PAMANTASAN LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA College of Law PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (LAW 1801-2) ND 2 Semester, SY 2023-2024 Atty. Virgilio M. San Diego Jr., LL.M. I. PRELIMINARY. Attendance and Grading System. II. INTRODUCTION. A. Developments in Legal Ethics (New Code of Responsibility and Accountability [CPRA]) (a) From Code of Professional Responsibility (June 21, 1988) to CPRA (April 11, 2023) i. Distinction i.1. Definition of Ethics i.2. Lawyer’s Oath (b) Applicability of CPRA - A Congressman is subject to the same general laws – People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689 [February 3, 2000] (c) “Law is a profession and not a trade” – landmark case: Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil 579 [March 20, 1944] (d) “Practice of Law is not a right but a privilege” – Bongalonta v. Castillo (240 SCRA 310), January 20, 1995 (e) Judicial Integrity Board [A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC] in relation to Judicial Bar Council [P.D. No. 828, November 18, 1975]) III. THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION. (1) Basic Concepts on Admission to Practice (a) Supreme Court’s Administrative Supervision and Control over Members of the Philippine Bar: i. Supreme Court: Art VIII, Sec. 5 (5), 1987 Constitution – compare with 1935/1973 versions 1987 SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. 1973 1935 Article 10 Article 8 Sec 5(5) (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integration of the Bar, which, however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. SEC. 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed as statues, and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The National Assembly shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. ii. Congress: Art. VIII, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution In re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954) Congress encroach on SC’s power when it passed the Bar Flunker’s Act/ In re: Almacen, February 18, 1970 In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, Supreme Court Resolution dated January 9, 1973 Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019 (Academic Freedom; PHILSAT) (b) Requisites for Admission to the Practice of Law i. Must be citizen of the Philippines ii. iii. -Citizenship – In re Bosque, G.R. No. 666, January 14, 1902 (1 Phil 88); Re: application for Admission to the Philippine Bar Vicente D. Ching, 316 SCRA 1 [October 1, 1999] At least 21 years of age Of good moral character (a continuing requirement) 1. In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations, B.M. No. 1154, June 8, 2004 2. In re Al C. Agrosino, B.M. No. 712, July 13, 1995 3. The Promising Mr. Agrosino, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/868306/the-promising-mr-argosino 4. Consolidated cases of Villareal vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151258, People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154954, Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 155101, and Villa vs. Escalona, G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080, February 1, 2012 5. Grande v. Atty. De Silva, AC No. 4838, July 29, 2003 6. Tapucar v. Tapucar, AC No. 4148, July 30, 1998 7. Villanueva v. Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 [July 11, 1995] 8. Cordova v. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (November 29, 1989) iv. A resident of the Philippines - Exceptions: (1) United States citizens who, before July 4, 1946, were licensed to practice before Philippine courts are able to continue such practice; and (2) Philippine citizens who were “enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States”, having practiced at least five years in any of said court prior to July 4, 1946, could be admitted without examination, even if they completed their legal studies overseas. v. No charges involving moral turpitude have been filed against the candidate or are pending in any court in the Philippines- Teves v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180363, April 18, 2009 - Lawyer as Detention Prisoner – Oca v. Ladaga, AM No. P-99-1287, January 24, 2000 - Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732, 22 October 2013 - Garcia v. Sesbreno, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 3, 2015 (homicide) vi. Completion of all courses leading to a degree of Bachelor laws or its equivalent – In re investigation of Angel Parazo for alleged leakage, December 3, 1948 vii. Bar Matter No. 1153 amending provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court now allowing foreign law school graduates to take bar exam provided they comply with the following: 1. Completion of all courses leading to a degree of Bachelor laws or its equivalent 2. Recognition or accreditation of the law school by proper authority 3. Completion of all fourth year subjects in a program of a law school duly accredited by the Government; and 4. Proof of completing a separate bachelor’s degree. (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza proposing reforms in the bar examinations through amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; BM No 1153; March 29, 2010) (c) The Revised Lawyer’s Oath (2) Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC) A. Canon 1 – Independence; Merit-Based Practice – Section 2 - De Guzman v. De Dios 350 SCRA 320 [January 26, 2001] - Millare v. Montero, 246 SCRA 1 [July 13, 1995] - Lee v. Abastillas, 234 SCRA 29 [July 11, 1994] - Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. v. Pilla, 350 SCRA 138 [January 24, 2001] B. Canon 2 – Propriety (1) Proper Conduct; Dignified Conduct – Sections 1 and 2 - De Los Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653 [November 28, 1999] - People vs. Tuanda, A.C. No. 3360, January 30, 1990 - Tan vs. Sabandal, B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992 - Fernandez vs. Grecia, 223 SCRA 425 (1993) - Pimentel vs. Llorente, 339 SCRA 154 (2000) - Freeman vs. Reyes, A.C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011 - Dizon v. de Taza, A.C. No. 7676, 10 June 2014 - Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, A.C. No. 10868, January 26, 2016 - Atty. Bonifacio Barandon Jr. v. Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer Sr., A.C. 5768, March 26, 2010 (2) Use of Dignified, Gender-Fair, and Child- and Culturally-Sensitive Language – Section 4 - R.A. 11313, or the “Safe Spaces Act” - A.M.No. 21-11-25-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on the Use of Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary and Gender-Fair Courtroom Etiquette) - A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC (Re: Disturbing Social Media Posts of Lawyers/Law Professors, April 11, 2023) 2.1. Section 5. Lawyer’s duty and discretion in procedure and strategy: - Atty. Ramon Reyes v. Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003 (3) Duty to correct false or inaccurate statements and information made in relation to an application for admission to the bar – Section 11 (4) Duty to report dishonest, deceitful, or misleading conduct- Section 12 (5) Duty to disclose relationship or connection – Section 20 (6) Duty not to mislead the court, tribunal or other government agency on the existence or content of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority, or pass of as one’s own the ideas or words of another – Section 8 (7) Duty not to solicit or advertise one’s legal service – Section 17 -Rule 2.03, CPR -Rule 138, ROC – Sec. 27 -Rule 2.04, CPR -In re Tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929) -Ulep v. Legal Clinic, B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993 -Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009 -Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012 (8) Duty not to use any forum or medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding – Sub-Judice Rule; Section 19 (9) Duty not to give gifts and donations to any court, tribunal or other government agency-Section 21 (10) Duty not to institute multiple cases; Forum Shopping; Section 23 - Chemphil Export & Import Corporation v. C.A., 251 SCRA 257 [December 12, 1995] - Tan v. C.A., 199 SCRA 212 [July 15, 1991] (11) Duty not to encroach or interfere in another lawyer’s engagement – Section 24 -Rule 8.02, CPR - Camacho vs. Pangulayan, 328 SCRA 631 (2000) - Binay-an v. Addog, A.C. No. 10449, 28 July 2014 (case involves IPs) -Antonio A. Alcantara v. Atty. Mariano Pefianco, A.C. No. 5398, December 3, 2002 - Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao v. Atty. Virgil R. Castro, A.C. No. 6396, October 25, 2005 -Maximino Noble III v. Atty. Orlando O. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015 (12) Responsible Use of Social Media - A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC (Re: Disturbing Social Media Posts of Lawyers/Law Professors, April 11, 2023) C. CANON III – Fidelity (1) Definition of the Practice of Law – Section 1 Cases: - Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 1762-78, June 22, 2010 - Paguia v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 1762-78, June 22, 2010 - Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Bar Matter No. 553, June 17, 1993 (2) Definition of Lawyer-Client Relationship – Section 3 i. Nature of office of the attorney – Significance of “officer of the court;” role in the administration of justice; relate with need to regulate the profession - Valencia v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 1302, 1391 and 1543, April 26, 1991. ii. - Tajan v. Cusi, G.R. No. 28899, May 30, 1974 When attorney-client relationship established -Junio v. Grupo (Admin. Case No. 5020 [December 18, 2001]) (3) Conflict of Interest – Sections 13-22 - Rosacia v. Bulalacao, 248 SCRA 664 [October2, 1995]1 - Buted v. Hernando, 203 SCRA 1 [October 17, 1991]2 (4) Limited Legal Services – Sections 35-40 (5) Responsibility of a Solo Practitioner – Canon II, Section 25 (6) Responsibility of a Law Firm – Canon II, Section 26 -B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. C.A., 206 SCRA 28 [February 7, 1992]3 (7) Responsibility of a Government Lawyer and those in the Prosecution Service – Canon II, Secs. 28-29 i. In general - Republic Act No. 6713, Sec. 4 (1989) - Collantes vs. Romeron, A.C. No. 3056, August 16, 1991 - Ali v. Bubong, A.C. No. 4018, March 8, 2005 ii. Duty of prosecutors -Rule 6.01, CPR -People vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 26222, July 21, 1967 iii. Duty not to use public position for private interest - Rule 6.02, CPR - Misamin vs. San Juan, A.C. No. 1418, August 31, 1976 - Vitriolo vs. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003 - Huyssen v. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006 - Ramos vs. Imbang, A.C. No. 6788, August 23, 2007 iv. Duty not to accept employment after government service -Rule 6.03, CPR - Rep. Act No. 6713, Sec. 7 (b) - Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009 - Rep. Act No. 3019, Sec. 3 (d) - PNB vs. Cedo, A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995 - PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005 v. 1 Prohibitions/restrictions on government lawyers - Philippine Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 13 – President, VP, members of the Cabinet A lawyer violates his oath when he accepts to be the counsel of a corporation and later represents its employees in another case 2 A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose 3 Death of the senior partner in a law firm did not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship vi. - Philippine Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 13 & 14 - Congress - Philippine Constitution, Art. IX (A), Sec. 2 – Constitutional Commissions - Philippine Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 8, paragraph 2 – Ombudsman - ROC Rule 138, Sec. 35 - New Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 4, Sec. 11 - RA 7160, Sec. 90 (a), (b) - RA 6713, Sec. 7 (b) (2) - Limited practice rule on government lawyers (i) Conditions set forth in Section 136, Rule XII of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (Revised July 2018), as contained in CSC Resolution No. 18006921 promulgated on 03 July 2018; (ii) Conflict of official functions; (iv) Not during office hours;(v) One year validity - People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450, May 27, 1965 - Ramos v. Imbang, A.C. No. 6788, August 23, 2007 - Catu v. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Ladaga, A.M. No. P-99-1287, January 26, 2001 (8) Responsibility of a Paralegal – Canon II, Secs. 34-35 (9) Responsibility of Lawyers in the Academe – Canon II, Sec. 32 - Anonymous Complaint vs. Atty. Co-Untian, Jr. [April 10, 2019] (10) Responsibility of Law Firms; Supervisory and Supervised Lawyers – Canon III, Secs. 10-12 (11) Responsibility of a Legal Clinic – Canon III Secs. 39-40 (12) Attorney’s Fees – Sec. 41 (13) Attorney’s Lien – Secs. 47, 53, and 54 (14) Prohibition on Lending and Borrowing; Exceptions – Sec. 52 (15) Prohibition Against Acquiring Interest in the Object of Litigation or Transaction – Sec. 51; Civil Code, Article 1491 -Sevilla v. Salubre, 348 SCRA 592 [December 19, 2000] (16) Termination of Engagement by the Lawyer – Sec. 53 (17) Termination of Engagement by the Client – Sec. 54 (18) Termination of Engagement upon Death – Sec. 55 (19) Accounting and Turn-over of Funds and Properties upon Termination of Engagement – Sec. 56 D. CANON IV- Competence and Diligence (1) Duty to provide competent efficient, and conscientious legal service – Sec. 1 (2) Duty to diligently and seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by the client – Secs 3-6 (3) Duty to engage in lifelong learning – Sec. 8 i. MCLE: Bar Matter No. 850, amended by S.C. Resolution dated 17 February 2015, and amendment of Rule 7, Sec. 2 (a) effective 24 June 2015 ii. Bar Matter No. 1922 dated June 3, 2008 - Letter of Atty. Rodrigo Cruz Lim to Justice Roberto Abad, G.R. No. 191837, July 20, 2013 - Rodriguez Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No. 8974, November 13, 2013 - Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Lim, G.R. No. 191837 - Arnado vs. Atty. Adaza, A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015 E. CANON V- Equality (1) Duty to make representation on the basis of non-discrimination- Sec. 1 (2) Duty to provide a higher standard of service to vulnerable persons and indigents – Secs. 2-3 (3) Duty to provide the same standard of service – Sec.4 F. CANON VI- Accountability (1) How instituted – Secs. 2 and 30 -Heirs of Pedro Alilano v. Atty. Roberto Examen, A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 (2) Proceedings against a government lawyer – Sec. 6 (3) Proceedings against members of the judiciary – Sec. 2 (4) Preventive Suspension – Sec. 31 (5) Quantum and burden of proof – Sec. 32 (6) Executory nature of the decision or resolution – Sec. 43 (7) Sworn Statement after service of suspension – Sec. 45-46 (8) Judicial Clemency – Sections 47-51 (9) Prohibition against employment of disbarred or suspended lawyer – Sec. 52 IV. THE NEW CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY (1) Independence, Integrity, Impartiality, Propriety, Equality, and Competence, and Diligence - Alumbres v. Caoibes, AM. No. RTJ-99-1431 (January 23, 2002) - Dacera, Jr. v. Dizon, 337 SCRA 144 (August 2, 2000) - Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 305 SCRA 61 (March 19, 1999) - Monterola v. Caoibes, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1620 (March 18, 2002) -Ang Kek Chen v. Andrada, 318 SCRA 11 (November 16, 1999) - Dionisio v. Escano, 302 SCRA 411 (February 1, 1999) (2) Disqualification and Inhibition of Judicial Officers – Rule 137 (3) Discipline of Members, Officials, Employees and Personnel of the Judiciary under Rule 140, further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC - Marquez v. Clores-Ramos, 336 SCRA 122 (July 19, 2000) V. PRACTICAL EXERCISES (1) Judicial Affidavit (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC; Effective January 1, 2013) i. Scope ii. When to submit and contents iii. Application to criminal actions iv. Effect of Non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule (2) Special Power of Attorney (3) Petition for Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry (RA No. 9048 as amended by RA 10172) (4) Extrajudicial Settlement (Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court) (5) Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus (Rule 102 of the Rules of Court) (6) Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Judgment (Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) (7) Motion for Execution of Judgment (Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)
