Boc Legal & Judicial Ethics Reviewer

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

JUDICIAL ETHICS ............................... 71

LEGAL ETHICS ...................................... 1

II. Judicial Ethics ........................................... 72 A. Sources ............................................................ 72 1. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft) 72 2. Code of Judicial Conduct .................... 72 B. Disqualifications of Justices and Judges [Rule 137, ROC] ............................................ 72 1. Compulsory ............................................ 72 2. Voluntary ................................................ 73 C. Administrative Jurisdiction over Judges and Justices ............................................................ 75 1. Supreme Court ...................................... 75 2. All Other Courts ................................... 75 D. Initiation of Complaint against Judges and Justices ............................................................ 76 E. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary .... 76 1. Supreme Court ...................................... 76 2. Lower Courts and Justices of Court of Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals (Rule 140) ................... 77 3. Grounds .................................................. 78

I.

Legal Ethics ................................................ 2 A. Practice of Law ............................................... 2 1. Concept .................................................... 2 2. Qualifications for Admission to the Bar 3 3. Continuing Requirements for Membership in the Bar .......................... 5 4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers................ 7 5. Prohibited Practice of Non-Lawyers and Appearance without Authority ..... 9 6. Public Officials and the Practice of Law; Prohibitions and Disqualifications ...... 9 7. Lawyer’s Oath ....................................... 10 B. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility [CPR] .................................... 11 1. To Society (Canons 1-6) ...................... 11 2. To the Legal Profession ...................... 19 3. To the Courts (Canons 10-13) ........... 25 4. To the Clients (Canons 14-22) ........... 34 C. Suspension, Disbarment, Discipline of Lawyers........................................................... 53 1. Nature and Characteristics of Disciplinary Actions against Lawyers 53 2. Grounds ................................................. 54 3. Proceedings............................................ 56 4. Recoverable amounts; intrinsically linked to professional engagement .... 57 5. Other Matters ........................................ 57 D. Readmission to the Bar ............................... 60 1. Lawyers Who Have Been Suspended 60 2. Lawyers Who Have Been Disbarred . 60 3. Lawyers who have been Repatriated . 61 E. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) .......................................................... 61 1. Purpose................................................... 61 2. Requirements......................................... 61 3. Compliance ............................................ 62 4. Exemptions............................................ 62 5. Sanctions ................................................ 63 F. Notarial Practice ........................................... 64 1. Qualifications of a Notary Public ...... 64 2. Term of Office of a Notary Public .... 64 3. Powers and Limitations ....................... 65 4. Notarial Register ................................... 67 5. Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place of Notarization...................................... 68 6. Competent Evidence of Identity ....... 68 7. Sanctions ................................................ 68 8. Relation to the Code of Professional Responsibility ........................................ 68 9. Revocation of Commission ................ 69

FORMS ................................................... 82 III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES ....................... 83 A. Demand and Authorization Letters ........... 83 1. Demand Letter ...................................... 83 2. Authorization Letter ............................. 83 B. Simple Contracts: Lease and Sale ............... 84 1. Contract of Lease .................................. 84 2. Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle ........... 85 3. Bill of Sale (Personal Property) ........... 86 4. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land......................................................... 87 5. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land......................................................... 88 6. Bilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land......................................................... 89 C. Special Power of Attorney........................... 90 1. Special Power of Attorney for Sale of Real Property ......................................... 90 2. Special Power of Attorney for Purchase of Real Property .................................... 91 3. Special Power of Attorney for Representation in Actions ................... 92 D. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping......................................................... 93 E. Notice of Hearing and Explanation in Motions ........................................................... 95 1. Request for and Notice of Hearing.... 95 2. Proof of Service by Registered Mail with Explanation ............................................ 96 F. Judicial Affidavit............................................ 97 G. Notarial Certificates: Jurat and Acknowledgement ........................................ 99

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 1. 2.

Jurat ......................................................... 99 Acknowledgment (Two-Party Instrument) ............................................ 99 3. Acknowledgment (Affiant Representing a Corporation) ..................................... 100 4. Scilicet ................................................... 101 5. Details of Notary Public .................... 101 6. Details of Counsel .............................. 101 H. Motions for Extension of Time, to Dismiss, and to Declare in Default.......................... 102 1. Motion for Extension of Time......... 102 2. Motion to Dismiss .............................. 104 3. Motion to Declare in Default ........... 105

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL ETHICS Legal and Judicial Ethics

Page 1 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

I. Legal Ethics

court. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the bar examinations [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. No. 1036 (2003)].

A. Practice of Law

While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession [In re: Michael Medado, B.M. No. 2540 (2013)].

1. Concept a.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Definition

The practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. It is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill [Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 (1991)]. According to Justice Padilla, in his dissent in Cayetano v. Monsod, the following factors are considered in determining whether there is practice of law: 1. Habituality – implies customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public as a lawyer. 2. Application of law, legal principles, practice or procedure – calls for legal knowledge, training and experience. 3. Compensation – implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a service for his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. 4. Attorney-client relationship The test is the activity, NOT who/what he or she is. When lawyers teach law, they are considered engaged in the practice of law. Their actions as law professors must be measured against the same canons of professional responsibility as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers. [Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty: ”Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the UP College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the SC”, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (2011)].

b. Privilege, not Right The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the

Respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since complainant — the real "Patrick A. Caronan" never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attomeys. The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to the Bar. In this case, respondent never completed his college degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left a year later and entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993 without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the requisite pre-law degree. The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on complete his college education and earn a law degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of his brother's name, identity, and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character [Caronan v. Caronan, A.C No. 11316 (2016)].

c. Profession, not Business Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary professional but a secondary consideration [Burbe v. Magulta, A. C. No. 99-634 (2002)]. Atty. Ancheta, should have advised complainants to accept the judgment of the Court of Appeals and accord respect to the just claim of the opposite party. He should have tempered his clients' propensity to litigate and save them from additional expense in pursuing their contemplated action. Instead, he gave them confident assurances that the case could still be reopened and even furnished them a copy of his prepared "motion to reopen case." Despite receipt of the P30,000 acceptance fee, he did not act on his client's case. Moreover, he prevailed upon complainants to give him P200,000.00 purportedly to be used to bribe the Justices of the Court of Appeals

Page 2 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

in order to secure a favorable ruling, palpably showing that he himself was unconvinced of the merits of the case. Atty. Ancheta's misconduct betrays his lack of appreciation that the practice of law is a profession, not a money-making trade [Spouses Tolentino v. Atty. Ancheta, A.C. No. No. 6387, (2016)].

becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana, supra].

2. Qualifications for Admission

Sec. 6, Rule 1382. Pre-law. – An applicant for

Legal Education a. Pre-law admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.

to the Bar

Section 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court1. Who may practice law. – Any person heretofore duly

admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having completed a separate bachelor's degree course.

Sec. 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 twentyone 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.

b. Law proper

Sec. 5, Rule 138. Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. — All applicants for

admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.

Requisites for admission to the bar a. Citizenship b. Residence: his/her duties to his client and to the court will require that he/she be readily accessible and available c. Age (at least 21 years old): maturity and discretion are required in the practice of law d. Good moral character and no charges involving moral turpitude

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed the following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

The purposes for this requirement are: 1. To protect the public; 2. To protect the public image of lawyers; 3. To protect prospective clients; and 4. To protect errant lawyers from themselves [Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. No. 6486 (2004)].

A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (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

e.

Legal education (consisting of pre-law and law proper); f. Pass the bar examinations g. Take the lawyer’s oath h. Sign the roll of attorneys. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Two essential requisites for 1

Hereinafter, RoC

2

As amended by B.M. No. 1153 (2010)

Page 3 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government. In B.M. No. No. 1552-A (2010), the Supreme Court approved the guidelines on the legal apprenticeship program in the Supreme Court and other collegiate appellate courts, allowing qualified 4th year law students to undergo the Legal Apprenticeship Program at the said courts for at least 160 hours. In A.M. No. 15-04-03-SC (Re Letters of Justice Jose C. Vitug [Ret], Founding Dean of Angeles University Foundation (AUF) School of Law, dated 7 February 2015, and of Judge Ave A. Zurbito-Alba, Municipal Trial court, Daraga, Albay), the Supreme Court lifted the prohibition on the accommodation of students to undergo on-the-job training/practicum in the lower courts. Legal Education Board Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993), the Legal Education Board (LEB) was created in order to uplift the standards of legal education by undertaking appropriate reforms in the legal education system, requiring proper selection of law students, maintaining quality among law schools, and requiring legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education. It is comprised of a Chairman (preferably former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals), 4 regular members (a representative of the IBP, a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS), a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners, a representative from the law students' sector, and the Secretary of the Department of Education or his representative as an ex officio member). The functions of the Board include: a. Administering the legal education system in the country; b. Supervising law schools in the country; c. Setting the standards of accreditation for law schools, taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning; d. Accrediting law schools that meet the standards of accreditation; e. Prescribing minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members;

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

f.

Prescribing the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness; g. Establishing a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar; and h. Adopting a system of continuing legal education. The LEB promulgated LEB Memorandum Order No 1, Series of 2011 to set forth the policies and standards of legal education and manual of regulations for law schools. In Dec. 2016, LEB promulgated LEB Memorandum Order No. 7, Series of 2016 which required the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT) as a pre-requisite for admission to the basic law courses leading either to a Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor degree beginning school year 2017-2018. Bar Examinations All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence required under Sec. 2 at least 15 days before the beginning of the examination. If the applicant is not covered by Secs. 3 and 4, they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by Sec. 5 [Sec. 7, Rule 138, RoC]. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall publish the notice of applications for admission in newspapers published in Filipino, English and Spanish, for at least 10 days before the beginning of the examination [Sec. 8, Rule 138, RoC]. Examinees shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone. Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time, the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.

Page 4 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

The committee of bar examines shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given [Sec. 10, Rule 138, RoC]. Examination for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in 4 days to be designated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners [Sec. 11, Rule 138, RoC]. Political and Morning International Law First Day Labor and Social Afternoon Legislation Morning Civil Law Second Day Afternoon Taxation Morning Mercantile Law Third Day Afternoon Criminal Law Morning Remedial law Fourth Legal Ethics and Practical Day Afternoon Exercises A candidate is deemed to have passed his examinations successfully if he obtained a general average of 75% in all subjects, without falling below 50% in any subject [Sec. 14, Rule 138, RoC]. The relative weights of the subjects determining the average are as follows: Subject Civil Law Labor and Social Legislation Mercantile Law Criminal Law Political and International Law Taxation Remedial Law Legal and Ethics and Practical Exercises

used in % 15% 10% 15% 10% 15% 10% 20% 5%

Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court as chairman, and 8 members of the bar, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports [Sec. 12, Rule 138, RoC]. Pursuant to B.M. No. 1161 (2004), 2 examiners are designated per bar subject. The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liaison officer between the court and the Bar Chairman on one hand,

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

and the individual members of the committee on the other. He is at the same time a deputy clerk of court. Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report [Sec. 15, Rule 138, RoC]. Candidates who have failed the bar examinations 3 times shall be disqualified from taking another examination, provided that they may take a 4th and 5th examination if they show to the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular 4th year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school for each examination [Sec. 16, Rule 138, RoC, as amended by B.M. No. 1161 (2004)]. No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and during examination, the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance. Any violator shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action may be taken in the discretion of the court [Sec. 13, Rule 138, RoC]. Under R.A. No. 1080 (An Act Declaring the Bar and Board Examinations as Civil Service Examinations), as amended by R.A. No. 1844, the Bar examinations is declared as civil service examinations equivalent to: 1. First grade regular examination for appointment to a position which requires proficiency in law; and 2. Second grade regular examination for appointment to a position which does not require proficiency in law.

3. Continuing Requirements

for Membership in the Bar

a. Good Moral Character Absence of a proven conduct or act which has been historically and traditionally considered as a manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or conduct need not amount to a crime; and even if it does constitute an offense, a conviction upon a criminal charge is not necessary to demonstrate bad moral character although it may show moral depravity [“Legal and Judicial Ethics” by Agpalo (2004)].

Page 5 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

This requirement is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known [In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. No. 1154 (2004)]. All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. The scope of such inquiry is, indeed, said to be properly broader than inquiry into the moral proceedings for disbarment. The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public. The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oathtaking based on a conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (hazing case). But after the expiry of the original period of probation granted by the trial court, he may be allowed to submit, for the Court’s examination and consideration, relevant evidence to show that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to the ancient and learned profession of the law [In re: Argosino, A.M. No. 712 (1997)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic and its laws.

1. Reacquisition of the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines under R.A. No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law… Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice [In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in the Philippines of Muneses, B.M. No. 2112 (2012)]

By concealing pending criminal cases, the applicant (in a petition to take the Bar Examinations) then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant [In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. No. 1154 (2004)].

In In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in the Philippines of Muneses, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice of law, the Office of the Bar Confidant [hereinafter, OBC] required Muneses to submit the original or certified true copies of the following documents in relation to his petition: a. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship; b. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship); c. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; d. Identification Certificate issued by the Bureau of Immigration; e. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP; f. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues; g. Proof of payment of professional tax; and h. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE office.

b. Citizenship

These documents will be submitted to the OBC and will be reviewed by the Court en banc for resolution.

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law [Sec. 14, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution].

Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 can resume his law

Question of moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court to decide, which is why applicants are required to disclose any crime which they have been charged. Concealment or withholding from the Court information about charges and indictments is a ground for disqualification of applicant or for revocation of license [Agpalo 2004].

Page 6 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on: a. the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP; b. the payment of professional tax; c. the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and d. the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar [Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678 (2007)].

4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers General rule: Only members of the bar can appear and handle cases in court Exceptions: The following are also allowed in exceptional circumstances: a. Law students; b. By an agent/friend; c. By the litigant himself.

a. Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A A law student who has successfully completed 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school [Sec. 1, Rule 138-A, RoC]. The appearance of the law student shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the IBP duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic [Sec. 2, Rule 138-A, RoC]. Direct supervision and control by the supervising attorney requires his or her physical presence during

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

the hearing [In Re: Need that law student practicing under rule 138-A be actually supervised during trial, B.M. No. 730 (1997)]. The Rules safeguarding privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply [Sec. 3, Rule 138-A, RoC]. The law student shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing members of the bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary action [Sec. 4, Rule 138-A, RoC]. Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. Thus, a law student may appear under the circumstances of Sec. 38, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without complying with the requirements of Rule 138-A, e.g., supervision of a lawyer [Cruz v. Mina, G.R. No. 154207 (2007)].

b. Non-Lawyers in Courts and/or Administrative Tribunals 1. Non-Lawyers in Courts Pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC, in any court, a party may conduct his litigation in person. Before the MTC – A party may conduct his case or litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him. • The agent or friend is not engaged in the practice of law, since there is no habituality in the activity and no attorney-client relationship exists. In any other court – A party may conduct his litigation personally. A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is bound by the same rules in conducting the trial of his case. He cannot, after judgment, claim that he was not properly represented [Agpalo (2004)]. An attorney who is otherwise disqualified to practice law, or has been disbarred or suspended from practice, can validly prosecute or defend his own litigation, he having as much right as that of a layman [Danforth v. Egan, 119 N.W. 1021 (1909)]. When a person conducts his litigation in person, he is not engaged in the practice of law [Agpalo (2004)].

Page 7 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC does not distinguish between civil and criminal cases. However, in criminal cases, the rule is qualified: a. Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, RoC, the accused may defend himself in person “when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.” b. Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, RoC, in determining whether a counsel de officio should be appointed, or, for that matter, whether a counsel de parte should be required (conversely, whether the accused should be allowed to defend himself in person), the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise should be considered. While the right to be represented by counsel is immutable, the option to secure the services of counsel de parte is not absolute. The court may restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel de parte if: a. He insists on an attorney he cannot afford; b. He chooses a person not a member of the bar; c. The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g., conflict of interest) [People v. Serzo, G.R. No. 118435 (1997)]. In criminal cases, in localities where members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability to defend the accused, in lieu of a counsel de officio [Sec. 7, Rule 116, RoC]. In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, this is only allowed in the municipal trial court.

members of any legal aid office recognized by the Department of Justice or IBP, and (c) non-lawyer owners of establishments, to appear before it. b. Under Sec. 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a claimant may appear by himself, or by some person in his behalf, before a cadastral court. c. Under Sec. 50, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), as amended by R.A. No. 9700, responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: provided, however, that when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings In order that these laws will not infringe upon the power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law, the following limitations must be observed: a. The non-lawyer should confine his work to nonadversary contentions and should not undertake purely legal work (i.e., examination of witness, presentation of evidence); b. The services should not be habitual; c. Attorney’s fees should not be charged [Agpalo (2004)].

c. Proceedings Where Lawyers Are Prohibited from Appearing as Counsels 1.

A juridical person must always appear in court through a duly-licensed member of the bar, except in the MTC where it may be represented by a non-lawyer agent.

2. Non-Lawyers in Administrative Tribunals There are laws which allow representation of another by non-lawyers before such bodies: a.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

2.

Art. 222, Labor Code allows non-lawyers to appear before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter if (a) they represent themselves, or (b) they represent their organizations members. The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure, promulgated pursuant to Art 225(a), Labor Code, allows (a) non-lawyers, who are not necessarily a party to the case, to represent a union or members thereof, (b) non-lawyers who are duly-accredited Page 8 of 106

In small claims cases, no attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter's consent [Sec. 17, Rules of Procedure in Small Claims Cases]. In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of the counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers [Sec 415, R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code)].

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

5. Prohibited Practice of Non-

Lawyers and Appearance without Authority

3.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of 1 year after resignation, retirement or separation from public office, except in case of the second.

a. Lawyers without Authority Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, RoC, corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

The 1-year prohibition also applies to practice of profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with.

b. Persons Who Are Not Lawyers

b. Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law or Can Practice Law with Restrictions

For BOTH persons who are not lawyers AND lawyers who appear without authority, the following may be availed of: • Petition for injunction • Declaratory relief • Contempt of court [Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71, RoC] • Administrative complaint against the erring lawyer or government official • Criminal complaint for estafa against the person who falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the damage of another.

6. Public Officials and the

Practice of Law; Prohibitions and Disqualifications

a. Prohibition or Disqualification of Former Government Attorneys General Rule: The appointment or election of an attorney to a government office disqualifies him from engaging in the private practice of law Under Sec. 7(b), R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: 1. Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee / in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office / unless expressly allowed by law; 2. Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;

Absolute prohibition 1. Judges and other officials or employees of superior courts as [Sec. 35, Rule 148, RoC]; 2. Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General [Sec. 35, Rule 148, RoC]; 3. Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705 (2006)]; 4. President, vice-president, cabinet members, their deputies and assistants [Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution]; 5. Chairmen and members of constitutional commissions [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution]; 6. Members of the Judicial and Bar Council [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution]; 7. Ombudsman and his deputies [par. 2, Sec. 8 (2), Art. X, 1987 Constitution]; 8. All governors, city and municipal mayors [Sec. 90(a), R.A. No. 7160]; 9. Civil service officers or employees whose duties require them to devote their entire time at the disposal of the government [Catu v Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738 (2008)]; 10. Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their legal profession. Relative prohibition 1. No senator or member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies [Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution] • The word “appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any such body, but also filing a pleading on behalf of a client [Ramos v. Manalac, G.R. No. L-2610 (1951)].

Page 9 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC •

2.

3.

4.

LEGAL ETHICS

Neither can he allow his name to appear in the pleading as part of a firm name, because the office of an attorney being originally of agency, amounts to the signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman [In Re: David, AM No. 98 (1953)]. Sanggunian members may practice law except during session hours and provided they shall not: a. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party; b. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; c. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official; and d. Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the government [Sec. 90(b), R.A. No. 7160]. Under Sec. 1, R.A. No. 910, the pension of justices therein is provided with a condition that no retiring justice, during the time that he is receiving said pension shall: a. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party; b. In any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; or c. Collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the Government, insular, provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers. There are civil employees whose duty do not require that their entire time be at the disposal of the government. Absent any express prohibition in law, they can practice law, provided they secure a written permit from their department head [Zeta v Malinao, AM. No P-220(1978)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

appear in any case in which said government has an interest direct or indirect [Sec. 33, Rule 138, RoC].

7. Lawyer’s Oath An applicant who has passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office [Sec. 17, Rule 138, RoC]. The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned [In re: Argosino, supra]. I, ____________________ 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, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

c. Lawyers Authorized to Represent the 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

Page 10 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

B. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility [CPR] Under the Sec. 20, Rule 138, RoC, it is the duty of an attorney: 1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines; 2. To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers; 3. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law; 4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; 5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval; 6. To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charge; 7. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive or interest; 8. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; 9. In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1. To Society (Canons 1-6) a. Respect for Law and Legal Processes CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process.

Note: Canon 1 is the 4th top source of Questions on the CPR. It was asked 21 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. Freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice [Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No. Nos. 79690707 and 80578 (1988)]. The responsibility of a ‘public’ lawyer (such as Special Prosecutor), who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic, to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer [Zaldivar v. Gonzales, supra].

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

An unlawful conduct is act or omission which is against the law. It is a transgression of any provision of law, which need not be penal. [Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty. Kho A.M, P-06-2177 (2007)] Dishonesty involves lying or cheating. It is a disposition to cheat, deceive, defraud. [Agpalo (2004)] Immoral Conduct Acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable

Page 11 of 106

Grossly Immoral Conduct When it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Grossly Immoral Conduct members of the revolting circumstances community as to shock the community’s sense of decency Penalty of disbarment [Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. No. 5816 (2015)] Immoral Conduct

•

Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. No. 7204 (2007)] Making sexual advances towards a client, but stopping right after the client refused such advances [Roa v Moreno, A.C. No. 8382 (2010)]. Although siring a child with a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had committed the immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar [Advincula v. Advincula A.C. No. 9226 (2016)].

• •

Moral Character is the objective reality of what a person really is, while good reputation is the opinion of the public generally entertained of a person or the estimate in which he is held by the public where he is known [Royong v. Oblena, A.C. No. 376 (1963)] Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. [Ui v. Bonifacio, A.M. No. 3319 (2000)]. Examples of Grossly Immoral Acts • Wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage as shown when the lawyer pursued a married woman and thereafter cohabited with her [Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. No. 7136 (2007)] • Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes serious moral depravity, even if his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape [Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. No. 1474 (2000)] • Obtaining money from a client, without rendering proper legal services, and appropriating the proceeds of the insurance policies of the client’s deceased husband [Freeman v. Zenaida, A.C. No. 6246 (2011)] • Falsifying documents [Cobalt Resources, Inc. v. Aguardo, A.C. No. 10781, (2016)] • The issuance of checks without sufficient funds to cover the same. [Aca v. Salvado, A.C. No. No. 10952, (2016)] Examples of Acts Not Considered Grossly Immoral • Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both of whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried and devoid of deceit on the part of the respondent, even if a child was born out of wedlock of such relationship; it may suggest a doubtful moral character but not grossly immoral [Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 (1997)]

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her obligation [Toledo v. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419 (1999)], but unwarranted obstinacy in evading the payment of a debt has been considered as a gross misconduct. [Constantino v. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)]. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owed his fellowmen, or to society in general [Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. No. 4585 (2004)]. Murder, estafa, rape, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), bribery, bigamy, adultery, seduction, abduction, concubinage and smuggling, falsification of a public document, are considered crimes involving moral turpitude. In order to hold the lawyer amenable to disbarment by reason of his or her having committed a crime involving moral turpitude, it is not enough to show that there is a pending case involving moral turpitude against him or her because Section 27 of Rule 138 expressly requires that he or she must have been found by final judgment guilty of the crime involving moral turpitude. [Interadent Zahntechnik Phil., Inc. v. Atty. Rebecca S. Francisco-Simbillo, A.C. No. 9464, (2016)] A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal processes. This includes order of the commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. [Lex Pareto, Bar 2002]

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

The promotion of organizations, with knowledge of their objectives, for the purpose of violating or evading the laws constitutes to malpractice of gross

Page 12 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

misconduct in his office [In re: Terrell, G.R. No. 1203 (1903)]. The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 159486 (2003)]. A lawyer should advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not recommend to his client any recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and public morals [Coronel v. Cunanan, A.C. No. 6738 (2015)].

Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt

motive or interest, encourage any suit or delay any man’s cause. Barratry or “Maintenance”: the offense of inciting or stirring up quarrels, litigation or groundless lawsuits, either at law or otherwise [Bouvier] Ambulance-chasing Unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims to bring suits. The practice of lawyers in frequenting hospitals and homes of the injured to convince them to go to court [Lex Pareto (2014)] Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal business by laymen employed by an attorney for the purpose or by the attorney himself. Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent persons by judgments, upon manufactured causes of actions and the defrauding of injured persons having proper causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure. A lawyer’s conduct of vindictiveness is a decidedly undesirable trait especially when one resorts to using the court not to secure justice but merely to exact revenge warrants his dismissal from the judiciary. [Saburnido v. Madrono, A.C. No. No. 4497 (2001)] Ambulance Chasing Refers to personal injury Refers to cases brought before judicial bodies

Barratry Refers to any action Refers to suits before judicial or non-judicial bodies

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Other prohibited acts include: • Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits, except where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it a duty to do so • Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action in order to be employed to bring suit or breed litigation [Agpalo (2004)]

Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to

avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. The function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it where possible, by advising settlement or withholding suit. He must act as mediator for compromise rather than an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict [Agpalo (2004)]. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable [Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L-28546 (1975)]

b. Efficient and Convenient Legal Services CANON 2. A lawyer shall make his legal services

available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession. Note: asked 5 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)] Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art. III, 1987 Constitution] A person in need of legal services should be able to find a lawyer who is qualified to provide them. It is the responsibility of the bar to make such services available [Agpalo (2004)].

Page 13 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for

of self-praise hence subject to discipline [In re: Tagorda, G.R. No. 32329, (1929), cited in Lex Pareto (2014); Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 (2009)].

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It could be that for some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed counsel de officio is an irksome chore. For those holding such belief, it may come as a surprise that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such an opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law is indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so designated. [Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815 (1974)]

Law is not a business but a profession. Unlike a businessman, the lawyer has: 1. Relation to the administration of justice involving sincerity, integrity and reliability as an officer of the court 2. Duty of public service; 3. Relation to clients with the highest degree of fiduciary; and 4. Relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort to business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients [Agpalo (2004)]

Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction of social imbalance that may and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public responsibility of the bar [Sec. 1, Art. 1, IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment and Operation of the Legal Aid Office].

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice [Sec. 27, Rule 138, RoC].

valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

See also Canon 14 below.

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. Although no lawyer-client relationship is created when a lawyer categorically refuses to accept a case, a lawyer is still bound to give legal advice to the defenseless and oppressed to protect their rights. Advice may be on what preliminary steps to take until the client has secured the services of counsel. But he shall refrain from giving legal advice if the reason for not accepting the case is that there involves a conflict of interest between him and a prospective client or between a present client and a prospective client. [Agpalo (2004)]

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

A well-known lawyer has been engaged to run a program in which he encourages indigent party litigants to consult him free of charge about their legal problems over a radio and television network. Has he violated any ethical rules? – YES, as it involves indirect advertising and solicitation and is likewise violative of the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. His act may also be considered as a form

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law [Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622 (2012)]. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a wellmerited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553 (1993)].

Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower

than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant. Ratio: The practice of law is profession and not a trade. It is improper to lower your legal rates just

Page 14 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

because another lawyer has offered a lower legal fee. [Lex Pareto (2014)]

5.

This rule prohibits the competition in the matter of charging professional fees for the purposed of attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who offers lower rates. The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or to a person who would have difficulty paying the fee usually charged for such services [Agpalo (2004)].

6.

c. True, Honest, Fair, Dignified and Objective Information on Legal Services CANON 3. A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.

Note: Canon 3 is 5th top source of Questions on CPR; it was asked 16 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].

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.

Allowable advertisement 1. Ordinary simple professional card; 2. Publication in reputable law list with brief biographical and other informative data which may include: a. Name; b. Associates; c. Address; d. Phone numbers; e. Branches of law practiced; f. Birthday; g. Day admitted to the bar; h. Schools and dates attended; i. Degrees and distinctions; j. Public or quasi-public offices; k. Posts of honor; l. Legal authorships; m. Teaching positions; n. Associations; o. Legal fraternities and societies; p. References and regularly represented clients must be published for that purpose [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., supra]. 3. Publication of simple announcement of opening of law firm, change of firm; 4. Listing in telephone directory but not under designation of special branch of law;

7. 8.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

If acting as an associate (specializing in a branch of law), may publish a brief and dignified announcement to lawyers (law list, law journal); If in media, those acts incidental to his practice and not of his own initiative; Writing legal articles; Activity of an association for the purpose of legal representation.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published primarily for other purposes. Prohibited Advertisements [Sec. 27, Canon of Professional Ethics (hereinafter, CPE)] 1. Through touters of any kind whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills; 2. Offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer; 3. Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation. 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. Further, the advertisements of “The Legal Clinic” seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate, that are highly reprehensible [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, supra]. A lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program in order to solicit legal business. A paid advertisement in the newspaper which reads, “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” is also prohibited [Khan v. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299 (2003)]. The use of a card containing “As a notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale, can renew lost documents and can make your application for homestead and execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you collect your loans as well as any complaint for or against you.” is a form of prohibited advertisement. [In re: Tagorda, supra]. In the last analysis, where to draw the line is a question of good faith and good taste.

Page 15 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Entering into other businesses If entering into other businesses which are not inconsistent with the lawyer’s profession, it is advisable that they be entirely separate and apart such that a layman could distinguish between the two functions. The lawyer must make it clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.

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. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased [Agpalo (2004)]. Ratio: All partners by their joint efforts over a period of years contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm name, and the removal of the deceased partner’s name disturbs the client goodwill built through the years. Firms may not use misleading names showing association with other firms to purport legal services of highest quality and ties with multinational business enterprise especially when such firm attached as an associate cannot legally practice law in the Philippines [Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie, A.C. No. 2131 (1985)].

Rule 3.03. Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.

Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using his name to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of undue influence. A civil service officer or employee whose duty or responsibility does not require his entire time to be at the disposal of the government may not engage in the private practice of law without the written permit from the head of the department concerned [Agpalo (2004)]. It is unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others, engage in the private practice of their profession, unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions. The inclusion

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

or retention of the public official’s name in the professional card constitutes as an unlawful continuance of engagement in private practice. [Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)]. Absolute and relative prohibition of public officials from practice of law When any of those absolutely prohibited officials is appointed/elected/qualified, he ceases, as a general rule, to engage in the private practice of law and his right to practice is suspended during his tenure in office. See also Public Officials and the Practice of Law above.

Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.

Purpose: To prevent some lawyers from gaining an unfair advantage over others through the use of gimmickry, press agentry or other artificial means. This rule prohibits making indirect publicity gimmickry, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, procuring his photograph to be published in connection with cases which he is handling, making a courtroom scene to attract the attention of newspapermen, or arranging for the purpose an interview with him by the media [Agpalo 2004]. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the authorities, even when it is being tried in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this Court, in the interest of justice, is constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its repetition by meting an appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one liable [Cruz v. Salva, G.R. No. L-12871 (1959)].

d. Participation in the Improvement of and Reforms in the Legal System CANON 4. A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice.

Page 16 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Note: asked 2 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. This is a duty that flows from the lawyer’s sense of public responsibility [Agpalo (2004)]. Examples: • Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of pertinent bills in Congress; • Submitting petitions to the Supreme Court for the of the RoC; • Writing legal publications or books as an avenue of improving the legal system The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP was commended by the Supreme Court when it promulgated a resolution requesting the IBP’s National Committee on Legal Aid to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing, docket and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters [Re: Request of NCLA to Exempt Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other Fees (2009)].

e. Participation in Legal Education Program CANON 5. A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal

developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence. Purpose: The lawyer’s life is one of continuous and laborious study; otherwise, his skill and knowledge of law and related disciplines will lag behind and become obscure due to obsoleteness. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education [hereinafter, MCLE] Program A program which requires lawyers to show proof of having undertaken improvement in their knowledge as a precondition for renewing their license to practice [Lex Pareto (2014)] See also Mandatory Continuing Legal Education below. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch the Government to which they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system [Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No. No. 8954 (2013)]. Atty. Echanez’s acts of: (a) not complying with two MCLEs for two compliance periods; (b) repeatedly indicating false MCLE compliance numbers in his pleadings before the trial courts; and, (c) repeatedly failing to obey legal orders of trial court, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and also the Supreme Court despite due notice, taken together, constitute serious cases that merits disbarment. [Mapalad vs. Atty. Echanez; A.C. No. 10911 (2017)].

f. Applicability to Government Lawyers CANON 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official duties.

Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as 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 member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the CPR… was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the outmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public. [Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984 (2003)]. Lawyers in government service should be more conscientious with their professional obligations consistent with the time-honored principle of public office being a public trust. The ethical standards under the CPR are rendered even more exacting as to government lawyers because they have the added duty to abide by the policy of the State to promote a high

Page 17 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

standard of ethics, competence, and professionalism in public service [Liang Fuji vs. Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 11043 (2017)]. May a former government lawyer appear in a case against the government? – YES, he may appear in a case unless there is a specific ethical rule or provision of law which prohibits him from doing so [Lex Pareto (2014)]. When may a former government lawyer be prohibited from accepting a legal engagement? • A lawyer shall not after leaving the government service accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service; • Retired members of the judiciary receiving pensions form the government should not practice law where the government is the adverse party or in a criminal case involving a government employee in the performance of his duties as such [Lex Pareto (2014)]. Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6713 provides the norms of conduct of public officials and employees.

Rule 6.01. The primary duty of a lawyer engaged

in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action. A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer with the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He should not hesitate to recommend to the court the acquittal of an accused if the evidence in his possession shows that the accused is innocent [Agpalo (2004)]. In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should be present for the following reasons: 1. To protect the interest of the State (As the criminal case is in reality a crime against the State); 2. To see to it that justice is done (Rule 6.01) Naturally, the private prosecutor is interested only to convict the accused. However, the primary duty of the public prosecutor is not to convict, but to see that justice is done [Lex Pareto (2014)]. A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process - the sporting idea of fair play - may be transgressed. So it is, that in People vs. Sope, this Court made the pronouncement that "[i]t is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the offended party." [People v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222 (1967)]

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

A lawyer should not use his position to feather his private law practice and accept any private legal business that may conflict with his official duties. In case of conflict, he should terminate his professional relationship, and his official duties must prevail [Agpalo (2004)]. Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices [Ramos v. Imbang, A.C. No. 6788 (2007)].

Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.

How government lawyers may leave government service: 1. Retirement; 2. Resignation; 3. Expiration of the term of office; 4. Abandonment; 5. Dismissal General rule: Practice of profession is allowed immediately after leaving public service.

Page 18 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to matters with which he had connection during his term. This prohibition lasts: • For one year, if he had not intervened; • Permanently, if he had intervened. The “matter” contemplated are those that are adverse-interest conflicts (substantial relatedness and adversity between the government matter and the new client’s matter in interest) and congruent-interest representation conflicts (prohibits lawyers from representing a private practice client even if the interests of the former government client and the new client are entirely parallel). “Intervention” should be significant and substantial which can or have affected the interest of others (i.e. an act of a person has the power to influence the subject proceedings) [PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. Nos. 151809-12 (2005)]. Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 6713 generally provides for the prohibited acts and transactions of public officials and employees. Sec. 7(b)(2) prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. As an exception, a public official or employee can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the practice will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his or her official functions. The prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year after the public official or employee’s resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except for the private practice of profession under subsection (b)(2), which can already be undertaken even within the one-year prohibition period. As an exception to this exception, the one-year prohibited period applies with respect to any matter before the office the public officer or employee used to work with. [Query of Karen Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352RTC (2009)]. Sec. 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) also considers it an unlawful and corrupt practice for a public official to accept or have any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency of his office or within one year after its termination. In the case of Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. v. Paz, a former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of PARGO who participated in the investigation of the Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta later on acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same antigraft case. The Court found the said counsel guilty of representing clients with conflicting interest and

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months [A.M. No. 1008 (1980)].

2. To the Legal Profession a. Canons 7 to 9 1. Upholding the Dignity and Integrity of the Profession CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Note: asked 10 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. The bar has to maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, honesty, and fair dealing to be an effective instrument in the proper administration of justice. In order to do so, it is necessary that every lawyer should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the legal profession and to improve not only the law, but the administration of justice as well [Agpalo (2004)] A lawyer should actively support the activities of the IBP and not limit himself to paying dues [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for

knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth [Young v. Batuegas, A.C. No. 5379 (2003)]. A student aspiring to be a lawyer must study and observe the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer. He cannot claim that the CPR does not apply to him [Agpalo (2004)]. Penalties for knowing suppression or false representation of a material fact in the application for admission to the bar: 1. Disqualification of the applicant from taking the bar, if the concealment is discovered before he takes the bar examinations;

Page 19 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC 2.

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Prohibition from taking the lawyer’s oath, if the concealment is discovered after the candidate has taken the bar examinations; Revocation of license to practice, if the concealment was discovered after he has taken his lawyer’s oath [In re: Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner, B.M. No. 1209 (2003)].

professional activities, in his professional and private capacity. [Royong v. Oblena, A.C. No. No 376 (1963); In Re: Pelaez, (1923)].

If what the applicant concealed is a crime which does not involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of concealment and not the commission of the crime itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer. It should be noted that the application was made under oath, which he lightly took when he made the concealment [In re: Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner, supra].

Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyers’ oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent’s character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action [Tapucar v. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, (1998)].

3.

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

A lawyer should volunteer information or cooperate in any investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the bar examination so that those candidates who failed therein can be ferreted out and those lawyers responsible therefor can be disbarred [In re: Parazo, G.R. No. 82027 (1948)]. A lawyer should not readily execute an affidavit of good moral character in favor of an applicant who has not lived up to the standard set by law [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct

that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession [Catu v. Rellosa, supra.]. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life or in his private transaction because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non-

Respondent’s act of allowing the use of a forged signature on a petition she prepared and notarized demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on her part. [Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, A.M. No. 10868, (2016)].

Considering the length of time the affair lasted, it cannot be a mere moment of indiscretion. Florendo had an illicit relationship with a married woman who was not his wife but that of his client. This shows his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow for fidelity. He also violated the trust and confidence Tiong reposed on him. [Tiong v. Florendo, A.C 4428, (2011)] Whether a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct depends on the surrounding circumstances. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly [Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 (2007)]. See also Rule 1.01 above.

2. Courtesy, Fairness and Candor toward Professional Colleagues CANON 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Note: asked 9 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].

Page 20 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Lawyer don’ts: 1. Take advantage of the excusable unpreparedness or absence of counsel during the trial of a case; 2. Make use, to his or to his client’s benefit, the secrets of the adverse party acquired through design or inadvertence; 3. Criticize or impute ill motive to the lawyer who accepts what in his opinion is a weak case; 4. Proceed to negotiate with the client of another lawyer to waive all kinds of claim when the latter is still handling the civil case [Camacho v. Pangulayan, A.C. No. 4807 (2000)]. 5. Steal another lawyer’s client; 6. Induce a client to retain him by promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services; 7. Disparage another lawyer, make comparisons or publicize his talent as a means to further his law practice; 8. In the absence of the adverse party’s counsel, interview the adverse party and question him as to the facts of the case even if the adverse party was willing; 9. Sanction the attempt of his client to settle a litigated matter with the adverse party without the consent nor knowledge of the latter’s counsel. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action [Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148 (2003)].

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

A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful, as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession [Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, (1970)]. The lawyer’s arguments, whether written or oral should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel, and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another [National Security Co. v. Jarvis, 278 US 610 (1928) as cited in Agpalo (2004)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel and his brethren in the law profession with courtesy, dignity, and civility. They may do as adversaries do in law: strive mightily but eat and drink as friends [Valencia v. Cabanting, A.M. No. 1302 (1991)]. The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our legal system which has necessitated lawyers to use strong language in advancement of the interest of the clients. However, as members of a noble profession, lawyers are always impressed with the duty to represent their client’s cause, or as in this case, to represent a personal matter in court, with courage and zeal but that should not be used as a license for the use of offensive and abusive language. In maintaining the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language – spoken or in his pleadings – must be dignified. [Sanchez v. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543 (2016)]. Examples of Improper Language • Behaving without due regard for the trial court and the opposing counsel and threatening the court that he would file a petition for certiorari [Bugaring v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090 (2001)] • Calling an adverse counsel as “bobo” or using the word “ay que bobo” in reference to the manner of offering evidence [Castillo v. Padilla, A.C. No. 2339 (1984)]. • Stating that “justice is blind and also deaf and dumb”” [In Re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654 (1970)]. • Stating that the demand from a former client’s counsel should be treated “as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel…to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose” [Sanchez v. Aguilos, supra]. • Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services — all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa — which is contrary to one's obligation "to act with justice" [Ma. Victoria G.

Page 21 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Roberto “Argee” Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394, (2016)]. Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning [Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979 (1967)]. Exceptions • Utterances made out of impulse in the course of an argument may be forgiven and should not be penalized [Cruz v. Cabrera, AC. 5737, (2004)]. • Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and malice, provided it is relevant, pertinent or material to the cause of the subject or inquiry [Tolentino v. Baylosis, G.R. No. 15742, (1961)].

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

A lawyer may: 1. Accept employment to handle a matter previously handled by another lawyer: a. Provided the other lawyer has been given notice of termination of service, lest it amounts to an improper encroachment upon the professional employment of the original counsel [Laput v. Remotigue, A.M. No. 219 (1962)]; or b. In the absence of a notice of termination from the client, provided he has obtained the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute; or c. In the absence of such conformity, a lawyer must at least give sufficient notice to original counsel so that original counsel has the opportunity to protect his claim against the client. 2. Give advice or assistance to any person who seeks relief against an unfaithful or neglectful lawyer; 3. Associate as a colleague in a case, provided he communicate with the original counsel before making an appearance as co-counsel: a. Should the original lawyer object, he should decline association but if the original lawyer is relieved, he may come into the case; or

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

b. Should it be impracticable for him, whose judgment has been overruled by his cocounsel to cooperate effectively, he should ask client to relieve him. A person without a retained lawyer is a legitimate prospective client for any lawyer. But, as soon as he had retained one and had not dismissed said counsel, efforts on the part of another lawyer to take him as client constitutes as encroachment of employment. A lawyer is encroaching when: • Promises better service • Lowers attorney’s fees • Downgrades the qualifications or services of the first attorney Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar [Camacho v. Pagulayan, A.C. No. 4807 (2000)].

3. No Assistance in Unauthorized Practice of Law CANON 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

Note: asked 10 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. In Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court held that practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill [Aguirre v. Rana, supra.]. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court [Phil. Assoc. of Free Labor Union v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-23959 (1971)].

Page 22 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Examples of Practice of Law • Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations • Preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary laymen • Appearance for clients before public tribunals, whether, administrative, quasi-judicial or legislative agency. Examples of Unauthorized Practice of Law • It is the signing of the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. Appearing as counsel even before taking lawyer’s oath [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036 (2003)] • Using the title “Attorney” in his name even though he is a Shari’a lawyer [Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P (1997)] • Using a letterhead which listed as senior partners, those who are only paralegals due to their investments in the law firm. [Cambaliza v. CristalTenorio, AC 6290, (2004)] • Holding oneself as a partner of a law firm when the firm was actually a cooperative of nonlawyers [Plus Builders v. Revilla, A.C. No. 7056, (2006)] • A lawyer who only signed the attendance record at the PICC entrance and not the Roll of Attorneys, after he realized his mistake of fact and yet continued his operations. [In Re: Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540 (2013)] • A corporation cannot engage in the practice of law directly or indirectly. It may only hire inhouse lawyers to attend to its legal business. A corporation cannot employ a lawyer to appear for others for its benefit. A corporation cannot perform the conditions required for membership to the bar. In addition, the confidential and trust relation between an attorney and his client cannot arise if the attorney is employed by a corporation [Agpalo (2004)]. See also Appearance of Non-Lawyers above

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. Purpose: The practice of law is limited only to individuals who have the necessary educational qualifications and good moral character. Moreover, an attorney-client relationship is a strictly personal one. Lawyers are selected on account of their special

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

fitness through their learning or probity for the work at hand. Unqualified person: • Non-lawyers • Lawyers who are not in good standing • Lawyers who are not qualified Examples of acts that may only be done by a lawyer • The computation and determination of the period within which to appeal an adverse judgment [Eco v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-16731 (1960)] • The examination of witnesses or the presentation of evidence [Robinson v. Villafuerte, G.R. No. L5346 (1911)]. Examples of acts that may be delegated to non-lawyers: • The examination of case law • Finding and interviewing witnesses • Examining court records • Delivering papers and similar matters [Agpalo, 2004].

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 nonlawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing arrangement.

Purpose: Allowing non-lawyers to get attorney’s fees would confuse the public as to whom they should consult. It would leave the bar in a chaotic condition because non-lawyers are also not subject to disciplinary action. An agreement between a union lawyer and a layman president of the union to divide equally the attorney’s fees that may be awarded in a labor case violates this rule, and is illegal and immoral [Amalgamated Laborers Assn. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23467 (1968)]. A donation by a lawyer to a labor union of part of his attorney’s fees taken from the proceeds of a judgment secured by him for the labor union is improper

Page 23 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

because it amounts to a rebate or commission [Halili v. CIR, G.R. No. L-24864 (1965)]. While non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor arbiter under Art. 222, Labor Code, they are still not entitled to receive attorney’s fees. The statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client a reasonable compensation or remuneration for the services they have rendered presupposes the existence of an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship cannot exist when the client’s representative is a nonlawyer [Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111474 (1994)]. A contract between a lawyer and a layman granting the latter a percentage of the fees collected from clients secured by the layman and enjoining the lawyer not to deal directly with said clients is null and void, and the lawyer may be disciplined for unethical conduct [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261 (1983)].

b. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A) Bar Integration The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. [Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6397 (An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor)]. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar Examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member [In the matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, (1973)]. The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental entity, a private organization endowed with certain governmental attributes. While it is composed of lawyers who are private individuals, the IBP exists to perform certain vital public functions and to assist the government particularly in the improvement of the administration of justice, the upgrading of the standards of the legal profession, and its proper regulation. The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is nonpolitical in character and that there shall be neither

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of the IBP Officers. The fundamental assumption is that the officers would be chosen on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve. The ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public’s esteem [In re: 1989 Elections of the IBP, A.M. No. 491 (1989)]. General Objectives of the IBP 1. To elevate the standards of the legal profession; 2. To improve the administration of justice;
 3. To enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively [Sec. 2, IBP ByLaws]. Purposes of the IBP 1. To assist in the administration of justice; 2. To foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning, professional competence, public service and conduct; 3. To safeguard the professional interest of its members; 4. To cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood; 5. To provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the bar to the bench and to the public, and publish information relating thereto; 6. To encourage and foster legal education; 7. To promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon. [Sec. 2, IBP By-Laws] Membership and Dues

Sec. 9, Rule 139-A. Membership Dues. – Every member of the IBP shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to 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.

Sec. 10, Rule 139-A. Effect of non-payment of dues. – Subject to the provisions of Sec. 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP, and default in such payment for 1 year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of

Page 24 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys. A membership fee in the IBP is an exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar program without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction [In the matter of the IBP, supra]. A lawyer can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does not matter if his practice is “limited.” The exemption granted to senior citizens in R.A. No. 7432 (Seniors Citizen Act) does not include payment of membership or association dues [Santos v. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749 (2000)]. In a case involving a Filipino lawyer staying abroad, the Supreme Court said that there is nothing in the law or rules, which allows his exemption from payment of membership dues. At most, he could have informed the Secretary of the IBP of his intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues discontinued [Letter of Atty. Arevalo, B.M. No. 1370 (2005)].

3. To the Courts (Canons 10-13) a. Candor, Fairness and Good Faith to the Courts CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Note: asked 9 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. Accordingly, should there be a conflict between his duty to his client and that to the court, he should resolve the conflict against the former and in favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to uphold the cause of justice [Cobb Perez v. Lantin, G.R. No. L-22320 (1968)]. Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the very essence of honorable membership in the legal profession [Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113 (1975)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Obligations to Uphold Candor 1. Not to suppress material and vital facts which bear on the merit or lack of in the complaint or petition; 2. To volunteer to the court any development of the case which renders issues moot and academic; 3. To disclose to the court any adverse decision to his position of which opposing counsel is apparently ignorant and which the court should consider in deciding the case; 4. Not to represent himself as a lawyer for a client, appear in court and present pleadings, only to claim later that he was not authorized to do so. [Agpalo, 2004]

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

A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the court, nor mislead the court in any manner no matter how demanding his duties to clients may be. His duties to his client should yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court. For no client is entitled to receive from the lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts [Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, hereinafter, IBP Committee]. Examples of Falsehood Committed by Lawyers • Falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is free from all liens and encumbrances [Sevilla v. Zoleta, 96 Phil 979 (1955)] • Falsifying a power of attorney to use in collecting the money due to the principal and appropriating the money for his own benefit [In Re: Rusiana, A.C. No. 270 (1959)] • Denying having received the notice to file brief which is belied by the return card [Ragasajo v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69129 (1987)] • Presenting falsified documents in court which he knows to be false [Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625 (1990)] • Filing false charges or groundless suits [Retia v. Gorduiz, A.M. No. 1388 (1980)] • Knowingly alleging an untrue statement of fact in a pleading [Young v. Batuegas, supra] • Allowing the use of a forged signature on a petition filed before a court [Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, A.C. No. 10868 (2016)]. • Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, respondents craftily concealed the truth by

Page 25 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. [Young v. Batuegas, AC 5379, (2003)] Canon 32, CPE provides that, “A lawyer should not render any service or advice to any client – no matter how powerful or important is the cause – which will involve disloyalty to the laws of the country which he is bound to uphold and obey.”

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.

In citing the Supreme Court’s decisions, and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled [Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association, G.R. No. L-25291 (1971)]. The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over pleadings, motions and other documents dictated or prepared by them, typed or transcribed by their secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, with more reason should counsel be bound by the acts of his secretary who merely follows his orders [Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 100643 (1992)]. A mere typographical error in the citation of an authority is not contemptuous. But when misquotation is intended, the lawyer is subject to disciplinary action [COMELEC v. Nonay, GR. 144412, (2003)]. Professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional provisions for the purpose of insulting Members of this Court is a serious breach of the rigid standards that a member of good standing of the legal profession must faithfully comply with [In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman and Re: Order of the Office of the Ombudsman Referring the complaint of Attys. Oliver O. Lozano and Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano Against Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno [ret.]. A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC & 10-9-9SC (2012)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

There is a difference between the academic and judicial standards of writing. While the academic publishing model is based on the originality of the writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect. The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from. Justice, not originality, form and style, is the object of every decision of a court of law. The reason for individual judges not to use original or unique language when reinstating the laws involved in the cases they decide is that it is their duty to apply the laws as these are written. A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution. Thus, judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. The same rule of exemption from the charge of plagiarism should apply as well to practicing lawyers. They should not be exposed to charges of plagiarism in what they write so long as they do not depart, as officers of the court, from the objective of assisting the Court in the administration of justice. [In the Matter of Charges of Plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, AM. 107-17-SC, (2011)]. Judges need to answer only to two standards – diligence and honesty. By honesty here is meant that good faith attempt to attribute to the author his original words and analysis. Even if a judge has to rely in large part on the drafts of his legal researchers, the work of a diligent and honest judge will never display the severe plagiarism evident in the Vinuya Decision published under the name of Justice del Castillo. Analysis shows objective plagiarism viewed through three lenses: 1) extent of unattributed copying belying inadvertence, 2) deliberateness shown by systematic commission of plagiarism, and 3) effect [Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in In the Matter of Charges of Plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, AM. 10-7-17-SC, (2011)].

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

Page 26 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the court’s processes. Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor [Olivares v. Villalon, A.C. No. 6323 (2007)]. A lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed [Garcia v. Francisco, A.C. No. 3923 (1993)]. It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law [Sec. 20 (d), Rule 138, RoC].

b. Respect for Courts and Judicial Officers CANON 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain

the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. Observing respect due to the courts means that a lawyer should conduct himself toward judges: 1. With the courtesy everyone is entitled to expect [Paragas v Cruz, G.R. No. L-24438 (1965)] 2. With the propriety and dignity required by the courts [Salcedo v Hernandez, G.R. No. L-42992 (1935)]. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court, to which they owe their fidelities, and to promote the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions [In re: Sotto, 82 Phil 595 (1949)]. If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and malicious statements is submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt, equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. Direct contempt is punishable summarily [In re: Letter of Atty. Sorreda, A.M. No. 5-3-04 (2006)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court result in the obstruction and perversion of the dispensation of justice [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (2000)]. Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their points of view, they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This Court is certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands are the same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of their status in the academic community or the law school to which they belong [Re: Letter of the UP Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (2011)]. In Bueno v. Raneses, A.M. No. 8383 (2012) the lawyer was disbarred because “he maligned the judge and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the merits, but through deceitful means – a decidedly black mark against the Judiciary.” Lawyers should not perform acts that would tend to undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the courts, such as the subject checkbook entry which contumaciously imputed corruption against the Sandiganbayan. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers of the court to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without this guarantee, the institution would be resting on very shaky foundations. [PHILCOMPSAT Holdings Corporation v. Lokin, Jr. A.C. No. 11139 (2016)].

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

Respect begins with the lawyer’s outward physical appearance in court. Sloppy or informal attire adversely reflects on the lawyer and demeans the dignity and solemnity of court proceedings. A lawyer who dresses improperly may be cited with contempt [Agpalo (2004)]. Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a necktie and have prohibited a female attorney from wearing a hat. However, the permission of a dress with a hemline five inches above the knee was held to be acceptable as such “had become an accepted mode of dress even in places of worship” [“Reviewer on Legal and Judicial Ethics” by Aguirre (2006)].

Page 27 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

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

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

patience, lawyers must also observe temperate language as well [Soriano v. CA, G.R. No. 100633 and 101550 (2001)].

Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action as his actions show disrespect to the court and are therefore considered contemptuous behavior [Agpalo (2004)].

Cf. Rule 8.01 above.

Non-appearance at hearings on the ground that the issue to be heard has become moot and academic is a lapse in judicial propriety [De Gracia v. Warden of Makati, G.R. No. L-42032 (1976)].

Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice, constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity [In Re: Almacen, supra.].

Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from

scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the courts. Every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated by a lawyer. Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation, because then the court's actuations are thrown open to public consumption. Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts [In Re: Almacen, supra]. The court does not close itself to comments and criticisms so long as they are fair and dignified. Going beyond the limits of fair comments by using insulting, disparaging, and intemperate language necessitates and warrants a rebuke from the court. While it is expected of lawyers to advocate their client’s cause, they are not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation and innuendo [Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No. 71169 (1988)]. It is human nature that there be bitter feelings which often reach to the judge as the source of the supposed wrong. A judge, therefore, ought to be patient, and tolerate everything which appears as but a momentary outbreak of disappointment. Lawyers may not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language. While judges must exercise

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

Counsels must be courageous enough to point out errors, arbitrariness and injustices of courts and judges. The rule allows criticism so long as it is supported by the record or it is material to the case [Agpalo (2004)]. Any serious accusation against a judicial officer that is utterly baseless, unsubstantiated and unjustified shall not be countenanced [Go v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 152672 (2007)]. Academic freedom cannot be invoked. The constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system [Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty, supra.].

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

The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer from filing administrative complaints against erring judges. The lawyer shall not file an administrative case until he has exhausted judicial remedies which result in a finding that the judge has gravely erred [Agpalo (2004)].

Page 28 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

Purely Administrative Complaint

Criminal Impeachable Offenses

LEGAL ETHICS The Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator pursuant to the Court’s administrative power over all courts and personnel thereof. [Sec. 6, Art. VIII, Constitution; Maceda v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 102781 (1993)] Office of the Ombudsman House of Representatves and the Senate [Sec 2-8. Article XI, Constitution]

c. Assistance in the Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice Canon 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and

consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Note: asked 11 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies [Sec. 16, Art. III, 1987 Constitution]. It is the duty of an attorney not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding or delay any man’s cause from any corrupt motive or interest. [Sec. 20(g), Rule 138, RoC]. The filing of another action containing the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to this canon [Siy Lim v. Montano, A.C. No. 5653 (2006)].

Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial

unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preference. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies. This could be read in conjunction with Rule 18.02. Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may not be able to effectively assist the court in the efficient administration of justice.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Consequences of Non-Preparation 1. The postponement of the pre-trial or hearing, which would thus entail delay in the early disposition of the case; 2. The judge may consider the client non-suited or in default; 3. The judge may consider the case deemed submitted for decision without client’s evidence, to his prejudice [Agpalo (2004)]. Half of the work of the lawyer is done in the office. It is spent in the study and research. Inadequate preparation obstructs the administration of justice [Martin’s Legal Ethics (1988)]. A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in the midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)]. Examples of acts which amount to obstruction in the administration of justice • Inadequate preparation; • Instructing complaining witness in a criminal action not to appear at the schedule hearing so that the case against the client would be dismissed; • Asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the lawyer knows his client did not commit; • Advising a client who is detained for crime to escape from prison; • Employing dilatory tactics to frustrate satisfaction of clearly valid claims; • Prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to drain the resources of the other party and compel him to submit out of exhaustion; • Filing multiple petitions or complaints for a cause that has been previously rejected in the false expectation of getting favorable action; • Other acts of similar nature [“Legal and Judicial Ethics” by Funa (2009)].

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

Purpose: There is an affirmative duty of a lawyer to check against useless litigations. His signature in every pleading constitutes a certificate by him that to the best of his knowledge there is a good ground to support it and that it is not to interpose for delay. The willful violation of this rule may subject him to

Page 29 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

appropriate disciplinary action or render him liable for the costs of litigation [Agpalo (2004)]. This Rule prohibits against forum shopping. Forum Shopping 1. When, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues. 2. The institution of involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would come out with a favorable disposition [Araneta v. Araneta, G.R. No. 190814 (2013)]. 3. An indicium of the presence of or the test for determining whether a litigant violated the rule against forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other case. Requisites of litis pendentia 1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; 2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same 
facts; and 3. Identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other [HSBC v. Catalan, G.R. No. 159590 (2004)]. Requisites of res judicata 1. There be a decision on the merits; 2. It be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction; 3. The decision is final; and 4. The two actions involved identical parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Sec. 5, Rule 7, RoC requires that a certificate against forum shopping be executed that: 1. Plaintiff or principal party has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; 2. If he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five days

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

there from to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion after hearing. Submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings in a certification of nonforum shopping shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If acts of the party or his counsel constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping: 1. Be a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice; 2. Constitute direct contempt; 3. Be a cause for administrative sanctions. The rule against forum shopping and the requirement that a certification to that effect be complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies applies to quasijudicial bodies, such as the NLRC or Labor Arbiter [Agpalo (2004)].

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. The court censures the practice of counsels who secures repeated extensions of time to file their pleadings and thereafter simply let the period lapse without submitting the pleading on even an explanation or manifestation of their failure to do so. There exists a breach of duty not only to the court but also to the client [Achacoso v. CA, G.R. No. L35867 (1973)]. An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part [Ford v. Daitol, A.C. No. 3736 (1995)]. Postponement is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. [Edrial v Quilat-Quilat, GR. 133625, (2000)].

Page 30 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,

falsely and the witness suborned [or induced] does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury [US v. Ballena, G.R. No. L-6294 (1911)].

It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s ability to protect the interest of one’s client. It is quite another thing to delay if not defeat the recovery of what is justly due and demandable due to the misleading acts of a lawyer [Manila Pest Control v. WCC, G.R. No. L27662 (1968)].

Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or

impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing part. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality [Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 157911 (2006)]. If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the futility of an appeal in a civil suit, he should not hesitate to inform his client that mostly likely the verdict will not be altered. A lawyer should temper his client’s desire to seek appellate review [Agpalo (2004)].

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.

Purpose: To prevent the suspicion that he is coaching the witness what to say during the resumption of the examination; to uphold and maintain fair play with the other party and to prevent the examining lawyer from being tempted to coach his own witness to suit his purpose [“Legal and Judicial Ethics Reviewer” by Callanta].

Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.

While a lawyer may interview witnesses in advance of trial or attend to their needs if needed, the lawyer should avoid any action as may be misrepresented as an attempt to influence the witness what to say in court [Agpalo (2004)]. The lawyer who presented a witness knowing him to be a false witness is criminally liable for offering false testimony in evidence. The lawyer is both criminally and administratively liable [Art. 184, Revised Penal Code (hereinafter, RPC)]. Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear

harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him. It is the duty of a lawyer to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged [Sec. 20(f), Rule 138. RoC]. Rights of Witnesses [Sec. 3, Rule 132, RoC] 1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions and from a harsh or insulting demeanor; 2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require 3. Not to be examined except as to matters pertinent to the issues before the court; 4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense 
unless otherwise provided by law; 5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade the witness’ reputation, but a witness must answer the fact of any previous 
final conviction for a criminal offense. It was highly inconsiderate for the prosecutor and the defense counsel to trade quips at the precise time the victim was reliving her harrowing experience. Levity has no place in the courtroom during the examination of the victim of rape and at her expense. [People v. Nuguid, GR. 148991, (2004)] P.D. 1829 (Penalizing obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders) penalizes the following: 1. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases; 2. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for

Page 31 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in

behalf of his client, except: a) On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like; or b) On substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel. Purpose: The underlying reason for the impropriety of a lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies in the difference between the function of a witness and that of an advocate. The function of a witness is to tell the facts as he recalls then in answer to questions. The function of an advocate is that of a partisan. It is difficult to distinguish between the zeal of an advocate and the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness. The lawyer will find it hard to disassociate his relation to his client as an attorney and his relation to the party as a witness [Agpalo (2004)]. When a lawyer may not testify as witness: 1. When such would adversely affect any lawful interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed on him; 2. When, having accepted a retainer, he is to testify AGAINST his client; 3. When he will serve conflicting interests; 4. When he is to violate confidentiality; 5. When as an attorney, he is to testify on the theory of the case. When a lawyer may testify as witness: 1. Formal matters – mailing, authentication, custody of an instrument; 2. As an expert on his fee; 3. Acting as an Arbitrator; 4. Deposition; 5. On substantial matters where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which case he must entrust the trial of the case to another counsel [PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. No. L-35252 (1932)]

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

d. Reliance on Merits of His/Her Cause and Avoidance of Any Impropriety Which Tends to Influence or Gives the Appearance of Influence upon the Courts CANON 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

Note: asked 11 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. The judiciary, as the branch of government tasked to administer justice, to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of wrongs for the violation of said rights must be allowed to decide cases independently, free of outside influence or pressure [In Re: Published Alleged Threats against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC (2002)]. The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice." The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free governments. However, such right, natural and inherent though it may be, has never been invoked to shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the conduct of courts … Moreover, "parties have a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or public clamor. Every citizen has a profound personal interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law free from outside coercion or interference" [Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75209 (1987)].

Page 32 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Rule

13.01. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges. Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be avoided [Canon 3, CPE]. In order to not subject both the judge and the lawyer to suspicion, the common practice of some lawyers of making judges and prosecutors godfathers of their children to enhance their influence and their law practice should be avoided by judges and lawyers alike [IBP Committee]. It is improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in chambers and talk to him about a matter related to the case pending in the court of said judge [Austria v. Masaquel, G.R. No. L-22536 (1967)]. It is highly improper for a judge to meet privately with an accused who has a pending case before him, without the presence of other party [Gallo v. Cordero, A.M. No. MTJ095-1035, (1995)].

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.

Purpose: Newspaper publications regarding a pending or anticipated litigation may interfere with a fair trial, prejudice the administration of justice, or subject a respondent or an accused to a trial by publicity and create a public inference of guilt against him [Agpalo (2004)]. Making public statements in the media regarding a pending case which tends to arouse public opinion for or against a party may constitute indirect contempt [Sec. 3, Rule 71, RoC]. In the original decision of the Supreme Court in Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Former President Joseph Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC (2001), it was held that the propriety of granting or denying the petition involves the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. It was held that when these rights race

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

against one another, the right of the accused must be preferred to win, considering the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused. In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court allowed the video recording of proceedings, but provided that the release of the tapes for broadcast should be delayed. In so doing, concerns that those taking part in the proceedings will be playing to the cameras and will thus be distracted from the proper performance of their roles – whether as counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or judges – will be allayed. In order to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be an allegation and proof that the judges had been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be [People v. Teehankee Jr., G.R. No. 111206-08, (1995), Martelino v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L-30894 (1970)]. A lawyer is equally guilty as the client if he induces the client to cause the publicity [Strebel v. Figueras, G.R. No. L-4722 (1954)]. The right to criticize is recognized in concluded litigations because then the court’s actuations are thrown open for public consumption and discussion. [Strebel v. Figueras, GR L-4722 (1954)] However, such criticisms should still be respectful and done in good faith [Funa]. In Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio, the Supreme Court found that the respondent lawyer violated Rule 13.02 “for despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products” [A.C. No. 7199 (2009)].

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. Purpose: The rule is based upon the principle of separation of powers [Aguirre (2006)]. It also endangers the independence of the judiciary [IBP Committee]. The Supreme Court is supreme — the third great department of government entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all

Page 33 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust.' Consequently, and owing to the foregoing, not even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts [Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083 (1990)].

1.

4. To the Clients (Canons 14-

5. 6.

22)

The attorney-client relationship is: a. Strictly personal; b. Highly confidential; c. Fiduciary.

2. 3. 4.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A violation of any of the rules of the legal profession Nullification of a contract which he prepared Advocacy in any matter which he had intervened while in government service Employment which might easily be used as a means of advertising his professional services or skills Employment with a collection agency Any matter in which he knows or has reason to believe that he or his partner will be an essential witness for the prospective client. [Agpalo, 2004]

Exceptions: 1. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy [Canon 14, CPR] Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art.III, Constitution]

A written contract, although the best evidence to show the presence of an attorney-client relationship is not essential for the employment of an attorney. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession [Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. No. 8243 (2009)]. Retainer 1. Either the act of a client by which he engages the services of an attorney to render legal advice or to defend and prosecute his cause in court (general or special) OR the fee which a client pays to an attorney when the latter is retained [Agpalo (2004)]. 2. The relation of attorney to client begins from the time an attorney is retained.

a. Availability of Service Without Discrimination CANON 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.

Note: Canon 14 is the 2nd top source of Questions on the CPR. It was asked 28 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. General Rule: A lawyer is not obliged to act as legal counsel for any person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment. A lawyer should decline employment regardless of how attractive the fee offered may be if its acceptance will involve:

2.

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

3.

A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless: • He is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently; • He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the prospective client. [Rule 14.03, CPR]

Purpose: It is a declared policy of the State to value the dignity of every human person and guarantee the rights of every individual, particularly those who cannot afford the services of counsel [R.A. No. 9999 (Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010)]. R.A. No. 9999 provides incentives for free legal service. Thus, a lawyer or professional partnerships rendering actual free legal services shall be entitled to an allowable deduction from the gross income, 1. The amount that could have been collected for the actual free legal services rendered OR 2. Up to 10% of the gross income derived from the actual performance of legal profession, whichever is lower. This is different from the 60-hour mandatory legal aid services under Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, B.M. No. 2012 (2009).

Page 34 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Indigent 1. A person who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of his family, to be determined by the fiscal or judge, taking into account the members of his family dependent upon him for subsistence [Sec. 2, R.A. 6033 (An Act Requiring Courts to Give Preference to Criminal Cases Where the Party or Parties Involved are Indigents)] 2. A person who has no visible means of support or whose income does not exceed P300.00 per month or whose income even in excess of P300.00 per month is insufficient for the subsistence of his family [Sec. 2, R.A. No. 6035 (An Act Requiring Stenographers to Give Free Transcript of Notes to Indigent and Low Income Litigants and Providing a Penalty for the Violation Thereof)]. Laws on indigents or low income litigants: 1. All courts shall give preference to the hearing and/or disposition of criminal cases where an indigent is involved either as the offended party or accused [Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6033] 2. Any indigent litigant may, upon motion, ask the Court for adequate travel allowance to enable him and his indigent witnesses to attend the hearing of a criminal case commenced by his complaint or filed against him. The allowance shall cover actual transportation expenses by the cheapest means from his place of residence to the court and back. When the hearing of the case requires the presence of the indigent litigant and/or his indigent witnesses in court the whole day or for two or more consecutive days, allowances may, in the discretion of the Court, also cover reasonable expenses for meal and lodging [Sec. 1, R.A. 6034 (An Act Providing Transportation and Other Allowances for Indigent Litigants)]. A stenographer who has attended a hearing before an investigating fiscal or trial judge or hearing commissioner of any quasi-judicial body or administrative tribunal and has officially taken notes of the proceeding thereof shall, upon written request of an indigent or low income litigant, his counsel or duly authorized representative in the case concerned, give within a reasonable period to be determined by the fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal hearing the case, a free certified transcript of notes taken by him on the case [Sec. 1, R.A. 6035]. This Canon could be read in conjunction with Rule 2.01.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1. Services Regardless of a Person’s Status Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.

It is the duty of an attorney, in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law [Sec. 20(i), Rule 138, RoC]. Regardless of personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse [IBP Committee].

2. Services as Counsel de Officio 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. It is the duty of an attorney never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed [Sec. 20(h), Rule 138]. A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown [Sec. 31, Rule 138]. Counsel de officio - One appointed or assigned by the court. Counsel de parte- One employed or retained by the party himself.

Amicus Curiae – a friend of the court; a person with

strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action. They commonly file briefs concerning matters of broad public interest.

Page 35 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Who may be appointed as counsel de officio in criminal cases: 1. A member of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused [Sec. 7, Rule 116, RoC] 2. In localities without lawyers: a. Any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability [Sec. 7, Rule 116, RoC]; Note: In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC this is only allowed in the municipal trial court. b. A municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch, subdivision or instrumentality of the government within the province [Sec. 1, PD 543 (Authorizing the Designation of Municipal Judges and Lawyers in any Branch of the Government Service to Act as Counsel De Officio for the Accused Who are Indigent in Places Where There are No Available Practicing Attorneys)]. Considerations in the appointment of a counsel de officio: 1. Gravity of the offense; 2. Difficulty of the questions that may arise; 3. Experience and ability of the appointee. When the court may appoint a counsel de officio (in criminal actions): 1. Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de officio to defend him, [Sec. 6, Rule 116, RoC]; 2. It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon filing of a notice of appeal, to ascertain from the appellant, if confined in prison, whether he desires the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de officio [Sec. 13, Rule 122, RoC]; 3. The clerk of the CA shall designate a counsel de officio if it appears from the case record that: a. The accused is confined in prison, b. Is without counsel de parte on appeal, or c. Has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de officio. d. An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de officio within ten days from receipt of the

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS notice to file brief and he establishes his right thereto [Sec. 2, Rule 124, RoC]

3. Valid Grounds for Refusal to Serve Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept

representation of an indigent client unless: a) He is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently; b) He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the prospective client Reason: One of the burdens of the privilege to practice law is to render, when so required by the court, free legal services to an indigent litigant. Even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights. [Rule 2.02, Canon 2, CPR]

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. Neither the amount of attorney's fees nor the client's financial ability to pay such fees should serve as the test to determine the extent of the lawyer's devotion to his client’s cause [Agpalo (2004)]. If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees, he is still bound to attend to a client’s case with all due diligence and zeal [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. No. 492 (1967)]. Pursuant to A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC IRR (2009), clients of the National Legal Aid Committee and the IBP local chapter’s legal aid offices are exempted from the payment of legal fees. Under Sec. 16-D, R.A. No. 9406 (An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public Attorney's Office (PAO)), clients of the PAO are exempted from paying docket and other fees incidental to institution actions in court and other quasi-judicial bodies. See also: 1. R.A. No. 6033: AN ACT REQUIRING COURTS TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE PARTY OR PARTIES INVOLVED ARE INDIGENTS 2. R.A. No. 6034: AN ACT PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER

Page 36 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

3.

4.

LEGAL ETHICS

ALLOWANCES FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS R.A. No. 6035: AN ACT REQUIRING STENOGRAPHERS TO GIVE FREE TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES TO INDIGENT AND LOW INCOME LITIGANTS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF R.A. No. 6036: AN ACT PROVIDING THAT BAIL SHALL NOT, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, BE REQUIRED IN CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL OR CITY ORDINANCES AND IN CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHEN THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY FOR SUCH OFFENSES IS NOT HIGHER THAN ARRESTO MAYOR AND/OR A FINE OF TWO THOUSAND PESOS OR BOTH

b. Candor, Fairness, and Loyalty to Clients CANON 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.

Note: Canon 15 is the top source of Questions on the CPR. It was asked 31 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].

1. Confidentiality Rule Purpose: To protect the client from possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer [Hadjula v. Madianda, A.C. No. No. 6711 (2007)] It demands of an attorney an undivided allegiance, a conspicuous and high degree of good faith, disinterestedness, candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity and absolute integrity in all his dealings and transactions with his clients and an utter renunciation of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client [Oparel, Sr. v. Abraria, A.C. No. 959 (1971)]. Confidential communication – Information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means which so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given [Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. No. 5108 (2005)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Confidence of Clients

Refer to information protected by attorneyclient privilege under the Rules of Court (i.e., information pertinent to the case being handled).

Secrets of Clients Refer to information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the client (i.e., information not exactly pertinent to the case).

Communication may be transmitted by any form of agency, such as a messenger, an interpreter or any other form of transmission. It is immaterial whether the agent is the agent of the attorney, the client or both. Question of privilege is determined by the court. The burden of proof is on the party who asserts the privilege.

2. Privileged Communications Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

Purpose: To make the prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will not be divulged nor used against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the prospective client [IBP Committee]. Requisites: a. The person to whom information is given is a lawyer. • However, if a person is pretending to be a lawyer and client discloses confidential communications, the attorney-client privilege applies; • This includes persons appointed as counsel de officio b. There is a legal relationship existing, except in cases of prospective clients; c. Legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity with respect to communications relating to that purpose. d. The client must intend that the communication be confidential.

Page 37 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Persons entitled to privilege a. The lawyer, client, and third persons who by reason of their work have acquired information about the case being handled, including: • Attorney’s secretary, stenographer and clerk • Interpreter, messengers, or agents transmitting communication • Accountant, scientist, physician, or engineer who has been hired for effective consultation b. Assignee of the client’s interest as far as the communication affects the realization of the assigned interest.

a.

Scope a. Period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. If the crime was committed in the past, the privilege applies. If it is still to be committed, the privilege does not apply, because the communication between a lawyer and his client must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end to be privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115439 (1996)]. b. Limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. It is not within the profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime. [Genato v. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078 (2003)]. c. Embraces not only oral or written statements but also actions, signs or other means of communications. d. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity [Sec. 24(b), Rule 130].

Purposes: a. The court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. b. The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach unless there is a client. c. The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. d. Due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a general rule, know his adversary [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, supra.].

General rule: As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Thus, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of this client. Exceptions: Client identity is privileged in the following instances:

Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice b. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability c. Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client’s name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938 (1996)].

Information relating to the identity of the client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s name itself has an independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, supra] General rule: The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client [Bun Siong Yao v. Aurelio, A.C. No. No. 7023 (2006)] Canon 21 enjoins a lawyer to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. The privilege continues even after the termination of the attorney-client relationship. It outlasts the lawyer’s engagement. It ceases only when waived by the client himself or after his death, by his heir or representative. [Baldwin v. CIR, (1942)] Exception: Some privileged communications lose their privileged character by some supervening act done pursuant to the purpose of the communication (e.g., a communication intended by the client to be sent to a third person through his attorney loses confidential character once it reached the third party).

Page 38 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Examples of privileged matters: • Work product of lawyer (his effort, research and thought contained in his file); • Report of a physician, an accountant, an engineer or a technician, whose services have been secured by a client as part of his communication to his attorney or by the attorney to assist him in rendering effective legal assistance to his client; • Records concerning an accident in which a party is involved; • Consultation which has to do with the preparation of a client to take the witness stand. Betrayal of trust: Revelation of secrets Any attorney-at-law who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall prejudice his client or reveal any of the secrets learned by him in his professional capacity shall be criminally liable [Art. 209, RPC].

3. Conflict of Interest Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.

Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients [Tulio v. Buhangin, A.C. No. No. 7110, (2016)]. It is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases [Orola v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860 (2013)]. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties [Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804 (2003)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree [Nuigue v. Sedillo, A.C. No. 9906 (2013)]. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice [Gonzales v. Cabucana, A.C. No. 6836 (2006)]. Where a lawyer is disqualified from appearing as counsel in a case because of conflict of interest with the law firm of which he is a member, any member, associate, or assistant therein is similarly disqualified or prohibited from so acting. [Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961, (1949)]. Requisites a. There are conflicting duties; b. The acceptance of the new relations invites or actually leads to unfaithfulness or double-dealing to another client; or c. The attorney will be called upon to use against his first client any knowledge acquired in the previous employment. Tests of conflict of interest a. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in its performance. b. If the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represented him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against the first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. c. Whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client [Hornilla v. Salunat, supra]. d. Whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment [Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. No. 8242 (2009)]

It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible. Such prohibition Page 39 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

The test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the representation is probability, not certainty, of conflict. General rule: Representing adverse interest may result in: a. Disqualification as counsel in the new case; b. If prejudicial to interests of latter client, setting aside of a judgment; c. Administrative and criminal (for betrayal of trust) liability; d. Forfeiture of attorney’s fees. Exception: Representation of conflicting interests is allowed where clients knowingly consent to the dual representation. Exception to the exception: A lawyer cannot continue representing a client in an action even with the client’s consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf, against the defendant if it is uncertain whether the defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments. A lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his client. [Gamilla v. Marino Jr, AC 4763, (2003)]

Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.

An attorney’s knowledge of the law and his reputation for fidelity may make it easy for the disputants to settle their differences amicably. However, he shall not act as counsel for any of them. [Agpalo (2004)]

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

opinion as to the probable results of the case [Agpalo (2004)]. The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay [Sec. 3, Rule 7, RoC]. Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must unquestionably do the bidding of the client, however unreasonable this may be, when tested by their own expert appreciation of the facts, applicable law and jurisprudence. Counsel must counsel [Periquet v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91298, (1990)].

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

It is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law [Sec. 20(c), Rule 138, RoC]. A lawyer is required to represent his client within the bounds of law. He is enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.

General rule: A lawyer may not represent two opposing parties at any point in time. A lawyer need not be the counsel-of-record of either party. It is enough that the counsel had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of one party.

A lawyer appears in court in representation of his client not only as an advocate but also as an officer of the court. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat the administration of justice [Agpalo (2004)].

Exception: When the parties agree AND when such is for amicable settlement [Agpalo (2004)].

A lawyer is not a gun for hire [Millare v. Montero, A.C. No. 3283, (1995)].

4. Candid and Honest Advice to Clients

6. Concurrent Practice of Another Profession

Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his client shall

give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case. A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest opinion on the merit or lack of merit of client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospect of the case. He should also give an honest

Rule 15.08. A lawyer who is engaged in another

profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but a lawyer must make it clear when he is acting as a lawyer or when he is acting in another capacity, especially in

Page 40 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

occupations related to the practice of law [In re: Rothman, 12 N.J. 528 (1953)].

the pendency of litigation [Laig v. CA, G.R. No. L-26882 (1978)]

Purpose: Certain ethical considerations may be operative in one profession and not in the other [Agpalo (2004)].

Any scheme which has the effect of circumventing the law comes within the prohibition [Agpalo (2004)].

Impropriety rises only when the business is conducted in a manner inconsistent with his duties as a member of the bar [IBP Committee]. A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by policy of law because by virtue of a lawyer’s office, he is an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, there is no presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing in favor of lawyers [Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No. No. 2040 (1998)].

c. Client’s Moneys and Properties CANON 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all

moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. Lawyers cannot acquire or purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they take part by virtue of their profession [Art. 1491(5), Civil Code]. Purpose: The prohibition is based on the existing relation of trust or the lawyer’s peculiar control over the property. The duty of a lawyer is derived from the law on agency which requires separation, accounting, notification and delivery by agents possessing the principal’s property [Funa]. Requisites 1. There is an attorney-client relationship; 2. The property or interest of the client is in litigation; 3. The attorney takes part as counsel in the case; 4. The attorney purchases or acquires the property or right, by himself or through another, during

Instances when prohibition in Art. 1491, Civil Code applies: • Even if the purchase or lease of the property in litigation is in favor of a partnership, of which counsel is a partner [Mananquil v. Villegas, A.C. No. No. 2430 (1990)] • If the purchase is made by the wife of the attorney [In re: Calderon, G.R. No. L-2409 (1907)] • Mortgage of property in litigation to the lawyer. In this case, acquisition is merely postponed until foreclosure but effect is the same. It also includes assignment of property [Ordonio v. Eduarte, A.M. No. 3216, (1992)]. • The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is void and could produce no legal effect [Art. 1409(7), Civil Code] Instances when prohibition in Art. 1491 does not apply: • When the attorney is not a counsel in the case involving the same property at the time of acquisition; • When purchaser is a corporation, even if the attorney was an officer [Tuason v. Tuason, G.R. No. L-3404 (1951)] • When sale takes place after termination of litigation, except if there was fraud or use/abuse of confidential information or where lawyer exercised undue influence; • Where property in question is stipulated as part of attorney’s fees, provided that, the same is contingent upon the favorable outcome of litigation and, provided further, that the fee must be reasonable.

1. Fiduciary Relationship Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money

or property collected or received for or from the client. Purpose: The lawyer merely holds said money or property in trust. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to

Page 41 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

the client [Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. No. 7815 (2009)]. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands would not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No. No. 936 (1975)]. Ethical and practical considerations make it both natural and imperative for a lawyer to issue receipts, even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own records [Tarog v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 8243 (2011)]. A lawyer's failure, to return upon demand, the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client [Sison v. Camacho, A.C. No. No. 10910, (2016)]. A perusal of the Special Power of Attorney issued by Camino and her husband to Atty. Pasagui clearly shows that the loan application was in their behalf and that the property mortgaged was likewise their property. If it were true that it was a personal loan to him, Atty. Pasagui failed to explain why he used Camino's property as collateral. Thus, by his failure to make good of their agreement to use the loan proceeds for the transfer of the title in Camino's name, Atty. Pasagui not only betrayed the trust and confidence reposed upon him but he is also guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Atty. Pasagui’s failure to inform Camino of the status of the transfer of title despite the release of the loan to finance the transfer of the title, is a clear indicium that he converted the money for his own use [Camino v. Pasagui, A.C. No. 11095, (2016)]. The [CPR] exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the courts but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, respondent callously demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a Member of this Court [Berbano v. Barcelona, A.C. No. 6084 (2003)]. The actuations of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year period, the amount of P5,220.00 received by him on behalf of his client, the complainant herein, depriving her of its use, and withholding information on the same despite inquiries made by her, is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance, and an

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

evident transgression of the [CPE] … substantially reiterated in Rules 16.01. 16.02 and 16.03 of the [CPR] [Licuanan v. Melo, A.M. No. 2361 (1989)].

2. Commingling of Funds Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each

client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. A lawyer should not commingle a client’s money with that of other clients and with his private funds, nor use the client’s money for his personal purposes without the client’s consent [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No. No. 936 (1975)]. Respondent breached [Canon 16]. His acts of acquiring for himself complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated this Courts mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. [Hernandez v. Go, A.C. No. 1526 (2005)].

3. Delivery of Funds Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and

property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under Sec. 25, Rule 138 shall not be a bar to criminal prosecution. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them [Busiños v. Ricafort, A.C. No. No. 4349 (1997)]

Page 42 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

An attorney has a lien upon the funds documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof [Sec. 37, Rule 138, RoC]

case, the free exercise of his judgment may be adversely affected [Agpalo (2004)].

But, a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him attorney’s fees. The fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client does not relieve him of his duty to promptly account for the moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct [Rayos v. Hernandez, G. R. 169079 (2007)].

Prohibition against purchase of “property in litigation” The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even in a public action, either in person or through the mediation of another, property and rights in litigation, before the court within whose jurisdiction, they exercise their respective functions: [Art. 1491, Civil Code]: a. Justices, Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys b. Clerks, officers and employees connected with the administration of justice c. Lawyers with respect to property rights which may be the object of litigation, in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.

4. Borrowing or Lending 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. A lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client Purpose: This rule is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client [Junio v. Grupo, A.C. No. 5020 (2001)]. The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on her obligation [Frias v. Lozada, A.C. No. No. 6656 (2005)]. The profession demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client [Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. No. 5925 (2003)]. A lawyer who borrows jewelry from his client in order to obtain and appropriate for himself the proceeds from a pledge is liable under this canon [Yu v. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. No. 10912, (2016)]. A lawyer is prohibited from lending money to his client Purpose: The canon intends to assure the lawyer’s independent professional judgment, for if the lawyer acquires a financial interest in the outcome of the

Exception: When, in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling.

The prohibition is absolute and permanent and rests on consideration of public policy. The prohibition applies in the following: • Redemption, compromise and renunciation of the subject in litigation • Lease • Assignment of rights over a property in consideration of legal service while the case is pending [Ordonio v. Eduarte, AC 3216, (1992)] The prohibition does not apply in the following: • Where the property purchased by the lawyer was not involved in litigation • Where the sale took place before it became involved in the suit • Where the attorney at the time of the purchase was not the counsel in the case • Where the purchaser of the property in litigation was a corporation, despite the attorney being an officer thereof • Where the sale took place after the termination of the litigation, the lawyer may accept an assignment from his client of a money judgment rendered in the client’s favor in a case in which he was not the counsel, as payment for professional services performed in another case

d. Fidelity to Client’s Cause CANON 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Page 43 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Note: asked 3 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. The failure to exercise due diligence and the abandonment of a client’s cause make such a lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed on him [Cantilller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. No. 3195 (1989)]. Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, no fear or judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty [Santiago v. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103 (1995)]. In the discharge of his duty of entire devotion to the client's cause, a lawyer should present every remedy or defense authorized by law in support of his client’s cause, regardless of his personal views. He should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public [Agpalo (2004)].

e. Competence and Diligence CANON 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Note: asked 13 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, as any other member of the bar similarly situated commonly possesses and exercises [Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L42927 (1980)]. In the absence of evidence on the contrary, however, a lawyer is presumed to be prompt and diligent in the performance of his obligations and to have employed his best efforts, learning, and ability in the protection of his client’s interests and in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the court [Agpalo (2004)].

1. Adequate Preparation Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and interests by thorough study and preparation, mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case, and keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law [Agpalo (2004)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many cases he can handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)] The lawyer’s diligence and dedication to his work and profession not only promote the interest of his client, it likewise help attain the ends of justice by contributing to the proper and speedy administration of cases, bring prestige of the bar and maintain respect to the legal profession [Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967 (2003)].

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

If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of action against him for damages [Callanta]. General rule: A client is bound by the attorney’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case or in management of litigation and in procedural technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently. • Doctrine of Imputed Knowledge: Notice to counsel is notice to client Exceptions: The client is not so bound where the ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is so great and error so serious that the client, who has good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in court [People v. Manzanilla, G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon v. CA, G.R. No. 126802 (2000)] Examples of lawyer’s negligence: • Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to answer a complaint resulting in a default judgment against his client (Mapua v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-19295 (1923)] • Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office of notice of decision resulting in the nonperfection of the appellant’s appeal [Joven-De Jesus v. PNB, G.R. No. L-19299 (1964)] • Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period [People v. Cawili, G.R. No. L-30543, (1970)] • Failure to attend a trial without filing a motion for postponement or without requesting either of his two partners in the law office to take his place and appear for the defendants [Gaerlan v. Bernal, G.R. No. L-4039 (1952)]

Page 44 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC • •

•

• • •

LEGAL ETHICS

Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante v. Patriarca, G.R. No. L-48324 (1990)] Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented the latter to look for another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the hospital [Ventura v. Santos, 59 Phil. 123 (1993)] Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsel’s office on the date of the trial as was agreed upon (Alcoriza v. Lumakang, A.M. No. 249 (1978)] Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the purpose [Capulong v. Alino, A.M. No. 381 (1968)] Failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration and to update clients of the adverse result of a case [Orazme v. Oro, A.C. No. No. 10945, (2016)] Withdrawing from a case without the proper motion and without informing the client [Chang v. Hidalgo, A.C. No. No. 6934 (2016)]

3. Collaborating Counsel Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The same diligence of the first counsel is required of the collaborating counsel [Sublay v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130104, (2000)].

4. Duty to Apprise Client Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client

informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to client’s request for information. Duty to Keep the Client Fully Informed a. The client must receive from the lawyer, full and periodic updates on the developments affecting the case; b. The lawyer should apprise the client of the mode and the manner which he is utilizing to defend the clients interests; c. The lawyer must advise the client of the risks, alternatives and their consequences; and d. The client must be informed within the period to appeal to enable him to decide whether or not he will still seek appellate review of an adverse decision.

service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to tender. 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

The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever-present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the client’s case [Carandang v. Obmina, A.C. No. 7813 (2009)].

When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee or not, his acceptance is an implied representation: a. That he possesses the requisite degree of academic learning, skill and ability necessary in the practice of his profession; b. That he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him; c. That he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinsin, A.C. No. 8252 (2009)]; and d. That he will take steps as will adequately safeguard his client’s interests [Islas v. Platon, G.R. No. L-23183 (1924)]

Even if the lawyer was honestly and sincerely protecting the interests of his client, he still does not have the right to waive the appeal without the knowledge and consent of his client [Abay v. Montesino, A.C. No. 5718 (2003)].

A collaborating counsel is a lawyer who is subsequently engaged to assist another lawyer already handling a particular case for a client. He cannot just enter his appearance as collaborating counsel without the conformity of the first counsel.

The client should not, however, sit idly by. It is also his duty to make proper inquiries from his counsel concerning his case, in keeping with that standard of care which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his important business [Agpalo (2004)].

f. Representation with Zeal within Legal Bounds CANON 19. A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

Note: asked 8 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; To that end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate and his conduct

Page 45 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

ought to and must always be unscrupulously observant of law and ethics [Magsalang v. People, GR. 90083, (1990)].

1. Use of Fair and Honest Means Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Within client’s control upon, and the subject matter of the litigation are all within the exclusive control of a client.

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. It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law [Sec. 20(d), Rule 138, RoC]. A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer’s client [Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No. No. 7298 (2007)].

2. Client’s Fraud Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received

information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. This rule merely requires the lawyer to terminate his relationship with the client in the event the latter fails or refuses to rectify the fraud. The lawyer may not volunteer the information concerning the client’s commission of fraud to anyone, as it will violate his obligation to maintain the client’s secrets undisclosed [Agpalo (2004)].

3. Procedure in Handling a Case Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the case. Within client’s control Substantial Aspect The cause of action, the claim or demand sued

Within counsel’s control Procedural Aspect All the proceedings in court to enforce the

Within counsel’s control remedy, to bring the claim, demand, cause of action, or subject matter of the suit to hearing, trial, determination, judgment, and execution, are within the exclusive control of the attorney [Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central Mill, G.R. No. L-6869 (1955)].

An attorney may not impair, compromise, settle, surrender, or destroy rights without his client's consent. A lawyer has no implied authority to waive his client’s right to appeal or to withdraw a pending appeal. If a lawyer believes that the appeal of his client is frivolous, he cannot move to dismiss the appeal, without the consent of his client. His remedy is to withdraw from the case People v Pagarao, GR. 93002627, (1991)]. Presumption of Authority An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears in all stages of the litigation and no written authority is required to authorize him to appear. A mere denial by a party that he has authorized an attorney to appear, in the absence of compelling reason, is insufficient to overcome the presumption especially when the denial comes after an adverse judgment. [Agpalo (2004)].

g. Attorney’s fees CANON 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.

Note: Canon 20 is the 3rd top source of Questions on the CPR. It was asked 22 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. Any counsel worthy of his hire is entitled to be fully recompensed for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in the expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt of the part of the client to escape payment of his fees [Albano v. Caloma, A.C. No. 528 (1967)].

Page 46 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

An attorney is entitled to have and to recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services with a view to: 1. The importance of the subject matter of the controversy; 2. The extent of the services rendered; and 3. The professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation and may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable [Sec. 24, Rule 138, RoC]. Subject to the availability of funds, the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de officio to be compensated in such a sum as the court may fix in accordance with Sec. 24, Rule 138, RoC [Sec. 32, Rule 138, RoC]. The mere fact that an agreement had been reached between attorney and client fixing the amount of the attorney’s fees, does not insulate such agreement from review and modification by the Court where the fees clearly appear to be excessive or unreasonable [Tanhueco v. De Dumo, A.M. No. 1437 (1989)]. When a lawyer cannot recover the full amount stipulated in the contract 1. When the services were not performed, and if the lawyer withdrew before the case was finished, he will be allowed only reasonable fees; 2. When there is justified dismissal of an attorney, the contract will be nullified and payment will be on quantum meruit basis; 3. When the stipulated fees are unconscionable or unreasonable; 4. When the stipulated fees are in excess of what is expressly provided by law; 5. When the lawyer is guilty of fraud or bad faith in the manner of his employment; 6. When the counsel’s services are worthless because of negligence; 7. When the contract is contrary to laws, morals, and good policies. When there is no express contract The absence of a formal contract will not negate the payment of attorney’s fees because the contract may be express or implied. In the absence of an express contract, payment of attorney’s fees may be justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give) which is based on the principle that

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

“no one shall enrich himself at the expense of another” [Corpus v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424 (1980)].

Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the

following factors in determining his fees: a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; c) The importance of the subject matter; d) The skill demanded; e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case; f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service; h) The contingency or certainty of compensation; i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and j) The professional standing of the lawyer. Manners by which attorneys may be paid • A fixed or absolute fee which is payable regardless of the result of the case; • A contingent fee that is conditioned upon the securing of a favorable judgment and recovery of money or property and the amount of which may be on a percentage basis; • A fixed fee payable per appearance; • A fixed fee computed by the number of hours spent; • A fixed fee based on a piece of work; • A combination of any of the above stipulated fees.

Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral,

with the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and responsibility assumed. The referral of a client by a lawyer to another lawyer does not entitle the former to a commission or to a portion of the attorney’s fees. It is only when, in addition to the referral, he performs legal service or assumes responsibility in the case that he will be entitled to a fee [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation

Page 47 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client. Purpose: The rule is designed to secure the lawyer’s fidelity to the client’s cause and to prevent that situation in which receipt by him of a rebate or commission from another in connection with the client’s cause may interfere with the full discharge of his duty to his client [Agpalo (2004)]. It is the duty of an attorney to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval [Sec. 20(e), Rule 138, RoC].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Champertous Contract This contract is void for being against public policy

Contingent Contract It is a valid agreement.

Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be protected from unjust charges. A much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails [Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385 (2009)].

3. Attorney’s Liens

A corollary of the foregoing rule is the principle that whatever a lawyer receives from the opposite party in the service of his client belongs to the client. A lawyer may not claim the fees in the concept of damages awarded by the court in favor the client, the latter and not the former being entitled thereto, except when he and his client have agreed that whatever amount the court may award as attorney's fees would form part of the lawyer's compensation [Agpalo (2004)].

RETAINING LIEN

1. Acceptance Fees

Requisites: a. Attorney-client relationship; b. Lawful possession by lawyer of the client’s funds, documents and papers in his professional capacity; and c. Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or disbursements.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause [Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No. No. 5162 (2003)]. Failure to render the legal services agreed upon, despite receipt of an acceptance fee, is a clear violation of the CPR [Macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No. No. 6591 (2005)].

2. Contingency Fee Arrangements Champertous Contract A champertous contract is one where the lawyer stipulates with his client that he will bear all the expenses for the prosecution of the case, the recovery of things or property being claimed, and the latter pays only upon successful litigation.

Contingent Contract A contingent contract is an agreement in which the lawyer’s fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend the client’s right. The lawyer does not undertake to shoulder the expenses of litigation.

An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession. Thus: a. He may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; b. May apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. [Sec. 37, Rule 138, RoC]

CHARGING LIEN He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client. This lien exists from and after the time when he shall have caused: a. A statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution; and b. Written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party. From then on, he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements [Sec. 37, Rule 138, RoC]. Requisites: a. Attorney-client relationship; b. The attorney has rendered services;

Page 48 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

c.

A money judgment favorable to the client has been secured in the action; and d. The attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees or advances statement of his claim has been recorded in the case with notice served upon the client and adverse party. Retaining lien

Charging lien

Nature Passive lien. It cannot be actively enforced. It is a general lien.

Active lien. It can be enforced by execution. It is a special lien.

Basis Lawful possession of funds, papers, documents, property belonging to client

Securing of a favorable money judgment for client

Coverage Covers only funds, papers, documents, and property in the lawful possession of the attorney by reason of his professional employment

Covers all judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment

Effectivity As soon as the lawyer gets possession of the funds, papers, documents, property

As soon as the claim for attorney’s fees had been entered into the records of the case

Applicability May be exercised before judgment or execution, or regardless thereof

Generally, it is exercisable only when the attorney had already secured a favorable judgment for his client

Notice Client need not be notified to make it effective

Client and adverse party need to notified to make it effective

4. Fees and Controversies with Clients (Quantum Meruit) 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.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A lawyer should avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation so far as shall be compatible with self-respect and with his right to receive a reasonable recompense for his services, and he should resort to law suits with clients only to prevent injustice, imposition or fraud. Lawyers thus seldom, if ever, file judicial actions for the recovery of their fees unless righteous and well founded and unless forced by the client's intolerable attitude because such lawsuits cannot fail to create the impression, however, wrong it may be, that those instituting them are mercenaries [Agpalo (2004)]. Judicial actions to recover attorney’s fees: a. An appropriate motion or petition as an incident in the main action where he rendered legal services; b. A separate civil action for collection of attorney’s fees.

QUANTUM MERUIT: “as much as a lawyer

deserves.” Essential requisite: Acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged for services rendered under circumstances as reasonably to notify him that lawyer expects compensation. When authorized: a. The agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for some reason other than the illegality of the object of performance; b. There is no express contract for attorney’s fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the client; c. When although there is a formal contract of attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court; d. When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal matters or defects of execution; e. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion; f. When lawyer and client disregard the contract of attorney’s fees; g. When there is a contract, but no stipulation as to attorney’s fees.

Quantum Meruit Guidelines a.

Time spent and extent of the services rendered. A lawyer is justified in fixing higher fees when the case is so complicated and requires more time and efforts to finish it. b. Nature and importance of subject matter. The more important the subject matter or the bigger value of the interest or property in litigation, the higher is the attorney’s fee. c. Novelty and difficulty of questions involved. When the questions in a case are novel and difficult, greater efforts, deeper study, and

Page 49 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

research are bound to burn the lawyer’s time and stamina considering that there are no local precedents to rely upon. d. Skill demanded of the lawyer. The totality of the lawyer’s experience provides him the skill and competence admired in lawyers. e. Loss of opportunity for other employment on the part of the lawyer who accepts the retainer. It is only but fair that a client should compensate his lawyer for being deprived of the chance to earn legal fees from others by reason of his employment as his counsel. f. Results secured. The importance to a client of his lawyer’s services depends upon the successful outcome of his litigation. g. Whether the fee is contingent. h. Capacity of client to pay. A determination of all these factors would indispensably require nothing less than a full-blown trial where private respondent can adduce evidence to establish its right to lawful attorney's fees and for petitioner to oppose or refute the same [Metrobank v. CA, G.R. No. 86100 (1990)]. The above rules apply in the case of a counsel de parte. A counsel de officio may not demand from the accused attorney’s fees even if he wins the case. However, subject to availability of funds, the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de officio to be compensated in such sum as the court may fix.

5. Concepts of Attorney’s Fees Ordinary concept

An attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer for the legal services he has rendered to a client. Its basis of this compensation is the fact of employment by the client.

Extraordinary concept An attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party in litigation. The basis of this is any of the cases authorized by law and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client – unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof [Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS NLRC, G.R. 120592 (1997)].

No.

h. Preservation of Client’s Confidences CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]. Purposes • Unless the client knows that his attorney cannot be compelled to reveal what is told to him, he will suppress what he thinks to be unfavorable and the advice which follows will be useless if not misleading • To encourage a client to make full disclosure to his attorney and to place unrestricted confidence in him in matters affecting his rights or obligations [Agpalo (2004)]. It is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself to preserve, the secrets of his client and to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval [Sec. 20(e), Rule 138, RoC]. Imposition of Criminal Liability 1. Upon any lawyer who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, reveals any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity. 2. Upon a lawyer who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from said client in a case, undertakes the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client. [Art. 209, RPC] The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client [Genato v. Silapan, supra.].

1. Prohibited Disclosures and Use Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage

of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same

Page 50 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

This rule, of course, is subject to exception of representation of conflicting interests [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written

2. Disclosure, When Allowed

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. The work and product of a lawyer, such as his effort, research, and thought, and the records of his client, contained in his files are privileged matters. Neither the lawyer nor, after his death, his heir or legal representative may properly disclose the contents of such file cabinet without client’s consent [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the client.

Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the

confidences or secrets of his client except: a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure; b) When required by law; c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action. Rule 21.01(a) refers to a waiver by the client. Since the attorney-client privilege against disclosure of the client's confidence is intended primarily for the client's protection, only the client as a rule can waive the privilege.

The client’s secrets which clerical aids of lawyers learn of, in the performance of their services are covered by privileged communication. It is the duty of lawyer to ensure that this is being followed (e.g., execution of confidentiality agreements) [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 21.01 (b) and (c) are for the protection of the attorney’s rights. The privileged relation cannot be used as a shield against wrongdoing nor can it be employed as an excuse to deny a lawyer the right to protect himself against abuse by the client or false charges by third persons [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet

Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a

conversation about a client’s affairs even with members of his family.

client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.

A lawyer must also preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients outside the law office, including his home. He should avoid committing calculated indiscretion, that is, accidental revelation of secrets obtained in his professional employment [Agpalo (2004)].

The professional employment of a law firm is equivalent to the retainer of the members thereof even though only one of them is consulted; conversely, the employment of one member of a law firm is generally considered as employment of the law firm [Agpalo (2004)].

Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest. See also Rules 15.01 and 14.03

i. Withdrawal of services CANON 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.

The privileged communication rule applies even to prospective clients

Note: asked 9 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].

The disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion thereon create an attorney-client relationship, even though the lawyer does not eventually accept the employment or the prospective client did not thereafter actually engage the lawyer. By the consultation, the lawyer already learned of the secrets of prospective client.

An attorney-client relationship may be terminated by the client, the lawyer, or by the court for reasons beyond the parties’ control. The termination entails certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer. [Agpalo (2004)].

Page 51 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Causes of termination of attorney-client relationship 1. Withdrawal of the lawyer 2. Death of the lawyer 3. Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the practice of law; 4. Declaration of presumptive death of the lawyer; 5. Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of the lawyer; 6. Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the client; 7. Appointment or election of a lawyer to a government position which prohibits private practice of law; 8. Death of the client; 9. Intervening incapacity or incompetence of the client during pendency of case; 10. Full termination of the case. General rule: The client has the right to discharge his attorney at any time with or without just cause or even against his consent. Exceptions: 1. The client cannot deprive his counsel of right to be paid services if the dismissal is without cause. 2. The client cannot discharge his counsel as an excuse to secure repeated extensions of time. 3. Notice of discharge is required for both the court and the adverse party [Agpalo (2004)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

g) Other similar cases. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding: • With the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party; or • Without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire [Sec. 26, Rule 138, RoC]. General rule: The withdrawal in writing, with the client’s conformity, does not require the approval of the court to be effective. Exception: If no new counsel has entered his appearance, the court may, in order to prevent a denial of a party’s right to the assistance of counsel require that the lawyer’s withdrawal be held in abeyance until another lawyer shall have appeared for the party [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)]. Although a lawyer may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, withdrawal is unjustified if client did not deliberately fail to pay [Montano v. IBP, A.C. No. No. 4215 (2001)].

A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between the client and the attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal was without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract [Sec. 26, Rule 138, RoC].

Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is

Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in

Requirements of a valid substitution of counsel 1. The filing of a written application for substitution 2. The client’s written consent 3. The written consent of the attorney to be substituted.

any of the following cases: a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

If the above written consent cannot be secured, a proof of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to be substituted [Agpalo (2004)]. At the discretion of the court, a lawyer, who has been dismissed by a client, is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client’s rights [Obando v. Figueras, G.R. No. 134854 (2000)]. The offensive attitude of a client is not an excuse to just disappear and withdraw from a case without notice to the court and to the client, especially when

Page 52 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

attorney’s fees have already been paid [Chang v. Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934 (2016)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

C. Suspension, Disbarment, Discipline of Lawyers Rule 139-B as amended by B.M. No. 1645

1. Nature and Characteristics

of Disciplinary Actions against Lawyers

a. Sui Generis Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, i.e. they belong to a class of their own. They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. It is not meant to grant relief to a complainant but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts [Tiong v Florendo, AC 4428, (2011)]. They may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. The Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. Public interest is the primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such [In Re: Almacen supra.; Itong v. Florendo, A.C. No. 4428 (2011)]. Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges [Figueras v. Jimenezsupra.].

b. Prescription In Frias v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656 (2006), the Supreme Court, citing Calo v. Degamo, A.C. No. 516 (1967) and Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657 Page 53 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

(2004), declared that the defense of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers for an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe. Thus, Sec. 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, which provided for a prescription period of 2 years from the date of the professional misconduct, was struck down for being ultra vires. However, in Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. No. 8254 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that “the rule [Sec. 1, Rule VIII, Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline] should be construed to mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct.”

3.

4.

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS 1.

Investigation is not interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same [par. 2, Sec. 5, Rule 139-B, RoC]. The fact that the complainant manifested that he is no longer interested to pursue, after settling with the respondent-lawyer would not render the case moot. The withdrawal of the complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the charges and to discipline an erring respondent [Chan v. Olegario, AM P-09-2714, (2010)]

2.

Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases. [Sec. 18, Rule 139-B, RoC] • Purposes: o To enable the Court to make its investigations free from any extraneous influence or interference; o To protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants; o To deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions thereof without authority [Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 121404 (2006)]. • Malicious and unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative

5.

6.

7.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

complaints and their premature publication constitutes contempt of court. [Saludo, Jr. v. CA, supra]. • This is a privilege/right which may be waived by the very lawyer in whom and for the protection of whose personal and professional reputation it is vested, pursuant to the general principle that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to public policy, among others” [Villalon v. IAC, G.R. No. 73751 (1986)]. Laws dealing with double jeopardy, in pari delicto, prescription or with procedure such as verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions have no application to disbarment proceedings [Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente, A.C. No. 4680 (2000)]. Because the proceedings are distinct from and proceed independently of civil or criminal cases, whatever has been decided in the disbarment case cannot be a source of right that may be enforced in another action. At best, such judgment may only be given weight when introduced as evidence, but in no case does it bind the court in the civil action [Esquivias v. CA, G.R. No. 119714 (1997)]. The disbarment proceeding does not violate the due process clause. The proceeding itself, when instituted in proper cases, is due process of law [In Re: Montagne, G.R. No. 1107 (1904)]. The rule in criminal cases that the penalty cannot be imposed in the alternative applies in administrative disciplinary cases, which also involve punitive sanctions [Navarro v. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313 (1998)]. Monetary claims cannot be granted except restitution and return of monies and properties of the client given in the course of the lawyerclient relationship

2. Grounds Sec. 27, Rule 138. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be

removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the

Page 54 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

from said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first client [Art. 209, RPC]

purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. Broadly speaking, the grounds for discipline of a lawyer consist of those acts of misconduct committed before and after his admission to the practice [Agpalo (2004)]. Grounds for disbarment or suspension a. Deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office • Deceit is false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury [Alcantara v. CA, G.R. No. 147259 (2003)]. • Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. It consists of a failure of an attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise in the performance of tasks which they undertake, and when such failure proximately causes damage, it gives rise to an action in tort [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261 (1983)]. b. Grossly immoral conduct c. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude • There must be a conviction. The mere existence of criminal charges cannot be a ground for suspension or disbarment [Agpalo, 2004] d. Any violation of the lawyer’s oath e. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court f. Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority so to do

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The grounds are not exclusive. The enumeration is not to be taken as a limitation to the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its officers cannot be restricted [Quingwa v. Puno, A.C. No. 389 (1967)]. A lawyer may be removed from office or suspended from the practice of law by the Court on grounds not found in the statute as when their acts are contrary to honesty or good morals, or do not approximate the highest degree of morality and integrity expected of members of the bar [Sta. Maria v. Tuazon, AC 396, (1964)]. Misconduct in private capacity General rule: The Court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its members for misconduct alleged to be committed in his private capacity Exception: An attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him [Piatt v Abordo, supra.]. Misconduct before admission to the bar A lawyer may be disbarred from misrepresentation or false pretense relative to the requirements for admission to practice. The fact that he lacked any of the qualifications for membership at the time he took his oath, is a ground for his disbarment [In Re: Diao, A.C. No. 244, (1963)].

Other statutory grounds a. Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property in litigation [Art. 1491, NCC; Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625 (1990)]. b. Administrative and criminal sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor who: 1. By malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his professional capacity [Art. 208, RPC]; 2. Having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information Page 55 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

3. Proceedings Institution by any of the following: 1. The Supreme Court, motu propio 2. The IBP Board of Governors, motu propio, or upon referral by a) the Supreme Court, b) Chapter Board of Officers, or c) at the instance of any person 3. Upon verified complaint by any person  6 copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or Secretary of any of its chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP Board of Governors. The complaint must allege specific acts which constitute particular breaches of the law, the CPR, or ethics. Otherwise, the complaint must fail.  Investigation by the National Grievance Investigators within 3 months. The respondent has the opportunity to defend himself, but if he fails to appears, the investigation will proceed ex parte.  Submission of investigative report to the IBP Board of Governors.  The IBP Board of Governors reviews and decides within 30 days. The Board then transmits its decision to the Supreme Court within 10 days from resolution.  The Supreme Court reviews the decision of the IBP Board of Governors and renders the final decision for disbarment/suspension/dismissal. All charges against the following shall be filed with the Supreme Court: a. Justices of the Court of Appeals; b. Justices of the Sandiganbayan; c. Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals; and d. Judges of lower courts [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B, RoC]. Charges filed against justices and judges before the IBP shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication, including those filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The inherent power to discipline members of the bar belong to the Supreme Court, not the IBP. The power to disbar a lawyer is exclusive to it. Thus, no decision of the IBP is final. Such decisions are automatically elevated to the Court for review [Maronilla v.Jorda, AC 6973, (2007)]. The oral instruction to return the P80,000 given to respondent in the IBP’s August 18, 2004 hearing was not a juridically binding order. The competence of the IBP is only recommendatory. Under Article VIll, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, only this Court has the power to actually rule on disciplinary cases of lawyers, and to impose appropriate penalties. Rule 139-B merely delegates investigatory functions to the IBP. With the exercise of its delegated investigatory power, the IBP refers proposed actions to this Court. Recognizing its limited competence in disciplinary cases impels a concomitant recognition that, pending favorable action by this Court on its recommendations, its determinations and conclusions are only provisional. Therefore, rulings on disciplinary cases attain finality and are enforceable only upon this Court's own determination that they must be imposed [Anita Santos Murray v. Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes, A.C. No. 5408 (2017)] Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur Where the facts of record sufficiently provide basis for the determination of administrative liability, he may be disciplined by the Supreme Court without further investigation. A trial-type hearing is not necessary, the respondent having been fully heard in his pleadings [Agpalo, 2004]. In BAR MATTER N0. 1645 (RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B, dated October 13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued new rules governing administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers: • Investigation by the Solicitor General is no longer required. • Only the Supreme Court can dismiss cases against lawyers; it cannot be delegated to the IBP. Thus, the provision in Rule 139-B that the Board of Governors can dismiss cases has been repealed. • The motive of the complainant and his/her in/action after the filing of the verified complaint is not essential to the proceedings.

Page 56 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

testimonial or documentary evidence on the matter, in an investigation conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B. [In re: Maquera, supra)].

4. Recoverable amounts;

intrinsically linked to professional engagement

General Rule: In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the SC cannot order the guilty lawyer to pay the amount he owes to the complainant because the Court's only concern is the determination of whether the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Payment from a lawyer is a relief that can be prayed for in a civil action. It is not a matter that may be resolved in a disciplinary proceeding [The Flight Shop, Inc. v. Atty. Fernando T. Barican, A.C. No. 9950 (2014)]. Exception: When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client. Thus, in a 2014 disbarment case where the lawyer received advances from his client to defray the expenses connected with a case he was handling, and where the lawyer failed to account for these sums, the SC directed the lawyer to return the amounts given by his client in addition to imposing the penalty of disbarment upon him [Foster v. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang, A.C. No. 10579 (2014)].

5. Other Matters a. Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practicing Abroad

b. Discipline of Lawyers in Government Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus General rule: A lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. Exception: If that misconduct as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground. Considering that both respondents are public officers being charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair and discriminatory, involving their official functions during their tenure, the present case should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the appropriate government agency. Indeed, the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall under the disciplinary authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman. Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP asserts jurisdiction and decides against a government lawyer, while the disciplinary authority finds in favor of the government lawyer [Spouses Buffe vs. Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, et al., A.C. No. 8168, 2016)].

c. Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Quantum of Proof

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts enumerated as grounds in Rule 138 [In re: Maquera, B.M. No. 793 (2004)]. A foreign court’s judgment ordering the suspension of a Filipino lawyer in that foreign country does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension. Due process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and present

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes that imposition of the harsh penalty is warranted. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath [Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Cruz and Magsalin, A.C. No. 7686 (2013)].

Page 57 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The proof required is Substantial Evidence. The evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence as opposed to preponderance of evidence is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case law elucidates, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution [Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560 (2016)]

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

d. Disciplinary Measures

e. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus 1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

Warning, an act or fact of putting one on his guard against an impending danger, evil consequences or penalties. Admonition, a gentle or friendly reproof, mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on a fault, error or oversight; an expression of authoritative advice. Reprimand, a public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or a body to which he be-longs. It is imposed on a minor infraction of the lawyer’s duty to the court or client Suspension, a temporary withholding of a lawyer’s right to practice his profession as a lawyer for: a. A definite period; or b. An indefinite period, which amounts to qualified disbarment, in which case, lawyer determines for himself for how long or how short his suspension shall last by proving to court that he is once again fit to resume practice of law. Censure, an official reprimand. Disbarment, the act of the Philippine Supreme Court in withdrawing from an attorney the privilege to practice law and striking out the name of the lawyer from the roll of attorneys. Interim suspension, the temporary suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law pending imposition of final discipline. It includes: a. Suspension upon conviction of a serious crime. b. Suspension when the lawyer’s continuing conduct is likely to cause immediate and serious injury to a client or public. Probation, a sanction that allows a lawyer to practice law under specified conditions.

Other sanctions and remedies

6. 7.

Restitution Assessment of costs Limitation upon practice Appointment of a receiver Requirement that a lawyer take the bar examination or professional responsibility examination Requirement that a lawyer attend continuing education courses Other requirements that the Supreme Court or disciplinary board deems consistent with the purposes of sanctions.

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus Mitigating Circumstances 1. Absence of a prior disciplinary record 2. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive 3. Personal or emotional problems 4. Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct 5. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings 6. Inexperience in the practice of law 7. Character or reputation 8. Physical or mental disability or impairment; 9. Delay in disciplinary proceedings 10. Interim rehabilitation 11. Imposition of other penalties or sanctions 12. Remorse 13. Remoteness of prior offenses 14. Others: a. Good Faith b. Want of intention to commit a wrong c. Lack of material damage to the complaining witness d. Desistance of complainant e. Error in judgment f. Honest and efficient service in various government positions g. Ready admission of the infraction coupled with explanation and plea for forgiveness h. Clean record of professional service in the past i. Rendered professional services out of pure generosity j. Punished in another capacity for a misconduct for which he now faces a disbarment proceeding k. Old Age & long membership (BUT this may also be an aggravation depending on the circumstance)

Page 58 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Aggravating Circumstances 1. Prior disciplinary offenses 2. Dishonest or selfish motive 3. A pattern of misconduct 4. Multiple offenses; 5. Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; 6. Submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; 7. Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; 8. Vulnerability of victim; 9. Substantial experience in the practice of law 10. Indifference to making restitution 11. Others: a. Abuse of authority or of attorney-client relationship b. Sexual intercourse with a relative c. Making the institution of marriage a mockery d. Charge of gross immorality e. Previous punishment as member of the bar f. Defraud upon the government g. Use of knowledge or information, acquired in the course of a previous professional employment, against a former client

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Exception: When as a consequence of the withdrawal or desistance, no evidence is adduced to prove the charges [Banaag v. Salindong, A.C. No. 1563 (1984)].

f. Effect of Executive Pardon Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus Conditional pardon: disbarment case will not be dismissed on such basis Absolute pardon granted before conviction: disbarment case will be dismissed Absolute pardon granted before conviction: No automatic reinstatement to the bar. It must be shown by evidence aside from absolute pardon that he is now a person of good moral character and fit and proper person to practice law.

g. Effect of Compromise Agreements Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus General rule: The compromise agreement between the complainant and the lawyer, or the fact that the complainant already forgave the latter, does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative case [Tiama v. Ocampo, A.C. No. 2285, (1991)].

Page 59 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

D. Readmission to the Bar The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely suspended lawyer, stemming from its constitutional prerogative to issue rules and regulations concerning admission to the practice of law [Agpalo, 2004].

1. Lawyers Who Have Been

Suspended

Guidelines in the lifting an order of suspension a. Upon expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a sworn statement with the court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension; b. Copies of the sworn statement furnished to the local chapter of the IBP and to the executive judge of the courts where the respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel; c. The sworn statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension d. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment or disbarment, as may be warranted [Maniago v. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472 (2010)].

2. Lawyers Who Have Been

Disbarred

Considerations for Reinstatement • The applicant’s character and standing prior to disbarment • The nature or character of the misconduct for which he is disbarred • His conduct subsequent to disbarment [Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727 (1964)] • His efficient government service [In re: Adriatico, G.R. No. L-2532 (1910)]; • The time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for reinstatement and the circumstances that he has been sufficiently punished and disciplined [Prudential Bank v. Benjamin Grecia, A.C. No. 2756 (1986)] • Applicant’s appreciation of significance of his dereliction and his assurance that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity

•

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Favorable endorsement of the IBP and local government officials and citizens of his community, pleas of his loved ones [Yap Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. No. 44 (1989)]

The sole objective is to determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his character has been successful [In re: Rusuina, A.C. No. 270 (1974)]. The quantum of evidence necessary for reinstatement is the same as that for admission to the bar, except that the court, when circumstances so warrant, may require an applicant to present additional proof of his qualifications [Cui v. Cui, supra.]. The Supreme Court may also require special conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant, in addition to the required rehabilitation, including enrolling in and passing the required fourth year review classes in a recognized law school [Agpalo, 2004]. Prior to actual reinstatement, the applicant will be required to take anew the lawyer’s oath and sign once again the roll of attorneys after paying the requisite fees [Funa]. Guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency of disbarred lawyers a. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These include testimonials of credible institutions and personalities; b. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation; c. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself; d. There must be a showing of promise (e.g., intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal scholarship), and potential for public service; e. Other relevant factors to justify clemency [Re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (2007)]. Effect of Reinstatement a. Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed upon readmission b. The lawyer’s moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law is recognized c. The lawyer shall be subject to the same law, rules and regulations as those applicable to any other lawyer

Page 60 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

3. Lawyers who have been

E. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus

1. Purpose

Repatriated

Lawyers who reacquire their Philippine citizenship should apply to the Supreme Court for license or permit to practice their profession [Sec. 5(4), R.A. No. 9225]. See also Reacquisition of the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines under R.A. No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003 above.

Continuing legal education is required of members of the IBP to: a. Ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence; b. Maintain the ethics of the profession; and c. Enhance the standards of the practice of law [Sec. 1, Rule 1, B.M. No. 850].

2. Requirements Members of the IBP shall complete, every three years, at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours: Subject Legal Ethics Trial and Pre-trial Skills Alternative Dispute Resolution Updates on substantive and procedural laws and Jurisprudence International law and International Conventions Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy Other MCLE prescribed subjects [Sec. 2, Rule 2, B.M. No. 850]

# of Hours 6 hours 4 hours 5 hours 9 hours 2 hours 4 hours 6 hours

Participatory Legal Education [Sec. 2, Rule 5, B.M. No. 850] a. Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion b. Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities c. Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class. Non-Participatory Legal Education [Sec. 3, Rule 5, B.M. No. 850] a. Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not

Page 61 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

prepared in the ordinary course of the member’s practice or employment; b. Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter. c. Other activities, such as rendering mandatory legal aid services pursuant to Sec. 8, B.M. No. 2012, may be credited as MCLE activities.

3. Compliance Lawyers, not otherwise exempted, are required to complete their MCLE requirements every three (3) years and within the compliance periods set by the Rules. The IBP members covered by the requirement are divided into three compliance groups: a. Compliance Group 1 consists of members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila; b. Compliance Group 2 consists members in Luzon outside NCR; and c. Compliance Group 3 consists of members in Visayas and Mindanao [Sec. 2, Rule 3, B.M. No. 850]. The initial compliance period shall begin not later than 3 months from the constitution of the MCLE Committee. The compliance period shall be for 36 months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period [Sec. 1, Rule 3, B.M. No. 850]. For those admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, they will be permanently assigned to the appropriate compliance group based on their chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission. The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same compliance group. However: • Where 4 months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with the program requirement for the initial compliance; • Where more than 4 months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of months remaining in the compliance

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

period in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number [Sec. 3, Rule 3, BM 850]. Forms of non-compliance a. Failure to complete the educational requirement within the compliance period b. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption c. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance d. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of non-compliance within 60 days from receipt of non-compliance notice e. Failure to pay the non-compliance fee within the prescribed period f. Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirement [Sec. 1, Rule 12, B.M. No. 850]. The non-compliant member shall receive a Notice of Non-Compliance and shall be given 60 days from receipt of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or showing compliance.

4. Exemptions Exempted members from the MCLE a. The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executives Departments; b. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; c. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education; d. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice; e. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General; f. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel; g. The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions; h. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the

Page 62 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman; i. Heads of government agencies exercising quasijudicial functions; j. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten years accredited law schools; k. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures of the Philippine Judicial Academy; l. Governors and Mayors. m. Those who are not in law practice, private or public; and n. Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors o. Those granted exemption for good cause in accordance with Sec 3, Rule 7 of the MCLE Rules [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850] A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (e.g., physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law) from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee [Sec. 3, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850]. Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents [Sec. 5, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850]. When a member ceases to be exempt, the compliance period begins on the first day of the month in which he ceases to be exempt and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group [Sec. 4, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850].

5. Sanctions a.

A member who, for whatever reason, is in noncompliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee. b. Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A, Rules of Court, governing the IBP, shall apply [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850] Membership fee shall continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member [Sec. 3, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The delinquent member shall not be permitted to practice law until such time as adequate proof of compliance is received by the MCLE Committee. [Sec 7, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850]. When the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including the payment of the non-compliance fee, the involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated and the member shall be reinstated [Rule 14, B.M. No. 850]. Under B.M. No. 1922 (2008), practicing members of the bar are required to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. BUT this has been amended, pursuant to B.M. No. 850, as amended (Dated Feb. 15, 2015. Effective Mar. 1, 2015): “xxx The Court Resolved to REQUIRE all members of the IBP to file a written entry of appearance indicating their MCLE exemption or compliance number for the current or immediately preceding compliance period and date of issuance thereof before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral argument in open court or before a quasi-judicial body. However, counsels who affixed their signatures in their pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption or compliance number in their pleadings need not file a separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all counsels, including partners of law firms whose names appear in the said pleadings, shall also indicate their MCLE exemption or compliance number.” Pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated January 14, 2014, the phrase “failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records” in B.M. No. 1922 (2008) is repealed and amended to read, “failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.” Penalties for non-disclosure of compliance or exemption number in the pleadings: a. The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000, P3,000 and 4,000 for the first to third offense successively. b. In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar c. The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client shall be allowed to secure the services of a new counsel with the right

Page 63 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

to demand the return of fees already paid to the lawyer. [B.M. No. 1922]

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

F. Notarial Practice A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC is referred to as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice [hereinafter, Notarial Rules]. In 2008, it was amended by the Court en banc via 2 resolutions: Resolution dated February 12, 2008 and Resolution dated February 19, 2008. A Notary Public is one appointed by the Court whose duty is to attest to the genuineness of any deed or writing in order to render them available as evidence of the facts stated therein and who is authorized by statute to administer various oaths [E.O. 292].

1. Qualifications of a Notary

Public

a. Must be a Filipino citizen; b. Must be over 21 years old; c. Must be a resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year; d. Must maintain a regular place of work or business in the city or province where commission is to be issued; e. Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing, with clearances from: The Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court, and the IBP; and f. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude [Sec. 1, Rule III].

2. Term of Office of a Notary

Public

Sec. 11, Rule III. A person commissioned as

notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of 2 years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Sec. 13, Rule III. A notary public may file a written application with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his commission within 45 days before the expiration thereof.

Page 64 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

3. Powers and Limitations Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible as evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution [Sicat v. Ariola, A.C. No. 5864 (2005)].

Oath Affirmation

Lawyers commissioned as notaries are mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to their office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest [Mondejar v. Rubia, A.C. No. 5907 and 5942 (2006)].

a. Powers

Jurat

A notary public can perform the following notarial acts: 1. Acknowledgments; 2. Oaths and affirmations; 3. Jurats; 4. Signature witnessings; 5. Copy certifications; and 6. Any other act authorized by the Notarial Rules [Sec. 1(a), Rule IV]. a. Certifying the affixing of signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization [Sec. 1(b), Rule IV] b. Signing on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document [Sec. 1(c), Rule IV].

Acknowledgment

Basic Definition Represents to the notary public that the signature was voluntarily affixed for the purposes stated in the instrument AND declares the instrument was

Common requirements 1. Appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document 2. Is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through

Signature Witnessing

or

executed as a free and voluntary act Avows under penalty of law to the whole truth Signs the instrument and takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument Signs the instrument in the presence of the notary public

competent evidence of identity as defined by the Notarial Rules

Copy Certification A notarial act in which a notary public: 1. Is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable; 2. Copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document; 3. Compares the instrument or document with the copy; and 4. Determines that the copy is accurate and complete [Sec. 4, Rule II] Certifying the Affixing of Signature by Thumb/ Other Mark A notary public is authorized if: 1. The thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; 2. Both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark; 3. The notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: “Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public;” and

Page 65 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC 4.

LEGAL ETHICS

The notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing. [Sec. 1(b), Rule IV,]

Signing on Behalf of a Person Who is Physically Unable to Sign or Make a Mark A notary public is authorized if: 1. The notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf; 2. The signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; 3. Both witnesses sign their own names; 4. The notary public writes below his signature: “Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two witnesses);” and 5. The notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat [Sec. 1(c), Rule IV]. “Physically unable to sign” does not include the situation where a person is physically unable to sign because he is in another place.

b. Limitations 1. Relating to Notarial Acts A notary public is bereft of power to perform any notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction: a. Public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered; b. Public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization; c. Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and d. Any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention [Sec. 2(a), Rule IV] A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: a. Is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized; b. Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,

c.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by the Notarial Rules and by law; or Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree [Sec. 3, Rule IV] • Violation of this may disqualify a person from being a notary public but is insufficient ground for disbarment [Jandoquile v. Revilla, A.C. No. 9514, (2013)].

A person shall not perform a notarial act: a. If the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document: 1. Is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and 2. Is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Notarial Rules [Sec. 2(b), Rule IV]. b. If the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral; c. If the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and d. If in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will [Sec. 4, Rule IV] A notary public shall not: a. Execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false; b. Affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete [Sec. 5, Rule IV] c. Notarize a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or d. Notarize an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification [Sec. 6, Rule IV] Relating to Notarial Register In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business hours, provided; a. The person's identity is personally known to the notary public or proven through competent evidence of identity as defined in the Notarial Rules; b. The person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other recognized identifier, in the notarial register in a separate, dated entry;

Page 66 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

c.

The person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and name of the principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and d. The person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement officer in the course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court order. If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries therein [Sec. 4, Rule VI]

4. Notarial Register A notarial register refers to a permanently bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed by a notary public [Sec. 5, Rule II] Rule VI, Secs. I and 2 of the Notarial Rules require a notary public to keep and maintain a Notarial Register wherein he will record his every notarial act. His failure to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for revocation of his notarial commission [Agadan, et al. v. Kilaan, A.C. No. No. 9385 (2013)].

a. Entries By notary public The following information must be recorded in the register at the time of notarization: 1. The entry number and page number; 2. The date and time of day of the notarial act; 3. The type of notarial act; 4. The title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding; 5. The name and address of each principal; 6. The competent evidence of identity as defined by the Notarial Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary; 7. The name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity; 8. The fee charged for the notarial act; 9. The address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; 10. Any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance; 11. Reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act;

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

12. Circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the: a. Requester’s name; b. Requester’s address; c. Requester’s signature; d. Requester’s thumbmark or other recognized identifier; e. Evidence of requester’s identity; and f. Reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry; 13. Brief description of the substance of a contract presented for notarization; 14. In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein: a. Whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when and where; b. Whether he presented such draft, bill or note; c. Whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and d. Of every other fact touching the same [Sec. 2, Rule VI] By Other Persons At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed by each: 1. Principal; 2. Credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and 3. Witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign [Sec. 3, Rule VI].

b. Closing At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact. [Sec. 2(g), Rule VI]

c. Submission A certified copy of each month’s entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a

Page 67 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required. [Sec. 2(h), Rule VI]

5. Jurisdiction of Notary Public

and Place of Notarization

A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court [Sec. 11, Rule III]. The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-extensive with the province. The jursidiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be coextensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction [Sec 274, Art II, Revised Administrative Code]. General rule: A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business Exception: On certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties on the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction See also Limitations relating to Notarial Acts above.

6. Competent Evidence of

Identity

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

b. The oath or affirmation of: 1. One credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual; or 2. Two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification [Sec. 12, Rule II, as amended by Resolution dated Feb. 19, 2008].

7. Sanctions a. Administrative Sanctions The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds for revocation of commission mentioned [Sec. 1(d), Rule XI] An order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory pending appeal, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court. The names of notaries who have been administratively sanctioned will be posted in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court [Sec. 3, Rule XI]

b. Criminal sanctions

A notary public can identify an individual based on either of the following sources: a. At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual such as but not limited to: Passport, Driver's License, Professional Regulation Commission ID, NBI clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, GSIS e-card, SSS card, PhilHealth card, senior citizen card, OWWA ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien’s certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the NCWDO, DSWD certification; etc.

The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who: 1. Knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public; 2. Knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public; and 3. Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official misconduct. [Sec. 1, Rule XI].

Note: A Community Tax Certificate has been deleted as among the accepted proof of identity because of its inherent unreliability [Advance Paper Corporation v. Arma Traders Corporation, G.R. No. 176897 (2013)].

Violations of the 2004 Notarial Rules have also been considered by the SC as violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. Thus, in a case where the notary public was found guilty of notarizing documents outside his area of commission, with an expired commission, without

8. Relation to the Code of

Professional Responsibility

Page 68 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

the presence of the signatory to the document, and with the assistance of his wife who is a non-lawyer, he was also found in violation of the Code of Professional Conduct and the Lawyer’s Oath: The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably short of his obligation under Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. [Laquindanum v. Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, A.C. No. 7036, (2009)].

9. Revocation of Commission Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus a.

The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied; b. In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who: 1. Fails to keep a notarial register; 2. Fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts; 3. Fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten days of the month following; 4. Fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

5.

Fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge; 6. Fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge; 7. Fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act; 8. Fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence; 9. Executes a false or incomplete certificate under Sec. 5, Rule IV; 10. Knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and 11. Commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of com-mission or imposition of administrative sanction [Sec. 1(a) and (b), Rule XI]. If the notarial certificate is incomplete or deficient, it is as if there is no acknowledgment and the document remains a private document, as if it had not been notarized [Spouses Bautista v. Silva, G.R 157434, (2006)]. A Deed of Donation, notarized without determining the presence or qualification of affiants, demonstrates grows negligence and ignorance of the Rules on Notarial Practice [Laquindanum v. Quintana, A.C.7036, (2009)]. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the personal appearance of the person who actually executed the document, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act or deed. When a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of 2 years, and suspension from the practice of law for 1 year [Agbulos v. Viray , G.R. No. 7350 (2013)]. While Atty. Ching denied having notarized the Deed by showing the discrepancy between his purported and actual signature, he miserably failed to explain how the Deed ended up in his notarial books. Atty. Ching still failed in ensuring that only documents

Page 69 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

LEGAL ETHICS

which he had personally signed and sealed with his notarial seal, after satisfying himself with the completeness of the same and the identities of the parties who affixed their signatures therein, would be included in his notarial register. This also means that Atty. Ching failed to properly store and secure his notarial equipment in order to prevent other people from notarizing documents by forging his signature and affixing his notarial seal, and recording such documents in his notarial books, without his knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence. Such had also unduly put the Castelo heirs in jeopardy of losing their property. Thus, his existing commission is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from being a notary public and is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. [Castelo v. Ching, A.C. No. 11165, (2017)].

Page 70 of 106

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JUDICIAL ETHICS Legal and Judicial Ethics

Page 71 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

B. Disqualifications of Justices and Judges [Rule 137, ROC]

II. Judicial Ethics A. Sources 1. New Code of Judicial

Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)

In November 2002, at a Roundtable Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity amended and approved the Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is intended to be the Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards. It is founded on the following principles: a. A universal recognition that a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law; b. Public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost importance in a modern democratic society; c. It is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system. On April 27, 2004, the draft code was promulgated as the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary through A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC and given effect on June 1, 2004. Purpose: The New Code seeks to not only update and correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the universal clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics.

2. Code of Judicial Conduct The New Code of Judicial Conduct supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics (1946) and the Code of Judicial Conduct (1989). However, in case of deficiency or absence of specific provisions, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.

Note: Asked 5times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)]

1. Compulsory No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case, without the written consent of all parties in interest and entered upon the record, in which: a. He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; or b. He is related to either party within the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the 4th degree, computed according to the rules of civil law; c. He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or d. He has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review [par. 1, Sec. 1]. The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to hear a case rests on the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity. The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in such a case and, for that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties concerned. The purpose is to preserve the people's faith and confidence in the courts' justice [Garcia v. De La Peña, A.M. No. MTJ-92-687 (1994)]. The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this is probable or even only possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza [Javier v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-68379-81 (1996)].

Page 72 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

GROUNDS FOR INHIBITION OF A JUDGE

JUDICIAL ETHICS

COMPULSORY

Note: asked in 2004 and 2010 Bar examinations [Lex Pareto (2014)]. Actual Bias or Prejudice In Umale v. Villaluz (1973), a judge inhibited himself from trying a robbery case due to his personal knowledge of the case. The Supreme Court stated that it is possible that the respondent Judge might be influenced by his personal knowledge of the case when he tries and decides the same on the merits, which would certainly constitute a denial of due process to the party adversely affected by his judgment or decision. Thus, it is best that, after some reflection, the judge, on his own initiative disqualified himself from hearing the robbery case and thereby rendering himself available as witness to any of the parties subject to cross-examination. In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge dismissed criminal informations on the suspicion, arising from a dinner invitation from a stranger and a subsequent personal investigation, that the court was being used as a forum for extortion and exploitation of the persons charged. The Supreme Court found that this unstated extraneous matter makes the dismissal as one affected with partiality and bias. The prayer of the judge to be disqualified in hearing the case because he has lost all respect in the manner in which the prosecutor has been prosecuting the case was granted. Economic Interest of Judge or his Family In Oktubre v. Velasco (2004), a municipal judge, as private complainant, caused three criminal complaints to be filed before his own court. He also issued a warrant of arrest and subpoenas before finally inhibiting himself from hearing the cases. The Supreme Court found him guilty of grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, and dismissed him from service. It stated that the idea that a judge can preside over his own case is anathema to the notion of impartiality and that his subsequent inhibition from the three cases does not detract from his culpability for he should not have taken cognizance of the cases in the first place. Reviewing Own Cases In Sandoval v. CA (1996), the Supreme Court found that an Associate Justice who only partly presided over a case in the trial court and who did not render the final decision cannot be said to have been placed

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

in a position where he had to review his own decision and, as such, was not legally bound, on this ground, to inhibit himself as ponente of the case. Nevertheless, it was held that he should have voluntarily inhibited himself for his earlier involvement in the case constitutes just or valid reason under Sec. 1, Rule 137. A judge should not handle a case in which he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias and partiality. Previously Served as Counsel A judge may validly disqualify himself due to his bias and prejudice. [However,] bias and prejudice cannot be presumed [Soriano v. Angeles (2000)]. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not sufficient for a judge to inhibit, especially when the charge is without basis. It must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. [Gochan v. Gochan (2003)] Moreover, it has been held that bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extra-judicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than the evidence presented [Aleria v. Velez (1998)]. Disqualification was also allowed when the judge has been previously associated with a party as counsel, [Austria v. Masaquel (1978)] notarized the affidavit of a person to be presented as witness [Mateo v. Villaluz (1973)], if he is a material witness to a case [AmJur; Lewis v. State (2002)]

2. Voluntary A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned [par. 2, Sec. 1].

Sec. 5, Canon 3, New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where: a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy;

Page 73 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy; d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; e) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review; f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

the Bench is not a valid ground from voluntary inhibition. “Utang na loob” per se should not be a hindrance to the administration of justice. Nor should recognition of such value prevent the performance of judicial duties. However, where the judge admits that he may be suspected of surrendering to the persuasions of utang na loob, and he may succumb to it considering that he and members of the family, no less shall ever remain obliged in eternal gratitude to the recommending counsel, the judge should inhibit himself [Query of Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, etc, A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC (1987) cited in Lex Pareto (2014)].

A judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust to his actions, whether wellgrounded or not, the judge has no other alternative but inhibit himself from the case.

The objecting party to his competency may, in writing, file with the subject official his objection and its grounds. The said official may, in accordance with his determination of the question of his disqualification, either: 1) proceed with the trial or 2) withdraw therefrom.

A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances appear that will induce doubt to his honest actuations and probity in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better course for the judge under such circumstances is to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved [Bautista v. Rebueno, G.R. No. L46117 (1978)].

The decision of the said official shall be in writing and filed with the other papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own competency, until final judgment in the case [Sec. 2].

c)

The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. Extrinsic evidence must further be presented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself [Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Dy Hong Pi, G.R. No. 171137 (2009)].

A judge should not be disqualified because he was a classmate (or a co-member in a fraternity) of one of the counsels if there is no proof that such relationship results in actual bias or prejudice. To allow disqualification would unnecessarily burden other trial judges to whom the case will be assigned. Confusion would result, because a judge would then be barred from sitting in a case whenever one of his former classmates (and he could have many) appeared [Masadao and Elizaga, cited in Lex Pareto (2014)]. The mere fact that a counsel who is appearing before a judge was one of those who recommended him to Page 74 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

C. Administrative Jurisdiction over Judges and Justices 1. Supreme Court Under Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, Justices of the Supreme Court may be removed from office, through impeachment upon conviction of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust; All other Justices and judges from the Court of Appeals to the lowest level may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. According to J. Carpio’s dissenting opinion in In re: Charges of Plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC (2011), pursuant to Sec. 3 (1) and (6), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, the sole disciplining authority (i.e. exclusive authority to discipline) of all impeachable officers, including Justices of the Supreme Court, is Congress. While impeachment is often described as a political process, it also functions as the equivalent of administrative disciplinary proceedings against impeachable officers since impeachable officers are not subject to administrative disciplinary proceedings either by the Executive or Judicial branch.

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

court personnel should accordingly be filed with the Supreme Court [Maceda v. Vasquez, supra.; Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 118808 (1996)]. Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary. Indeed, the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial employee before the Office of the Court Administrator [Ampong v. CSC, G.R. No. 167916 (2008)]. In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost by reason of respondent’s cessation from office [Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, AM. 10-2-41RTC (2013)].

2. All Other Courts Pursuant to Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court can oversee compliance with the law and the Rules of Court on the part of the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court judge and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof, requiring supervisory or administrative sanction [Agpalo, (2004)]. Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Thus, the Ombudsman has no power to entertain and investigate administrative complaints against judges and court personnel. Complaints against judges and Page 75 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

D. Initiation of Complaint against Judges and Justices Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted: 1. Motu proprio by the Supreme Court; 2. Upon the verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or 3. Upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for judges, the RoC, or the Code of Judicial Conduct [Sec. 1]. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-ininterest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges [Figueros v Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116 (2014)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

E. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during a good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office [Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution].

1. Supreme Court Members of the Supreme Court may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust [Sec. 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution]. The impeachment of public officials has been established for removing otherwise constitutionally tenured and independent public officials. The power to initiate impeachment cases rests with the House of the Representatives while the power to try the same rests with the Senate. Based on Sec. 3, Article VI, 1987 Constitution, the steps leading to impeachment are as follows: a. A verified complaint for impeachment is filed by a member of the House or endorsed by him; b. The complaint is included in the order of business of the House; c. The House refers the complaint to the proper committee; d. The committee holds a hearing, approves the resolution calling for impeachment, and submits the same to the House; e. The House considers the resolution and votes to approve it by at least one-third of all its members, which resolution becomes the article of impeachment to be filed with the Senate when approved; and f. The Senate tries the public official under the article [J. Abad, Separate Concurring Opinion, Gutierrez v. HOR Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459 (2011)].

Page 76 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

2. Lower Courts and Justices of

Court of Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals (Rule 140)

a. Initiation of Proceedings See Initiation of Complaint against Judges and Justices above.

b. Investigation Upon the filing of the comment of the respondent or upon the expiration of the period for such filing, which is ten days from the date of service to him of the copy of the complaint [Sec. 2], the Supreme Court shall: 1. Refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation; or 2. Assign the case for investigation, report, and recommendation to: • A retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondent is a justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; • A justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a judge of a Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank; or • A judge of the Regional Trial Court, if the respondent is a judge of an inferior court [Sec. 3, Rule 140].

c. Hearing and Termination The investigating justice of judge shall set a day for the hearing and send notice to the parties. If the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. The investigating justice or judge shall terminate the proceedings: 1. Within 90 days from the date of its commencement; or 2. Within such extension as the Supreme Court may grant [Sec. 4].

d. Report and Action Within 30 days from termination, the investigating justice or judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

recommendation, accompanied by the evidence and pleadings filed by the parties. Such report shall be confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court. A copy of the decision or resolution of the court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the OCA [Secs. 5 and 12]. The Supreme Court shall take action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant [Sec. 6]. Proceedings shall be private and confidential but a copy of the decision shall be attached to the record of the judge in the OCA [Sec. 12] Automatic Conversion of Administrative Cases to Disciplinary Proceedings Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, administrative cases against justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, judges of regular and special courts, and court officials who are lawyers, shall also be considered a disciplinary action against them, if they are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the bar for: a. Violation of the Lawyer's Oath; b. Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; c. Violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics; or d. Such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers. The respondent is required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the bar. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. Members of the judiciary are not a class of their own. In its recent rulings, the Court has also applied substantial evidence as the quantum of proof necessary in resolving administrative complaints against judges [Macias v. Macias, AM RTJ-01-1650 (2009)]. Effect of Withdrawal or Desistance The actuations of a judge seriously affect the public interest inasmuch as they involve the administration of justice. It is for this reason that a motion to withdraw a complaint will not justify the dismissal of the administrative case against the judge.

Page 77 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

To condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the Supreme Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary [Anguluan v. Taguba (1979)]. Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle to the taking of disciplinary action against a judge if the record reveals that he had not performed his duties properly [Espayos v. Lee (1979)].

3. Grounds Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light [Sec. 7]

a. Misconduct “Misconduct” implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error or judgment. For serious [or gross] misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules [In re: Impeachment of Horrilleno (1922)]. The commission of two or administrative offenses alleged in the same administrative complaint may aggravate the offense and render the same serious, which will warrant dismissal of the judge from the service [Agpalo (2004)]. The judge was found guilty of gross misconduct, abandonment of office, and was dismissed due to his frequent leave of absence totaling 3 years which were not approved for his explanations were inexcusable. He has caused great disservice to many litigants and has denied them speedy justice [In Re: Leaves of Absence without Approval of Judge Eric Calderon, AM 98-8-105 MTC, (1999)]. When Judge Samson accepted the application for a judicial post of a probationer before his discharge from probation and even recommending him for such post, she committed impropriety and gross misconduct [The Anonymous Letter Complaint vs. Judge Samson, et al. A.M. No. MTJ 16-1870 (2017)]. Judge Barcillano committed conduct unbecoming a judge when he embarrassed a lady police officer and repeatedly asked her to stand and sit beside him, insulted the lady police when he repeatedly asked her name and said “PO1 ka lang”; and held her gun and cocked it in public. [PO1 Myra Marcelo vs. Judge Ignacio Barcillano, A.M. No. RTJ 16-2450 (2017)]

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

By carrying an affair with a married woman, Judge Laron's immorality and serious misconduct have repercussions not only on the judiciary but also on the millions OFWs. While Wilfredo was working hard abroad to earn for his family, Judge Laron was sleeping with his wife in his bed in his house and spending his hard-earned dollars. What was even worse was the flaunting of the illicit relationship before his young boys who related it to him upon his return from abroad. A judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. He must comport himself in a manner that his conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his official duties but also as to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. His character must be able to withstand the most searching public scrutiny because the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people's faith in the judicial system. [Wilfredo F. Tuvillo vs. Judge Henry Laron, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1755; Melissa J. Tuvillo vs. Judge Henry Laron, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1756, (2016)]. Respondent's act of not wearing the judicial robe during court sessions violates Administrative Circular 25 of 9 June 1989, which is mandatory. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars is considered a less serious charge [Jocelyn Mclaren, et al. vs. Hon. Jacinto C. Gonzales, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1876, (2017)].

b. Gross Ignorance of the Law Judge Mislang manifested serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the basic legal principles on prejudicial question and on jurisdiction in petitions for suspension of criminal action based on prejudicial questions. Where the law is straightforward and the facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. A blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme Court circulars enjoining their strict compliance, upends this presumption and subjects the magistrate to corresponding administrative sanctions. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws, they must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less. Thus, unfamiliarity with the rules is a sign of incompetence. [Department of Justice vs. Hon. Rolando Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (2016)]

Page 78 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

c. Gross Inefficiency Like misconduct, inefficiency as a ground for disciplinary action must be serious or one which is weighty or momentous and not trifling. Negligence in the performance of duty, if reckless in character, could amount to serious or inexcusable inefficiency [Agpalo (2004)].

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

listing of cases and to note therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and without delay. He must adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in order to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of business. He is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision which is a less serious charge. [Gamboa-Roces vs. Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887, (2017)].

Examples: • Failure to deposit funds with the municipal treasurer or produce them despite promise to do so [Montemayor v. Collado (1981)]; • Misappropriation of fiduciary funds (i.e., proceeds of cash bail bond) by depositing the check in a personal account, thus converting the trust fund to personal use [Barja v. Beracio (1976)]; • Extorting money from a party-litigant who has a pending case [Haw Tay v. Singayao (1988)]: • Solicitation of donation for office equipment [Lecaroz v. Garcia (1981)]; • Frequent unauthorized absences in office [Municipal Council of Casiguruhan, Quezon v. Morales (1974)]; • Delay in the disposition of cases in violation of the canon that a judge must promptly dispose of all matters submitted to him [Balagot v. Opinion (1991)]; • Unduly granting repeated motions for postponement [Araza v. Reyes (1975)]; • Unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and duration and graduation of penalties [In re: Paulin (1980)]; • Reducing to a ridiculous amount (P6,000.00) the bail bond of the accused murderer, enabling him to escape the toils of the law [Soriano v. Mabbayad (1975)]. • Imposing the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment on a party for failure to pay civil indemnity in violation of R.A. No. 5465 [Monsanto v. Palarca (1983)] • Directing a subordinate to alter the TSN by incorporating statements pertaining to substantial matters not actually made during the hearing [Balanay v. White, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443, (2016)]

Judicial Immunity General rule: A judge cannot be subjected to liability – civil, criminal, or administrative – when he acts within his legal powers and jurisdiction, even though such acts are erroneous. [Agpalo (2004)].

Judge Perez’s being inexperienced as a newly appointed judge and his explanation that the delay was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs are not persuasive because it is his duty to resolve the cases within the reglementary period as mandated by law and the rules. A judge is expected to keep his own

Civil Liability

Purpose: A judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. This concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary [Equatorial Realty Development v. Anunciacion Jr. AM MTJ-91-562 (1997)]. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary actions, even though these may be erroneous, provided he acted in good faith and without malice. In such case, the proper remedy is not an administrative charge against the judge, but an appeal or a petition for review of his decision [Equatorial Realty Development v. Anunciacion Jr. supra]. Exceptions: A judge may be held criminally, civilly or administratively liable 1. For malfeasance or misfeasance in office [Valdez v. Valera, A.M. No. 1628-CAR (1978)]. 2. Where an error is so gross or patent or when acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice, ill-will, bad faith or deliberate intent to do injustice [Lorenzana v. Austria, AM RTJ-09-2200, (2014)]. 3. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the ROC, not to know or to act as if one does not know constitutes gross ignorance of the law, even without proving malice or bad faith [Pancho v. Aguirre, AM RTJ-092196, (2010)].

Refusal or neglect without just cause by a public servant to perform his official duty [Art 27, Civil Code].

Page 79 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

Directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating or in any manner impeding or impairing civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution [Art 32, Civil Code]. The responsibility for damages is not demandable of judges except when his act or omission constitutes a violation of the RPC or other penal statute [Agpalo, 2004]. Criminal Liability a. Under the RPC 1. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment [Art. 204] 2. Judgment rendered through negligence [Art. 205] 3. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order [Art. 206] 4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice [Art. 207] 5. Direct bribery [Art. 210] 6. Indirect bribery [Art. 211] 7. Infidelity in the custody of documents [Art. 226] 8. Open disobedience [Art. 231] 9. Prolonging performance of duties [Art. 237] 10. Abandonment of office [Art. 238] 11. Disobeying requisites for disqualification [Art. 242] 12. Abuses against chastity [Art. 245] 13. Falsification by a public officer [Art. 171] b. Under Special Laws 1. Plunder [R.A. No. 7080] 2. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [R.A. No. 3019] 3. Violation of the Code of Conduct of Public Officials [R.A. No. 6713] 4. Violation of Omnibus Election Code 5. Violation of the right to counsel [E.O. 155] 6. Transfer of unlawfully acquired property [R.A. No. 1379]

Page 80 of 106

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

U.P. LAW BOC

JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Administrative Liability [A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC (2001)]

Grounds

Sanctions [Sec. 11]

Serious Charges 1. 2.

Bribery, direct or indirect; Dishonesty and violations of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court; 8. Immorality; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; 10. Partisan political activities; and 11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits [Sec. 8].

Less Serious Charges 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case; 2. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness; 3. Unauthorized practice of law; 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and 7. Simple misconduct [Sec. 9]

Light Charges

1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct; 2. Gambling in public; 3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and 4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports.

1.

Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Forfeiture of benefits does not include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00

1.

2.

Page 81 of 106

Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00

1.

2. 3. 4.

A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; and/or Censure; Reprimand; Admonition with warning.

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

FORMS Practical Exercises

Page 82 of 106

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES A. Demand and Authorization Letters 1. Demand Letter [DATE] [NAME OF ADDRESSEE] [ADDRESS] RE: [SUBJECT] Dear [NAME], We are writing in behalf our client [NAME], in the matter of [SUBJECT]. Records disclose that [SUMMARY OF BASIC FACTS SUPPORTING YOUR CLIENT’S DEMAND/CAUSE OF ACTION]. We wish to inform you that your acts constitute violation of [APPLICABLE LAW OR CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION]. Accordingly, a demand is hereby made upon you to settle the amount of [AMOUNT] within ____ days from the receipt of this letter. Otherwise, we will be constrained to find recourse in the courts of law and file the necessary legal action against you to protect the interest of our client. We trust that you will give this matter your urgent attention. Yours, [COUNSEL]

2. Authorization Letter [DATE] [BRANCH CLERK OF COURT] Regional Trial Court Branch [NUMBER], [VENUE] RE: [SUBJECT] To the Branch Clerk of Court: I am [NAME OF CLIENT], [Plaintiff/Defendant] in [Civil/Criminal] Case No. [NUMBER] pending before this Honorable Court. I am writing this letter to introduce my counsel, [FIRM] and to authorize its lawyers and apprentices, including, but not limited to, [NAMES OF LAWYERS] to obtain copies of records pertaining to the aforementioned case on my behalf. For any clarifications or concerns, you may reach me through [NUMBER/E-MAIL ADDRESS] Thank you for your kind consideration. Yours, [NAME OF CLIENT]

Page 83 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

B. Simple Contracts: Lease and Sale 1. Contract of Lease CONTRACT OF LEASE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Agreement made and entered into at [PLACE] this ____ day of [MONTH, YEAR] by and between [NAME OF LESSOR], of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], (LESSOR) and resident of [ADDRESS], and [NAME OF LESSEE], of legal age, single and resident of [ADDRESS] (LESSEE), WITNESSETH that: 1. In consideration of a monthly rental of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx) and the covenants made below, the LESSOR hereby LEASES to the LESSEE a(n) [PROPERTY] located at [ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE LEASED] covered by [TCT/TAX DEC. NO.] for a period of TWELVE (12) MONTHS from signing of this contract. 2. The LESSEE covenants, as follows: 2.1. To pay the rentals on or before the fifth day of each month, without need of demand at the residence of LESSOR; 2.2. To keep the premises in good and habitable condition, making the necessary repairs inside and outside the house; 2.3. Not to make major alterations and improvements without the written consent of the LESSOR and in the event of such unauthorized major alterations and improvements, surrendering ownership over such improvements and alterations to the LESSOR upon expiration of this lease; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on the date and the place first mentioned. (sgd.) [NAME OF LESSOR] LESSOR

(sgd.) [NAME OF LESSEE] LESSEE

[If Lessor is married, include spousal consent as follows:] With my consent: (sgd.) [NAME OF SPOUSE OF LESSOR] SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________ _________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 84 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle DEED OF SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], a resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER], is the lawful owner of a certain motor vehicle which is more particularly described as follows: MAKE SERIES TYPE OF BODY YEAR MODEL

: : : :

MOTOR NO. SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. PLATE NO. FILE NO. C.R. NO.

: : : : :

That for and in consideration of the sum of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx, xxx.xx), Philippine Currency, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged to my entire satisfaction, I hereby sell, transfer and convey by way of Absolute Sale unto [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, of legal age, and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER], the above described motor vehicle, free from all liens and encumbrances. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd.) [NAME OF BUYER] VENDEE

(sgd.) [NAME OF SELLER] VENDOR

[If Seller is married, include spousal consent as follows:] With my consent: (sgd.) [NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER] SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________ _________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 85 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3. Bill of Sale (Personal Property) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S.

BILL OF SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single, and resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] the following property: (Description of property) I own and have the right to sell and transfer the title and ownership of the above–described property; I will defend the same against the claims of any and all persons whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd). [NAME OF SELLER] SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________ _________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 86 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

4. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S. DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____], free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and more particularly described as follows: (Technical Description of property as indicated in the title) of which I am the registered owner in fee simple, my title thereto being evidenced by [TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE TITLE NO.__________], issued by the Register of Deeds of [CITY/MUNICIPALITY]. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd). [NAME OF SELLER] [If Seller is married, include spousal consent as follows:] With my consent: (sgd.) [NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER] SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________ _________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 87 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

5. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S. DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____], free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and more particularly described as follows: (Description: state the nature of each piece of land and its improvements, situations and boundaries, area in square meters, e.g. “Bounded on the N. by ____________; on the E. by ___________; on the S. by ____________; and on the W. by ____________; with an area of ________ square meters, more or less.”) THAT the SELLER does hereby declare that the boundaries of the foregoing land are visible by means of [MONUMENTS, CREEKS, TREES ETC.] that the permanent improvements existing thereon consist of [LIST VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS, IF NONE, STATE SO.]; that the land is assessed for the current year at (PhP xxx.xx) as per Tax Declaration No. _________, and that the property is in present possession of the SELLER. The above described real estate, not having been registered under Act No. 496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law, I have agreed to register this instrument under the provisions of Sec. 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Sec. 113 of P.D 1159. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd). [NAME OF SELLER] [If Vendor is married, include spousal consent as follows:] With my consent: (sgd.) [NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER] SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________

_________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 88 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

6. Bilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S. DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made, executed and entered into by: [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER] (SELLER) -and[NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE] and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] (BUYER) WITNESSETH That the SELLER is the registered owner in fee simple of a parcel of land with improvements situated in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____] with [TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE TITLE NO.__________], issued by the Register of Deeds of [CITY/MUNICIPALITY] and more particularly described as follows: (Technical Description of property as indicated in the title) That the SELLER for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), does hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto the BUYER that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever. That it is hereby mutually agreed that the BUYER shall bear all expenses for the execution and registration of this deed of sale. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd.) [NAME OF BUYER] BUYER

(sgd.) [NAME OF SELLER] SELLER

[If Buyer and/or Seller are married, include spousal consent as follows:] With my consent: (sgd.) [NAME OF SPOUSE OF BUYER]

(sgd.) [NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________ _________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 89 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

C. Special Power of Attorney 1. Special Power of Attorney for Sale of Real Property REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S.

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, [NAME], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with residence and postal address at [ADDRESS], do hereby NAME, CONSTITUTE, AND APPOINT [NAME OF AGENT/ATTORNEY IN FACT], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address at [ADDRESS], as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact to act for and in my name, place and stead and to perform the following acts: (A) To sell, offer for sale, and come to an agreement as to the purchase price; (B) To sign for me and in my name; and (C) To receive payment from the sale of my property more particularly described as follows: [DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY] HEREBY GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to execute and perform every act necessary to render effective the power to sell the foregoing properties, as though I myself have performed it, and HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he/she may do by virtue hereof with full right of substitution of his/her person and revocation of this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this___ day of [MONTH, YEAR], in [PLACE OF EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT]. __________________ [NAME OF PRINCIPAL]

__________________ [NAME OF AGENT]

Signed in the presence of: __________________ __________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Page 90 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Special Power of Attorney for Purchase of Real Property REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S.

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, [NAME], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with residence and postal address at [ADDRESS], do hereby NAME, CONSTITUTE, AND APPOINT [NAME OF AGENT/ATTORNEY IN FACT], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address at [ADDRESS], as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact to act for and in my name, place and stead and to perform the following acts: (A) To purchase real property or properties situated anywhere in the Philippines, in an amount acceptable to him/her; (B) To sign and/or execute any deed conveyance to effect the sale of the property in my name; and (C) To receive all documents pertinent to the purchase of any property: HEREBY GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to execute and perform every act necessary to render effective the power to purchase properties, as though I myself have performed it, and HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he/she may do by virtue hereof with full right of substitution of his/her person and revocation of this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this___ day of [MONTH, YEAR], in [PLACE OF EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT]. __________________ [NAME OF PRINCIPAL]

__________________ [NAME OF AGENT]

Signed in the presence of: __________________ __________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Page 91 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3. Special Power of Attorney for Representation in Actions REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S.

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, [NAME], of legal age, Filipino citizen, Corporate Secretary of [CORPORATION] (“ABC”), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, by virtue of this authority given to me pursuant to Board Resolution duly issued by the Board of Directors of [“ABC”] in its meeting on [DAY MONTH YEAR], as evidenced by the secretary’s certificate attached hereto, do hereby NAME, CONSTITUTE, AND APPOINT [NAME OF AGENT/ATTORNEY IN FACT], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address at [ADDRESS], to be [“ABC”]’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact in Civil Case No. 21324 entitled [TITLE] (“Case”), to act for on its behalf to: (A.) Appear for and represent [ABC] whether at the original or appellate stage, and whether as appellant of appellee, petitioner or respondent; (B.) Sign, under oath or otherwise, all necessary and appropriate pleadings, motions, verifications, certifications, papers and documents; (C.) Act as agent and appear on behalf of [ABC] in the mandatory conciliation, mediation conference, judicial dispute resolution, and pre-trial proceedings and all other hearings in the Case, with full power and authority to consider: (i.) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution; (ii.) The simplification of issues; (iii.) The necessity or desirability of amending the pleadings; (iv.) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of fact and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof; (v.) The limitation of the number of witnesses; (vi.) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner; (vii.) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the Case should a valid ground therefor be found to exist; (viii.) The advisability or necessity of suspending proceedings; and (ix.) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of this Case. (D.) Negotiate, conclude, enter into, and execute a compromise or amicable settlement of the Case, if appropriate. HEREBY GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to execute and perform every act necessary, as though ABC itself has performed it, and HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he/she may do by virtue hereof with full right of substitution of his/her person and revocation of this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this___ day of [MONTH, YEAR], in [PLACE OF EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT]. __________________ [NAME OF PRINCIPAL]

__________________ [NAME OF AGENT]

Signed in the presence of: __________________ __________________ [PLUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Page 92 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

D. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping I, [NAME], Filipino, of legal age, with residence at [ADDRESS] do hereby state that: 1.

I am the [PARTY e.g. COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER etc.] in the above-entitled case;

2.

I caused the preparation of the foregoing [DESIGNATION OF THE PLEADING e.g. PETITION, COMPLAINT etc.];

3.

I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge and authentic documents in our possession;

4.

I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5.

To the best of my knowledge no other such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency and if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd.) [NAME OF AFFIANT] Affiant [PLUS JURAT] Notes: As per In Re: Letter Complaint of Fabiana [A.M. No. CA-13-51-J (2013)], if there are pending actions involving the same parties and/or related question of law and/or fact, the affiant must render complete statements of the present status thereof. In Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr. [G.R. No. 191906 (2014), the Court reiterated the difference between non-compliance and defective form: 1. A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. 2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. 3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. 4. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons. 5. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule. Page 93 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

6.

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

Page 94 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

E.Notice of Hearing and Explanation in Motions 1. Request for and Notice of Hearing THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT [COURT e.g. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT etc.] [CITY/MUNICIPALITY], [BRANCH NO.] Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing on [DATE] at [TIME e.g. 8:30 in the morning.] [NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL OF OTHER PARTY] Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on [DATE] at [TIME e.g. 8:30 in the morning.] (sgd.) [NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL] Note: The following provisions of Rule 15 – Motions, Rules of Court state the requirements of a notice of hearing: Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a) Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)

Page 95 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Proof of Service by Registered Mail with Explanation Copy Furnished: [NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL OF OTHER PARTY] EXPLANATION The foregoing [DESIGNATION OF PLEADING, MOTION, ETC.] and its attachment(s) were served on [NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL] [IF APPLICABLE: “AND FILED WITH THIS HONORABLE COURT”] by registered mail due to the lack of time and available personnel to effect personal service. This explanation is given pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. (sgd.) [NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, [NAME], a messenger of [NAME OF COUNSEL], with office address at [ADDRESS] after being duly sworn, hereby depose and state: That on [DATE OF MAILING], I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers by registered mail in accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court: Nature of Pleading/Paper ________________________ ________________________ in Case No. _________________ entitled ____________________ by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to [NAME OF PARTY OR HIS/HER COUNSEL] at [ADDRESS] with postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _____________________ attached and with instructions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd.) [NAME OF AFFIANT] Affiant [PLUS JURAT]

Page 96 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

F. Judicial Affidavit JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT I, [NAME], of legal age, [SINGLE/MARRIED], [CITIZENSHIP], residing at [ADDRESS], employed as [OCCUPATION/PROFESSION] at [OFFICE ADDRESS], after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law and fully conscious that I do so under oath and that I may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury in way of answers to the questions propounded to me during the examination conducted on [DATE] by [NAME OF LAWYER], with office address [OFFICE ADDRESS OF LAWYER], do hereby depose and state: Q1:

[QUESTION]

A:

[ANSWER]

Q2:

[QUESTION]

A:

[ANSWER]

Q3:

[QUESTION]

A:

[ANSWER]

Q4:

[QUESTION]

A:

[ANSWER]

Q5:

[QUESTION]

A:

[ANSWER]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd.) [NAME OF AFFIANT] Affiant ATTESTATION AND OFFER I, [NAME OF LAWYER], of legal age, with office address [OFFICE ADDRESS OF LAWYER], do hereby certify that: I propounded questions to [NAME] and faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked and the corresponding answers that [NAME] gave, as above stated. Neither I nor any other person then present or assisting [HIM/HER] coached [HIM/HER] regarding [HIS/HER] answers and which testimony is being offered to prove: [ENUMERATE THE PURPOSE OF THE OFFER]. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE OF SIGNING]. (sgd.) [NAME OF LAWYER] Page 97 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

[PLUS JURAT WHICH INCLUDES THE DETAILS OF THE WITNESS AND LAWYER] Note: Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to ALL actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the presentation of evidence; ALL courts, quasi-judicial and investigative bodies authorized by SC to receive evidence, including IBP; and NOT to small claims cases. A false attestation shall subject the lawyer to disciplinary action against disbarment.

Page 98 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

G.Notarial Certificates: Jurat and Acknowledgement 1. Jurat SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY of _______________] on this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR], affiant exhibiting before me his Government Issued ID no. _______________ issued on [DATE OF ISSUANCE] at [PLACE OF ISSUANCE] and valid until [DATE OF EXPIRY]. (Sgd.) NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No. Page No. Book No. Series of [Year]

2. Acknowledgment (Two-Party Instrument) Republic of the Philippines City of ____________

) ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________], personally appeared: NAME __________________________ __________________________

TYPE OF I.D AND I.D NO. _____________________________ _____________________________

DATE/PLACE ISSUED _________________________ _________________________

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place written. (Sgd.) NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No. Page No. Book No. Series of [Year] Note: If the instrument consists of 2 or more pages, include the following after the 1st paragraph: This instrument, consisting of ___ pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by ___________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed with my Notarial seal.

Page 99 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3. Acknowledgment (Affiant Representing a Corporation) Republic of the Philippines City of ____________

) ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________], personally appeared [NAME OF AFFIANT], representing to be [POSITION IN THE CORPORATION] of [NAME OF CORPORATION] with [VALID IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT] (No.________________) issued by the [OFFICIAL AGENCY] on [DATE OF ISSUANCE], known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place written. (Sgd.) NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No. Page No. Book No. Series of [Year] Note: Acknowledgment v. Jurat A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him. It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made. The jurat in the petition in the case also begins with the words "subscribed and sworn to me." To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's name; to sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath the truth of a pleading, etc. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths. (Gamido v. New Bilibid Prison Officials, G.R. No. 114829, March 1, 1995). An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. (Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004) Note that if the document is subscribed before a public officer duly authorized to take oaths under the Revised Administrative Code, then there is no need for the affiant to produce a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), any competent evidence of identity by at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of an individual, nor for the entry into a Notarial Register; the italicized portion of the JURAT is dispensed with, but not the oath itself.

Page 100 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

4. Scilicet Refers to the venue of execution of the instrument or document, and is read as “to wit” or “that is to say”. Note: Not in Bar Syllabus, but is common to forms REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES City/Municipality of ____________

) ) S.S

5. Details of Notary Public Note: Not in Bar Syllabus, but is common to forms [NAME OF NOTARY] Notary Public [PLACE OF COMMISSION] Until [DATE OF EXPIRY OF COMMISSION] Roll No.__________ IBP O.R. No. ___/Date of Issue PTR No. ______, Date/ Place of Issue MCLE Compliance No. Note: The details of the notary public are similar to what is written on the Counsel’s Information in a pleading.

6. Details of Counsel Note: Not in Bar Syllabus, but is common to forms [NAME OF COUNSEL] Counsel for the [DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF] Roll No. IBP O.R. No. ___/Date of Issue PTR No. ______, Date/ Place of Issue MCLE Compliance No. [ADDRESS] [CONTACT NO.] Notes: 1. Rule 7, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court reiterates the importance of the signature of counsel, and an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. 2. The En Banc Resolution on Bar Matter No. 1132 (2003) requires counsels to indicate the ff. in all papers and pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies: a. Roll of Attorney’s No. b. IBP Official Receipt No. OR Lifetime Membership No. c. Current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) No. 3. A.M. NO. 07-6-5-SC (2007) requires counsels to indicate in their pleadings or other legal documents their contact details aside from address such as telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number, or email address. 4. Bar Matter No. 1922 (2008) requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period.

Page 101 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

H. Motions for Extension of Time, to Dismiss, and to Declare in Default 1. Motion for Extension of Time REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION BRANCH [#], [VENUE] [PLAINTIFF] -versus-

Civil Case No.: 123984 Plaintiff,

For: [NATURE OF ACTION]

[DEFENDANT], Defendant. x-------------------------------------------------------------------x. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME COMES NOW the Defendant by his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully states that: 1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on [DATE]; 2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on [DATE] and thus has until [DATE] within which to submit an [ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING]; 3. However, due to the pressured of equally urgent professional work and prior commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said deadline; 4. As such, the undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional period of [NUMBER OF DAYS] from [DATE TODAY] or until [DATE OF END OF EXTENSION] within which to submit Defendant’s [ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING]. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the available witness and study this case further; 5. This motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be given an additional period of [NUMBER OF DAYS] from [DATE TODAY] or until [DATE OF END OF EXTENSION] within which to submit an [ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING]. Other just and equitable reliefs prayed for. [VENUE], [DATE]. [NAME OF COUNSEL] Attorney for Defendant [ADDRESS] Roll No. [1234] PTR No. [1234] / [Place] / [Date] IBP No. [[1234] / [Place] / [Date] MCLE Compliance No. [1234] NOTICE OF HEARING The undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on [DATE] at [TIME].

Page 102 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

COPIES FURNISHED [NAME OF COUNSEL] Attorney for Plaintiff [ADDRESS] [BRANCH CLERK OF COURT] Regional Trial Court of [VENUE] Branch [NUMBER] EXPLANATION This motion will be served on Plaintiff’s counsel by registered mail due to lack of time and distance between his office and the office of the undersigned.

Page 103 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Motion to Dismiss REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION BRANCH [#], [VENUE] [PLAINTIFF] -versus-

Civil Case No.: 123984 Plaintiff,

For: [NATURE OF ACTION]

[DEFENDANT], Defendant. x-------------------------------------------------------------------x. MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW the defendant by his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that the complaint be dismissed on the following grounds: [GROUNDS] Discussion [ARGUMENTS] PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed. [VENUE], [DATE]. [NAME OF COUNSEL] Attorney for Defendant [ADDRESS] Roll No. [1234] PTR No. [1234] / [Place] / [Date] IBP No. [[1234] / [Place] / [Date] MCLE Compliance No. [1234] NOTICE OF HEARING The undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion to Dismiss for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on [DATE] at [TIME]. COPIES FURNISHED [NAME OF COUNSEL] Attorney for Plaintiff [ADDRESS] [BRANCH CLERK OF COURT] Regional Trial Court of [VENUE] Branch [NUMBER]

Page 104 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

EXPLANATION This motion will be served on Plaintiff’s counsel by registered mail due to lack of time and distance between his office and the office of the undersigned.

3. Motion to Declare in Default REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION BRANCH [#], [VENUE] [PLAINTIFF]

Civil Case No.: 123984 Plaintiff,

-versus-

For: [NATURE OF ACTION]

[DEFENDANT], Defendant. x-------------------------------------------------------------------x. MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT COMES NOW the Plaintiff by his undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that the Defendant be declared in default. Plaintiff respectfully states that: 1. The records of the Honorable Court show that the Defendant was served with copy of the summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on [DATE]; 2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant [NAME] has failed to file his Answer within the reglementary period specified by the Rules of Court despite the service of the summons and the complaint; PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Defendant [NAME] be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant. Other just and equitable reliefs prayed for. [VENUE], [DATE]. [DETAILS OF COUNSEL] Attorney for Plaintiff [ADDRESS] Roll No. [1234] PTR No. [1234] / [Place] / [Date] IBP No. [[1234] / [Place] / [Date] MCLE Compliance No. [1234] NOTICE OF HEARING The undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion to Declare in Default for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on [DATE] at [TIME]. COPIES FURNISHED [DETAILS OF COUNSEL] Attorney for Defendant Page 105 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC

FORMS

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

[ADDRESS] [BRANCH CLERK OF COURT] Regional Trial Court of [VENUE] Branch [NUMBER] EXPLANATION This motion will be served on Defendant’s counsel by registered mail due to lack of time and distance between his office and the office of the undersigned.

Page 106 of 106