified disbarment, in which
case, 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.
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(5) Censure, an official reprimand.
(8) Physical or mental disability or
impairment;
(9) Delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(10) Interim rehabilitation;
(11) Imposition of other penalties or
sanctions;
(12) Remorse;
(13) Remoteness of prior offenses;
(14) Others:
(a) Good Faith;
(b) Want of intention to commit a wrong;
(c) Lack of material damage to the
complaining witness;
(d) Desistance of complainant;
(e) Error in judgment;
(f) Honest and efficient service in various
government positions;
(g) Ready admission of the infraction
coupled with explanation and plea for
forgiveness;
(h) Clean record of professional service in
the past;
(i) Rendered professional services out of
pure generosity;
(j) Punished in another capacity for a
misconduct for which he now faces a
disbarment proceeding;
(k) Old Age & long membership (may also
be an aggravation de-pending on the
circumstance);
(6) Disbarment, the act of the Philippine
Supreme Court in withdrawing from an
attorney the privilege to practice law and
striking out the name of the lawyer from
the roll of attorneys.
(7) Interim suspension, the temporary
suspension of a lawyer from the practice
of law pending imposition of final
discipline. It includes:
(a) Suspension upon
serious crime.
conviction
of
a
(b) Suspension
when
the
lawyer’s
continuing conduct is likely to cause
immediate and serious injury to a client
or public.
(8) Probation, a sanction that allows a lawyer
to practice law under specified
conditions.
OTHER SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES
(1) Restitution;
(2) Assessment of costs;
(3) Limitation upon practice;
(4) Appointment of a receiver;
(5) Requirement that a lawyer take the bar
examination or professional responsibility
examination;
(6) Requirement that a lawyer attend
continuing education courses;
(7) Other requirements that the Supreme
Court or disciplinary board deems
consistent with the purposes of sanctions.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(1) Absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(2) Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(3) Personal or emotional problems;
(4) Timely good faith effort to make
restitution or to rectify consequences of
misconduct;
(5) Full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward
proceedings;
(6) Inexperience in the practice of law;
(7) Character or reputation;
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(1) Prior disciplinary offenses;
(2) Dishonest or selfish motive;
(3) A pattern of misconduct;
(4) Multiple offenses;
(5) Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency;
(6) Submission of false evidence, false
statements, or other deceptive practices
during the disciplinary process;
(7) Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature
of conduct;
(8) Vulnerability of victim;
(9) Substantial experience in the practice of
law;
PAGE 59 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(10) Indifference to making restitution. [See
IBP Guidelines 9.22]
(11) Others:
(a) Abuse of authority or of attorney-client
relationship;
(b) Sexual intercourse with a relative;
(c) Making the institution of marriage a
mockery;
(d) Charge of gross immorality;
(e) Previous punishment as member of the
bar;
(f) Defraud upon the government;
(g) Use of knowledge or information,
acquired in the course of a previous
professional employment, against a
former client.
V. Readmission to the
Bar
H. EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE PARDON
(1) Conditional pardon: disbarment case will
not be dismissed on such basis
(2) Copies of the sworn statement furnished
to the local chapter of the IBP and to the
executive judge of the courts where the
respondent has pending cases handled
by him or her, and/or where he or she has
appeared as counsel;
(2) Absolute pardon granted before
conviction: disbarment case will be
dismissed
(3) Absolute pardon granted before
conviction: No automatic 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.
A.
LAWYERS
SUSPENDED
WHO
HAVE
BEEN
GUIDELINES IN THE LIFTING AN ORDER OF
SUSPENSION
(1) Upon expiration of the period of
suspension, respondent shall file a sworn
statement with the court, through the
Office of the Bar Confidant, stating
therein that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law and has not appeared
in any court during the period of his or her
suspension;
(3) The sworn statement shall be considered
as proof of respondent’s compliance with
the order of suspension [Maniago v. De
Dios, A.C. 7472 (2010)].
B. LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISBARRED
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINSTATEMENT
(1) The applicant’s character and standing
prior to disbarment;
I. EFFECT OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS
The compromise agreement between the
complainant and the lawyer, or the fact that
the complainant already forgave the latter,
does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of
the administrative case.
Exception: When as a consequence of the
withdrawal or desistance, no evidence is
adduced to prove the charges [Banaag v.
Salindong, A.C. 1563 (1984)].
(2) The nature or character of the
misconduct for which he is disbarred;
(3) His conduct subsequent to disbarment
[Cui v. Cui, G.R. L-18727 (1964)];
(4) His efficient government service [In re:
Adriatico, G.R. L-2532 (1910)];
(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 v.
Benjamin Grecia, A.C. 2756 (1986)];
(6) Applicant’s appreciation of significance of
his dereliction and his assurance that he
PAGE 60 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
now possesses the requisite probity and
integrity;
(7) Favorable endorsement of the IBP and
local government officials and citizens of
his community, pleas of his loved ones
[Yap Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. 44 (1989)];
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
VI. Mandatory
Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE)
A. PURPOSE
GUIDELINES IN RESOLVING REQUESTS
FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF DISBARRED
LAWYERS
(1) There must be proof of remorse and
reformation. These include testimonials
of credible institutions and personalities;
Continuing legal education is required of
members of the IBP to:
(1) Ensure that throughout their career, they
keep abreast with law and jurisprudence;
(2) Maintain the ethics of the profession;
and
(2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reformation;
(3) 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;
(4) There must be a showing of promise (e.g.,
intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal
scholarship), and potential for public
service;
(3) Enhance the standards of the practice of
law [Sec. 1, Rule 1, BM 850]
B. REQUIREMENTS
Members of the IBP shall complete, every
three years, at least 36 hours of continuing
legal education activities approved by the
MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(5) Other relevant factors to justify clemency
[Re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. 07-7-17-SC
(2007)].
Subject
C.
LAWYERS
WHO
HAVE
BEEN
REPATRIATED
Lawyers who reacquire their Philippine
citizenship should apply to the Supreme
Court for license or permit to practice their
profession. [Sec. 5(4), RA 9225]
# of Hours
Legal Ethics
6 hours
Trial and Pre-trial Skills
4 hours
Alternative Dispute Resolution
5 hours
Updates on substantive and
procedural laws and
Jurisprudence
9 hours
International law and
International Conventions
2 hours
Legal Writing and Oral
Advocacy
4 hours
Other MCLE prescribed
subjects
6 hours
PARTICIPATORY LEGAL EDUCATION
(1) Attending approved education activities
like seminars, conferences, conventions,
symposia, in-house education programs,
workshops, dialogues or round table
discussion;
PAGE 61 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
(2) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as
assigned panelist, reactor, commentator,
resource
speaker,
moderator,
coordinator or facilitator in approved
education activities;
(3) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a
bar review class;
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the month of admission or readmission and
shall end on the same day as that of all other
members in the same compliance group.
However:
(1) Where four 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;
NON-PARTICIPATORY LEGAL EDUCATION
(1) 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;
(2) Where more than four 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 [Sec. 5, Rule 3, BM 850].
(2) Editing a law book, law journal or legal
newsletter.
Other activities, such as rendering mandatory
legal aid services pursuant to Sec. 8, Bar
Matter No. 2012, may be credited as MCLE
activities.
C. COMPLIANCE
The IBP members covered by the requirement
are divided into three compliance groups:
(1) Compliance Group 1 consists of members
in the National Capital Region (NCR) or
Metro Manila;
D. EXEMPTIONS
EXEMPTED MEMBERS FROM THE MCLE
(1)
(2) Compliance Group 2 consists members
in Luzon outside NCR; and
The President and the Vice President of
the Philippines, and the Secretaries
and Undersecretaries of Executives
Departments;
(2)
(3) Compliance Group 3 consists
members in Visayas and Mindanao.
Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
(3)
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 and
incumbent court lawyers covered by
the Philippine Judicial Academy
program
of
continuing
judicial
education;
(4)
The Chief State Counsel, Chief State
Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of
the Department of Justice;
(5)
The Solicitor General and the Assistant
Solicitor General;
of
The initial compliance period shall begin not
later than three months from the constitution
of the MCLE Committee. The compliance
period shall be for 36 months and shall begin
the day after the end of the previous
compliance period. [Sec. 1, Rule 3, BM 850]
For those admitted or readmitted after the
establishment of the program, they will 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
PAGE 62 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
(6)
The Government Corporate Counsel,
Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(7)
The Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commissions;
(8)
The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen
and the Special Prosecutor of the Office
of the Ombudsman;
(9)
Heads of government agencies
exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(10)
Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and
professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten years
accredited law schools;
(11)
The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and
members of the Corps of Professors
and Professorial Lectures of the
Philippine Judicial Academy;
(12)
Governors and Mayors.
(13)
Those who are not in law practice,
private or public; and
(14)
Those who have retired from law
practice with the approval of the IBP
Board of Governors [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule
7]
A member may file a verified request
setting forth good cause for exemption (e.g.,
physical disability, illness, post graduate
study abroad, proven expertise in law) 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. 3, Rule 7, BM 850]
When a member ceases to be exempt, the
compliance period begins on the first day of
the month in which he ceases to be exempt
and shall end on the same day as that of all
other members in the same Compliance
Group. [Sec. 4, Rule 7, BM 850]
Proof of exemption: Applications for
exemption from or modification of the MCLE
requirement shall be under oath and
supported by documents.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E. SANCTIONS
(1) A member who, for whatever reason, is in
non-compliance at the end of the
compliance period shall pay a noncompliance fee.
(2) Any member who fails to satisfactorily
comply 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,
Rules of Court, governing the IBP, shall
apply [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 13, BM 850]
Under BM 1922 (2008), practicing members
of the bar are required to indicate in all
pleadings filed before the courts or quasijudicial bodies, the number and date of issue
of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding
compliance period.
Failure to disclose the required information
would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records.
F. BAR MATTER 2012: THE RULE ON
MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
PURPOSE
To enhance the duty of lawyers to society as
agents of social change and to the courts as
officers thereof by helping improve access to
justice by the less privileged members of
society and expedite the resolution of cases
involving them. Mandatory free legal service
by members of the bar and their active
support thereof will aid the efficient and
effective administration of justice especially
in cases involving indigent and pauper
litigants [Sec. 2, BM No. 2012 (2009)]
SCOPE
The rule governs the mandatory requirement
for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid
services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or
administrative) involving indigent and pauper
litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is
needed. It shall also govern the duty of other
members of the legal profession to support
the legal aid program of the IBP.
PAGE 63 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
PRACTICING LAWYERS
Members of the Philippine Bar who appear
for and in behalf of parties in courts of law
and quasi-judicial agencies, excluding the
following:
(1) Government employees and incumbent
elective officials not allowed by law to
practice;
(2) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to
appear in court;
(3) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled
in law student practice in duly accredited
legal clinics of law schools and lawyers
of non-governmental organizations and
peoples’ organizations, who by the
nature of their work already render free
legal aid to indigent and pauper
litigants; and
(4) Lawyers do not appear for and in behalf
of parties in courts of law and quasijudicial agencies.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
PENALTIES
Should a lawyer fail to render the minimum
prescribed number of hours., he shall be
required to explain why he was unable to do
so. If no explanation has been given or if the
National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA)
finds the explanation unsatisfactory, the
NCLA
shall
make
a
report
and
recommendation to the IBP Board of
Governors for the erring lawyer to be declared
a member of the IBP who is not in good
standing.
After acceptance of the recommendation, the
lawyer shall be declared a member not in
good standing. He will be furnished a notice
that includes a directive to pay P4000.00
penalty which shall accrue to the special fund
for the legal aid program of the IBP.
Any lawyer who fails to comply with these
duties for at least three consecutive years
shall be the subject of disciplinary
proceedings to be instituted motu proprio by
the Committee on Bar Discipline. [Sec. 7, BM
2012]
INDIGENT AND PAUPER LITIGANTS
(1) Those whose gross income and that of
their immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum
wage of an employee; and
(2) Those who do not own real property with
a fair market value as stated in the
current tax declaration of more than
three hundred thousand (P300,000.00)
pesos. [Sec. 19, Rule 141]
REQUIREMENTS FOR EVERY PRACTICING
LAWYER
(1) To render a minimum of 60 hours of free
legal aid services to indigent litigants in
a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread
within a period of twelve 12 months, with
a minimum of five hours of free legal aid
services each month
(2) To coordinate with the Clerk of Court for
cases where he may render free legal aid
service and shall be required to secure
and obtain a certificate from the Clerk of
Court attesting to the number of hours
spent rendering free legal aid services in
a case [Sec. 5, BM 2012]
PAGE 64 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
LEGAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
VIII. Notarial Practice
[Note: Notarial Pratice is one of the favorite
questions asked in the Bar. – Faculty Ed.]
A. QUALIFICATIONS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
1. Must be a Filipino citizen;
Sec. 13, Rule III, Notarial Rules. A notary public
may file a written application with the
Executive Judge for the renewal of his
commission within 45 days before the
expiration thereof.
C. POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
2. Must be over 21 years old;
3. Must be a resident of the Philippines
for at least one year;
4. Must maintain a regular place of
work or business in the city or
province where com-mission is to be
issued;
C.1. POWERS
A notary public can perform the following
notarial acts:
1.
2. Oaths and affirmations;
5. 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 IBP;
6. Must not have been convicted in the
first instance of any crime involving
moral turpitude [Sec. 1, Rule III,
Notarial Rules]
B. TERM OF OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Sec. 11, Rule III, Notarial Rules. A person
commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commission-ing court for a
period of two 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
3. Jurats;
4. Signature witnessings; and
5. Copy certifications [Sec. 1(a), Rule III,
Notarial Rules]
OTHER ACTS AUTHORIZED BY THE
NOTARIAL RULES
(1) Certifying the affixing of signature by
thumb or other mark on an instrument or
document presented for notarization
[Sec. 1(b), Rule III, Notarial Rules]
(2) Signing on behalf of a person who is
physically unable to sign or make a mark
on an instrument or document [Sec. 1(c),
Rule III, Notarial Rules]
Definition
Acknowledgment
Oath or Affirmation
Jurat
Signature witnessing
Acknowledgments;
Common Requisites
Represents to the notary public that
(1) Appears in person before the
the signature was voluntarily affixed for
notary public and presents an
the purposes stated in the instrument
integrally complete instrument
and declares that instrument was
or document;
executed as a free and voluntary act
Avows under penalty of law to the (2) Is attested to be personally
known to the notary public or
whole truth
identified by the notary public
Sign the instrument and take an oath
through competent evidence of
or affirmation before the notary public
identity as defined by the
as to such instrument
Notarial Rules
Signs the instrument in the presence of
the notary public
PAGE 65 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
i. Copy Certification
Refers to a notarial act in which a notary
public: (PC-CD)
(1) Is presented with an instrument or
document that is neither a vital record, a
public record, nor publicly recordable;
(3) Copies or supervises the copying of
the instrument or document;
(4) Compares the instrument or document
with the copy; and
(5) Determ ines that the copy is accurate
and complete [Sec. 4, Rule II, Notarial
Rules]
This assists litigators in doing away with the
requirement of proving that a copy is a
faithful reproduction of an original
instrument or document. [Uy (2004)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(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 witnesses);” and
(5) The notary public notarizes his signature
by acknowledgment or jurat [Sec. 1(c),
Rule IV, Notarial Rules].
“Physically unable to sign” does not
include the situation where a person is
physically unable to sign because he is in
another place [Uy (2004)].
ii. Certifying the Affixing of Signature
by Thum b/Other M ark
C.2. LIMITATIONS
i. Relating to Notarial Acts
A notary public is authorized if:
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) 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;
(a) Public offices, convention halls, and
similar places where oaths of office may
be administered;
(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
(b) Public function areas in hotels and
similar places for the signing of
instruments or documents requiring
notarization;
(4) The notary public notarizes the signature
by thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature
witnessing. [Sec. 1(b), Rule IV, Notarial
Rules]
iii. Signing on Behalf of a Person W ho
is Physically Unable to Sign or Make a
Mark
A notary public is authorized if:
(1) The notary public is directed by the
person unable to sign or make a mark to
sign on his behalf;
(c) Hospitals and other medical institutions
where a party to an instrument or
document is confined for treatment; and
(d) Any place where a party to an instrument
or document requiring notarization is
under detention [Sec. 2(a), Rule IV,
Notarial Rules]
A person shall not perform a notarial act if
the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document:
PAGE 66 OF 104
(a) Is not in the notary's presence personally
at the time of the notarization; and
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
(b) Is not personally known to the notary
public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by the
Notarial Rules
A notary public is disqualified
performing a notarial act if he:
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A notary public shall not notarize:
(a) A blank or incomplete instrument or
document; or
(b) An instrument or document without
appropriate notarial certification [Sec. 6,
Rule IV, Notarial Rules]
from
(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 the
Notarial Rules and by law; or
ii. Relating to Notarial Register
In the notary's presence, any person may
inspect an entry in the notarial register,
during regular business hours, provided;
(a) The person's identity is personally known
to the notary public or proven through
competent evidence of identity as
defined in the Notarial Rules;
(c) A notary public is disqualified from
performing is a spouse, common-law
partner, ancestor, descendant, or
relative by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal within the fourth civil degree
[Sec. 3, Rule IV, Notarial Rules]
(b) The person affixes a signature and
thumb or other mark or other recognized
identifier, in the notarial register in a
separate, dated entry;
(c) The person specifies the month, year,
type of instrument or document, and
name of the principal in the notarial act
or acts sought; and
A notary public shall not perform any notarial
act described in the Notarial Rules if:
(d) The person is shown only the entry or
entries specified by him;
(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.
4, Rule IV, Notarial Rules]
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.
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. 4, Rule VI, Notarial Rules]
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. 5, Rule IV, Notarial Rules]
D. NOTARIAL REGISTER
A notarial register refers to a permanently
bound book with numbered pages containing
a chronological record of notarial acts
performed by a notary public [Sec. 5, Rule II,
Notarial Rules]
Rule VI, Sec.s I and 2 of the 2004 Rules of
Notarial Practice require a notary public to
PAGE 67 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
keep and maintain a Notarial Register
wherein he will record his every notarial act.
His failure to make the proper entry or entries
in his notarial register concerning his notarial
acts is a ground for revocation of his notarial
commission [Agadan, et al. v. Kilaan, A.C. No.
9385 (2013)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(f) Reasons for refusal to allow
inspection or copying of a journal
entry;
(13) Brief description of the substance of a
contract presented for notarization;
(14) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of
exchange or promissory note, a full and
true record of all proceedings in relation
thereto and shall note therein:
D.1. ENTRIES
i. By the Notary Public
(a) Whether the demand for the sum
of money was made, by whom,
when and where;
Required to be entered at the time of
notarization:
(b) Whether he presented such draft,
bill or note;
(1) The entry number and page number;
(2) The date and time of day of the notarial
act;
(c) Whether notices were given, to
whom and in what manner; where
the same was made, when and to
whom and where directed; and
(3) The type of notarial act;
(4) The title or description of the instrument,
document or proceeding;
(d) Of every other fact touching the
same [Sec. 2, Rule VI, Notarial
Rules]
(5) The name and address of each principal;
(6) The competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Notarial Rules if the
signatory is not personally known to the
notary;
(7) The name and address of each credible
witness swearing to or affirming the
person's identity;
ii. By Other Persons
At the time of notarization, the notary's
notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or
other mark affixed by each:
1.
(8) The fee charged for the notarial act;
2. Credible
witness
swearing
or
affirming to the identity of a principal;
and
(9) The address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular
place of work or business; and
3. 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. 3, Rule
VI, Notarial Rules]
(10) Any other circumstance the notary public
may deem of significance or relevance;
(11) Reasons and circumstances for not
completing a notarial act;
(12) Circumstances of any request to inspect
or copy an entry in the notarial register,
including the:
(a) Requester’s name;
(b) Requester’s address;
(c) Requester’s signature;
(d) Requester’s thumbmark or other
recognized identifier;
Principal;
D.2. CLOSING
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. [Sec. 2(g),
Rule VI, Notarial Rules]
(e) Evidence of requester’s identity;
and
PAGE 68 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
1)
D.3. SUBMISSION
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 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. 2(h), Rule VI, Notarial Rules]
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. 2, Rule VI, Notarial
Rules]
F. REVOCATION OF COMMISSION
E. JURISDICTION OF NOTARY PUBLIC
AND PLACE OF NOTARIZATION
A person commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court. [Sec. 11, Rule III, Notarial Rules]
This applies even if notarization is allowed in
places other than the regular place of
business of the notary public. [Sec. 2(a), Rule
IV, Notarial Rules]
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
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 the
instrument or document requiring
notarization is under detention. [Sec.
2, Rule VI, Notarial Rules]
A person shall not perform a notarial act if
the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document –
PAGE 69 OF 104
1.
The Executive Judge shall revoke a
notarial commission for any ground on
which an application for a commission
may be denied;
2. In addition, the Executive Judge may
revoke the commission of, or impose
appropriate administrative sanctions
upon, any notary public who:
(a) Fails to keep a notarial register;
(b) Fails to make the proper entry or
entries in his notarial register
concerning his notarial acts;
(c) Fails to send the copy of the entries
to the Executive Judge within the
first ten days of the month
following;
(d) Fails to affix to acknowledgments
the date of expiration of his
commission;
(e) Fails to submit his notarial register,
when filled, to the Executive Judge;
(f) 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;
(g) Fails to require the presence of a
principal at the time of the notarial
act;
(h) Fails to identify a principal on the
basis of personal knowledge or
competent evidence;
(i) Executes a false or incomplete
certificate under Sec. 5, Rule IV;
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
(j) Knowingly performs or fails to
perform any other act prohibited or
mandated by these Rules; and
(k) Commits any other dereliction or act
which in the judgment of the
Executive Judge constitutes good
cause for revocation of com-mission
or imposition of administrative
sanction [Sec. 1(a) and (b), Rule XI,
Notarial Rules]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
G.
COMPETENT
IDENTITY
EVIDENCE
OF
Competent evidence of identity means the
identification of an individual based on:
(1) At least one current identification
document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of
the individual; or
(2) The oath or affirmation of:
A notary public should not notarize a
document unless the person who signed the
same is the very same person who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and the truth of what are
stated therein. Without the personal
appearance of the person who actually
executed the document, the notary public
would be unable to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the acknowledging party and
to ascertain that the document is the party’s
free act or deed.
A notarized document is, by law, entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this
reason that a notary public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties; otherwise, the
public’s confidence in the integrity of a
notarized document would be undermined.
When a lawyer commissioned as a notary
public fails to discharge his duties as such, he
is meted the penalties of revocation of his
notarial commission, disqualification from
being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of 2 years, and suspension from the
practice of law for 1 year. [Agbulos v. Viray ,
G.R. No. 7350 (2013)]
(a) 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
(b) Two credible witnesses neither of
whom is privy to the instrument,
document or trans-action who each
personally knows the individual and
shows to the notary public
documentary identification. [Sec. 12,
Rule II, Notarial Rules]
H. SANCTIONS
The Executive Judge may motu proprio
initiate administrative proceedings against a
notary public and impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions on the grounds for
revocation of commission mentioned [Sec.
1(d), Rule XI, Notarial Rules]
Also, the Executive Judge shall cause the
prosecution of any person who:
Duties of notaries public are dictated by
public policy and impressed with public
interest. “Notarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a
private document to a public instrument,
making it admissible in evidence without the
necessity of preliminary proof of its
authenticity and due execution.” [Tenoso vs.
Echavez, A.C. No. 8384 (2013)]
PAGE 70 OF 104
1.
Knowingly
acts
or
otherwise
impersonates a notary public;
2. Knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces,
or destroys the seal, notarial register,
or official records of a notary public;
and
3. Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any
way influences a notary public to
commit official misconduct.
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
adopted are per se binding only on its
members.
IX. Canons of
Professional Ethics
A. ORIGIN
In 1917 and 1946, The Philippine Bar
Association (PBA) adopted the American Bar
Association’s Canons of Professional Ethics.
In 1980, the IBP adopted a proposed Code of
Professional Responsibility, which was later
approved and promulgated by the SC as the
present Code of Professional Responsibility.
[PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 151809
(2005)]
B. LEGAL STATUS
While the PBA enjoys high regard in the legal
community, the rules or canons it has
It would be grave error to declare that the
Canons of Professional Ethics, on their own,
serves as an indisputable source of
obligations and basis of penalties imposable
upon members of the Philippine legal
profession. This would violate the longestablished constitutional principle that it is
the Supreme Court which is tasked with the
promulgation of rules governing the
admission to the practice of law, as well as
the pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts.
If provisions of the Canons of Professional
Ethics have jurisprudentially been enforced,
or acknowledged as basis for legal liability by
the SC, they may be recognized as a binding
standard imposable upon members of the
bar, not because said canons or the PBA itself
said so, but because the SC said so (Tinga, J.,
Sep. Opinion, PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 151809 (2005)]
PAGE 71 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
JUDICIAL ETHICS
PAGE 72 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
I. Sources of Rules In
Judicial Ethics
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
II. Qualities
A. INDEPENDENCE
A. THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE
JUDICIARY (BANGALORE DRAFT)
In Nov 2002, at a Roundtable Meeting of
Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace in The
Hague, the Judicial Group on Strengthening
Judicial Integrity amended and approved the
Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, which is intended to be the Universal
Declaration of Judicial Standards. It is founded
on the following principles:
Canon 1. Judicial independence is a
prerequisite to the rule of law and a
fundamental guarantee of fair trial. A judge
shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
Canon 1 - Asked 11 times in the Bar. [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
Summary of judicial duties under Canon 1,
Independence [Lex Pareto (2014)]
(1) 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;
(2) 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
(3) 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.
On Apr 27, 2004, the draft code was
promulgated as the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary through
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC and given effect on
June 1, 2004.
B. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
The New Code of Judicial Conduct
supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics
(1946) and the Code of Judicial Conduct
(1989). However, in case of deficiency or
absence of specific provisions, the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial
Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory
character [New Code of Judicial Conduct].
PAGE 73 OF 104
a. Judges shall exercise judicial function
independently
b. In performing judicial duties, judges
shall be independent from judicial
colleagues
c. Judges shall refrain from influencing
the outcome of litigations and
administrative cases
d. Judges shall not allow family, social
or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct (A companion or EE
of the judge who lives in the judge’s
household is included in the
definition of the “judge’s family”)
e. Judges
shall
be
free
from
inappropriate
connections
and
influence from the executive and
legislative branches. (“A judge is
entitled to entertain personal views
on political questions. But to avoid
suspicion of political partisanship, a
judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds,
publicly endorse candidates for
political office or participate in other
partisan political activities” [Rule
5.10, Old Code]
f.
Judges shall be independent in
relation to society (“A judge shall not
accept appointment or designation to
any agency performing quasi-judicial
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
or administrative functions” [Rule
5.09, Old Code]
g. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties
h. Judges shall exhibit and promote
high standards of judicial conduct
INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial
function independently:
(a) On the basis of their assessment of the
facts;
(b) In accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law;
(c) Free of any extraneous influence,
inducement, pressure, threat or
interference, direct or indirect, from any
quarter or for any reason
An independent judiciary has been described
as “one free of inappropriate outside
influences.” Judges frequently experience
pressures in the exercise of their judicial
functions. Once a judge gives in to pressures
from whatever source, that judge is deemed
to have lost his independence and is
considered unworthy of the position.
More than just a breach of the rudiments laid
down in the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges
who succumb to pressure and, as a result,
knowingly ignore proven facts or misapply
the law in rendering a decision commit
corruption. Integrity is essential not only to
the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.
In every case, a judge should endeavor
diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan or
personal interests, public opinion or fear of
criticism. The fact that the complainant and
his sympathizers had staged a rally
demanding the issuance of a warrant of
arrest against the accused is not a sufficient
excuse for the unjustified haste of respondent
judge's act of fixing bail without a hearing
[Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286
(1991)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Judges must adhere to the highest tenets of
judicial conduct and must be the
embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence; not only pure but above
suspicion. The exacting standards of conduct
demanded from judges are designed to
promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary because the
people’s confidence in the judicial system is
founded not only on the magnitude of legal
knowledge and the diligence of the members
of the bench, but also on the highest
standard of integrity and moral uprightness
they are expected to possess. [Tan v. Rosete,
A.M. MTJ-04-1563 (2004)]
Mass media has its duty to fearlessly but
faithfully inform the public about events and
persons. However, when a case has received
wide and sensational publicity, the trial court
should be doubly careful not only to be fair
and impartial but also to give the appearance
of complete objectivity in its handling of the
case [Gutierrez, Jr., J., Concurring Opinion, Go
v. CA, G.R. 101837 (1992)]
OUTSIDE PRESSURE
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.
The confessed act of succumbing to pressure
is a patent betrayal of public trust. [Ramirez v.
Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ
(1986)]
INFLUENCING OUTCOME OF LITIGATION
Sec. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing
in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency
Sec. 2 and 3 intend to curb practices or
prevent situations whereby a judge influences
the decision in a case not pending before him,
or whereby a judge hearing a case allows
himself to be influenced by another judge.
However, if the consultation is purely on an
academic or hypothetical basis, and the
PAGE 74 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
judge does not surrender his or her
independent decision making, there can be
no breach of Sec. 2 and 3 of the Code
In the case of Sabitsana v. Villamor (1991) the
respondent judge of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) wrote a letter to a lower court judge of
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge seeking
to influence him to hear a case and even
intimating that he issue an order of acquittal.
The High Court ruled that a judge who tries to
influence the outcome of a litigation pending
before another court not only subverts the
independence of the judiciary but also
undermines the people's faith in its integrity
and impartiality. The interference in the
decision-making process of another judge is a
breach of conduct so serious as to justify
dismissal from service based only on a
preponderance of evidence
INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
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
public interests of others, nor convey or
permit others to convey the impression that
they are in a special position to influence the
judge.
Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the
term “family” is extended beyond that of
nuclear members to include those related by
blood or marriage up to the sixth civil degree,
as well as those who belong to the judge’s
employ and are living in his household. These
familial ties may not influence a judge in his
or her discharge of judicial duties.
It should be noted that when a judge is
related to one of the parties within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, his
disqualification is mandatory. This provision
is intended to ensure that judges are spared
from potential influence of family members
by disqualifying them even before any
opportunity for impropriety presents itself.
This gives instruction to judges not to allow
their family members, friends and associates
to influence them in their judicial conduct or
judgment. Also importantly, a judge should
ensure that his family members, friends and
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
associates refrain from creating the
impression that they are in a position to
influence the judge. [ABA– Rule of Law
Initiative, New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary (Annotated) (2007)]
"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
[Definitions, New Code of Judicial Conduct].
Otherwise, the judge risks undermining
public confidence not just in him or herself,
but in the entire judicial institution [ABA
(2007)]
INDEPENDENCE FROM EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE
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.
The reality in the Philippine political system is
that judges can easily get an appointment or
promotion with some assistance or support
from political leaders, religious groups,
military stalwarts, big companies and the
affluent. The most pervasive influence comes
from leaders in the legislature and those
closely allied with the executive department.
[ABA (2007)].
Mere congeniality between a judge and a
governor may not necessarily be unethical,
but it may still create the appearance of
impropriety. This congeniality was not
necessarily
detrimental
to
judicial
independence, provided that there was no
showing that such relations were for corrupt
ends. However, had this case been tried
under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the
judge’s acts would likely have created an
“appearance” of an improper connection. To
the common person, the accommodation
may seem a reason for the judge to ingratiate
himself towards his benefactors, which may
ultimately be perceived as affecting the
judge’s ability to rule independently.
PAGE 75 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Therefore, whether or not the congenial
relationship was indeed used for corrupt ends,
it would be advisable for judges to avoid
becoming dependent on other parties,
especially for basic needs like transportation
to the judge’s workstation. [Re: Suspension of
Clerk of Court Rogelio R. Joboco, A.M. No. 9310-1296-RTC (1998)].
Granting bail because of the request of a
congressman, despite belief that the
evidence of guilt against the accused is
strong, is reprehensible [Tahil v. Eisma, A.M.
No. 276-MJ (1975)].
It is absolutely essential to the proper
administration of justice that courts have full
control over the official actions of those
through whom the administration of the
affairs of the court precedes. For judicial
independence to be a reality, the least
interference by or influence from other
governmental departments is of the essence.
Only this Court has the authority to order a
personnel accounting of locally-funded
employees assigned in the lower courts to
determine the necessity of their detail
[Alfonso v. Alonzo-Legasto, A.M. No. MTJ 94995 (2002)].
It is desirable that the judge should, as far as
reasonably possible, refrain from all relations
which would normally tend to arouse the
suspicion that such relations warp or bias his
judgment, and prevent an impartial attitude
of mind in the administration of judicial
duties [ABA (2007)].
INDEPENDENCE FROM
PARTICULAR PARTIES
SOCIETY
AND
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.
Judges should not fraternize with litigants
and their counsel. In fact, they should make a
conscious effort to avoid them in order to
avoid the perception that their independence
has been compromised [ABA (2007)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
with litigants outside the office premises
beyond office hours violate the standard of
judicial conduct required to be observed by
members of the bench. They constitute gross
misconduct which is punishable under Rule
140, Rules of Court [Tan v. Rosete, A.M. MTJ04-1563 (2004)]
SAFEGUARDS
INDEPENDENCE
FOR
JUDICIAL
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
PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
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
Secs. 7 and 8 instruct judges on what to do to
maintain and enhance judicial independence.
Sec. 7 requires judges to encourage and
uphold safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties in order to maintain and
enhance judicial independence, while Sec. 8
focuses on inspiring public confidence. They
are intended to serve as catch-all provisions
for all other acts that would guarantee the
independence of the judiciary, but which may
not have been covered in the specific
instances mentioned in the earlier provisions
[ABA (2007)].
The judge should always be imbued with a
high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of his obligation to promptly and
properly administer justice. He must view
himself as a priest, for the administration of
justice is akin to a religious crusade
[Dimatulac v. Villon, G.R. No. 127107 (1998)].
A judge’s act of sending a member of his staff
to talk with a complainant and show copies of
his draft decisions, and his act of meeting
PAGE 76 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
impropriety as to be beyond reproach [Tan v.
Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563 (2004)].
B. INTEGRITY
Canon 2. Integrity is essential not only to the
proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.
CANON 2 – Asked 3 times in the Bar. [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
Summary of the duties of a judge under
Canon 2, Integrity:
The conduct of 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. [In Re: Complaint of Mrs. Marcos
Against Judge Marcos, A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC
(2001)]
a. 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.
With regard to professional integrity, judges
have been penalized for:
b. 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.
2. Fraternizing with litigants and/or
lawyers [Dela Cruz v. Bersamin (2000)];
1.
3. Altering orders [Rallos v. Gako (2000)];
4. Delay in rendering decisions [Fernandez
v. Hamoy (2004)];
c. Judges should take or initiate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or
court personnel for any unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have
become aware.
Judges must be “models of uprightness,
fairness and honesty.” [Rural Bank of Barotac
Nuevo, Inc. vs. Cartagena, A.M. No. 707-MJ
(1978)]
Demanding and/or accepting bribes
[Tan v. Rosete (2004)];
5. Sexual harassment of employees [Dawa
v. De Asa (1998)]; and
6. Ignorance of the law [Macalintal v. The
(1997)].
With respect to personal integrity, judges
have been penalized for transgressions in
their private lives such as:
CONDUCT ABOVE REPROACH
1.
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.
2. Inebriated/drunk behavior [Lachica v.
Flordeliza, A.M. No. MTJ-94-921
(1996)]; and
RATIONALE
To promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary because the
people’s confidence in the judicial system is
founded not only on the magnitude of legal
knowledge and the diligence of the members
of the bench, but also on the highest
standard of integrity and moral uprightness
they are expected to possess. It is therefore
paramount that a judge’s personal behavior
both in the performance of his duties and his
daily life, be free from any appearance of
Keeping and/or flaunting a mistress
[In Re: Judge Marcos A.M. No. 97-253-RTC (2001)];
3. Frequenting casinos and cockfights
[City of Tagbilaran v Hontanosas, A.M.
No. MTJ-98-1169 (2002)].
REAFFIRM PEOPLE’S FAITH
PAGE 77 OF 104
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people’s faith in the
integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not
only merely be done but must also be seen
to be done.
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
A judge has the duty to not only render a just
and impartial decision, but also render it in
such a manner as to be free from any
suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality,
and also as to the judge’s integrity. It is
obvious, therefore, that while judges should
possess proficiency in law in order that they
can competently construe and enforce the
law, it is more important that they should act
and behave in such a manner that the parties
before them should have confidence in their
impartiality [Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana,
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 (2001)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
C. IMPARTIALITY
Canon 3. 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.
CANON 3 – Asked 17 times in the Bar. [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
JUDICIAL DUTIES FREE FROM BIAS
Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias, or prejudice.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
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.
Judges should not be lenient in in the
administrative supervision of their employees.
A judge must ensure that all court personnel
perform efficiently and promptly in the
administration of justice.
The inclination to leniency in the
administrative supervision of court employees
is an undesirable trait. Oftentimes, such
leniency provides the court employees the
opportunity to commit minor transgressions
of the laws and slight breaches of official duty
ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies. A
judge should constantly keep a watchful eye
on the conduct of his employees. He should
realize that big start small. His constant
scrutiny of the behavior of his employees
would deter any abuse on the part of the
latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his
subordinates would know that any
misdemeanor will not remain unchecked. The
slightest semblance of impropriety on the
part of the employees of the court, in the
performance of their official duties stirs
ripples of public suspicion and public distrust
of the judicial administrators. The slightest
breach of duty by and the slightest
irregularity in the conduct of court officers
and employees detract from the dignity of the
courts and erode the faith of the people in the
judiciary [Buenaventura v. Benedicto, A.C. No.
137-J (1971)].
Bare
allegations
of
partiality
and
prejudgment will not suffice [Dimo Realty &
Dev. Inc. v. Dimaculangan (2004)]. A judge's
conduct must be clearly indicative of
arbitrariness and prejudice before it can be
stigmatized as biased and partial [Cruz v.
Iturralde (2003)].
EXTRAJUDICIAL SOURCE RULE
Bias and prejudice must be shown to have
resulted in an opinion on the merits on the
basis of an extrajudicial source, not on what
the judge learned from participating in the
case. As long as opinions formed in the
course of judicial proceedings are based on
the evidence presented and the conduct
observed by the magistrate, such opinion –
even if later found to be erroneous – will not
prove personal bias or prejudice on the part
of the judge. While palpable error may be
inferred from the decision or the order itself,
extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias,
bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose [Gochan
v. Gochan (2003)].
Truth about Judge Austria’s alleged partiality
cannot be determined by simply relying on
the verified complaint. Bias and prejudice
cannot be presumed, in light especially of a
judge’s sacred obligation under his oath of
office to administer justice without respect to
the person, and to give equal right to the
poor and rich. There should be clear and
convincing evidence to prove the charge;
mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. In
PAGE 78 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
this case, aside from being speculative and
judicial in character, the circumstances cited
by the complainant were grounded on mere
opinion and surmises. The complainant also
failed to adduce proof indicating the judge’s
predisposition to decide the case in favor of
one party. [Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma.
Cecilia I. Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas
City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200 (2014)]
PROMOTE CONFIDENCE, IMPARTIALITY
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.
There is undue interference where the judge's
participation in the conduct of the trial tends
to build or to bolster a case of one of the
parties such as when he orders the
presentation of specific documentary
evidence without motion from any party or
without participation of the parties as in the
case of Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank (2004). [However,] it is within
the sound discretion of the trial judge to ask
questions from witnesses, if only to clarify
what may appear to be vague points in the
narration. Questions designed to avoid
obscurity in the testimony and to elicit
additional relevant evidence are not improper
[Paco et al. v. Quilala (2003)].
A judge may not be legally prohibited from
sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is
made of record that he might be induced to
act in favor of one party or with bias or
prejudice against a litigant arising out of
circumstance reasonably capable of inciting
such a state of mind, he should conduct a
careful self-examination. He should exercise
his discretion in a way that the people's faith
in the courts of justice is not impaired
[Pimentel v. Salanga (1967)].
A judge should behave at all times in a way
that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The
appearance of bias or prejudice can be as
damaging to public confidence and the
administration of justice as actual bias or
prejudice [Montemayor v. Bemejo (2004)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
MINIMIZE
INSTANCES
DISQUALIFICATIONS
OF
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.
The underlying reason for the rules on
disqualification is to ensure that a judge,
sitting in a case, will at all times be free from
inclinations or prejudices and be well capable
to render a just and independent judgment.
A litigant is entitled to nothing less than the
cold neutrality of a judge. Due process
requires it [Parayno v. Meneses (1994)].
The rule of disqualification of judges must
yield to demands of necessity. Simply stated,
the rule of necessity means that a judge is not
disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other
judge available to hear and decide the case
[46 Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 89 (1969)].
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PENDING AND
IMPENDING 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.
This Sec. warns judges against making any
comment that might reasonably be expected
to affect the outcome of the proceedings
before them or "impair the manifest fairness
of the process.” [ABA (2007)]
In Martinez v. Gironella (1975), a judge was
disqualified from trying a murder case
against the accused (as principal), because,
in a decision in a prior case involving an
alleged accessory, he stated that the accused
in the present case committed the crime.
PAGE 79 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
In Palang v. Zosa (1974), the judge, in
deciding a previous estafa case, stated that
the charge was a “clear concocted story”
which caused great damage to the accused.
When a case for damages was filed by the
accused against the complainant in the
estafa case, the judge voluntary inhibited
himself. The Supreme Court stated that the
judge’s inhibition reinforced public faith in
the impartial administration of justice.
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 6th
civil degree or to counsel within the
fourth civil degree; [Bar 1996, 1999,
2001] or
In Gutierrez vs. Santos (1961) a judge’s act of
recusing himself from presiding over a case
was upheld by the Supreme Court. While in
private practice, the judge had expressed an
opinion concerning an issue that would
unduly benefit one of the parties. However,
the Supreme Court has recently held that
judges and justices are not disqualified from
participating in a case simply because they
have written legal articles on the law involved
in the case [Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,
G.R. No. 133250 (2003)]
A judge should abstain from making public
comments on any pending or impending case
and should require similar restraint on the
part of court personnel. [Rule 3.07, Old Code
of Judicial Conduct]
VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATIONS
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;
(d) The judge served as executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee, or
lawyer in the case or matter in
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(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.
GROUNDS FOR COMPULSORY INHIBITION
OF A JUDGE – ASKED IN 2004 AND 2010
[LEX PARETO (2014)]
ACTUAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE
In Umale v. Villaluz (1973), a judge inhibited
himself from trying a robbery case due to his
personal knowledge of the case. The
Supreme Court stated that it is possible that
the respondent Judge might be influenced by
his personal knowledge of the case when he
tries and decides the same on the merits,
which would certainly constitute a denial of
due process to the party adversely affected by
his judgment or decision. Thus, it is best that,
after some reflection, the judge, on his own
initiative disqualified himself from hearing
the robbery case and thereby rendering
himself available as witness to any of the
parties subject to cross-examination.
In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge
dismissed criminal informations on the
suspicion, arising from a dinner invitation
from a stranger and a subsequent personal
investigation, that the court was being used
as a forum for extortion and exploitation of
the persons charged. The Supreme Court
found this unstated extraneous matter makes
the dismissal as one affected with partiality
and bias. The prayer of the judge to be
PAGE 80 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
disqualified in hearing the case because he
has lost all respect in the manner in which
the prosecutor has been prosecuting the case
was granted.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2003)] Moreover, it has been held that bias
and prejudice must be shown to have
stemmed from an extra-judicial source and
result in an opinion on the merits on some
basis other than the evidence presented
[Aleria v. Velez (1998)].
ECONOMIC INTEREST OF JUDGE OR HIS
FAMILY
In Oktubre v. Velasco (2004), a municipal
judge, as private complainant, caused three
criminal complaints to be filed before his own
court. He also issued a warrant of arrest and
subpoenas before finally inhibiting himself
from hearing the cases. The Supreme Court
found him guilty of grave misconduct, gross
ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
authority, and dismissed him from service. It
stated that the idea that a judge can preside
over his own case is anathema to the notion
of impartiality and that his subsequent
inhibition from the three cases does not
detract from his culpability for he should not
have taken cognizance of the cases in the first
place.
REVIEWING OWN CASES
In Sandoval v. CA (1996), the Supreme Court
that an Associate Justice who only partly
presided over a case in the trial court and
who did not render the final decision cannot
be said to have been placed in a position
where he had to review his own decision and,
as such, was not legally bound, on this
ground, to inhibit himself as ponente of the
case. Nevertheless, it was held that he should
have voluntarily inhibited himself for his
earlier involvement in the case constitutes
just or valid reason under Sec. 1, Rule 137. A
judge should not handle a case in which he
might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be
susceptible to bias and partiality.
PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS COUNSEL
A judge may validly disqualify himself due to
his bias and prejudice. [However,] bias and
prejudice cannot be presumed [Soriano v.
Angeles (2000)]. The mere imputation of bias
or partiality is not sufficient for a judge to
inhibit, especially when the charge is without
basis. It must be proven with clear and
convincing evidence. [Gochan v. Gochan
OTHER EXAMPLES
Disqualification was also allowed when the
judge has been previously associated with a
party as counsel, [Austria v. Masaquel (1978)]
notarized the affidavit of a person to be
presented as witness [Mateo v. Villaluz
(1973)], if he is a material witness to a case
[AmJur; Lewis v. State (2002)]
“UTANG NA LOOB”
Mere fact that a counsel who is appearing
before a judge was one of those who
recommended him to the Bench is not a valid
ground from voluntary inhibition. “Utang na
loob” per se should not be a hindrance to the
administration of justice. Nor should
recognition of such value prevent the
performance of judicial duties. However,
where the judge admits that he may be
suspected of surrendering to the persuasions
of utang na loob, and he may succumb to it
considering that he and members of the
family, no less shall ever remain obliged in
eternal gratitude to the recommending
counsel, the judge should inhibit himself.
[Query of Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, etc,
A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC (1987) cited in Lex
Pareto (2014)]
CLASSMATE OR FRATERNITY BROTHER
A judge should not be disqualified because
he was a classmate (or a co-member in a
fraternity) of one of the counsels if there is no
proof that such relationship results in actual
bias or prejudice. To allow disqualification
would unnecessarily burden other trial judges
to whom the case will be assigned. Confusion
would result, because a judge would then be
barred from sitting in a case whenever one of
his former classmates (and he could have
many) appeared. [Masadao and Elizaga, cited
in Lex Pareto (2014)]
PAGE 81 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
PERMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION
D. PROPRIETY
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 a 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 and the appearance of
propriety are essential to the performance of
all the activities of a judge.
The decision to continue hearing the case,
despite the existence of reasons for
disqualification should be: (1) coupled with a
bona fide disclosure to the parties-inlitigation, and (2) subject to express
acceptance by all the parties of the cited
reason as not material or substantial; absent
these two, the judge may not be permitted to
continue hearing the case. The basis of the
disqualification should be disclosed, not mere
“personal reasons” [ABA (2007)].
NOTICE
The Court held that there is nothing in Rule V
or in any other part of the Internal Rules of
the Court of Appeals that specifically requires
that the party-litigants be informed of the
mandatory or voluntary inhibition of a Justice.
However, the Court held that henceforth all
the parties in any action or proceedings
should be immediately notified of any
mandatory disqualification or voluntary
inhibition of the Justice who has participated
in any action of the court, stating the reason
for the mandatory disqualification or
voluntary inhibition. The requirement of
notice is a measure to ensure that the
disqualification or inhibition has not been
resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to
prejudice any party or cause [Re: Letters of
Judge Eduardo (2014)].
CANON 4 – Asked 23 times in the Bar. [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
By prohibiting not only impropriety but even
the appearance of impropriety, the Code
recognizes that even acts that are not per se
improper can nevertheless be perceived by
the larger community as such [ABA (2007)].
This is so because the community holds
judges to higher standards of integrity and
ethical conduct than attorneys and other
persons not invested with public trust. [Oca v.
Estacion Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-87-104 (1995)].
The
Philippine
courts
have
also
acknowledged the irrelevance of the judge’s
perception of impropriety [Vidal v. Dojilo
(2005)]. Thus, acts of judges which are not
illegal may still violate the Code:
(1) Hearing cases on the day when the judge
was supposed to be on official leave [Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Acuña
(2005)];
(2) Hearing a motion while on vacation in
the judge’s room dressed in a polo jacket
[Ignacio v. Valenzuela (1982)];
(3) Coming out of a hotel together with a
subordinate, even when there is no clear
evidence of sexual congress [Liwanag v.
Lustre (1999)];
(4) Making a joking remark to a litigant
suggesting for the latter to prove that he
harbored no ill feelings toward the judge
[Co v. Plata (2005)];
(5) Admonishing the bride and the groom,
after conducting a marriage ceremony,
to sexually satisfy each other so that they
will not go astray [Hadap v. Lee (1982)].
PAGE 82 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
(6) Posting credentials as judge in
Friendster and posting a picture with
indecent attire [Lorenzana v. Austria
(2014)].
Some instances when judges were rebuked:
(1) Making sexually suggestive advances to
women [Mariano v. Gonzales (1982)];
(2) Writing letter to a married woman to
come to the sala after 5 pm [Hadap v.
Lee (1982)];
Violent action in a public place, whatever the
motive, constitutes serious misconduct and
resultant outrage of the community [Arban v.
Boraha (1989)].
It is highly improper for a judge to wield a
high-powered firearm in public and besieged
the house of a perceived defamer of character
and honor in warlike fashion, berating the
object of his ire with his firearm aimed at him
[Saburnido v. Madrano (2001)].
ACCEPTANCE
RESTRICTIONS
OF
PERSONAL
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.
While judges are only human, their
acceptance of the judicial position means
that more is expected from them than from
ordinary citizens, as their acts, both public
and private, color the public’s perception of
the judiciary as a whole.
As subjects of constant public scrutiny,
personal restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen should be
freely and willingly accepted by a judge. In
particular, he or she must exhibit conduct
consistent with the dignity of the judicial
office. Dignified conduct is best described as
conduct befitting men and women possessed
of temperance and respect for the law and for
others.
Indeed, a judge’s personal behavior, not only
while in the performance of official duties,
must be beyond reproach, being the visible
personification of law and of justice [Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Acuña
(2005)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(3) Assigning a female stenographer to a
judge’s chamber [Ritual v. Valencia
(1978)];
AVOIDANCE OF CONTROVERSY
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.
A judge is commanded at all times to be
mindful of the high calling of a dispassionate
and impartial arbiter expected at all times to
be a “cerebral man who deliberately holds in
check the tug and pull of purely personal
preferences which he shares with his fellow
mortals.” [Oca v. Paderanga (2005)]. Judges
should refrain from inviting counsel for one
side into their chambers after or prior to
sessions in court without disclosing to the
other counsel the reason for such meetings,
[Martinez v. Gironella (1975); being aggressive
in demeanor towards a lawyer appearing
before them, [Royeca v. Aminas (1976)]; and
making public comments, or allowing court
staff to make comments, on pending cases,
[Geotina v Gonzales (1971)].
Constant company [or fraternizing] with a
lawyer tends to breed intimacy and
camaraderie to the point that favors in the
future may be asked from a judge which he
may find hard to resist. The actuation of a
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
[Padilla v. Zantua (1994)].
PAGE 83 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
NOT PARTICIPATE IN CASES WHERE HE
MAY BE IMPARTIAL
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.
This rule rests on the principle that no judge
should preside in a case in which the judge is
not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent. A judge has both the duty of
rendering a just decision and the duty of
doing it in a manner completely free from
suspicion as to fairness and integrity. The
purpose is to preserve the people’s faith and
confidence in the courts of justice. [ABA
(2007)].
NOT ALLOW THE USE OF HIS RESIDENCE
BY OTHER LAWYERS
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.
It is grossly improper for a judge to meet with
a litigant at his home and to frequent the
karaoke bar owned by such litigant, enjoying
the use thereof for free [J. King & Sons v.
Hontanosas (2004)].
Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes the
appearance of impartiality. It is improper for
a judge to meet privately with the accused
without the presence of the complainant [De
Guzman, Jr. v. Sison (2001)].
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
While judges are not expected to live a
hermit-like existence or cease functioning as
citizens of the Republic, they should
remember that they do not disrobe
themselves of their judicial office upon
leaving their salas.
In the exercise of their civil liberties, judges
should be circumspect and ever mindful that
their continuing commitment to upholding
the judiciary and its values places upon them
certain implied restraints to their freedom. A
judge was admonished for the appearance of
engaging in partisan politics when he
participated in a political rally sponsored by
one party, even though he only explained the
mechanics of block voting to the audience
[ABA (2007)].
The use of expletives [In Re Judge Acuna] and
display of unbecoming behavior through
sarcastic comments [Seludo v. Fineza] are
frowned upon by the Court.
BE INFOMED OF HIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS
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.
Under Sec. 7(a), RA 6713, public officials and
employees are prohibited from directly or
indirectly having any financial or material
interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office.
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that
“a judge shall refrain from financial and
business dealings that tend to reflect
adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere
with the proper performance of judicial
activities, or increase involvement with
lawyers or persons likely to come before the
court. A judge should so manage investments
and other financial interests as to minimize
the number of cases giving grounds for
disqualification” [Catbagan v. Barte (2005)].
PAGE 84 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
When may a judge serve as an executor?
A judge may only serve as the executor,
administrator, trustee, guardian, or other
fiduciary, for the estate, trust, or person of a
member of the immediate family (spouse and
relatives within the 2nd degree of
consanguinity), and then only if such service
will not interfere with the proper performance
of judicial duties. (Rule 5.06, Old Code). He is
not allowed to serve as the executor,
administrator, trustee, guardian, or other
fiduciary of estates other than the above. [Bar
2005, 2000, 1999, 1995, Lex Pareto (2014)]
INFLUENCE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Another common violation of this rule is
using judicial power to exact personal
vengeance. For example, it was improper
when, after a confrontation between a judge’s
son and the son’s teacher, the judge had the
teacher arrested and arraigned before him.
[AmJur; Matter of Edwards (1995)].
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
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. 8. Judges shall not:
(a) 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;
(b) 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.
A judge was re reprimanded after using his
letterhead in demand letters in the exercise
of his duties as an administrator of an estate.
This rule has two parts. The first is that a
judge may not use judicial office to advance
private interests. The second is that a judge
may not give the impression that he or she
can be influenced to use the judicial office to
advance the private interests of others.
The court ruled that using the said letterhead
and requiring payment at his office is clearly
intended to use the prestige of his judicial
office to advance private interests [Oktubre v.
Velasco (2004)].
Another judge who, as creditor, filed a
collection case in a venue where he was one
of the trial judges, was severely censured by
the Supreme Court, stating that a sense of
propriety should have impelled him to desist
from filing in said venue, even when, under
the law, he had the choice of venue. In the
eyes of the public, it arouses suspicion, rightly
or wrongly, that advantage is being taken of
one’s position (Javier v. De Guzman, Jr. (1990)].
Releasing a draft decision to a party was
considered not as a simple breach of
confidentiality of the decision-making
process in the case of Centrum Agri-Business
Realty Corp. v. Katalbas-Moscardon (1995),
but a scheme to extort money from a party.
Also, a judge’s act of personally furnishing a
party copies of orders issued, without the
same passing through the court docket, is
highly irregular, giving rise to the suspicion
that the judge is partial to one of the parties
in the case pending before him [Co v. Calimag
(2000)].
Records of cases are necessarily confidential,
and to preserve their integrity and
confidentiality, access thereto ought to be
limited only to the judge, the parties or their
counsel and the appropriate court personnel
in charge of the custody thereof. It is
improper to allow a judge’s wife, who is not a
court employee, much less the employee
specifically in charge of the custody of said
records, to have access thereto [Gordon v.
Lilagan (2001)].
EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES OF A JUDGE
Sec. 10. Subject to the proper performance of
judicial duties, judges may:
PAGE 85 OF 104
(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
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
official body concerned with matters
relating to the 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.
This Sec. should be read in conjunction with
Sec. 12, Article VIII, Constitution, which
prohibits members of the judiciary from being
designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions.
Thus, membership of a judge in a Provincial
Committee on Justice, which discharges
administrative functions, will be in violation
of the Constitution. However, the Supreme
Court stated that this does not mean that
judges should adopt monastic insensibility or
unbecoming indifference to such institutions
and that even as non-members, they should
render assistance to help promote the
laudable purposes for which they exist when
such assistance may be reasonably incidental
to the fulfillment of their judicial duties [In Re:
Designation of Judge Manzano (1988)].
This Sec. allows the judge to participate in
legal academia and public discourse on legal
matters with the proviso that there shall be
no interference in the performance of the
judge’s primary functions with respect to his
or her jurisdiction. However, in dealing with
the media, the Philippine Judicial Academy
suggests that a judge or court should avoid
acrimonious debate with reporters and the
public, for a knee-jerk reaction from the court
or judge may only provoke negative follow-up
reports and articles [ABA (2007)].
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
Sec. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst
the holder of judicial office.
This prohibition 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
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
and privileges of a judge. It also aims to
ensure that judges give their full time and
attention to their judicial duties, prevent
them from extending special favors to their
own private interests and assure the public of
their impartiality in the performance of their
functions [Carual v. Brusola (1999)].
NOTARIAL WORK
General rule: Municipal judges may not
engage in notarial work.
Exception: They may do so as notaries
public ex-officio, in which case, they may only
notarize documents connected with the
exercise of their official functions. As such,
they may not undertake the preparation and
acknowledgement of private documents,
contracts and other acts of conveyance,
which bear no relation to the performance of
their functions as judges.
Exception to the exception: In far-flung
municipalities which have neither lawyers nor
notaries public, municipal judges assigned to
those municipalities or circuits may, in their
capacity as notaries public ex-officio, perform
any act within the competence of a regular
notary public, provided:
(1) All notarial fees charged be for the
account of the Government and turned
over to the municipal treasurer; and
(2) A certification be made in the notarized
documents attesting to the lack of any
lawyer or notary public in such
municipality or circuit [Tabao v. Asis
(1996)].
FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS
Sec. 12. Judges may form or join associations
of judges or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
This rule recognizes a difference between
membership in associations of judges and
membership in associations of other legal
professionals. While attendance at lavish
events hosted by lawyers might create an
appearance of impropriety, participation in
judges-only organizations does not [ABA
(2007)].
PAGE 86 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS
Sec. 13. Judges and members of their families
shall neither ask for, or 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.
Under Sec. 7(d), RA 6713, prohibits solicitation
or acceptance by public officials and
employees, directly or indirectly, of any gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or
anything of monetary value from any person
in the course of their official duties or in
connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may
be affected by the functions of their office.
appropriate to the occasion on which it is
made provided that such gift, award of
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.
General rule: Judges and members of their
families are prohibited from accepting any
token, gift, award or benefit.
Exception: Subject to legal requirements
like public disclosure, they may accept gifts
provided that it might not reasonably be
perceived as intended to influence judge.
As to gifts or grants from foreign
governments, Sec. 7(d), RA 6713 allows:
(a) A gift of nominal value tendered and
received as a souvenir or mark of
courtesy;
The act of a judge in demanding and
receiving money from a party-litigant before
his court constitute serious misconduct in
office. It is this kind of gross and flaunting
misconduct on the part of those who are
charged
with
the
responsibility
of
administering the law and rendering justice
that so quickly and surely corrodes the
respect for law and the courts without which
government cannot continue and that tears
apart the very bonds of our polity [Haw Tay v.
Singayao (1987)].
(b) A gift in the nature of a scholarship or
fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
(c) Travel grants or expenses for travel
taking place entirely outside the
Philippine of more than nominal value if
such acceptance is:
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS BY STAFF
Sec. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit
court staff of 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 of
functions.
This Sec. complements the previous Sec. and
assures that what the judge cannot do
directly may not be done indirectly through
the use of employees or staff members [ABA
(2007)].
PERMISSIBLE TOKENS AND REWARDS
Sec. 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges
may receive a token, gift, award, or benefit as
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(i)
Appropriate or consistent with the
interests of the Philippines; and
(ii)
Permitted by the head of office,
branch or agency to which he
belongs.
E. EQUALITY
Canon 5. Ensuring equality of treatment to all
before the courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial office.
CANON 5 – Asked 6 times in the Bar. [Lex
Pareto (2014)]
This is a new canon not found in the previous
codes of judicial conduct. It expands the
measures to promote equality required by
international human rights agreements [ABA
(2007)].
As the guardians of justice, courts must
adhere to the principle of equality. People
expect the courts to be unaffected by
PAGE 87 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
differences in social status, degree of
education, and even physical abilities
lead public to believe that cases before them
are being prejudged [Castillo v. Juan (1975)].
UNDERSTANDING DIVERSITY IN SOCIETY
NOT TO DIFFERENTIATE
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. 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.
To render substantial justice and maintain
public confidence in the judicial system,
judges are expected to be aware of the
diversity in society that results from an
increased worldwide exchange of people and
ideas. Judges must be able to avoid the
infiltration of preconceptions into their
decisions. They should be mindful of the
various international instruments and treaties
ratified by the Philippines, which affirm the
equality of all human beings and establish a
norm
of
non-discrimination
without
distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion [ABA (2007)].
Unequal and disparate treatment in the
courthouse, whether intentional or perceived,
is unacceptable and can negatively impact
the professional lives of attorneys and
employees, the assessment of claims of
litigants, and the respect and credibility of
the justice system [ABA (2007)].
NOT TO INFLUENCE STAFF
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.
NOT TO MANIFEST BIAS OR PREJUDICE
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.
In every litigation, perhaps much more so in
criminal cases, the manner and attitude of a
trial judge are crucial to everyone concerned,
the offended party, no less than the accused.
It is not for him to indulge or even to give the
appearance of catering to the at times human
failing of yielding to first impressions.
He is to refrain from reaching hasty
conclusions or prejudging matters. It would
be deplorable if he lays himself open to the
suspicion of reacting to feelings rather than
to facts, of being imprisoned in the net of his
own sympathies and predilections.
Judges should avoid private remarks, hasty
conclusions, or distasteful jokes that may give
even erroneous impressions of prejudice and
Judges should organize their courts to ensure
the prompt and convenient dispatch of
business and should not tolerate misconduct
by clerks, sheriffs and other assistants who
are sometimes prone to expect favors or
special treatment due to their professional
relationship with the judge.
Court personnel shall not discriminate by
dispensing special favors to anyone. They
shall not allow kinship, rank, position or
favors from any party to influence their
official acts or duties [Sec. 3, Canon 1, Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel].
ATTITUDE TO PARTIES APPEARING IN
COURT
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
PAGE 88 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
proceedings and may be the subject of
legitimate advocacy.
Verily, a judge may, in the exercise of his
sound discretion, inhibit himself voluntarily
from sitting in a case, but it should be based
on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just
and valid reasons. No less than imperative is
that it is the judge’s sacred duty to administer
justice without fear or favor [Parayno v.
Meneses (1994)].
Judges should conduct proceedings in court
with dignity and in a manner that reflects the
importance and seriousness of proceedings.
They should maintain order and proper
decorum in the court [Rule 3.03, Canon 3,
1989 Code of Judicial Conduct].
DUTIES TAKE PRECEDENCE
Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
A judge may, in the exercise of his discretion,
inhibit himself voluntarily from sitting in a
case, but it should be based on good, sound
or ethical grounds, or for just and valid
reasons. No less than imperative is that it is
the judge’s sacred duty to administer justice
without fear or favor [Parayno v. Meneses
(1994)]
PERFORM ADMINISTRAIVE DUTIES
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.
The effect is the same when the insensitive
act or comment is made by a lawyer
appearing in the court and the judge does not
admonish the lawyer for the insensitivity
[ABA (2007)].
Thus, judges have the duty to prevent lawyers
from violating the rights of witnesses. This
complements Rule 12.07, Canon 12, which
directs that a lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Since judges set the tone and environment of
the court proceedings, they should censure
lawyers who use sexist language or
inappropriate behavior in court [ABA (2007)
citing AmJur; In Re Romano (1999)]
F. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Canon 6. Competence and diligence are
prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Failure to speedily dispose of cases on
account of missing records of cases reflects
an inefficient and disorderly system in the
recording of cases assigned to a judge’s 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. A judge is expected to ensure
that the records of cases assigned to his sala
are intact. There is no justification for missing
records, except fortuitous events. The loss of
eight records is indicative of gross
misconduct and inexcusable negligence
unbecoming of a judge [Longboan v. Polig
(1990)].
MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
Canon 6 – Asked 11 times in the Bar. [Lex
Pareto (2014)].
A judge must be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence, and
be studiously careful to avoid the slightest
infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing
example to others [OCA v. Gines (1993)].
PAGE 89 OF 104
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.
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
When a judge accepts his position, he owes it
to the dignity of the court, to the legal
profession, and to the public, to know the
very law he is supposed to apply to a given
controversy. 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.
What is gross ignorance of the law? [Bar 1991,
Lex Pareto (2014)]
It is failure to follow basic legal commands
embodied in the law and the ROC from which
no one is excused, surely not a judge. (Fr.
Guillen v. Judge Canon, AM No. MTJ-01-1381
(2002)].
BE INFORMED ABOUT THE LAW
Sec. 4. Judges shall keep themselves
informed about the relevant developments
of international law, including international
conventions
and
other
instruments
establishing human rights norms.
Subject to the conditions set forth in Sec. 2,
Article II and Sec. 21, Article VII, Constitution,
international law, both customary and
conventional, are part of Philippine law.
The Supreme Court held that not only did
Judge Bitas deviate from the requirement of a
hearing where there is an application for bail,
he also granted bail to Miralles without
neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for
application for bail. Judge Bitas’ acts are not
mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and
judgment on his part, but a patent disregard
of well-known rules. When an error is so
gross and patent, such error produces an
inference of bad faith, making the judge
liable for gross ignorance of the law. [Jorda v
Bitas (2014)].
PROMPT DECISION MAKING
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with
reasonable promptness.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Sec. 1, Rule 124 requires that justice be
impartially administered without unnecessary
delay. This principle permeates the whole
system of judicature, and supports the
legitimacy of the decrees of judicial tribunals
[ABA (2007)].
Prompt disposition of cases is attained
basically through the efficiency and
dedication to duty of judges. In a case, the
civil case was already submitted for
resolution. Being an ejectment case, it is
governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure
which clearly sets a period of 30 days from
the submission of the last affidavit or position
paper within which a decision must be issued.
Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered
judgment only more than 2 years later. While
rules prescribing the time within which
certain acts must be done, should be
regarded as mandatory, the Court has
nevertheless been mindful of the plight of
judges and has been understanding of
circumstances that may hinder them from
promptly disposing of their businesses and,
as such, has allowed extensions of time due
to justifiable reasons. However, Judge
Regencia failed to proffer any acceptable
reason in delaying the disposition of the
ejectment
case,
thus,
making
her
administratively liable for undue delay in
rendering a decision. [Gershon N. Dulang v.
Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia, MCTC,
Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-141841 (2014)].
Every judge should decide cases with
dispatch and should be careful, punctual,
and observant in the performance of his
functions for delay in the disposition of cases
erodes the faith and confidence of our people
in the judiciary, lowers its standards and
brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a
case within the reglementary period is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency
warranting the imposition of administrative
sanctions on the defaulting judge [In Re
Cases for Decisions Submited to Judge Baluma
(2013)].
MAINTAIN ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS
Sec. 6. Judges shall maintain order and
decorum in all proceedings before the court
and be patient, dignified, and courteous in
PAGE 90 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
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, and control
Under earlier versions of Canons of Judicial
Ethics, it was held that the courts are made
for the litigants, not the litigants for the
courts. Punctuality was required “recognizing
that the time of the litigants, witnesses, and
attorneys is of value.” Judges are not allowed
to tolerate abuses and neglect by clerks,
sheriffs, and other assistants and to exhibit
“undue
interference,
impatience,
or
participation in the examination of witnesses.”
[ABA (2007)]
The rights of the accused to a fair trial is far
more superior to the right of press freedom.
[Perez v. Estrada; Bar 2004; Lex Pareto
(2014)]
What are the conditions for the intervention
of a judge in the presentation of evidence?
[Bar 2002, 1996] While a judge may intervene
in the presentation of evidence to promote
justice, prevent waste of time or clear up
some obscurity, properly intervent in the
presentation of evidence during trial, it
should always be borne in mind that undue
interference may prevent the proper
presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of truth. (Rule 3.06, Old Code,
applied in a suppletory character; Lex Pareto
(2014)].
A judge was found guilty of committing acts
unbecoming of a judge and abuse of
authority when he shouted invectives and
threw a chair, resulting in wrist and other
injuries to the complainant [Briones v. Ante, Jr.
(2002)].
Another judge was found guilty of serious
misconduct and inefficiency by reason of
habitual tardiness. He was fined and
suspended for judicial indolence [Yu-Asensi v.
Villanueva (2000)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT CONTRARY
TO DUTIES
Sec. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
When a judge accepts his position, he owes it
to the dignity of the court, to the legal
profession, and to the public, to know the
very law he is supposed to apply to a given
controversy. 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. Service in the judiciary means
a continuous study and research on the law
from beginning to end [Ajeno v. Inserto
(1976)].
Judges are not, however, expected to be
infallible; not every error or irregularity
committed by judges in the performance of
official duties is subject to administrative
sanction. In the absence of bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty, or deliberate intent to do
injustice, incorrect rulings do not constitute
misconduct and may not give rise to a charge
of gross ignorance of the law [Cruz v. Iturralde
(2003)].
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions
against judges are not complementary or
suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or
extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of
these judicial remedies are prerequisites for
the taking of other measures against the
persons of the judges concerned, whether of
civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is
only after the available judicial remedies have
been exhausted and the appellate tribunals
have spoken with finality that the door to an
inquiry into his criminal, civil, or
administrative liability may be said to have
opened, or closed [Maquiran v. Grageda
(2005)].
PAGE 91 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.2. IMPEACHMENT OF FORMER CHIEF
JUSTICE CORONA
On December 12, 2011, the House of
Representatives voted to impeach Chief
Justice Corona. They charged him with eight
articles of impeachment alleging:
III. Discipline of
Members of The
Judiciary
(1) Betrayal of public trust;
A. SUPREME COURT
(2) Graft and corruption; and
A.1. IMPEACHMENT
Members of the Supreme Court may be
removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust [Sec. 2, Article X, 1987 Consti].
The impeachment of public officials has been
established
for
removing
otherwise
constitutionally tenured and independent
public officials for culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust. The power to initiate
impeachment cases rests with the House
while the power to try the same rests with the
Senate.
Based on Sec. 3, Article VI, Constitution, the
steps leading to impeachment are as follows:
(1) A verified complaint for impeachment is
filed by a member of the House or
endorsed by him;
(2) The complaint is included in the order of
business of the House;
(3) The House refers the complaint to the
proper committee;
(4) The committee holds a hearing,
approves the resolution calling for
impeachment, and submits the same to
the House;
(5) The House considers the resolution and
votes to approve it by at least one-third
of all its members, which resolution
becomes the article of impeachment to
be filed with the Senate when approved;
and
(6) The Senate tries the public official under
the article [Abad, J., Separate
Concurring Opinion, Gutierrez v. HOR
Committee on Justice (2011)].
(3) Culpable violation of the Constitution.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
Article I: Partiality and subservience in
cases involving the Arroyo administration;
Article II: Failure to disclose to the public
his statement of assets and liabilities;
Article III: Flip-flopping decisions in final
and executory cases, creating excessive
entanglement with Former President Arroyo,
and discussing with litigants regarding the
cases pending before the Supreme Court;
Article IV: Irregularities in issuing a quoante order against the House of
Representatives in the impeachment of then
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez;
Article V: Gerrymandering in the case of the
16-newly created cities and promotion of
Dinagat into a province;
Article VI: Improper investigation in the
plagiarism case of Associate Justice Mariano
del Castillo;
Article
VII: Granting a temporary
restraining order to Former President Arroyo
and husband Mike Arroyo after the
Department of Justice prevented them to go
out of the country;
Article VIII: Graft and corruption when he
failed and refused to account for the judiciary
development fund and special allowance for
the judiciary collections.
On January 16, 2012, the Senate, sitting as an
impeachment court, began the trial. The
prosecution dropped Articles I, IV, V, VI, VII,
VIII, leaving only Articles II and III as
their grounds for im peachm ent.
PAGE 92 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
On May 29, 2012, the Senate found Chief
Justice Corona guilty under Article II of
the articles of impeachment for his failure
to declare his true statem ents of
assets, liabilities and net worth. After
20 senators voted in favor of impeachment
under this ground, the Senate no longer
voted under Article III. Three senators voted
to acquit Corona on that ground.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE USED
An impeachment proceeding is sui generis; it
is neither purely political nor criminal. Thus, it
does not require proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In the course of the impeachment trial,
the senator-judges expressed differing views.
Some argued that it requires “clear and
convincing proof,” while some argued that it
needs “preponderance of evidence.”
The Senate has traditionally left the choice of
the applicable standard of proof to each
individual Senator [Black, Impeachment: A
Handbook (1974)].
IMPEACHMENT (ETHICAL ASPECTS)
Former Chief Justice Corona was the first
justice of the Supreme Court to be impeached
and convicted.
He was found guilty for culpable violation of
the Constitution and/or betrayal of public
trust for not correctly declaring his
statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
The prosecution alleged that he inaccurately
declared his peso and dollar deports, and real
estate properties.
The defense argued that he did not declare
his dollar deposits and peso deposits because
of the banking secrecy and foreign currency
deposit laws. It was also said that some
undeclared assets are also co-mingled funds
that he does not own solely.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
B. JUDGES OF THE LOWER COURTS
AND JUSTICES OF COURT OF APPEALS
AND SANDIGANBAYAN
TENURE
The members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall hold office during
a good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy years or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office.
DISCIPLINING BODY IS THE SC
The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of majority of
the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon [Sec. 11, Article VIII,
Constitution].
General rule: A judge cannot be subjected
to liability – civil, criminal, or administrative –
for any his official acts, not matter how
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith
[Valdez v. Valera (1978)].
Ratio: A judicial officer, in exercising the
authority vested in him, shall be free to act
upon
his
own
convictions,
without
apprehension of personal consequences to
himself.
This concept of judicial immunity rests upon
consideration of public policy, its purpose
being to preserve the integrity and
independence of the judiciary [Pabalan v.
Guevarra (1976)].
HOW INSTITUTED
Proceedings for the discipline of judges of
regular and special courts and justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan
may be instituted:
(1) Motu propio by the Supreme Court;
(2) Upon the 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
PAGE 93 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
(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 [Sec. 1, Rule
140].
The right to institute disbarment proceedings
is not confined to clients nor is it necessary
that the person complaining suffered injury
from the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural
requirement observed in ordinary civil
proceedings that only the real party-ininterest must initiate the suit does not apply
in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings
are matters of public interest and the only
basis for the judgment is the proof or failure
of proof of the charges [Figueros v Jimenez
(2014)].
INVESTIGATION
Upon the filing of the comment of the
respondent or upon the expiration of the
period for such filing, which is ten days from
the date of service to him of the copy of the
complaint [Sec. 2, Rule 140], the SC shall:
(1) Refer the matter to the Office of the
Court
Administrator
(OCA)
for
evaluation, report, and recommendation;
or
(2) Assign the case for investigation, report,
and recommendation to:
(a) A retired member of the Supreme
Court, if the respondent is a justice
of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan;
(b) A justice of the Court of Appeals, if
the respondent is a judge of a
Regional Trial Court or of a special
court of equivalent rank; or
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
HEARING AND TERMINATION
The investigating justice of judge shall set a
day for the hearing and send notice to the
parties. If the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The investigating justice or judge shall
terminate the proceedings:
(1) Within 90 days from the date of its
commencement; or
(2) Within such extension as the Supreme
Court may grant [Sec. 4, Rule 140].
REPORT AND ACTION
Within 30 days from termination, the
investigating justice or judge shall submit to
the Supreme Court a report containing his
findings of fact and recommendation,
accompanied by the evidence and pleadings
filed by the parties. Such report shall be
confidential and shall be for the exclusive use
of the Supreme Court.
A copy of the decision or resolution of the
court shall be attached to the record of the
respondent in the OCA [Secs. 5 and 12, Rule
140]
The Supreme Court shall take action on the
report as the facts and the law may warrant
[Sec. 6, Rule 140]
AUTOMATIC
CONVERSION
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES TO DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant
to
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,
administrative cases against justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan,
judges of regular and special courts, and
court officials who are lawyers, shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against them,
if they are based on grounds which are
likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of
members of the bar for:
(c) A judge of the Regional Trial Court,
if the respondent is a judge of an
inferior court [Sec. 3, Rule 140].
(1) Violation of the Lawyer's Oath;
(2) Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
(3) Violation
of
the
Professional Ethics; or
PAGE 94 OF 104
Canons
of
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
(4) Such other forms of breaches of
conduct that have been traditionally
recognized as grounds for the
discipline of lawyers.
The respondent is 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.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(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;
(8) Immorality;
(9) Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
(10) Partisan political activities; and
(11) Alcoholism and/or vicious habits [Sec. 8,
Rule 140].
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR DESISTANCE
The actuations of a judge seriously affect the
public interest inasmuch as they involve the
administration of justice. It is for this reason
that a motion to withdraw a complaint will
not justify the dismissal of the administrative
case against the judge.
To condition administrative actions upon the
will of every complainant, who may, for one
reason or another, condone a detestable act,
is to strip the Supreme Court of its
supervisory power to discipline erring
members of the judiciary [Anguluan v. Taguba
(1979)].
Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle
to the taking of disciplinary action against a
judge if the record reveals that he had not
performed his duties properly [Espayos v. Lee
(1979)].
The word “misconduct” implies a wrongful
intention and not a mere error or judgment.
For serious [or gross] misconduct to exist,
there must be reliable evidence showing that
the judicial acts complained of were corrupt
or inspired by an intention to violate the law,
or were in persistent disregard of well-known
legal rules [In re: Impeachment of Horrilleno
(1922)].
In the absence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty,
or deliberate intent to do injustice, incorrect
rulings do not constitute misconduct and may
not give rise to a charge of gross ignorance of
the law [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003)].
Sanctions:
(1) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including governmentowned or controlled corporations.
Forfeiture of benefits does not include
accrued leave credits;
C. GROUNDS AND SANCTIONS
Administrative charges are classified as
serious, less serious, or light [Sec. 7, Rule
140]
(2) Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for more than three
but not exceeding six months; or
SERIOUS CHARGES
(3) A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00; [Sec. 11, Rule
140]
(1) Bribery, direct or indirect;
(2) Dishonesty and violations of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law (RA
3019);
(3) Gross misconduct constituting violations
of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
LESS SERIOUS CHARGES
(4) Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
or order as determined by a competent
court in an appropriate proceeding;
PAGE 95 OF 104
(1) Undue delay in rendering a decision or
order, or in transmitting the records of a
case;
(2) Frequently and unjustified absences
without leave or habitual tardiness;
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
account, thus converting the trust fund
to personal use [Barja v. Beracio (1976)];
(3) Unauthorized practice of law;
(4) Violation of Supreme
directives, and circulars;
Court
(5) Receiving
additional
compensation
unless
authorized by law;
or
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
rules,
(3) Extorting money from a party-litigant
who has a pending case [Haw Tay v.
Singayao (1988)]:
double
specifically
(4) Solicitation of donation for office
equipment [Lecaroz v. Garcia (1981)];
(6) Untruthful statements in the certificate
of service; and
(5) Frequent unauthorized absences in
office [Municipal Council of Casiguruhan,
Quezon v. Morales (1974)];
(7) Simple misconduct [Sec. 9, Rule 140]
Sanctions:
(6) Delay in the disposition of cases in
violation of the canon that a judge must
promptly dispose of all matters
submitted to him [Balagot v. Opinion
(1991)];
(1) Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than one
nor more than three months; or
(2) A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00 [Sec. 11, Rule
140].
(7) Unduly granting repeated motions for
postponement [Araza v. Reyes (1975)];
(8) Unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the
application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law and duration and
graduation of penalties [In re: Paulin
(1980)];
LIGHT CHARGES
(1) Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
(2) Gambling in public;
(9) Reducing to a ridiculous amount
(P6,000.00) the bail bond of the
accused murderer, enabling him to
escape the toils of the law [Soriano v.
Mabbayad (1975)].
(3) Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants
with pending case/cases in his court;
and
(4) Undue delay in the submission of
monthly reports.
(10) Imposing the penalty of subsidiary
imprisonment on a party for failure to
pay civil indemnity in violation of RA
5465 [Monsanto v. Palarca (1983)].
Sanctions:
(1) A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not
exceeding P10,000.00; and/or
(2) Censure;
GUIDELINES JUDICIAL CLEMENCY IN
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES [Sultan Ali v. Judge
Pacalna, A.M. No. MTJ-03 1505 (2013)].
(3) Reprimand;
(4) Admonition with warning.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
The following have been subject to discipline
by the Supreme Court:
(1) Failure to deposit funds with the
municipal treasurer or produce them
despite promise to do so [Montemayor v.
Collado (1981)];
(2) Misappropriation of fiduciary funds (i.e.,
proceeds of cash bail bond) by
depositing the check in a personal
PAGE 96 OF 104
(1) 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;
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from
the imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reformation;
(3) 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;
(4) 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;
(5) There must be other relevant factors and
circumstances that may justify clemency.
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
III. Disqualifications of
Justices and Judges
[Rule 137]
NOTE: Asked 3 times in the Bar; 1994, 1991,
2008. [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
A. COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any
case, without the written consent of all
parties in interest and entered upon the
record, in which:
(1) He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise; or
(2) 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 the civil law;
(3) He has been executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel; or
(4) He has presided in any inferior court
when his ruling or decision is the
subject of review. [Sec. 1, 1st par., Rule
137]
REASON FOR THE RULE
The rule on compulsory disqualification of a
judge to hear a case rests on the salutary
principle that no judge should preside in a
case in which he is not wholly free,
disinterested, impartial and independent. A
judge has both the duty of rendering a just
decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its
fairness and as to his integrity.
The law conclusively presumes that a judge
cannot objectively or impartially sit in such a
case and, for that reason, prohibits him and
strikes at his authority to hear and decide it,
in the absence of written consent of all
parties concerned. The purpose is to preserve
the people's faith and confidence in the
courts' justice [Garcia v. De La Peña (1994)]
The relationship of the judge with one of the
parties may color the facts and distort the law
PAGE 97 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this
is probable or even only possible, due process
demands that the judge inhibit himself, if
only out of a sense of delicadeza [Javier v.
Comelec (1996)].
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
IV. Powers and Duties
of Judicial Officers
A. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
B. VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION
Rule 137. Sec. 1., 2nd par. A judge may, in the
exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned.
Justice shall be impartially administered
without unnecessary delay [Sec. 1, Rule 135]
Courts of justice shall always be open,
except on legal holidays, for the:
(1) Filing of any pleadings, motion or other
papers;
REASON FOR THE RULE
A judge must maintain and preserve the trust
and faith of the parties-litigants. He must
hold himself above reproach and suspicion.
At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust
to his actions, whether well-grounded or not,
the judge has no other alternative but inhibit
himself from the case.
A judge may not be legally prohibited from
sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances
appear that will induce doubt to his honest
actuations and probity in favor of either party,
or incite such state of mind, he should
conduct a careful self-examination. He
should exercise his discretion in a way that
the people's faith in the courts of justice is not
impaired. The better course for the judge
under such circumstances is to disqualify
himself. That way, he avoids being
misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved [Bautista v. Rebueno
(1978)].
Intimacy or friendship between a judge and
an attorney of record of one of the parties to a
suit is no ground for disqualification. That
one of the counsels in a case was a classmate
of the trial judge is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of the said judge.
To allow it would unnecessarily burden other
trial judges to whom the case would be
transferred. But if the relationship between
the judge and an attorney for a party is such
that there would be a natural inclination to
prejudice the case, the judge should be
disqualified in order to guaranty a fair trial
[Query of Executive Judge Estrada (1987)].
(2) Trial of cases;
(3) Hearing of motions; and
(4) For the issuance of orders or rendition
of judgments.
B. PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS
General rule: The sitting of every court of
justice shall be public.
Exception: Any court may, in its discretion,
exclude the public when the evidence to be
adduced is of such nature as to require their
exclusion in the interest of morality or
decency [Sec. 2, Rule 135].
C. PUBLICITY OF RECORDS
General rule: The records of every court of
justice shall be public records and shall be
available for the inspection of any person:
(1) At all proper business hours;
(2) Under the supervision of the clerk having
custody of such records.
Exception: The court may, in any special
case, forbid publicity of records, in the
interest of morality or decency [Sec. 2, Rule
135].
PAGE 98 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
D. ENFORCEABILITY
PROCESS
JUDICIAL ETHICS
OF
COURT
D.1. SUPERIOR COURTS
Process issued from a superior court in which
a case is pending may be enforced in any part
of the Philippines:
(1) To bring in a defendant;
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E. INHERENT POWERS OF COURTS:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in its
immediate presence;
(2) To enforce order in proceedings before a
person or persons empowered to conduct
a judicial investigation under its
authority;
(3) To execute any order or judgment of the
court [Sec. 3, Rule 135]
(3) To compel obedience to its judgments,
orders and processes, and to the lawful
order of judge out of court, in a case
pending therein;
D.2. INFERIOR COURTS
General rule: Process of inferior courts
shall be enforceable within the province
where the municipality or city lies.
(4) To control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of its ministerial officers, and of
all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it, in every
manner appertaining thereto;
(2) For the arrest of any accused person; or
Exceptions:
(1) It may be served outside the boundaries
of the province with the approval of the
judge of the Regional Trial Court of said
province, and only in the following cases:
(a) When an order for the delivery of
personal property lying outside the
province is to be complied with;
(b) When an attachment of real or
personal property lying outside the
province is to be made;
(c) When the action is against two or
more defendants residing in
different provinces; and
(d) When the place where the case has
been brought is that specified in a
contract in writing between the
parties, or the place of the execution
of such contract as appears
therefrom;
(2) Writs of execution issued by inferior
courts may be enforced in any part of the
Philippines without any previous
approval of the judge of first instance;
(3) Criminal process may be issued by a
justice of the peace or other inferior
court, to be served outside his province,
when the district judge, or in his absence
the provincial fiscal, shall certify that in
his opinion the interests of justices
require such service [Sec. 4, Rule 135].
(5) To compel the attendance of persons to
testify in a case pending therein;
(6) To administer or cause to be
administered oaths in a case pending
therein, and in all other cases where it
may be necessary in the exercise of its
powers;
(7) To amend and control its process and
orders so as to make them conformable
to law and justice;
(8) To authorize copy of a lost or destroyed
pleading or other paper to be filed and
used instead of the original, and to
restore, and supply deficiencies in its
records and proceedings [Sec. 5, Rule
135].
F. MEANS TO CARRY JURISDICTION
INTO EFFECT
When by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a
court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary to carry
it into effect may be employed by such court
or officer; and if the procedure to be followed
in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not
specifically pointed out by law or by these
rules, any suitable process or mode of
proceeding may be adopted which appears
conformable to the spirit of said law or rules
[Sec. 6, Rule 135].
PAGE 99 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
G. TRIAL, HEARINGS AND OTHER ACTS
All trial upon the merits shall be conducted in
open court and so far as convenient in a
regular court room.
All other acts or proceedings may be done or
conducted by a judge in chambers, without
the attendance of the clerk or other court
officials [Sec. 7, Rule 135]
H. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS OUT OF
PROVINCE
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
He shall send the same by registered mail to
the clerk of the court where the case was
heard or argued to be filed therein as of the
date when the same was received by the clerk,
in the same manner as if he had been present
in court to direct the filing of the judgment.
If a case has been heard only in part, the
Supreme Court, upon petition of any of the
parties to the case and the recommendation
of respective district judge, may also
authorize the judge who has partly heard the
case, if no other judge had heard the case in
part, to continue hearing and to decide said
case notwithstanding his transfer or
appointment to another court of equal
jurisdiction [Sec. 9, Rule 135]
When within the district but without the
province, a judge of Regional Trial Court shall
nevertheless have power to hear and
determine any interlocutory motion or issue
after due and reasonable notice to the parties.
The hearing may be had at any place in the
judicial district which the judge deems
convenient on the filing, in any RTC:
(1) Of a petition for the writ of habeas
corpus;
(2) For release upon bail or reduction of bail
[Sec. 8, Rule 135].
SIGNING JUDGMENTS OUT OF PROVINCE
It shall be lawful for a judge to prepare and
sign his decision anywhere within the
Philippines:
(1) Whenever a judge, appointed or
assigned in any province or branch of a
Regional Trial Court in a province, shall
leave the province:
(a) By transfer or assignment to
another court of equal jurisdiction;
or
(b) By expiration of his temporary
assignment;
(2) Without having decided a case, which
was:
(a) Totally heard by him; and
(b) Argued or an opportunity given for
argument to the parties or their
counsel.
PAGE 100 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
iii. Safekeeping Property
V. Court Records and
General Duties of
Clerks and
Stenographers
[Rule 136]
The clerk shall safely keep all records, papers,
files, exhibits and public property committed
to his charge, including the library of the
court, and the seal and furniture belonging to
his office [Sec. 7, Rule 136].
iv. Keeping a General Docket
The clerk shall keep a general docket, each
page of which shall be numbered and
prepared for receiving all the entries in a
single case.
A. CLERKS OF COURT
A.1. OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT
The clerk’s office, with the clerk or his deputy
in attendance, shall be open during business
hours on all days, except Sundays and legal
holidays. The clerk of the Supreme Court and
that of the Court of Appeals shall keep the
office in Manila and all papers authorized or
required to be filed therein shall be filed in
Manila [Sec. 3, Rule 136]
The following shall be entered in the docket,
so that by reference to a single page, the
history of a case may be seen:
(1) All cases, numbered consecutively in the
order in which they were received;
(2) Under the heading of each case and a
complete title thereof:
(a) The date of each paper filed or issued;
(b) Each order or judgment entered; and
A.2. DUTIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT
i. Issuance of Process
(c) Each other step taken in the case
[Sec. 8, Rule 136].
(1) The clerk of a superior court shall issue
under the seal of the court all ordinary
writs and process incident to pending
cases, the issuance of which does not
involve the exercise of functions
appertaining to the court or judge only.
v. Keeping a Docum ent and Entries
Book
The clerk shall keep:
(1) A judgment book containing a copy of
each judgment rendered by the court in
order of its date; and
(2) The clerk may, under the direction of the
court or judge, make out and sign letters
of administration, appointments of
guardians, trustees and receivers, and all
writs and process issuing from the court.
ii.
Reception
of
Papers
Preparation of Minutes
(2) A book of entries of judgments
containing at length in chronological
order entries of all final judgments or
orders of the court [Sec. 9, Rule 136].
and
vi. Keeping an Execution Book
The clerk of each superior court shall:
(1) Receive and file all pleadings and other
papers properly presented, endorsing on
each such paper the time when it was
filed; and
(2) Attend all of the sessions of the court and
enter its proceedings for each day in a
minute book to be kept by him [Sec. 6,
Rule 136].
The clerk shall keep an execution book in
which he or his deputy shall record at length
in chronological order each execution, and
the officer’s return thereon, by virtue of which
real property has been sold [Sec. 10, Rule
136].
PAGE 101 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
direct him to make findings and include
the same in his report [Sec. 5, Rule 136].
vii. Certification of Copies
The clerk shall prepare, for any person
demanding the same, a copy certified under
the seal of the court of any paper, record,
order, judgment, or entry in his office, proper
to be certified, for the fees prescribed by
these rules [Sec. 11, Rule 136].
viii. Indexing Books and Separating
Cases
(1) The general docket, judgment book,
entries book and execution book shall
each be indexed in alphabetical order in
the names of the parties, and each of
them.
(2) If the court so directs, the clerk shall
keep two or more of either or all of the
books and dockets above mentioned,
separating civil from criminal cases, or
actions from special proceedings, or
otherwise keeping cases separated by
classes as the court shall deem best
[Sec. 13, Rule 136].
ix. Keeping Other books and Other
Duties
The clerk shall keep such other books and
perform such other duties as the court may
direct [Sec. 12, Rule 136].
x. In the Absence or by Direction of
Judge
(1) In the absence of the judge, the clerk may
perform all the duties of the judge in
receiving
applications,
petitions,
inventories, reports, and the issuance of
all orders and notices that follow as a
matter of course under the Rules of Court.
(2) The clerk may also, when directed so to
do by the judge, receive the accounts of
executors, administrators, guardians,
trustees, and receivers, and all evidence
relating to them, or to the settlement of
the estates of deceased persons, or to
guardianships,
trusteeships,
or
receiverships, and forthwith transmit
such reports, accounts, and evidence to
the judge, together with the findings in
relation to the same, if the judge shall
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.3. TAKING OF RECORDS FROM CLERK’S
OFFICE
No record shall be taken from the clerk’s
office without an order of the court except as
otherwise provided by these rules.
However, the Solicitor General or any of his
assistants, the provincial fiscal or his deputy,
and the attorneys de oficio shall be permitted,
upon proper receipt, to withdraw from the
clerk’s office the record of any case in which
they are interested [Sec. 14, Rule 136]
B. STENOGRAPHERS
It shall be the duty of the stenographer who
has attended a session of a court either in the
morning or in the afternoon, to deliver to the
clerk of court, immediately at the close of
such morning or afternoon session, all the
notes he has taken, to be attached to the
record of the case.
It shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to
demand that the stenographer comply with
said duty. The clerk of court shall stamp the
date on which notes are received by him.
When such notes are transcribed, the
transcript shall be delivered to the clerk, duly
initialed on each page thereof, to be attached
to the record of the case.
Whenever requested by a party, any
statement made by a judge of first instance,
or by a commissioner, with reference to a
case being tried by him, or to any of the
parties thereto, or to any witness or attorney,
during the hearing of such case, shall be
made of record in the stenographic notes
[Sec. 17, Rule 136].
C. DOCKETS AND OTHER RECORDS OF
INFERIOR COURTS
Every municipal or city judge shall keep a
well-bound labeled “docket.” He may keep
two dockets, one for civil and one for criminal
cases.
PAGE 102 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
In such docket, he shall enter for each case:
(1) Title of the case including the name of all
the parties;
(2) The nature of the case, whether civil or
criminal, and if the latter, the offense
charged;
(3) The date of issuing preliminary and
intermediate process including order of
arrest and subpoenas, and the date and
nature of the return thereon;
(4) The date of the appearance of default of
the defendant;
(5) The date of presenting the plea, answer,
or motion to quash, and the nature of the
same;
(6) The minutes of the trial, including the
date thereof and of all adjournments;
(7) The names
witnesses;
and
addresses
of
VI. Legal Fees
[Rule 141]
A. MANNER OF PAYMENT
Upon the filing of the pleading or other
application which initiates an action or
proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall
be paid in full [Sec. 1, Rule 141]
B. FEES IN LIEN
The party concerned shall pay additional fees,
where the court in its final judgment awards:
(1) A claim not alleged; or
all
(8) The date and nature of the judgment,
and, in a civil case, the relief granted;
(9) An itemized statement of the costs;
(10) The date of any execution issued, and the
date and contents of the return thereon;
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) A relief different from, or more than
that claimed in the pleading.
The additional fees which shall constitute a
lien on the judgment. The clerk of court shall
assess and collect the corresponding fees.
[Sec. 2, Rule 141, RoC]
(11) The date of any notice of appeal filed and
the name of the party filing the same.
C. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT
LEGAL FEES
He shall also:
Except as otherwise provided in Rule 141, the
following officers and persons, together with
their assistants and deputies, may demand,
receive, and take the several fees hereinafter
mentioned and allowed for any business by
them respectively done by virtue of their
several offices, and no more:
(1) Keep all the pleadings and other papers
and exhibits in cases pending in his
court; and
(2) Certify copies of his docket entries and
other records proper to be certified, for
the fees prescribed by the Rules of Court.
(1) Clerks of the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of
Tax Appeals;
(2) Clerks of Regional Trial Courts;
(3) Clerks of first level courts;
(4) Sheriffs, process servers and other
persons serving processes;
(5) Stenographers;
(6) Notaries;
(7) Other officers taking depositions.
PAGE 103 OF 104
UP LAW BOC
JUDICIAL ETHICS
All fees so collected shall be forthwith
remitted to the Supreme Court. The persons
herein authorized to collect legal fees shall
be accountable officers and shall be required
to post bond in such amount as prescribed by
the law [Sec. 3, Rule 141]
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee that
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where
the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
the court may allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period [Sun Life Insurance v. Asuncion, G.R.
Nos. 79937-38 (1989)]
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
VII. Costs [Rule 142]
A. RECOVERY OF COSTS
A.1. PREVAILING PARTY
Unless otherwise provided in the Rules of
Court, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing
party as a matter of course, but the court
shall have power, for special reasons, to
adjudge:
(1) That either party shall pay the costs of
an action; or
(2) That the same shall be divided
between them, as may be equitable.
No costs shall be allowed against the
Republic of the Philippines, unless otherwise
provided by law [Sec. 1, Rule 142]
A.2. DISMISSED ACTION OR APPEAL
If an action or appeal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction or otherwise, the court
nevertheless shall have the power to render
judgment for costs, as justice may require
[Sec. 2, Rule 142]
A.3. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Where an action or an appeal is found to be
frivolous, double, or treble costs may be
imposed on the plaintiff or appellant, which
shall be paid by his attorney, if so ordered by
the court [Sec. 3, Rule 142]
A.4. FALSE ALLEGATIONS
An averment in a pleading made without
reasonable cause and found untrue shall
subject the offending party to the payment of
such reasonable expenses as may have been
necessarily incurred by the other party by
reason of such untrue pleading. The amount
of expenses so payable shall be fixed by the
judge in the trial, and taxed as costs. [Sec. 4,
Rule 142].
A.5. NON-APPEARANCE OF WITNESS
If a witness fails to appear at the time and
place specified in the subpoena issued by any
inferior court, the costs of the warrant of
arrest and of the arrest of the witness shall be
paid by the witness if the court shall
determine that his failure to answer the
subpoena was willful or without just excuse.
[Sec. 12, Rule 142]
PAGE 104 OF 104