Last Minute

Lecture in
Legal Ethics

ATTY. VICTORIA V. LOANZON

Practice of Law
Basic Concepts –
Definition of Practice of Law
The practice of law -
(1) embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to
actions and special proceedings,
(2) conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and
(3) the giving of all legal advice to clients. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd
ed., cited in Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991]
The Elements of the Legal Profession
(1) organization,
(2) learning, and
(3) the spirit of public service.
Practice of Law
Basic Concepts –

Practice of Law as a Privilege , not a Right

Section 5(5) of Article VIII provides that the Supreme Court has the power
to prescribe the requirements for the admission to the practice of law, the
promulgation of rules on pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts
and the power over the Integrated Bar.

In the exercise of its police power, the Supreme Court may discipline
lawyers.

Thus, the practice of law is merely a privilege and not a right. The
Supreme Court may impose the supreme penalty of disbarment.
 Practice of Law
Law as a Profession, Not a Business or Trade

Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
The Supreme Court’s stringent position against advertising of legal
services was extensively articulated in the landmark case of Ulep v. The
Legal Clinic, Inc.
In the said case, respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc. placed
advertisements promoting its legal services pertaining to marriages,
annulments, visas, etc.
In declaring the illegality of such advertisements, the Court held that:
“The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The proscription against
advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal business rests on the
fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession.”
Requisites for Admission

Sec. 2. Rule 138. Requirements for all applicants for

admission to the bar. – Every applicant for
admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen
of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of
age, of good moral character, and a resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character,
and that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines.
Academic requirements for Filipino citizens who obtained their
degree from a foreign jurisdiction (Sections 4, 5, 6, Rule 138 as
amended by B.M. 1153 issued on March 9, 2010.) A.M. No. 19-03-24-
SC Amendment of Rule 138 Section 5 in relation to the Revision of
Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court dated July 23, 2019 provides that ”a
Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted
to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court
certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree
of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or
accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c)
completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws
academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine
Government.”

Case: In Re: Application of Adriano Hernandez to take the 1993 Bar

Examinations, 225 SCRA, July 27, 1993: Petitioner was required to
take up all the prescribed subjects.
Continuing Requirements for
Membership in the Bar
1. Maintenance of Philippine citizenship
2. Possession of good moral character
3. Payment of IBP annual membership fee
4. Payment of annual professional tax
5. Completion of Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) every three years
Appearance of Non-lawyers
1. Article 222 of the Labor Code of the Philippines allows non-
lawyers to appear before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) or any Labor Arbiter if they represent themselves or if they
represent their organization or members thereof.
2. During the arraignment, the accused must be represented by a
lawyer but during trial the accused may defend himself personally.
This does not constitute unauthorized practice of law, but this is an
exercise of a constitutional right [Cayetano v. Monsod].
3. If the accused knowingly engaged the services of a non-lawyer,
he is bound the actions of the non-lawyer.
4. Non-lawyers may appear before the first level courts.
5. Non-lawyers may appear in administrative and quasi-judicial
tribunals. ,
Non-lawyers in Courts and/or Administrative Tribunals
General Rule: Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear and handle cases in
court.
Exceptions-
1. Non-lawyers may appear before first level courts under –
Small claims cases
Sec. 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
Sec. 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court)
2. Appearances in Shar’ia courts A.M. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997
Other exceptions where non-lawyers may appear:
1. Barangay Proceedings
2. Administrative Bodies (NLRC, Cadastral Courts, Bureau of Immigration, Intellectual
Property Office, any official or other person [not a lawyer] appointed or designated in
accordance with the law to appear for the government of the Philippines or any of its officials;
or other tribunals and administrative agencies
3. Court-Ordered Mediation
SANCTIONS
1. Direct Contempt for lawyers under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
2. Indirect for non-lawyers
 Student Practice Rule under Rule 138-A
Legal Basis: Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
Purposes: To ensure access to justice of the marginalized sectors through
legal clinics of law schools;
2. To enhance learning opportunities of law students by instilling in them the
value of legal professional social responsibility;
3. To prepare law students for the practice of law.
4. To address the need to institutionalize clinical legal education program in
all law schools to enhance, improve, and streamline law student practice, and
regulate their limited practice of law.
Required certifications under CLEP: Section 3 of the Revised Rule requires
a law student to apply for and secure a Level 1 or 2 Certification, as the case
may be, in order to be permitted to engage in any of the activities under the
Clinical Legal Education Program of a law school.
Level 1 Certification – completion of all first-year law courses
Level 2 Certification – completion of all third-year law courses.
Practice areas for law student practitioners (Section 4):
Under the Law Student Practice Rule, students who have Level 1
certification may engage in the following, subject to the
supervision and approval of a supervising lawyer, to wit:
(1) Interview prospective clients;
(2) Give legal advice to the client;
(3) Negotiate for and on behalf of the client;
(4) Draft legal documents such as affidavits, compromise
agreements, contracts, demand letter, position papers, and the
like;
(5) Represent eligible parties before quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies;
(6) Provide public legal orientation; and
(7) Assist in public interest advocacies for policy formulation and
implementation
Student Practice Rule under Rule 138-A
A holder of Level 2 certification may do the following, subject to
supervision and approval of a supervising lawyer:
(1) Perform all activities under Level 1 Certification;
(2) Assist in the taking of depositions and/or preparing judicial
affidavits of witnesses;
(3) Appear on behalf of the client at any stage of the proceedings or
trial, before any court, quasi-judicial or administrative body;
(4) In criminal cases, subject to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 110
of the Rules of Court, to appear on behalf of a government agency in
the prosecution of criminal actions; and
(5) In appealed cases, to prepare the pleadings required in the case.
 Student Practice Rule under Rule 138-A

Certification Application Requirements (Section 5). The law student must

submit a duly accomplished application form under oath in three (3) copies,
accompanied by proof of payment of the necessary legal and filing fees.
The law school, through the dean or the authorized representative, shall
submit to the Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
having jurisdiction over the territory where the law school is located, the duly-
accomplished application form together with an endorsement under oath.
Duties of a law student-practitioner (Section 6): All certified law are bound
by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Signature of a law student-practitioner in legal documents (Section 7): A
law student practitioner may sign briefs, pleadings, letters, and other similar
documents under the direction of the supervising lawyer and indicating his/her
practitioner's certificate number.
Student Practice Rule under Rule 138-A
Modified lawyer’s oath (Section 8): Before engaging in the limited
practice of law, a law student-practitioner must take a modified
Lawyer’s Oath.
Duties of Law Schools (Section 9): One of the duties of law
schools, is to develop and maintain a legal clinic.
Qualifications and Duties of Supervising Lawyers (Sections 10
and 11): Supervising lawyers must be members of the bar in good
standing.
Clinical Faculty: Law schools shall have such number of faculty
members to teach clinical legal education courses as may be
necessary.
Unauthorized practice of law and Sanctions (Section 13):
Unauthorized practice of law shall be a ground for revocation of the
law student practitioner’s certification and/or disqualification for a
law student from taking the bar examinations for a period to be
determined by the Supreme Court.
 Proceedings Where Lawyers are Prohibited to
Appear as Counsels

Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, AM No.08-8-7, Sec.

17.Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.—No attorney shall appear in
behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the
plaintiff or defendant.

Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508 (P.D. 1508), otherwise known as

the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, prohibits the participation of lawyers
in the proceedings before the Lupon, to wit: SEC. 9. Appearance of parties
in person. - In all proceedings provided for herein, the parties must appear
in person without the assistance of counsel/representative, with the
exception of minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next
of kin who are not lawyers. (Emphasis supplied)
Relevant Jurisprudence – Lawyers are not allowed to
participate in barangay proceedings

Malicden v. Atty. Simpson Baldo, 834 Phil. 193, June 27, 2018:
Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508 (P.D. 1508), otherwise known as
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, prohibits the participation of
lawyers in the proceedings before the Lupon, Atty. Baldo's violation of
P.D. 1508 thus falls squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Pursuant to the
familiar maxim in statutory construction dictating that 'expressio unius
est exclusio alterius', the express exceptions made regarding minors and
incompetents must be construed as exclusive of all others not
mentioned.“

Atty. Baldo was reprimanded by the Court.

Public Officials and the Practice of Law
PROHIBITION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEYS

Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713 generally provides for the prohibited acts and
transactions of public officials and employees.

Subsection(b)(2)prohibits government lawyers 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 function
PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT PRACTICE
LAW OR WITH RESTRICTIONS
Absolute Prohibition

(1) President, Vice President, cabinet members, their deputies and assistants [
Section 13, Article VII, 1987 Constitution]

(2) Members of Constitutional Commissions [Const. Art. IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987

Constitution]

(3) Ombudsman and his deputies [Const., Art. IX, Sec. 8, par. 2, 1987 Constitution ]

(4) Judges and other officials as SC employees [Rule 148,Sec. 35]

(5) Lawyers in the OSG

(5) Government prosecutors

(7) All governors, city and municipal mayors [R.A. No.7160, Sec. 90]

(8) Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their
legal profession.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT PRACTICE
LAW OR WITH RESTRICTIONS
Relative Prohibition

(1) Senators and House of Representatives members, [Section 14, Article VI, 1987
Constitution] - 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 quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies.

(2) Sanggunian Members - Section 90 of the Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as
the "Local Government Code of 1991 " (LGC), and Section 7 (b) (2) of RA 6713, otherwise
known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees", which provides that the public officials and employees, such as members of
the sangguniang panlungsod, may practice their profession provided that that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

Special Restrictions

A retired justice or judge receiving a pension from the government cannot act as counsel in
any civil case in which the Government or any of its subdivision or agencies is the adverse
party or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the government is accused of an
offense in relation to his office. [Section 1, R.A. No. 910]
Lawyers Authorized to Represent the Government
1. Office of the Solicitor General under Executive Order No. 292 [BOOK
IV/Title III/Chapter 12-Office of the Solicitor General]

“SECTION 35. Powers and Functions.—The Office of the Solicitor

General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies
and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.”

2. Office of the Government Corporate Counsel - It acts as counsel of

government-owned or controlled-corporations.

3. Sec. 33, Rule 138, Rules of Court provides: “Standing in court of

persons authorized to appear for Government. – Any official or other
person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall have all the rights of a duly
authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in which said
government has an interest direct or indirect.”
I (state name)do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support
the 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, or give aid nor consent
to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and The Lawyer’s
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to
Oath
the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion.
So help me God.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Premature Practice of Law

Donna Marie Aguirre v. Edwin Rana, 451 SCRA 428 (2003): Before one
is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral
integrity for membership in the legal profession. Possession of moral
integrity is of greater importance than possession of legal learning. The
practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar
candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the
bar examinations.
Rana was not allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys for engaging in the
practice of law even before taking his oath as a lawyer.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Authority to
Resume Practice of Law

Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay,

Bar Matter No. 1678,December 17, 2007: Adherence to rigid standards of
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful
observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the
mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of
membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the
conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for
enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any these
conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the
courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his
professional privilege.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Duty under the Lawyer’s Oath
Francisco Pagdanganan v. Atty. Romeo C. Plata, A.C. No. 12701, February 26, 2020,
En Banc, Hernando, J: The Court found the following acts by Atty. Plata clearly
constitute gross misconduct as contemplated in the law:
(1) Atty. Plata's act of filing yet another case against Pagdanganan, after
admitting that there are various criminal and administrative cases still pending
against him and the other members of SAMANAI; and
(2) Atty. Plata's act of reserving in his Answer to the administrative case that he
will file, commence and/or institute another perjury case with damages against
Pagdanganan specifically.
The Attorney's Oat is clear that Atty. Plata must "not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent
to the same."
He was suspended from the practice of law for two years.
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
 Jurisprudence – The duty to uphold the law and
not take matters into one’s hands

Dap-og v. Mendez, A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020, Hernando, J: In

imposing the penalty of one-year suspension on Atty. Mendez, the Court take
note of the fact that respondent's mauling of Roger, coupled with the use of
verbal insults and threats, happened in broad daylight and in front of other
people, including respondent's fellow lawyer Atty. Ladaga. Moreover,
respondent appears to have shown no remorse in what he did to Roger and
would instead prefer to showboat his supposed achievements in a futile
attempt to undermine his despicable acts.
Respondent in this case not only hurled offensive language, accusations, and
threats at Roger, Atty. Mendez also "took matters into his own hands" when
he physically assaulted the latter in a humiliating fashion.
 Jurisprudence – The lawyer has the right to resist
the violence inflicted by the complainants

Spouses Nocuenca v. Atty.Alfredo Bensi, A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020, Hernando,
J. The main issue in this case is whether Atty. Bensi should be disciplined for his
involvement in the June 5, 2013 altercation with the complainants over a disputed family
property.
The Court observed that Atty. Bensi was in possession of the disputed property when the
complainants tried to enter and take it. Complainants were then equipped with a hammer
and a flat bar to force their way inside a locked gate of the chapel. Complainants believed
that they were the lawful owners of the property on the strength of a Partial Summary
Judgment which awarded the property to Lucille's now deceased parents.
Nevertheless, even if the complainants are indeed the lawful owners of the disputed
property, they should not have taken the law into their own hands through force. What the
complainants should have done was to invoke the aid of the proper court in lawfully taking
possession of the property.
Considering that respondent was in possession of the property and that the aggressive
behavior of the complainant triggered the altercation, the case against Atty. Bensi was
dismissed by the Court.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Liability for Deceit

Leah Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018: Atty.
Apoya was DISBARRED.

He was found GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for drafting a fake decision and delivering it to his
client in guise of a genuine decision.

He also violated Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when
he notarized the petition of Taday while she was in Norway.

Respondent committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct, and

lessened the confidence of the public in the legal system. Instead of being an
advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

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

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall
not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

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

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Advertising One’s Legal Services

Mauricio Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 553, June 17,
1993: The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of
his profession. advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal
services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate
that the that the practice of law is a profession.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Ambulance Chasing

In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., 37(1929): The respondent attorney was suspended from

the practice of law for the period of one year for advertising his services and
soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. The solicitations made by
Atty. Tagorda were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent. He was
suspended for one year.
 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.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name
shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the
firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows
him to practice law concurrently.
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.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Use of Disbarred
Lawyer’s Name in a Firm Name

David Yu Kimteng et al v. Atty. Walter T. Young et al., G.R. No. 210554,

August 05, 2015: Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name is
different from using a deceased partner's name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule
3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner's name as long as there is an indication
that the partner is deceased. This ensures that the public is not misled. On the
other hand, the retention of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may
mislead the public into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the following acts
as constituting indirect contempt: (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; and (e)
Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without
authority. In this case, the ruled that the use of the name of a person who is not
authorized to practice law constitutes contempt of court.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Relevant Jurisprudence: Use
of Deceased Lawyer’s Name in a Firm Name

Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip,

Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo" and In the matter of the
Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Ozaeta,
Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, 180 Phil. 250 (1979): The Court
denied the petitions, explaining that there is a possibility of deception in the
use of a deceased partner's name. Also, Article 1815 of the Civil Code shows
that the partners in a partnership should be "living persons who can be
subjected to liability.“
However, the use of a deceased partner's name in a law firm's name was
allowed upon the effectivity of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with
the requirement that "the firm indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased."
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.
Cordova v. Hon. Labayen, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033 October 10, 1995: As an
officer of the court, a lawyer has the sworn duty to assist in, not to impede
or pervert, the administration of justice. When Atty. Sabio, counsel of the
complainants, instituted the administrative case against respondent judges,
the judicial personnel and the court which they represent, was motivated by
bad faith. It was ill-conceived and malicious and was resorted to as a last-
ditch effort and a face-saving recourse of counsel. It was in flagrant
abdication of the bounden responsibility of a lawyer to observe and
maintain the respect due to courts of justice. Atty. Sabio must be punished
for instigating the filing of an administrative complaint by his clients, in the
guise of upholding their rights but actually they were employed to frustrate
the enforcement of lawful court orders and consequently obstruct the
desirable norms and course of justice. He was suspended for six months.
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 THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Lawyers exempted from MCLE requirement:
President and Vice President of the Philippines
Secretaries including Undersecretaries of the executive departments
Governors and Mayors but Vice Governors and Provincial Members as well Vice Mayors and
councilors may practice law provided, they secure Authority to Practice from the Secretary of
the DILG.
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives only during their term of office.
Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court until their retirement age unless
they are impeached, they opt to resign earlier than 70 years old or are involuntarily separated
from office.
Incumbent and Retired Members of the Judiciary, provided they retire at 70 years old
Incumbent Members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
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 THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Lawyers exempted from MCLE requirement:
Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions

Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsmen

Heads of Government Agencies Exercising Quasi-Judicial Functions

Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor including Assistant Secretaries of

the Department of Justice (DOJ)

Solicitor General and Assistant Solicitors General

Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate

Counsel
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 THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Lawyers exempted from MCLE requirement:
The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and members of the Corps of Professors and
the Professional Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA);
Incumbent Court Lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy
(PHILJA) Program of the Continuing Judicial Education
Incumbent Deans, Bar Reviewers, and Professors of Law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools upon approval
of their request by the MCLE Board
Members of the bar who are not in law practice, private or public; and
Members of the bar who have retired from the practice with the approval of
the IBP Board of Governors.
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 THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Additional exemptions –
Upon the filing of a verified request for setting forth good cause for
exemption.

The following grounds may be invoked:

1. Physical Disability;

2. Illness;

3. Post-Graduate study abroad; and

4. Proven expertise in law.

MCLE/ Non-compliant lawyers

Every lawyer is required to complete 36 credit units within a three-year period.

The First Compliance Period for the MCLE requirement was from 15 April 2001 to
14 April 2004. The present 7th compliance period is from 2020 to 2023.
What constitutes non-compliance?
Failure to complete MCLE requirement within the compliance period;
Failure to provide an attestation of compliance or exemption;
Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance. (Including evidence of
exempt status) within the prescribed period;
Failure to furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt
of non-compliance notice; and
Any other act commission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
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 THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Subject Credit
Units

Legal ethics 6

Trial and pretrial skills 4

Alternative Dispute Resolution 5

Updates on substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence 9

Legal writing and oral advocacy 4

International law and international conventions 2

MCLE-prescribed subject 6
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Amendment to B.M. 850
allowing a 60-day Compliance Period

Ko v. Uy-Lampasa, A. C. No. 11584, March 06, 2019: B.M. 850 requires members
of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education "to ensure that throughout their
career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law." Respondent was
exonerated because under present rules, Uy-Lampasa has a period of 60 days to
complete her deficiency requirements. This 60-day period shall commence from the
time such member received a notice of non-compliance. Without the notice of
compliance, a member who believes that the units he or she had taken already
amounts to full compliance may be declared delinquent without being made aware
of such lack of units and with no chance to rectify the same.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Amendment to B.M. 850
allowing a 60-day Compliance Period

Turla v. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019, Hernando, J. : The suspension of
Atty. Caringal stemmed from the administrative case filed by Marilu C. Turla before the
IBP-CBD. Turla was the petitioner in a special proceedings case before the RTC, Quezon
City, Br. 222, wherein Atty. Caringal was the counsel for the oppositor. Turla accused
Caringal of failing to attend the required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
seminars for the Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III) Compliance Periods, as required
under Bar Matter No. 850 and for violation of his lawyer’s oath not to do any falsehood.
When Atty. Caringal indicated that he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and motions
he filed, although in fact he was not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which was also
disrespectful of the court. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect and can result in the
expunction of the same. Undeniably, he did not stay true to the cause of his clients and
actually violated his duty to serve his clients with competence and diligence.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
TASKS.

Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is

not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Government lawyers are not
administratively liable for acts done in the
performance of their duties
Manuel B. Tablizo v. Attys. Joyrich M. Golangco, Adoracion A. Agbada, Elbert L.
Bunagan, and Joaquin F. Salazar, A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020, Second Division
(Hernando, J.): In Vitriolo v. Dasig, the Court laid down that as a 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. However, if said
misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer,
then he may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar.“

A complainant's failure to dispense the same standard of proof requires no other

conclusion than that which stays the hand of the Court from meting out a disbarment or
suspension order.

Respondents enjoy, absent any evidence to the contrary, the presumption that they had
regularly performed their official duties in the resolution of the case which Tablizo filed
against Zafe and Alberto. Thus, the Court dismissed the case against them.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A government lawyer is not
liable in the execution of a municipal ordinance

Risie G. Baygar v. Atty. Claro Manuel M. Rivera, A.C. No. 8959, October 07, 2020,
(Hernando, J.): Risie and her father were surprised when they learned that Atty. Rivera filed a
criminal complaint against them for Violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 2006-006 for operating a
business without securing a business permit.

The Court reversed the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend Rivera for six
months. It found that Atty. Rivera was merely performing his official duties as Municipal
Administrator of the Municipality of Binangonan, particularly the implementation of the Closure
Order against the businesses operated by the Baygar family and matters related thereto. As
Municipal Administrator, one of his duties is to "assist in the coordination of the work of all the
officials of the local government unit, under the supervision, direction, and control of the governor or
mayor, and for this purpose, he may convene the chiefs of offices and other officials of the local
government unit.“ The implementation of a closure order and the issuance of business permits may
be considered well within this function of a Municipal Administrator. Significantly, Risie failed to
prove by substantial evidence that in the performance of his functions, Atty. Rivera committed acts
in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.

Thus, the Court resolved to dismiss the case.

 Relevant Jurisprudence: Sextortion in the
Workplace

AAA v. Atty. Antonio delos Reyes, A.C. No. 10021, September 18, 2018
Atty. De Los Reyes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
committed acts which are unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful which
warranted his disbarment. Thus, lawyers are duty-bound to observe the highest
degree of morality and integrity not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their career in order to safeguard the reputation of the legal
profession. Any errant behavior, be it in their public or private life, may subject
them to suspension or disbarment. It bears emphasizing that an administrative
case for disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant
as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members for the protection of the public and of the courts. It is an
investigation on the conduct of the respondent as an officer of the Court and his
fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Abuse of Authority
as a Lawyer Supervisor

Valdez v. Dabon, 773 Phil. 109 (2015): Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by
the Court that possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent
and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's bounden duty
to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity,
and the legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called
upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive
of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than
the highest degree of morality.

Dabon was disbarred for gross immorality for carrying on an adulterous

relationship his stenographer, Sonia Romero Valdez, which was made possible by
sexual assaults and maintained through threat and intimidation.
 CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY

AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false

statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.

Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the
bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage 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.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Failure to uphold the Integrity
and Dignity for Non-payment of Indebtedness
in violation of B.P. 22

Ruben A. Andaya, v. Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A. Tumanda, A.C. No. 12209,

February 18, 2020, En Banc, Hernando, J: Respondent obtained a loan from
complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 and in exchange thereof issued a
worthless check to complainant. This constitutes gross misconduct. It indicates his
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed upon him and his lack of personal
honesty and good moral character rendering him unworthy of public confidence.
Aside from issuing a worthless check, respondent has acted in utmost bad faith when
he sold to another person the Mercedes Benz he previously sold to complainant as full
payment for the loan obligation. Such act is a clear violation of the CPR. It is a
deceitful conduct that shows his lack of honesty and good moral character.
For his infractions, Atty. Tumanda was suspended from the practice of law for three
years.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Failure to uphold the Integrity
and Dignity for inducing an alien to purchase a parcel
of land

Tony Peter Partsch v. Atty. Reynaldo A. Vitorillo, A.C. No. 10897,

January 4, 2022, En Banc, Hernando, J: In ignoring the constitutional
prohibition against alienation of private lands to foreigners and by
continuously refusing to return the money he received from Partsch, Atty.
Vitorillo was deemed to have seriously impaired his status as a member of
the Bar. Atty. Vitorillo's actuations and misrepresentations have ripened into
willful and Gross Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct, and he is deemed him
guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.01 of Canon 7 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Court suspended him from the practice of law for three years.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Infidelity to Marital Vows

Rebecca B. Arnobit v. Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, A.C. NO. 1481, October 17, 2008: As
officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the
court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress
but must also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
impression that he is flouting those moral standards." Consequently, any errant
behavior of the lawyer, be it in his public or private activities, which tends to show
deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.

The Court disbarred Arnobit for abandoning his lawful wife to maintain an illicit
relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

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

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Courtesy to
towards an opposing counsel

Francisco Pagdanganan v. Atty. Romeo C. Plata, A.C. No. 12701, February 26,
2020, En Banc, Hernando, J: The Court found the following acts by Atty. Plata
clearly constitute gross misconduct as contemplated in the law:

(1) Atty. Plata's act of filing yet another case against Pagdanganan, after
admitting that there are various criminal and administrative cases still
pending against him and the other members of SAMANAI; and

(2) Atty. Plata's act of reserving in his Answer to the administrative case that
he will file, commence and/or institute another perjury case with damages
against Pagdanganan specifically.
 CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of
any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:

(a) 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

(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased

lawyer; or

(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even
if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing agreement.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A non-lawyer cannot be
named as a senior partner of a law office nor can he be
allowed to appear in court.
Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, AC 6290, July 14, 2004: A lawyer who allows a
non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law is
guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which read as follows:

Canon 9 - A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized

practice of law.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of
any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing.

By allowing her husband to hold out himself as a lawyer and including him and
another non-lawyer as senior partners in the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office,
the Court suspended her for six months,
CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the
text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact that which
has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A lawyer should not
furnish a client with a spurious court decision

Flordeliza Madria v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, A.C. No. 11256, March 07,
2017: Atty. Rivera was ordered DISBARRED. He was found GUILTY of grave
misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath.

The Court said that a lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents
not only violates the court’s integrity and its processes, but also betrays the
trust and confidence reposed in him by his client and must be disbarred to
maintain the integrity of the law.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A lawyer should not allow
another to sign pleadings on his behalf

Petelo v. Atty. Socrates Rivera, 865 Phil. 718; 117 OG No. 7, 1663 (February 15,
2021), Hernando, J.: Atty. Rivera's act of allowing persons other than himself to use his
signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed non-lawyers to practice law.
Worse, he failed to display or even manifest any zeal or eagerness to unearth the truth
behind the events which led to his involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil
suit, much less to rectify the situation. Although he claimed that the signatures were
forgeries, there was nary a display of willingness on his part to pursue any legal action
against the alleged forgers. On the contrary, he openly admitted his association with a
disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his signature
and "details" in the preparation of pleadings. By so doing, Atty. Rivera not only willingly
allowed a non-lawyer to practice law; worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law
notwithstanding that this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A lawyer must not
threaten a judge with a filing of an administrative case.

Judge Macapagal v. Atty. Walter T. Young, A.C. No. 9298 [formerly CBD
Case No. 12-3504], July 29, 2019: Presiding Judge Macapagal received a
letter from respondent Atty. Walter T. Young threatening her that an
administrative and a criminal complaint for "knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment" would be filed against her if the writ of possession/writ of
demolition would be implemented.
Atty. Walter T. Young was adjudged guilty of violating Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby reprimanded with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt
with more severely.
 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.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.

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

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper
authorities.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY
EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the copies.

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

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
 Relevant Jurisprudence – A lawyer should not file
multiple suits arising from the same cause of action

Guillermo Villanueva representing United Coconut Planters Life Assurance

Corporation (COCOLIFE) v. Atty. Bonifacio Alentajan, A.C. No. 12161, June 08,
2020, Second Division, Hernando, J: COCOLIFE averred that Atty. Alentajan, as
counsel of Erlinda, filed multiple actions in different courts which is an
unlawful conduct as an officer of the court. Atty. Alentajan likewise violated
his oath, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and Rule
7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

The Court agreed with the findings of the IBP holding that Atty. Alentajan
violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10, and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the CPR and
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. He was suspended from the practice
of law for three months.
 Relevant Jurisprudence – A lawyer should not file
multiple suits arising from the same cause of action

Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go v. Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel, A.C. No. 11119, November 4,
2020, Third Division, Hernando, J: The IBP Board of Governors recommended
dismissal of the administrative case. The Court referred the matter to the
Office of the Bar Confidant. The OBC concluded that the filing of another
action on the same subject matter in contravention of the doctrine of res
judicata violates Canon 12 of the CPR which requires a lawyer to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. It additionally found that by his actions, Atty.
Teruel likewise violated Rules 12.02 and 12.04 of the CPR as well as the
mandate in the Lawyer's Oath "to delay no man for money or malice.”

The Court adopted the findings of the OBC and its recommendation that
Atty. Teruel be suspended from the practice of law for six months.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY
EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse court processes.

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

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent

himself or to impersonate another.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY
EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: (a)
on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like; or

(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the

ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the
trial of the case to another counsel.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS
OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY
WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR GIVES THE
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality

to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.

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

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another

branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Every case must rise
and fall on its merits.

Dongga-as v. Cruz-Angeles, A.C. No. 11113, August 09, 2016: The Court
suspended respondents-lawyers from the practice of law for three years
because they represented to their client that they could find a "friendly"
court, judge, and public prosecutor to ensure a favorable ruling in the client's
annulment case. Their representation undermined and/or denigrated the
integrity of the national prosecution service and the courts, in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A Lawyer must rely
on the merits of a case.

Vantage Lighting Philippines, Inc. v. Atty. Jose Diño, A.C. No. 7389. July
02, 2019: A lawyer who texted his client that he would need P150,000.00 to
obtain a TRO in a pending case was disbarred by the Court.

A lawyer has a paramount duty to protect the court's integrity and assist it in
the administration of justice according to law. He should not espouse a belief
that the judicial system can be bought, much less contribute to the
perpetuation of such belief. Unfortunately, instead of relying on the merits of
his clients' cause, Atty. Diño represented to his clients that the judicial system
can be bribed. This inexcusable, shameful and unlawful act of Atty. Diño, by
itself, constitutes gross misconduct. In fact, the Court held that it is conduct
so condemnable that it merits the harshest of penalties.
 CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS

SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on

account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient
cause, an appointment as counsel de officio 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.
 CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS

SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent

client if:

(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; or

(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective
client or between a present client and the prospective client.

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
 CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain

as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with
another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.

Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication

in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by

written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
 CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

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.

Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence
any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the
laws and the principles of fairness.

Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation

concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether
he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Conflict of Interest

Home Guaranty Corporation v. Atty. Tagayuna et. al, A.C. No. 13131, February
23, 2022, Second Division, Hernando, J: Applying the three tests to determine
conflict of interest, the Court dismissed the case. Under the first test, the Collection
Retainership Agreement expired on December 31, 2011 and was never renewed, while
the arbitration case was filed in May 2012. Considering the foregoing, respondents
did not represent both opposing parties (i.e., HGC and BSCDC) in an issue or claim,
particularly the arbitration case. Under the second test, the factual circumstances
did not include allegations of respondents' acceptance of a new relation while being
counsel of HGC that prevented them from faithfully performing their duties to it. The
third test provides that there is conflict of interest if the lawyer, in a new relation,
would be called upon to use against a former client any confidential information he
has acquired through their connection or previous employment. This test specifically
applies to situations where the professional relationship with a former client was
already terminated when the lawyer was engaged by a new client.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Conflict of Interest

Adelita S. Villamor, v. Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111. December 9, 2020, En Banc,
Hernando, J: Atty. Jumao-as was found to have represented conflicting interests by
committing the following acts: he facilitated the incorporation of AEV Villamor Credit, Inc.
(AEV), complainant Adelita S. Villamor (Villamor)'s lending company; he persuaded
Villamor to borrow money from one Debbie Yu (Yu) to beef up AEV's capital; he left AEV to
join 3 E's Debt Equity Grant Co. (3 E's), a lending company owned by Yu; he incited a
diaspora of AEV's collectors to join 3 E's; he told AEV's collectors to remit their collections
to 3 E's since Villamor owed Yu; and he even sent a demand letter to Villamor, for and in
behalf of Yu, demanding that Villamor pay the amount she owed Yu.
His speedy initiative to make amends and take responsibility of the entire debt of Villamor
to Yu in the amount of P650,000.00 is by all means remarkable. He also expended
extraordinary efforts to straighten out the corporate scuffles involving him and
complainant Villamor and they have resumed their business dealings in good terms.
Grave though his transgressions may have been, the sincerity of Atty. Jumao-as' remorse
is reflected in his words and actions, which impressed the Court. The Court reduced his
penalty to one-year suspension.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Conflict of Interest

Jonathan C. Parungao v. Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan, A.C. No. 12071, March 11,
2020, Second Division, Hernando, J: The Court dismissed the administrative case
against Atty. Lacuanan. It noted that based on evidence on record, when Atty.
Lacuanan agreed in 2013 to represent Mary Grace as her legal counsel in the
criminal and civil proceedings that the latter instituted against her husband and
herein complainant, Jonathan, there was no longer an existing attorney-client
relationship between Atty. Lacuanan and Jonathan. As Atty. Lacuanan avers, his
engagements with Jonathan were intermittent and limited. In particular, these
involved facilitating the sale of a lot by Metrobank to the Spouses Parungao and
verifying the legal implications thereof; plus drafting a demand-letter to Espela
concerning a defective vehicle sold to Jonathan, both of which took place in 2011.
There was no standing retainer agreement between Atty. Lacuanan and Jonathan.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST
ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT
THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION .

Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.

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

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 necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Diverting client’s
money to settle another client’s case

Gracita P. Domingo-Agaton v. Atty. Nini D. Cruz, A.C. No. 11023. May 04,
2021: The Court disbarred Cruz for deceiving complainant Gracita P.
Domingo-Agaton into issuing a manager’s check in the amount of P2 million
to reacquire the latter’s ancestral home in Olongapo City. Complainant alleged
that she did not get back her money and her ancestral house because Cruz
misappropriated the said manager’s check to settle the obligation of a client in
another case.
With her deplorable conduct, Cruz exhibited her unfitness and sheer inability
to discharge the bounden duties of a member of the legal profession. Her
dishonest, deceitful and fraudulent conduct evinces a serious flaw in her
moral fiber justifying the extreme penalty of disbarment.
 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. .

In Jinon v. Jiz (705 Phil. 321 [2013[), the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of
two (2) years for his failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal
services which he never performed.

In Agot v. Rivera (A.C. No. 8000, August 05, 2014) the Court suspended the lawyer
for a period of two (2) years for his (a) failure to handle her visa application entrusted to
him and to return the legal fees in connection therewith; and (b) misrepresentation that
he was an immigration lawyer, when in truth, he was not.

In Spouses Lopez v. Limos (A.C. No. 7618. February 02, 2016), the Court suspended
the erring lawyer for three (3) years for her failure to file a petition for adoption on behalf
of complainants, return the money she received as legal fees, and for her commission of
deceitful acts in misrepresenting that she had already filed such petition when nothing
was actually filed, resulting in undue prejudice to therein complainants.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Commencement of
Lawyer-client Relationship

Hadjula v. Medianda, 526 SCRA 241 (2007): In this case, the Court
reminded lawyers that there is no need for a written contract for a lawyer-
client relationship to commence. As soon as the lawyer renders legal advice to
a person, a lawyer-client relationship begins. All disclosures made during the
consultation is considered privileged in order to protect a client from possible
breach of confidence.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A Lawyer-client relationship
is founded on trust and confidence.

Palm v. Iledan, 602 SCRA 12 (2009) Carpio, J: Every lawyer-client

relationship is founded on trust and confidence. In this case, however, the
Court held that the lawyer is released from the confidentiality rule where
documents filed on behalf of the documents become part of public records. As
a part of public record, the amendments to the By Laws of the company filed
with the SEC cannot be considered confidential.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE .

Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

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

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
 Relevant Jurisprudence – A lawyer shall keep his
client informed of the status of a case.
Prudencio B. Portuguese, Jr. v. Atty. Jerry R. Centro, A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021, En
Banc, Hernando, J: The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Centro's inaction deprived the
complainant of a relief from the adverse decision in the civil case. As counsel for Portuguese, he
neglected to perform his duty to exert efforts to avail of every remedy and defense authorized by the
law in order to protect his client's cause. Also, respondent's failure to file a memorandum was a
breach of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which requires lawyers to
seasonably file pleadings and to offer an explanation for failure to do so. Atty. Centro violated Rule
18.04 of the CPR which mandates lawyers to keep the client informed of the status of a case. Even
after he learned of the RTC's July 10, 2017 Decision on August 10, 2017, Atty. Centro did not inform
Portuguese about the adverse judgment to enable his client to decide if an appellate review will be
sought. Respondent also failed to notify Portuguese about the Motion for Execution and did not do
anything to oppose the motion.

The Court adopted the findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner and for violating the Lawyer's
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Jerry R. Centro was suspended from the
practice of law for three (3) years.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT
WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.

Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the
Rules of Court.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
 CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining

his fees:

(a) The time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;

(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the

proffered case;
 CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;

(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

 CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client,
be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed.

Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the
client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or
forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other than the client.

Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

The acceptance fee is amount which the lawyer charges for accepting the
case. The acceptance of such fee precludes a lawyer from being engaged
by the adverse party. Under contingent fee arrangements, the lawyer is
paid only if the case referral is successful. In most cases, contingent fee
arrangements are utilized by clients who cannot afford the services of a
lawyer. In such case, the lawyer gets to collect a certain portion of the
property or money involved, if the client prevails in the case. All costs
related to the referral must be reimbursed to the lawyer by client whether
or not the engagement is successful.
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY
FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

A contract of champerty is not allowed since it is against public policy. The

lawyer wagers on cases in order to solicit cases. Under this arrangement, the
lawyer shoulders all costs of litigation without any provision for
reimbursement.
Attorney’s fees may be considered in its ordinary concept or in its
extraordinary concept. In its ordinary concept, attorney’s fees consist of the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his or her client for the legal
services he or she has rendered to the latter; while in its extraordinary
concept, attorneys’ fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by
the court to be paid by the losing party in litigation.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Once the lawyer is paid his
professional fees, he is bound to serve his client
in accordance with the terms of his engagement.
Rosalie P. Domingo v. Atty. Jorge Sacdalan, A.C. No. 12475. March 26, 2019: Lawyers
should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport
himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession. The proper evidentiary threshold in disciplinary or disbarment cases is
substantial evidence. It is defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."

The Court disbarred Sacdalan. It also ordered him to return to complainant Rosalie P.
Domingo the P50,000, as legal deposit to cover the expenses related to the expected
litigation, and P100,000, as cash advance chargeable against his appearance fees and other
fees, with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of the receipt of this Decision
until full payment. Likewise, he was fined P5,000 for disobedience to the orders of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar Discipline.
 CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
TERMINATED .

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except;

(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences
of the disclosure;

(b) When required by law;

(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.
 CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
TERMINATED .

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.

Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give
information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.

Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to
partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
 CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
TERMINATED . .

Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to

prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the clients.

Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's

affairs even with members of his family.

Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Non-disclosure Rule

Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569 [1949]: The employment of a member of a firm

is generally considered as employment of the firm itself. Professional
confidence once reposed can never be divested by expiration of professional
employment. The courts have summary jurisdiction to protect the rights of
the parties and the public from any conduct of attorneys prejudicial to the
administration of justice. The summary jurisdiction of the courts over
attorneys is not confined to requiring them to pay over money collected by
them but embraces authority to compel them to do whatever specific acts may
be incumbent upon them in their capacity of attorneys to perform.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Non-disclosure Rule

Constantino v. Aransazo, Jr., A.C. No. 9701, February 10, 2021, Hernando. J: The moment Atty.
Constantino approached Atty. Aransazo to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship
evolved between the two. the contents of respondent's sworn statement contained information
revealed to him in confidence by complainant during a lawyer-client relationship. By executing the
sworn statement alone, respondent breached his obligation to maintain inviolate the confidence
reposed on him and to preserve the secrets of complainant. The information regarding the real estate
mortgage, private documents such as the Deed of Assignment, and other pertinent facts and figures
revealed in confidence to Atty. Aransazo used as basis or support in the execution of his sworn
statement and the filing of the amended complaint of Aldaba against Atty. Constantino, were all
acquired through an attorney-client relationship. As counsel for Atty. Constantino in Civil Case No.
03-105994, Atty. Aransazo advocated the validity and due execution of the Deed of Assignment upon
which Atty. Constantino's interest over the real estate mortgage is based. On the other hand, the
sworn statement of Atty. Aransazo refuted Atty. Constantino's claim that the Deed of Assignment was
executed with a valid consideration, which necessarily jeopardized and prejudiced the latter's interest
in the same case. For violating Canons 15, 17, and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty.
Nemesio A. Aransazo, Jr. was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following case:

(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in

connection with the matter he is handling;

(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;

(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;

(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for
him to carry out the employment effectively;
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to
comply with the retainer agreement;

(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

(g) Other similar cases.

Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a

retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the
client is entitled and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer
of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of
the matter.
Relevant Jurisprudence: Termination of Services

Carlos Lopez v Atty. Milagros Cristobal, A.C. No. 12146, October 10, 2018:
Canon 22 is clear: A lawyer may withdraw his services only for good cause
and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.

It is elementary that a lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the
consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve
a copy of his petition for withdrawal upon his client and the adverse party. He
should moreover present his petition well in advance of the trial of the action
to enable the client to secure the services of another lawyer.

For failure to observe the requirement of informing the trial, Cristobal was
suspended for six months.
 GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT
AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS (Section 27, Rule
138)
1. deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office; or

2. grossly immoral conduct, or

3. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or

4. for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or

5. for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or

6. for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without

authority to do so.
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF
LAWYERS (Rule 139 and Rule 139-B)
Rule 139 -A

Section 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated Bar 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 (10%) 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.

Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section

12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall
warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such
payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF
LAWYERS (Rule 139-A)
Section 11. Voluntary termination of membership; re-instatement. — A member
may terminate his membership by filing a written notice to that effect with the
Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall immediately bring the matter to the
attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith he shall cease to be a member and his
name shall be stricken by the Court from the Roll of Attorneys. Reinstatement
may be made by the Court in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed
by the Board of Governors and approved by the Court.

Section 12. Grievance procedures. — The Board of Governors shall provide in the
By-Laws for grievance procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of
discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving
the suspension or disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from the
Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme
Court.
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF
LAWYERS (Rule 139-A)
Section 13. Non-political Bar. — The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-
political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly
prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective,
judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election of
appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof shall
be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files
his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment
to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
 RULE 139-B
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of Governors.

(a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors
upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report.
(b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall
recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of
disciplinary action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a resolution setting
forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the
reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be issued within a period not
exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission
of the Investigator's report.
 RULE 139-B
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

(c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented
and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten
(10) days from issuance of the resolution.
(d) Notice of the resolution shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if any.

(BAR MATTER NO. 1645; OCTOBER 13, 2015)

 Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys:
Application of Amended Rule 139-B
In B.M. No. 1755 captioned Re: Clarification of Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline, the Court applied this provision to address the
issue therein involved and explained its proper application in a Resolution dated
June 17, 2008. Please take note that the Court contemplated to amend Rule 139-B
as early as 2008. Thus, the Court set the following guidelines:

In case a decision is rendered by the Board of Governors (BOG) that exonerates

the respondent or imposes a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the
aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day period
from notice. If the motion is denied, said party can file a petition for a review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the resolution resolving the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is
filed, the decision shall become final and executory and a copy of said decision
shall be furnished this Court.
 Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys:
Application of Amended Rule 139-B

If the imposable penalty is suspension from the practice of law or

disbarment, the BOG shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations. The aggrieved party can file a motion for
reconsideration of said resolution with the BOG within fifteen (15) days
from notice. The BOG shall first resolve the incident and shall thereafter
elevate the assailed resolution with the entire case records to the
Supreme Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses without any
motion for reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG shall likewise
transmit to this Court the resolution with the entire case records for
appropriate action. (emphasis supplied)
 Relevant Jurisprudence: Delicadeza is not
a ground for disbarment

Burgos v. Atty. Jovencio James Bereber, A.C. No. 12666, March 4, 2020, Hernando, J: In
determining whether a lawyer is guilty of violating the rules on conflict of interest under the CPR, it
is essential to determine whether: (1) "a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf
of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client;" (2) "the acceptance of
a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that
duty;" and (3) "a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.“

Since there appears to be no lawyer-client relationship between Bereber and CAPELCO, there could
be no conflict- of- interest issue. The Court dismissed that case as it was also not inclined to mete
out disciplinary punishment on Bereber on the allegation of his supposed lack of "delicadeza" or
sense of decency in this case because it is not a legal ground for administrative disciplinary action
under the CPR. At best, Bereber can be said to have merely exercised independence of judgment as
a lawyer when he defended the interests of other member-consumers of CAPELCO.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: The complainant has the
burden of proof in a disbarment case against a lawyer.
Gerodias v. Atty. Tomas A. Riveral, Atty. Annabel G. Pulvera-Page and Atty.
Lorena M. Supatan, A.C. No. 12719, February 17, 2021, Hernando, J: Mere
allegation of conspiracy is not evidence and not equivalent to proof. The burden of
proof rests upon the complainant and the case must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Evidently, complainant Gerodias utterly failed to
discharge such burden. If anything, what is apparent in the records is complainant's
penchant for filing baseless disbarment cases for the flimsiest of reasons.

Despite the submission o his Affidavit of Desistance to the IBP expressing his
disinterest in pursuing the disbarment case filed against Riveral, Pulvera-Page and
Supatan, the proceedings continued because a disbarment case is clothed with
public interest and not subject to the unilateral will of the complainant.

For failure to prove his allegations, the administrative case filed against the lawyers
were dismissed.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: The complainant has the
burden of proof in a disbarment case against a lawyer.

Atty. Fernando P. Perito v. Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, Atty. Ryan

R. Besid, Atty. Richie L. Tiblani, and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit,
A.C. No. 12631, July 8, 2020, Hernando, J: After assessment of the
attendant circumstances, the Court is convinced that the present
disbarment case stemmed from the kidnapping case, which
unfortunately affected the professional relationship of the lawyers of the
therein parties. Upon perusal of the records, We note that Atty. Perito
somehow initiated the conflict with the respondents by using
intemperate language and strong allegations in a number of pleadings
which he filed. Atty. Perito did not present substantial evidence to show
that herein respondents violated the CPR. The case was dismissed.
 Relevant Jurisprudence: A disbarment case has
become moot and academic when one is permanently
barred from the practice of law.
AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc. v. Patrick A. Caronan, A.C.
No. 12418, March 10, 2020, Hernando, J: Reyes, who represented the complainant
learned that aside from the misrepresentations employed by Caronan in the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and MOA, he likewise employed fraudulent
machinations in negotiating in his favor the Metrobank Manager's check amounting
to Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00). Caronan, in cahoots with a certain Noraida
Tanon (Tanon), introduced Tanon to the bank officials as Atanacio and the payee of
the check. By presenting fake identification cards, Caronan and Tanon successfully
facilitated the withdrawal of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) and deposited the
balance of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) in the account of Caronan's wife,
Rosana Caronan.

The Court dismissed the case since Caronan was already barred from admission to
the practice of law in administrative case instituted by his own brother.

e complainant has the burden of proof in a disbarment case against a lawyer.

Relevant Jurisprudence: The Court continues to have
jurisdiction over a disbarred lawyer.
Valmonte v. Atty. Quesada, A.C. No. 12487. December 4, 2019, Hernando, J: Fe
Eufemia Estalilla-Valmonte filed an administrative against respondent Atty. Jose C.
Quesada, Jr. for violation of the Supreme Court's directive suspending him from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year pursuant to its December 2, 2013 Resolution
in Dagala v. Atty. Quesada, Jr.

Despite due notice, respondent failed to file a comment and to appear during the
mandatory conference before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Valmonte
was able to present proof that Quesada continues to practice law despite his
suspension. Respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. Was found guilty of unauthorized
practice of law and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months. However, considering that he has already been disbarred, this penalty can no
longer be imposed but nevertheless should be considered in the event that he should
apply for the lifting of his disbarment. Accordingly, and in view of his continuing
disbarment, a penalty of fine in the amount of PhP 40,000.00 was likewise imposed
upon him.
 The Role of the Office of the Bar Confidant
for Judicial Clemency and Compassion

Under Resolution dated 2 March 2021, the Supreme Court clarified that it
is the Office of the Bar Confidant or any fact-finding body the Court so
designates which verifies the details and the authenticity of the statements
and the evidence in a Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion.
 Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion

Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion and Supplemental Petition of

Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort, March 21, 2021: The Court En Banc laid down the following
new clemency guidelines for reinstatement to the Bar:

A lawyer who has been disbarred cannot file a petition for judicial clemency within a
period of five years from the effective date of his or her disbarment, unless for the most
compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, a shorter period is
warranted.

1. For petitions already filed at the time of this Resolution, the Court may dispense
with the five-year minimum requirement and instead, in the interest of fairness,
proceed with a preliminary evaluation of the petition in order to determine its prima
facie merit;

2. Upon the lapse of the said five-year period, or earlier if so permitted by the Court, a
disbarred lawyer becomes eligible to file a verified petition for judicial clemency;
 Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion

3) Upon the filing of the verified petition for clemency, together with its
attachments, the Court shall first conduct a preliminary evaluation and
determine if the same has prima facie merit based on the criteria provided for
by the Court.
The petition, together with its supporting evidence must show on its face that
the following criteria have been met:
(a) petitioner has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior
disciplinary orders, including orders for restitution, as well as the five-year
period to file;
(b) petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct
for which he or she was disbarred; and
(c) notwithstanding the conduct for which the disbarred lawyer was disciplined,
the disbarred lawyer has the requisite integrity and competence to practice law.
Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion

4) If the petition has prima facie merit based on the criteria, the Court shall refer the
petition to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) or any fact-finding body the Court so
designates in order to verify the details and the authenticity of the statement and the
evidence attached to the clemency petition. If the petition fails to show any prima facie
merit, it should be denied

5) After its investigation, the OBC (or such other fact-finding body designated by the
Court) shall submit its fact-finding report to the Court, which shall ultimately resolve
the clemency petition based on the facts established in the said report. The threshold of
evidence to be applied is clear and convincing evidence.

6) Unless otherwise resolved by the Court sitting En Banc, these guidelines and
procedure shall apply to pending petitions for judicial clemency, as well as to those
filed after the promulgation of this Resolution.
Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion

Nunez v. Atty. Romulo Ricafort, A.C. No. A.C. No. 5054, May 29, 2002;
Tarog v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8253, March 15, 2011, and Llunar v. Ricafort,
A.C. No. 6484 decided on June 16, 2015: Judicial clemency hearkens back to
the nature of membership in the Bar as a special privilege imbued with public
interest. Petitioner committed multiple serious breaches of his fiduciary duties
to different clients, demonstrating his great propensity in this respect. Thus,
in view of petitioner's numerous infractions, the Court does not believe that
"[sufficient time [has] lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reformation,“ as already required in Re: Diaz. Ricafort failed to
convince the Court that he had reformed his ways during the period of his
disbarment.
Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion

Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory
S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021: The Court
qualified that the new clemency guidelines should be "prospective" in
application. However, after careful consideration, the Court now holds that,
with the exception of the minimum five (5)-year period before seeking
clemency and the requirement of good faith reconciliation as above-
described, the new clemency guidelines, as detailed herein, should not
only apply to clemency petitions filed after the promulgation of this
Resolution, but likewise, to pending petitions. After all, there is no vested
right that can be claimed when it comes to pleas of clemency, which, by their
very nature, pray for an essentially discretionary act of mercy by the Court
and more significantly, an act which is imbued with great public interest.
The 2004 Notarial Rules, as amended

Under A,M. No. 02-8-13-SC, the Supreme Court adopted

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for the following
purposes:

(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest;

(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing

notaries public; and

(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public.

The Notarial Rules became effective August 1, 2004

 Application of the Rule on Competent
Proof of Identity
In re Diuyan, A.C. 9676, April 2, 2018: The Court dismissed the
case against Atty. Robelito Diuyan. He admitted notarizing the
Deed of Partition executed by eight individuals in his capacity as
Effectivity of
District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney's Office in Mati City
and all the signatories are from Davao Oriental.|
the 2004
The Supreme Court held that there was nothing irregular with
Notarial Rules
respondent's act of notarizing the Deed of Partition on July 23,
2003 on the basis of the affiants' CTCs. The law applicable at the
time of the notarization only required the presentation of the
CTCs.||

Note: It was only in 2007 that a competent proof of identity

was required after the 2004 Notarial Rules were amended.
 Application of the Rule on Prohibition
based on Relationship
Mabini v. Kintanar, A.C. 9512, February 8, 2018: Mabini accused Atty.
Vitto Kintanar of notarizing an affidavit executed by his wife,
Effectivity of
Evangeline Kintanar, on April 25, 2002.

By way ofthe 2004

defense, Kintanar argued that since the affidavit was
Notarial Rules
executed before the effectivity of the new Notarial Rules, then it was
governed by Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which did not
prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by
one's spouse. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment case
against Kintanar.
Qualifications of a
Notary Public

To be eligible for commissioning as notary

public, the petitioner:

(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;

(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of

age;

(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for

at least one (1) year and maintains a
regular place of work or business in the city
or province where the commission is to be
issued;
Qualifications of a
Notary Public
(4) must be a member of the Philippine
Bar in good standing with clearances
from the Office of the Bar Confidant of
the Supreme Court and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines; and

(5) must not have been convicted in the

first instance of any crime involving
moral turpitude. (Section 1, Rule III)
Commissioning a Notary Public

Every petition for a notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include
the following:
(a) a statement containing the petitioner’s personal qualifications, including the
petitioner’s date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of
attorney’s number and IBP membership number;

(b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive
officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is
applying for commission; (c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required
by these Rules; and

(d) three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background taken within thirty
(30) days of the application. The photograph should not be retouched. The petitioner
shall sign his name at the bottom part of the photographs. (Sec. 3, Rule III)

Notes: 1. The MCLE Compliance Certificate must likewise be indicated in the

signature page of the Petition.

2. All petitions for a notarial commission must be published.

Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules

Teodoro L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino, Jr. v. Atty. Victor

D. Sederiosa, A.C. No. 8522, October 6, 2020, En Banc,
Hernando, J: For not serving his initial suspension for violating
the 2004 Notarial Rules, the Court perpetually barred Atty.
Sederiosa from being commissioned as a notary public.
Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules

Atty. Antonio B. Manzano v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, A.C. No.

12173, November 03, 2020, En Banc, Hernando, J: For falsification
of public documents, and notarizing the Answer filed in Civil Case
No. 33-467-2014 without the personal appearance of the affiants,
and worse, without a notarial commission, Atty. Rivera was
suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and
was perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary
public.
Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules

Zarcilla v. Atty. Quesada, A.C. No. 7186, March 13,2018:

Although the allegations of falsification or forgery against
respondent were not proven, the Court, nevertheless, found
respondent guilty of violating the notarial law for notarizing a deed
of sale and a joint-affidavit considering that the parties therein
could no longer execute the said documents and appear before
respondent since they have long been deceased as evidenced by
their death certificates. The Court also noted in the said case that
respondent's act of notarizing the said deed of sale appeared to
have been done to perpetuate a fraud. The respondent lawyer was
disbarred for his gross misconduct and willful disobedience of the
lawful orders of the court.
Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules
Lourdes E. Elanga and Nilo Elanga represented by their Attorneys-in-Fact
Evelyn E. Veloso and Melly Elanga v. Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok, A.C. No.
12030, September 29, 2020, En Banc, Hernando, J: Atty. Pasok notarized
the document evidencing the Real Estate Mortgage and received part of
the proceeds thereof as expressly stated in the Agreement, specifically
in the amounts of P162,178.03 and P23,782.00. By notarizing the
mortgage document and subsequently receiving part of the proceeds
thereof, Atty. Pasok violated Rule 4, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules of
Notarial Practice which states:
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from
performing a notarial act if he:
(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee,
advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration,
except as provided by these Rules and by law; x x x.”
Atty Pasok was from the practice of law for five (5) years and
disqualified to be commissioned as a notary public for five years.
Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules
Clara R. Ick, Ruby Elinbergsson and Teresita Edosada v. Atty. Allan S.
Amazona, A.C. No. 12375, February 26, 2020, Second Division, Hernando
J: The Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that the complained
act does not constitute any violation of the Rules of Court, the Notarial Rules,
nor the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent merely performed his duty when he attested to the fact that
Lotho personally appeared and signed the said letter before him. In notarizing
a document, the truth or falsity of the contents of the letter is the
responsibility of the affiant Lotho and not of the respondent, especially since
no substantial evidence was presented to prove that he knowingly notarized a
false document.
The administrative case against Atty. Amazona was dismissed.
Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules
John Paul Kiener v. Atty. Ricardo R. Amores, A.C. No. 9417, November
18, 2020, Third Division, Hernando, J: The Court said that Atty. Amores
should be held administratively liable for violating the Rules on Notarial
Practice when he notarized a document without the presence of the
signatory and failed to indicate his commission number in the notarial
certificate. It is settled that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless
routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, 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 notarial duties; otherwise, the
public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined.“ Atty. Amores is, therefore, bound to strictly comply with these
notarial rules. Atty. Amores violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court revoked his notarial
commission and disqualified him from renewing the same for two years.
Relevant Jurisprudence – Violation of Notarial Rules
Venzon R. Ang v. Atty. Salvador B. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, December 11,
2019, Hernando, J: It is the duty of notaries public to observe utmost care in
complying with the formalities intended to protect the integrity of the notarized
document and the act or acts it embodies. the signatures of respondent Atty.
Belaro found in the three versions of the Extrajudicial Settlement were indeed
forgeries. The signatures were strikingly dissimilar to his specimen signatures
submitted before the RTC-Quezon City when he applied for notarial
commission. Despite the forgeries, the Court found Belaro liable.
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in use, the
official seal of the notary public must be kept safe and secure and shall be
accessible only to him or the person duly authorized by him. In being careless in
failing to secure and keep his notarial seal in a safe place away from any person
not authorized to use the same, Atty. Belaro committed a transgression of the
Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court suspended Belaro from the practice of law for a period of six months
and his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two years from finality of this
Decision.
End of Presentation