2019 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS SYLLABUS

MAGIC 8: MUST READ IF NOT MEMORIZE

1. Lawyer’s oath
2. Rule 138 of ROC
3. Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (in relation to code of professional ethics)
4. Rule 138-A the law student practice rule
5. Rule 139-B
6. Rule 137 on disqualification
7. Rule 140 on discipline of judges
8. Code of judicial conduct (old and new)

I. LEGAL ETHICS

 Branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the
court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
 It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should govern
the conduct of every member of the bar
 The law is not a trade nor a craft but a profession.
 Its basic ideal is to render public service and secure justice to those who seek its aid.
 Those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but also
accord continuing fidelity to them.
 Obligation not an easy task due to commercialism in all fields of human endeavor.
A. Practice of law
1. Concept

 The practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
It is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill [Cayetano v.
Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 (1991)].
 In view of the definition of the majority in Cayetano v. Monsod:
o (1) Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status
and rights of another and for one’s conduct with respect thereto
constitutes practice of law [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., A.C.
L-553 (1993)].
o (2) Preparation of documents requiring knowledge of legal
principles not possessed by ordinary layman [Ulep v. The Legal
Clinic, Inc., A.C. L-553 (1993)].
o (3) Teaching law is considered practice of law because the fact
of their being law professors is inextricably intertwined with the
fact that they are lawyers [Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty, A.M.
10-10-4-SC (2011)].
 Essential criteria in determining whether a person is engage in the
practice of law (CAHA) :

o 1. Compensation – implies that one must have presented himself

to be in the active practice and that his professional services are
 available to the public for compensation, as a source of
livelihood or in consideration of his said services.
o 2. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure
which calls for legal knowledge, training and experience;
o 3. Habituality – implies customary or habitually holding oneself
out to the public as a lawyer. Practice of law is more than an
isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary
action; and
o 4. Attorney-Client relationship - engaging in the practice of law
presupposes the existence of a lawyer-client relationship. Ten
(10) years of practice of law includes work as a litigator, in-
house counsel, giving of legal advice, teaching of law and even
foreign assignment which requires the knowledge and
application of the laws.

 A.1. PRIVILEGE: The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to

those who are morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot
practice law even if he passes the bar examinations [Aguirre v. Rana,
B.M. 1036 (2003)].
 A.2. PROFESSION, NOT BUSINESS: Lawyering is not a business; it is
a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration [Burbe v. Magulta, A. C. 99-634 (2002)]

Power to regulate practice of law

 The Constitution [Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)] vests this power of control and
regulation in the Supreme Court. The constitutional power to admit candidates to
the legal profession is a judicial function and involves the exercise of discretion.

Xxx Section 5 (5). Promulgate rules concerning the protection and

enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the under privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpesive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

 Articlert. XII, sec. 14:

o The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to

Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

 The SC acts through a Bar Examination Committee in the exercise of

its judicial function to admit candidates to the legal profession. Thus, the
Committee is composed of a member of the Court who acts as Chairman and 8
members of the bar who acts as examiners in the 8 bar subjects with one subject
assigned to each.

 Practice of law is impressed with public interest.

 o Attorney takes part in one of the most important functions of
the State – The Administration of Justice.

o Duty of the State to control and regulate the practice of law to

promote public welfare.

 Practice of law is inseparably connected with the exercise of its

judicial power in the administration of justice.

 LEGISLATURE’S EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER may enact laws

regulating the practice of law but may not pass a law that will control the
Supreme Court on its function to decide who may enjoy the privilege of
practicing law. Could be considered unconstitutional.

 SC POWER TO REGULATE PRACTICE OF LAW includes:

1. Authority to define that term.

2. Prescribe qualifications of a candidate and the subjects of the

bar exams.

3. Decide who will be admitted to the practice.

4. Discipline, suspend, or disbar any unfit or unworthy member

of the bar.

5. Reinstate any disbarred attorney.

6. Ordain the integration of the Philippine bar.

7. Punish for contempt any person for unauthorized practice of

law.

8. Exercise overall supervision of the legal profession.

9. Exercise any other power as may be necessary to elevate the

standards of the bar and preserve its identity.

 Power to regulate the practice of law is not an arbitrary or despotic

power to be exercised at the pleasure of the court.

 It is the duty of the court to exercise it by a sound and just judicial

discretion.

2. Qualifications for Admission to the Bar (Bar matter No. 1153)

 "B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing

Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court). - The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed
amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138, to wit:

SEC. 5.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.

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.

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 subjects in the Bachelor of Laws
academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine
Government.

SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar

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

A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her

Bachelor of or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof
of having completed a separate bachelor's degree course.

RULE 138- Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at
least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and 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.
 CITIZENSHIP
o 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].
o Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a
citizen of the Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
o Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic and its laws.
o The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines except when citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization and reacquired through RA 9225 [Petition to
Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay, B.M. 1678 (2007)].
o A Filipino lawyer who has lost and reacquired his citizenship under
RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) is
deemed not to have lost his Philippine citizenship. However, he still
needs to apply with the Supreme Court for a license or permit to
engage in such practice after compliance with the following:
 (1) Updating and payment of annual membership dues in
the IBP;
 (2) Payment of professional tax;
 (3) Completion of 36 hours of MCLE;
 (4) Retaking of the lawyer’s oath [Sec. 5(4), RA 9225].
o A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later
re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, remains to be a
member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the
practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person who
intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice. Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the
Court for the practice of law, the OBC requires the following:
 1) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
 2) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
 3) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
 4) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of
Immigration;
 5) Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
 6) Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of
annual membership dues;
 7) Proof of payment of professional tax; and
 8) Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
[Petition to Reacquire the Privilege to Practice Law of
Muneses, B.M. 2112 (2012)]
 RESIDENCE
o Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be... a
resident of the Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
o Ratio: His/her duties to his client and to the court will require that he
be readily accessible and available.

 AGE
o Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be at
least 21 years of age. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC] Ratio: Maturity and
discretion are required in the practice of law.
 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
o Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be of
good moral character and must produce before the SC satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
o Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every
member of the bar, it is not only a qualification precedent to the
practice of law [Narag v. Narag, A.C. 3405 (1998)].
o Absence of a proven conduct or act which has been historically and
traditionally considered as a manifestation of moral turpitude. The
act or conduct need not amount to a crime; and even if it does
constitute an offense, a conviction upon a criminal charge is not
necessary to demonstrate bad moral character although it may show
moral depravity [Agpalo (2004)].
o Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished
from good reputation, the estimate in which he is held by the public
in the place where he is known [In the Matter of the Disqualification
of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations
and For Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine Shari’a
Bar, B.M. 1154 (2004)].
o The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oathtaking based on a
conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (hazing
case). But after submission of evidence and various certifications “he
may now be regarded as complying with the requirements of good
moral character xxx he is not inherently of bad moral fiber” [In re:
Argosino, A.M. 712 (1997)].
o Concealment of pending criminal cases constitutes lack of good
moral character (in petition to take the bar examinations) [In the
Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In
The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action As Member
of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154 (2004)].
 LEGAL EDUCATION
o I. Pre-law
 An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall
present a certificate issued by the proper government agency
that, before commencing the study of law, he or she had
pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for admission
thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the
course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in
arts or sciences.
 A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her
Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law
school must present proof of having completed a separate
bachelor's degree course. [Sec. 6, Rule 138, RoC; Re: Letter
of Atty. Mendoza, B.M. 1153 (2010)].
o II. Law proper
 All applicants for admission shall, before being admitted to
the examination, satisfactorily show that they have
successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the
 degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law
school or university officially recognized by the Philippine
Government or by the proper authority in the foreign
jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
 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:
 1) Civil Law
 2) Commercial Law
 3) Remedial Law
 4) Criminal Law
 5) Public International Law
 6) Private International Law
 7) Political Law
 8) Labor and Social Legislation
 9) Medical Jurisprudence
 10) Taxation
 11) Legal Ethics
o 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:
 1) Completion of all courses leading to the degree of
Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree;
 2) Recognition or accreditation of the law school by the
proper authority; and
 3) Completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor
of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized
by the Philippine Government. [Sec. 5, Rule 138, RoC; Re:
Letter of Atty. Mendoza, B.M. 1153 (2010)]

 Requisites for the practice of law:

(1) Admission to the bar:

(a) Citizenship;
(b) Residence;
(c) Age (at least 21 years old);
(d) Good moral character and no charges involving moral turpitude; The
purposes for this requirement are:
1. To protect the public;
2. To protect the public image of lawyers;
3. To protect prospective clients; and
4. To protect errant lawyers from themselves [Dantes v. Dantes, A.C.
6486 (2004)].
(e) Legal education (consisting of prelaw and law proper);
(f) Pass the bar examinations;
(g) Take the lawyer’s oath;
(h) Sign the roll of attorneys.
 (2) Good and regular standing:

(a) Remain a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP);

(b) Regularly pay all IBP dues and other lawful assessments

(c) Faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession
(e.g.: (MCLE));

(d) Be continually subject to judicial disciplinary control [Agpalo

(2004)].

 Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law.

Two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed,
namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his
signature in the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. 1036 (2003)].


3. Continuing requirements for membership in the bar

 Good and regular standing:

(a) Remain a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP);
(b) Regularly pay all IBP dues and other lawful assessments
(c) Faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession (e.g.:
(MCLE));
(d) Be continually subject to judicial disciplinary control [Agpalo (2004)].

Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-

law. Two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed,
namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in
the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. 1036 (2003)].

4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers

 GR: Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear and
handle cases in court.
XPNs:
1. Law student practice
2. Non-lawyers in court can appear for a party in MTC
NOTE: Section 34, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court expressly allows pro se practice or the right of a
nonmember of the bar to engage in limited practice of
law (Antiquiera, 1992).
3. Non-lawyers in administrative tribunal can represent parties in
tribunals such as NLRC, DARAB, Cadastral Courts.

 General rule: Only members of the bar are entitled to practice

law.
o Exceptions: The following are also allowed in
exceptional circumstances:
(1) Law students;
(2) By an agent/friend;
 (3) By the litigant himself.

i. Law Student practice Rule (Rule 138-A)

 RULE 138-A
Law Student Practice Rule

Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has

successfully completed his 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.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized

by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any
and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed,
must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal
clinic.

Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding

privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply to similar
communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal
clinic.

Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — 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. (Circular No. 19, dated
December 19, 1986)

 Sec. 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-
lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student [Cruz v.
Mina, G.R. 154207 (2007)]. Thus, a law student may appear under the
circumstances of Sec. 38, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without
complying with the requirements of Rule 138A, e.g., supervision of a lawyer.

ii. Non-Lawyers in courts and/or administrative tribunals

.NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS

In the court of a municipality a party may conduct his litigation

in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may
conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of
the bar [Sec 34, Rule 138].
 The following are the instances whereby non-lawyers may appear in court:

1. Cases before the MTC: A party to the litigation, may conduct

his own case or litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for that purpose (RRC, Rule 138, Sec. 34); (AGENT
OR FRIEND)
2. Before any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally. But if he gets someone to aid him, that someone must be
authorized member of the Bar (RRC, Rule 138, Sec. 34); (SELF
REPRESENTATION)

NOTE: a non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is

bound by the same rules in conducting the trial case. He cannot
after judgment, claim that he was not properly represented.

3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly

licensed member of the Bar is not available, the judge may appoint a
non- lawyer who is a: a. Resident of the province; AND b. Of good
repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense (RRC,
Rule 116, Sec. 7);

4. Any official or other person appointed or designated to appear

for the Government of the Philippines in accordance with law (RRC,
Sec. 33, Rule 138).

NOTE: Such person shall have all the rights of a duly

authorized member of the Bar to appear in any case in which
said government has an interest direct or indirect (RRC, Sec. 33,
Rule 138).

 Public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties should be

entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications [PAFLU v.
Binalbagan, G.R. No. L-23959 (1971)].

 However, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its judicial power, can
validly authorize a layman to represent a litigant in court [Agpalo (2004)].

 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)].

1. SELF-REPRESENTATION

In any court, a party may conduct his litigation in person. An

attorney who is otherwise disqualified to practice law, or has been
disbarred or suspended from practice, can validly prosecute or defend his
own litigation, he having as much right as that of a layman [Danforth v.
Egan, 119 N.W. 1021 (1909)].
 When a person conducts his litigation in person, he is not engaged in
the practice of law [Agpalo (2004)].

A juridical person may also appear through its non-lawyer agents or

officers in the municipal trial court. Sec. 34 does not distinguish
between civil and criminal cases.

However, in criminal cases, the rule is qualified:

(1) Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, the accused may defend
himself in person “when it sufficiently appears to the court that
he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of
counsel.”
(2) Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, in determining whether a
counsel de oficio should be appointed, or, for that matter,
whether a counsel de parte should be required (conversely,
whether the accused should be allowed to defend himself in
person), the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the
questions that may arise should be considered.

While the right to be represented by counsel is immutable, the

option to secure the services of counsel de parte is not absolute.
The court may restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel de
parte if:
(1) He insists on an attorney he cannot afford;
(2) He chose a person not a member of the bar;
(3) The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g., conflict
of interest) [People v. Serzo, G.R. No. 118435 (1997)].

2. AGENT OR FRIEND

When appointed or chosen, the agent or friend is not engaged in

the practice of law, since there is no habituality in the activity and no
attorney-client relationship exists. He is only permitted to appear in the
municipal trial court.

In criminal cases, in localities where members of the bar are not

available, the court may appoint any person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a
resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability to
defend the accused, in lieu of a counsel de oficio [Sec. 7, Rule 116]. In
relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, this is only allowed in the municipal trial
court.

NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

A party may also appear on his own behalf, his organization or

members thereof, before administrative bodies. This is also expressly
allowed in Art. 222 of the Labor Code.
 There are laws which allow representation of another by non-
lawyers before such bodies.

(1) The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure, promulgated pursuant to

Art 218(a), Labor Code, allows:
(a) non-lawyers, who are not necessarily a party to the
case, to represent a union or members thereof,

(b) non-lawyers who are duly-accredited members of

any legal aid office recognized by the Department of
Justice or Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and

(c) non-lawyer owners of establishments, to appear

before it.

(2) Under Sec. 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a claimant may

appear by himself, or by some person in his behalf, before a
cadastral court.

In order that these laws will not infringe upon the power
of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law, the
following limitations must be observed:

(1) The non-lawyer should confine his work to non-

adversary contentions and should not undertake purely
legal work (i.e., examination of witness, presentation of
evidence);

(2) The services should not be habitual;

(3) Attorney’s fees should not be charged [Agpalo

(2004)].

iii. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing as

counsels

(1) In small claims cases, no attorney shall appear in behalf of

or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or
defendant. If the court determines that a party cannot properly present
his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its
discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that
party upon the latter's consent [Sec. 17, Rules of Procedure in Small
Claims Cases].
(2) In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties
must appear in person without the assistance of the counsel or
representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted
by their next of kin who are not lawyers [Sec 415, Local Gov’t Code].

5. Prohibited practice of non-lawyers and appearance without authority

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

PERSONS NOT LAWYERS

For persons not lawyers as well as lawyers who appear without authority,
the following may be availed of:

(1) Petition for injunction;

(2) Declaratory relief;

(3) Contempt of court;

(4) Disqualification and complaints for disbarment;

(5) Administrative complaint against the erring lawyer or government
official;

(6) Criminal complaint for estafa against the person who falsely
represented himself as a lawyer to the damage of another

6. Public officials and the practice of law; prohibitions and disqualifications

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW

PROHIBITION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF FORMER GOVERNMENT

ATTORNEYS

Under Sec. 7(b), RA 6713, public officials and employees during

their incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee / in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office / unless
expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized

by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;

(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which

has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one year after
resignation, retirement or separation from public office, except in case of
the second.
Also, the one year prohibition applies to practice of profession in
connection with any matter before the office he used to be with.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO CANNOT PRACTICE LAW OR

WITH RESTRICTIONS

A. ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION

(1) Judges and other officials or employees of superior courts as

[Sec. 35, Rule 148];
(2) Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General
[Sec. 35, Rule 148];
(3) Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio, A.C. 6705
(2006)];
(4) President, vice-president, cabinet members, their deputies and
assistants [Sec. 15, Art. VII, Consti];
(5) Chairmen and members of constitutional commissions [Sec. 2,
Art. IX-A, Consti];
(6) Members of the Judicial Bar Council [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A,
Consti];
(7) Ombudsman and his deputies [Sec. 8 (2), Art. X, Consti];
(8) All governors, city and municipal mayors [Sec. 90(a), RA
7160];
(9) Civil service officers or employees whose duties require
them to devote their entire time at the disposal of the government [Catu v
Rellosa, A.C. 5738 (2008)];
(10) Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in
the practice of their legal profession.

B. RELATIVE PROHIBITION

(1) No senator or member of the House of Representatives may

personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasijudicial and other administrative bodies
[Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987 Consti];
a. The word “appearance” includes not only arguing a case
before any such body but also filing a pleading on behalf of a
client [Ramos v Manalac, G.R. L-2610 (1951)].
(2) Sanggunian members may practice law except during session
hours and provided they shall not:
a. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a
local government unit or any office, 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), RA 7160].

C. SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS

Under Sec. 1, RA 910, the pension of justices therein is provided with a condition that no
retiring justice, during the time that he is receiving said pension shall:

(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Government
or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party;

(2) In any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the government is
accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; or

(3) Collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to
maintain an interest adverse to the Government, insular, provincial or municipal,
or to any of its legally constituted officers.

LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE

GOVERNMENT

Any person appointed to appear for the Government of the Philippines shall
be allowed to appear in court, subject to pertinent laws.

7. The 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].

The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every
lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he
makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly
according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned [In re: Argosino, A.M. 712 (1997)].
 I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that:

I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein;

I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same;

I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all fidelity as well to
the courts as to my clients; and

I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.
NOTE: The lawyer’s oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law
to be forgotten afterwards nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that every lawyer must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.

B. Duties and responsibilities of a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility

IN GENERAL
Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an attorney:

(1) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to

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

Four-fold duty of a lawyer

1. Public/Society – He must not undertake any action which violates his responsibility to
the society as a whole, he must be an example in the community for his uprightness as a
member of the society. The lawyer must be ready to render legal aid, foster legal reforms,
be guardian of due process, and aware of his special role in the solution of special
problems and be always ready to lend assistance in the study and solution of social
problems (CPR, Canon 1-6).

2. Bar/Legal Profession – Observe candor, fairness, courtesy and truthfulness in his

conduct towards other lawyers, avoid encroachment in the business of other lawyers and
uphold the honor of the profession (CPR, Canon 7-9).

3. Courts – A lawyer must maintain towards the court a respectful attitude, defend
against unjust criticisms, uphold the court’s authority and dignity, obey court orders and
processes, assists in the administration of justice (CPR, Canon 10-13).

4. Clients – The lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm and zeal
in the maintenance of the defense of his rights and exertion of utmost learning ability to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with law.
He owes a duty of competent and zealous representation to the client, and should
preserve his client’s secrets, preserve his funds and property and avoid conflicts of
interest (CPR, Canon 14- 22)

1. To society (Canon 1 to 6)

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct

NOTE: Canon 1 = 3rd top source of Qs on CPR. It was asked 18 times in

the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]

 UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
An unlawful conduct is act or omission which is against the law.
Dishonesty involves lying or cheating [Agpalo (2004)]

 IMMORAL AND GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT

DISTINGUISHED
 Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the community’s sense of decency. The Court makes these distinctions,
as the supreme penalty of disbarment from conduct requires grossly immoral, not
simply immoral, conduct. [Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816 (2015)]

 A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her obligation [Toledo
v. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419 (1999)], but unwarranted obstinacy in evading
the payment of a debt has been considered as a gross misconduct.
[Constantino v. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)]. However, issuance of
bouncing checks reflects on the lawyer’s moral character and he may be
disciplined. [Lex Pareto, Bar 2001, 2002]

 A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal processes. This

includes order of the commission on Bar discipline of the IBP. (The
lawyer’s oath likewise says, “I will obey the duly constituted
authorities.”) [Lex Pareto, Bar 2002.

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

 The promotion of organizations, with knowledge of their

objectives, for the purpose of violating or evading the laws
constitutes such misconduct in his office [In re: Terrell, G.R. No.
1203 (1903)]

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding 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]
(1) Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits, except where ties of blood,
relationship or trust make it a duty to do so

(2) Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action in order to be

employed to bring suit or breed litigation

AMBULANCE-CHASING
Unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims to bring suits. The
practice of lawyers in frequenting hospitals and homes of the injured to convince
them to go to court [Lex Pareto (2014)]

Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal business by laymen

employed by an attorney for the purpose or by the attorney himself.
 Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent persons by judgments, upon
manufactured causes of actions and the defrauding of injured persons having
proper causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure.

A lawyer may be disciplined in his professional and private capacity.

The filing of multiple complaints reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
legal profession. His conduct of vindictiveness a decidedly undesirable trait
especially when one resorts to using the court not to secure justice but merely to
exact revenge warrants his dismissal from the judiciary. [Saburnido v. Madrono,
A.C. No. 4497 (2001)]

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the

intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he
finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise
the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A
lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s
propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to
his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable [Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No.
L28546 (1975)

It is the duty of the lawyer to temper his client’s propensity to litigate and
resist his client’s whims and caprices for the lawyer also owes duty to the court.
A lawyer should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise
rather than an initiator of controversy and a predator of conflict.

The rule requires that lawyers encourage settlement only when the same is fair. It
should be noted that the duty and the right of the lawyer is limited to encouraging
the client to settle. Ultimately, however, the final decision to settle a claim rests
upon the client.

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES

AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.

Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art.
III, 1987 Consti]

The rationale of this is that it is the lawyer’s prime duty to see to it that
justice is accorded to all without discrimination.

The inability to pay for legal services is not a valid reason to refuse
acceptance of a case. This is because the profession is a branch of the
 administration of justice and not a mere money-getting trade. (CPR Annotated,
PhilJA)

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.

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 primarily
to solicit legal business.

A well-known lawyer has been engaged to run a program in which he

encourages indigent party litigants to consult him free of charge about their legal
problems over a radio and television network. Has he violated any ethical rules?
– YES, as it involves indirect advertising and solicitation and is likewise
violative of the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. His act may also be
considered as a form of self-praise hence subject to discipline [In re: Tagorda, 53
Phil 37, cited in Lex Pareto (2014); Unsangan v. Tolentino, 598 SCRA 133
(2009)]

Rationale behind the rule that legal profession is not considered as a

business (2006 Bar Question)

It is not a business because it is a:

1. Relation, as an “officer of the court”, to the administration of justice
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability
2. Duty of public service
3. Relation to clients with the highest degree of fiduciary
4. Relation, to the colleagues at the bar, characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising
and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.

NOTE: A general professional partnership with a non-lawyer is VOID. In the formation of

partnership for the practice of law, no person should be admitted or held out as a practitioner or
member who is not a member of the legal profession duly authorized to practice, and amenable to
professional discipline (CPE, Canon 33).

NOTE: If engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law, the
lawyer shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
 Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

GR: A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed.

XPN: When clients are relatives, co-lawyers, or are indigents. These are the valid
justifications.

NOTE: What the rule prohibits is a competition in the matter of charging professional fees for the
purpose 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 (Comments of the IBP
Committee).

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES

SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be
forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct [Canon 27, Canons of
Professional Ethics; In re: Tagorda, G.R. No. 32329, (1929)].

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be
forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct [Canon 27, Canons of
Professional Ethics; In re: Tagorda, G.R. No. 32329, (1929)].

functions. The lawyer must make it clear to his client whether he is

acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.

PROHIBITED ADVERTISEMENTS [Sec. 27, Canon of Professional

Ethics] (1) Through touters of any kind whether allied real estate firms or trust
companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills; (2) Offering
retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the
lawyer; (3) Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner
of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of
lawyer’s position, and all other like selflaudation. A lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program in order to solicit legal business [Khan v.
Simbillo, A.C. 5299 (2003)]. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his
talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. The law is a profession not a
business. Solicitation of cases by himself or through others is unprofessional and
lowers the standards of the legal profession. [In re: Tagorda, supra]. In the last
analysis, where to draw the line is a question of good faith and good taste.

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. 2131
(1985)].
The use of a cross after the name of the deceased partner is sufficient
indication. It is advisable though that the year of the death be also indicated.

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

Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using his name to attract legal
business and to avoid suspicion of undue influence.

A civil service officer or employee whose duty or responsibility does not

require his entire time to be at the disposal of the government may not engage in
the private practice of law without the written permit from the head of the
department concerned [Agpalo (2004)].
It is unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others, engage
in the private practice of their profession, unless authorized by the Constitution
or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
official functions [Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)].

If the unauthorized practice on the part of a person who assumes to be an

attorney causes damage to a party, the former may be held liable for estafa.

Rule 3.04 - 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.

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.

By reason of education and experience, lawyers are especially qualified

to recognize deficiencies in the legal system and to initiate corrective measures
therein. Thus, they should participate in proposing and supporting legislation and
programs to improve the system, without regard to the general interests or desires
of clients or former clients (Ethical Consideration 8-1, 1978, Model Code of
Professional Responsibility, American Bar Association).

E.g.: 1. Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of

pertinent bills in Congress; or 2. Petitions with the SC for the amendment of the
Rules of Court.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL

DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN
LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.

This duty carries with it the obligation to be well informed of the existing
laws, and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactment and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with the basic legal
principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to
discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the Bar.
Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes (Dulalai Jr. v. Cruz,
A.C. No. 6854, Apr. 27, 2007, citing Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, Oct. 5,
2004).
Three-fold obligation of a lawyer

1. He owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the laws.

2. He owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the maintenance of
high standards of legal education.
3. He owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of their social
consciousness.

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (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)]

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN

GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
 Ratio: The rule is a reiteration of the principal in public law, which is
that a public office is a public trust and a public servant owes utmost fidelity to
the public service.

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.

In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should be present for the following

reasons: [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]

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.

The “matter” contemplated are those that are adverse-interest

conflicts (substantial relatedness and adversity between the government
matter and the new client’s matter in interest) and congruent-interest
representation conflicts. “Intervention” should be significant and
substantial which can or have affected the interest of others [PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 15180912 (2005)].

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.

Restriction on lawyers who are also public officials and employees

during their incumbency (PERU)

They must NOT:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise
which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office; and
4. Use or divulge confidential or classified information officially
known to them by reason of their office and not available to the public.
 Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.

HOW GOVERNMENT LAWYERS MAY LEAVE

GOVERNMENT SERVICE: (RREAD)
(1) Retirement;
(2) Resignation;
(3) Expiration of the term of office;
(4) Abandonment;
(5) Dismissal

General rule: Practice of profession is allowed immediately after leaving

public service.
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to matters with which he had
connection during his term. This prohibition lasts:
(1) For one year, if he had not intervened;
(2) Permanently, if he had intervened.

2. To the legal profession

i. Canons 7 to 9

THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE

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

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

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

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH

COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
 Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of
any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to
those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate

that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period
of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or

(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a

retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit
sharing agreement.

ii. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A)

RULE 139-A
Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Section 1. Organization. — There is hereby organized an official

national body to be known as the "Integrated Bar of the Philippines,"
composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be
included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

Section 2. Purposes. — The fundamental purposes of the Integrated

Bar shall be to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.

Section 5. House of Delegates. — The Integrated Bar shall have a

House of Delegates of not more than one hundred twenty members who
shall be apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as may be
according to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter
shall have at least one Delegate. On or before December 31, 1974, and
every four years thereafter, the Board of Governors shall make an
apportionment of Delegates.
The term of the office of Delegate shall begin on the date of the opening
of the annual convention of the House and shall end on the day
immediately preceding the date of the opening of the next succeeding
annual convention. No person may be a Delegate for more than two
terms.

The House shall hold an annual convention at the call of the Board of
Governors at any time during the month of April of each year for the
election of Governor, the reading and discussion of reports including the
annual report of the Board of Governors, the transaction of such other
business as may be referred to it by the Board, and the consideration of
such additional matters as may be requested in writing by at least twenty
Delegates. Special conventions of the House may be called by the Board
of Governors to consider only such matters as the Board shall indicate. A
majority of the Delegates who have registered for a convention, whether
annual or special, shall constitute a quorum to do business.

Section 6. Board of Governors. — The Integrated Bar shall be

governed by a Board of Governors. Nine Governors shall be elected by
the House of Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis
of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from
a list of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region, provided
that not more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. The
President and the Executive Vice President, if chosen by the Governors
from outside of themselves as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall
ipso facto become members of the Board.

The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from
the date of their election and until their successors shall have been duly
elected and qualified. No person may be a Governor for more than two
terms.

The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date
and such time and place as it shall designate. A majority of all the
members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business. Special
meetings may be called by the President or by five members of the
Board.

Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board shall adopt By-
Laws and promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility for all
members of the Integrated Bar. The By-Laws and the Canons may be
amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or upon the
recommendation of the Board of Governors.

The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be
necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the Integrated Bar as
well as the provisions of this Rule.

Section 7. Officers. — The Integrated Bar shall have a President

and an Executive Vice President who shall be chosen by the Governors
immediately after the latter's election, either from among themselves or
from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least five
Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board shall be ex officio
Vice President for the Region which he represents.

The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a
term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors
shall have duly qualified. The Executive Vice President shall
automatically become the President for the next succeeding full term.
The Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all the nine Regions
in such order or rotation as the Board of Governors shall prescribe. No
person shall be President or Executive Vice President of the Integrated
Bar for more than one term.

The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other
officers and employees as may be required by the Board of Governors, to
be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board, and to hold
office at the pleasure of the Board or for such terms as it may fix. Said
officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar.

Section 8. Vacancies. — In the event the President is absent or

unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice
President; and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the
President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President
during the remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the event
of the death, resignation, removal, or disability of both the President and
the Executive Vice President, the Board of Governors shall elect an
Acting President to hold office until the next succeeding election or
during the period of disability.

The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of Governors,

and all other positions of Officers of the Integrated Bar shall be as
provided in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of an office or position is
for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein shall serve
only for the unexpired term.

Section 13. Non-political Bar. — The Integrated Bar shall be strictly

non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is
strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding
an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall
be eligible for election of appointment to any position in the Integrated
Bar or any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from
his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any
elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-
judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

Section 14. Positions honorary. — Except as may be specifically

authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court, no Delegate or Governor
and no national or local Officer or committee member shall receive any
compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds of the Integrated
 Bar for any service rendered therein or be entitled to reimbursement for
any expense incurred in the discharge of his functions.

a. Membership and dues

RULE 139-A
Section 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme
Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
collection from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare
Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory
heirs of deceased members thereof.

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

provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment
for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

Section 11. Voluntary termination of membership; re-

instatement. — A member may terminate his membership by
filing a written notice to that effect with the Secretary of the
Integrated Bar, who shall immediately bring the matter to the
attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith he shall cease to be a
member and his name shall be stricken by the Court from the
Roll of Attorneys. Reinstatement may be made by the Court in
accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of
Governors and approved by the Court.

3. To the courts (Canon 10 to 13)

THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD

FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS
AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

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

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

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

menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not

supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the

proper authorities only.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND

CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he
will adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with
the original documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

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

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

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

misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.

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

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client,

except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
 (a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of
an instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the
ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the
trial of the case to another counsel.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF

HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH
TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF
INFLUENCING THE COURT.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or

hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.

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

branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.

4. To the Clients
i. Canons 14 to 22

THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO

THE NEEDY.

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

account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his
own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient
cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a
request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters
for rendition of free legal aid.

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

indigent client if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

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

competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective
client or between a present client and the prospective client.
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay
his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS

AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENTS.

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

ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith
inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.

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

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

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

Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.

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

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

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

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

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS

AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
PROFESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds
and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of
Court.

Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client's interest 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.

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.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

DILIGENCE REQUIRED

A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable

degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business
he undertakes to do, as any other member of the bar similarly situated
commonly possesses and exercises. He is not, however, bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence [Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L-42927
(1980)]

A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and

defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert
every such remedy or defense [Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5309 (2005)]

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he

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

A lawyer should not accept an undertaking in a specific area of

law which he knows or should know he is not qualified to enter. [Agpalo
(2004)]

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

A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and interests by

thorough study and preparation, mastering applicable law and facts
involved in a case, and keeping constantly abreast of the latest
jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law [Agpalo
(2004)]
 A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his
cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so
many cases he can handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]

Negligence 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.

Exceptions: He is not so bound where the ignorance,

incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is so great and error so serious
that the client, who has good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in
court [People v. Manzanilla, G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon v. CA,
G.R. No. 126802 (2000)]

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

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.

It was unnecessary to have the clients wait, and hope, for six
long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to cooperate, the
lawyer should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship
instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C.
No. 492 (1967)]

CLIENT SHOULD MAKE PROPER INQUIRIES

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.

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH

ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has,
in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure
in handling the case.

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND

REASONABLE FEES.

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

determining his fees:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

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

of the proffered case;

(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.

Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the
client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent
of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate
or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other than the client.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning
his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE

AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-
CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his
client except;
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;

(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his

employees or associates or by judicial action.

Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with
full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client,
give information from his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose.

Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to
partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.

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

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

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

affairs even with members of his family.

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

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES

ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
case:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling;
 (b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules;

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

(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it

difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;

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

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

(g) Other similar cases.

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

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

ii. Attorney’s Fees

Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.

An attorney is entitled to have and recover from his client no more than
a reasonable compensation for his services with a view to:
(1) The importance of the subject matter of the controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional standing of the attorney.

No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert

witnesses as to the proper compensation but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge.

A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid

therefore unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable. [Sec. 24, Rule 138, RoC]

The mere fact that an agreement had been reached between attorney and
client fixing the amount of the attorney’s fees, does not insulate such
agreement from review and modification by the Court where the fees
clearly appear to be excessive or unreasonable [Tanhueco v. De Dumo,
A.M. No. 1437 (1989)]

MANNER BY WHICH ATTORNEYS MAY BE PAID

(1) A fixed or absolute fee which is payable regardless of the result of the
case;
(2) A contingent fee that is conditioned upon the securing of a favorable
judgment and recovery of money or property and the amount of which
may be on a percentage basis;
(3) A fixed fee payable per appearance;
(4) A fixed fee computed by the number of hours spent;
(5) A fixed fee based on a piece of work;
(6) A combination of any of the above stipulated fees.

WHEN THERE IS NO EXPRESS CONTRACT

In the absence of an express contract, payment of attorney’s fees may be
justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you
give) which is based on the principle that “no one shall enrich himself at
the expense of another” [Corpuz v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424 (1980)]

GR: Only lawyers are entitled to attorney’s fees. The same cannot be
shared with a non-lawyer. It is unethical.

XPNs: A lawyer may divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law: (CPR) 1. A lawyer undertakes to Complete the
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; 2. 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; 3. A lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
employees in Retirement plan, even if the plan is based, in whole or in
part, on a profit-sharing agreement. (CPR, Rule 9.02)

NOTE: Entitlement to lawyer’s fees is presumed (Funa, 2009). Unless

otherwise expressly stipulated, rendition of professional services by a
lawyer is for a fee or compensation and is not gratuitous (Research and
Services Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124074, Jan. 27,1997).

Requisites for the accrual of attorney’s fees

1. Existence of attorney-client relationship; and

2. Rendition by the lawyer of services to the client.

NOTE: A pauper, while exempted from payment of legal fees is not

exempted from payment of attorney’s fees (Cristobal v. Employees
Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-49280, Feb. 26, 1981).

Factors in determining the attorney’s fees (1994 Bar Question)

In determining what is fair and reasonable, a lawyer shall be guided by

the following factors: (STIPSNACCC)
1. Skill demanded;
2. Time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
3. Importance of the subject matter;
4. Probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
5. Professional Standing of the lawyer;
6. Novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
7. Amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the services;
8. Customary Charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
9. Contingency or certainty of compensation; and
10. Character of the employment, whether occasional or established.
(Rule 20.01)

NOTE: A trial judge may not order the reduction of the attorney’s fees
on the ground that the attorney is “below average standard of a lawyer.”
The opinion of the judge as to the capacity of a lawyer is not a basis of
the right to a lawyer’s fees (Fernandez v. Hon. Bello, No. L-14277, Apr.
30, 1960).

a. Acceptance fee

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client

relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s
cause. [Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v.
Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162 (2003)]

Failure to render the legal services agreed upon, despite receipt

of an acceptance fee, is a clear violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. [Macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No.
6591 (2005)]

It is the duty of an attorney to accept no compensation in

connection with his client’s business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval [Sec. 20(e), Rule 138

An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee

arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts
regardless of the outcome of the litigation. Dissatisfaction from
the outcome of the cases would not render void the retainer
agreement for Atty. Jack appears to have represented the interest
of Rose (Yu v Bondal, A.C. No. 5534, Jan. 17, 2005).

b. Contingency fee arrangements

Contingency fee contract

One which stipulates that the lawyer will be paid for his legal
services only if the suit or litigation ends favorably to the client
(Taganas vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118746, September 7, 1995). It is
like a contract subject to a suspensive condition wherein the
obligation to pay the counsel is based upon the outcome of the
case.

Contingent fees are sanctioned by the CPE and by the CPR

subject to certain limitations (Licudan vs. CA, G.R. No. 91958,
January 24, 1991).
NOTE: If a lawyer employed on contingent basis dies or
becomes disabled before the final adjudication or settlement of
the case has been obtained, he or his estate will be allowed to
recover the reasonable value of the services rendered. The
recovery will be allowed only after the successful termination of
the litigation in the client’s favor (Morton v. Forsee, Ann. Cas.
1914 D. 197; Lapena, 2009, Pineda, 2009).

Rationale for contingent fee contracts

Contracts of this nature (contingent fee contract) are permitted

because they redound to the benefit of the poor client and the
lawyer especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause
of action, but no means with which to pay for the legal services
unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a contract for a
contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation
(Francisco, 1949)

Limitation of the stipulation regarding contingent fee contract

It must be reasonable based on the circumstance of the case.

Contingent fee contracts are under the supervision and close
scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be protected from
just charges. Its validity depends on the measure of
reasonableness of the stipulated fees under the circumstances of
the case. Stipulated attorney’s fees must not be unconscionable
wherein the amount is by far so disproportionate compared to the
value of the services rendered as to amount to fraud perpetrated
to the client (Sesbreno vs. CA, G.R. No. 117438, June 8, 1995).

Acceptance of an initial fee before or during the progress of the

litigation detract from the contingent nature of the fees

The acceptance of an initial fee before or during the progress of

the litigation does not detract from the contingent nature of the
fees, as long as the bulk thereof is made dependent upon the
successful outcome of the action (Francisco vs. Matias, January
31, 1964, G.R. No. L-16349).

A distinction should be made between a champertous contract

and a contingent contract with respect to attorney’s fees:

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. This contract is void for being against public policy.

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. It is a valid
agreement.

Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent

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

Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and
consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission,
interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation
whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone
other than the client. Ratio: The rule is designed to secure the
lawyer’s fidelity to the client’s cause and to prevent that situation
in which receipt by him of a rebate or commission from another
in connection with the client’s cause may interfere with the full
discharge of his duty to his client.

c. Attorney’s liens
Rule 138. Section 37. Attorneys' liens. — An attorney shall
have 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. 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,
from and after the time when he shall have the caused 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 shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered
to his client and to the adverse paty; and 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.

Attorney’s retaining lien

A retaining lien is the right of an attorney to retain the funds,

documents and papers of his client who 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.
NOTE: 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 (Rayos v. Hernandez, GR No. 169079,
Feb. 12, 2007).

Requisites in order for an attorney to be able to exercise his

retaining lien (ALU)

1. Attorney-client relationship; 2. Lawful possession by the

lawyer of the client’s funds, documents and papers in his
professional capacity; and
3. Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or disbursements.

Attorney’s charging lien

A charging lien is the right of a lawyer 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, from and after the time when he shall
have caused 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 shall have caused written notice thereof to
be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and 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 fees and disbursements (RRC, Sec. 37, Rule
138).

Requisites in order for an attorney to be able to exercise his

charging lien

1. Existence of attorney-client relationship; 2. The attorney has

rendered services; 3. Favorable money judgment secured by the
counsel for his client; 4. The attorney has a claim for attorney’s
fees or advances; and 5. A statement of the claim has been duly
recorded in the case with notice thereof served upon the client
and the adverse party.

NOTE: A charging lien, to be enforceable as a security for the

payment of attorney’s fees, requires as a condition sine qua non a
judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such
judgment secured in the main action by the attorney in favor of
his client.

NOTE: A client may enter into a compromise agreement without

the intervention of the lawyer, but the terms of the agreement
should not deprive the counsel of his compensation for the
professional services he had rendered. If so, the compromise
shall be subjected to said fees. If the client and the adverse party
who assented to the compromise are found to have intentionally
deprived the lawyer of his fees, the terms of the compromise,
 insofar as they prejudice the lawyer, will be set aside, making
both parties accountable to pay the lawyer’s fees. But in all
cases, it is the client who is bound to pay his lawyer for his legal
representation (Atty. Gubat v. NPC, G.R. No. 167415, Feb. 26,
2010),

d. Fees and controversies with clients

Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients

concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action
only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.

JUDICIAL ACTIONS TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES:

(1) An appropriate motion or petition as an incident in the main

action where he rendered legal services;

(2) A separate civil action for collection of attorney’s fees. Only

when the circumstances imperatively require should a lawyer
resort to lawsuit to enforce payment of fees. This is but a logical
consequence of the legal profession not primarily being for
economic compensation. [Agpalo (2004)

e. Quantum meruit
Means “as much as a lawyer deserves.”

Essential requisite: Acceptance of the benefits by one

sought to be charged for services rendered under
circumstances as reasonably to notify him that lawyer
expects compensation.

Instances when the measure of quantum meruit may be resorted

to (2007 Bar Question)

(1) The agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for some

reason other than the illegality of the object of performance;

(2) There is no express contract for attorney’s fees

agreed upon between the lawyer and the client;

(3) When although there is a formal contract of

attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or
unreasonable by the court;

(4) When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to

purely formal matters or defects of execution;

(5) When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able
to finish the case to its conclusion;

(6) When lawyer and client disregard the contract of

attorney’s fees;
 (7) When there is a contract but no stipulation as to
attorney’s fees

QUANTUM MERUIT GUIDELINES: Factors to consider in determining the

amount of attorney’s fees in the absence of any fee arrangement (TINS)

(1) Time spent and extent of the services rendered. A lawyer is justified
in fixing higher fees when the case is so complicated and requires more time and
efforts to finish it.

(2) Importance of subject matter. The more important the subject matter
or the bigger value of the interest or property in litigation, the higher is the
attorney’s fee.

(3) Novelty and difficulty of questions involved. When the questions in a

case are novel and difficult, greater efforts, deeper study, and research are bound
to burn the lawyer’s time and stamina considering that there are no local
precedents to rely upon.

(4) Skill demanded of the lawyer. The totality of the lawyer’s experience
provides him the skill and competence admired in lawyers.

A determination of all these factors would indispensably require nothing less than a full-
blown trial where private respondent can adduce evidence to establish its right to lawful
attorney's fees and for petitioner to oppose or refute the same [Metrobank v. CA, G.R. No. 86100
(1990)]

The above rules apply in the case of a counsel de parte.

A counsel de oficio may not demand from the accused attorney’s fees even if he wins the
case. However, subject to availability of funds, the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney
employed as counsel de oficio to be compensated in such sum as the court may fix.

The criteria in fixing the amount are still:

(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.

C. Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers

1. Nature and characteristics of disciplinary actions against lawyers

Rationale of disciplining errant lawyers

Practice of law is in the nature of a privilege. Hence, the same may be suspended
or removed from the lawyer for reasons provided in the rules, law and
jurisprudence.
NOTE: A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct
professionally or privately (Cruz v. Atty. Jacinto, Adm. Case No. 5235, March
22, 2000).

Nature of the power to discipline

The power to discipline a lawyer is JUDICIAL in nature and can be exercised

only by the courts. It cannot be defeated by the legislative or executive
departments.

NOTE: The power to disbar and to reinstate is an inherently judicial function

(Andres v. Cabrera, SBC- 585, Feb. 29, 1984).

Powers of the Supreme Court in disciplining lawyers (WARD-SIP)

1. Warn;
2. Admonish;
3. Reprimand;
4. Disbar;
5. Suspend a lawyer; [Sec. 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (RRC)]
6. Interim suspension; and
7. Probation (IBP Guidelines)

Powers of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts

They are also empowered to: (WARSP)

1. Warn;
2. Admonish;
3. Reprimand;
4. Suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in Sec 27, Rule
138 until further action of the Supreme Court in the case; (Sec. 16, Rule 139-B)
and
5. Probation (IBP Guidelines)

NOTE: The CA and RTC cannot disbar a lawyer.

Forms of disciplinary measures (WARCS-DIP)

1. Warning – an act of putting one on his guard against an impending danger,

evil, consequence or penalty;

2. Admonition – a gentle or friendly reproof, mild rebuke, warning, reminder, or

counseling on a fault, error or oversight; an expression of authoritative advice;

3. Reprimand – a public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a

person at fault by his superior officer or the body to which he belongs;

4. Censure – official reprimand;

5. Suspension – temporary withholding of a lawyer’s right to practice his

profession as a lawyer for a certain period or for an indefinite period of time: a.
Definite; b. Indefinite – qualified disbarment; lawyer determines for himself how
long or how short his suspension shall last by proving to court that he is once
again fit to resume practice of law.

NOTE: Indefinite suspension is not cruel. Indefinite suspension put in his hands
the key for the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer (Dumadag v.
Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614, June 29, 2000).

6. Disbarment – it is the act of the Supreme Court of withdrawing from an

attorney the right to practice law. The name of the lawyer is stricken out from the
Roll of Attorneys;

NOTE: A disbarred lawyer cannot be disbarred again (Yuhico v. Atty. Gutierrez,

A.C. No. 8391, November 23, 2010).

7. Interim Suspension – it is the temporary suspension of a lawyer from the

practice of law pending imposition of final discipline; Includes:

a. Suspension upon conviction of a “serious crime”;

b. Suspension when the lawyer’s continuing conduct is or is likely to
cause immediate and serious injury to a client or public

8. Probation – it is a sanction that allows a lawyer to practice law under specified

conditions

NATURE:

(1) Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis.

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own (sui
generis). They are distinct from and may proceed independently of civil
and criminal cases (In re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970;
Funa, 2009).

(2) They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal. They are not intended to
inflict punishment.
(3) They do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation
by the Court into the conduct of its officers. There is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor.
(4) They may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. The Court merely calls
upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
proper and honest administration of justice in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers.
(5) Public interest is the primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such [In Re: Almacen (1970), Itong v. Florendo, A.C. 4428 (2011)].

The Supreme Court held that the complainants have personality to file the
disbarment case. Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate
 disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury
from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public
interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the
charges. [Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. 9116 (2014)]

Characteristics of disbarment proceedings

1. Sui Generis –
a. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they are investigations by the
Court into the conduct of one of its officers.
b. Not a civil action because there is neither plaintiff nor respondent, and
involves no private interest. The complainant is not a party and has no interest in
the outcome except as all citizens have in the proper administration of justice.
There is no redress for private grievance.
c. Not a criminal prosecution because it is not meant as a punishment
depriving him of source of livelihood but rather to ensure that those who exercise
the function should be competent, honorable and reliable so that the public may
repose confidence in them.

NOTE: A disbarment proceeding may proceed regardless of interest or

lack of interest of the complainant (Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, Jan.
28, 1998). However, if the complainant refuses to testify and the charges cannot
then be substantiated, the court will have no alternative but to dismiss the case.
(2000 Bar Question)

2. The defense of “double jeopardy” cannot be availed of in a disbarment

proceeding;
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by the SC or IBP. It can be initiated
without a complaint;
4. It is imprescriptible;
5. Conducted confidentially;
6. It can proceed regardless of the interest or the lack thereof on the part
of the complainant; and
7. It in itself constitutes due process of law.
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case cannot be a source of
right that may be enforced in another action;
9. In pari delicto rule not applicable;
10. No prejudicial question in disbarment proceedings;
11. Penalty in a disbarment case cannot be in the alternative; and
12. Monetary claims cannot be granted except restitution and return of
monies and properties of the client given in the course of the lawyer-client
relationship.

2. Grounds

Rule 138, Sec 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what
grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office
as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Specific grounds for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer

1. Deceit;
2. Malpractice;
3. Grossly immoral conduct;
4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Violation of oath of office;
6. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
7. Corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so (RRC, Sec. 27, Rule 138);
8. Non-payment of IBP membership dues (Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Llas, Adm. Case
No. 4749, January 20, 2000).

HOWEVER, The statutory enumeration is not to be taken as a limitation on the

general power of SC to suspend or disbar a lawyer (In Re: Puno, A.C. No. 389,
Feb. 28, 1967). HENCE, the grounds enumerated are NOT exclusive.

Lawyer’s misconduct committed prior and after admission to the bar and its
effects

1. Prior to admission to the bar - acts of misconduct prior to admission include

those that indicate that at the time the lawyer took his oath, he did not possess the
required qualifications for membership in the bar. Consequently, the cancellation
of his license is justified.

2. After admission to the bar - those which cause loss of moral character on his
part or involve violation of his duties to the court, his client, to the legal
profession and to the public.

NOTE: Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of
disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great caution and only in those
cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member
of the bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof (Vitug v.
Rongcal, A.C. No. 6313, Sept. 7, 2006).

Disbarment is merited when the action is not the lawyer’s first ethical infraction
of the same nature (Que v. Revilla, A.C. No. 7054, Dec. 4, 2009).

Lending money by a justice of Supreme Court, not a ground for disbarment and
helping a person apply for sale application on a lot is not an offense and not also
a ground for disbarment (Olazo v. Justice Tinga (Ret.), A.M. No. 10-57-SC,
December 7, 2010).

Deceit is false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by

false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have
been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall
act upon it to his legal injury [Alcantara v. CA, G.R. 147259 (2003)].

Malpractice

It refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer (Tan

TekBeng v. David, Adm. Case No. 1261, Dec. 29 1983; Lapena,Jr., 2009).

Legal malpractice

It consists of failure of an attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as a

lawyer 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 TekBeng v. David, A.C. No.
1261, Dec. 29, 1983).

Gross misconduct

It is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of the

person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights
of the parties or to the right determination of a cause, a conduct that is generally
motivated by a predetermined, obstinate or intentional purpose (Yumol Jr. v.
Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No. 6585, Apr. 21, 2005).

Grossly immoral conduct

It is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so

unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree (Vitug v.
Rongcal, A.C. No. 6313, Sept. 7, 2006);
NOTE: Mere intimacy between a lawyer and a woman with no impediment to
marry each other, and who voluntarily cohabited and had two children, is neither
so corrupt to constitute a criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant
disbarment or disciplinary action against the man as a member of the bar (Arciga
v. Maniwang, A.C. No. 1608, Aug. 14, 1981).

Moral turpitude

It has been defined as “everything that is done contrary to justice, honesty,

modesty, or good morals, an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty modesty, or good morals (Soriano v. Dizon,
A. C. No. 6792, Jan. 25, 2006).

Other statutory grounds for suspension and disbarment of members of the bar
Other statutory grounds include: 1. Acquisition of interest in the subject matter of
the litigation, either through purchase or assignment (NCC, Art. 1491); 2. Breach
of professional duty, inexcusable negligence, or ignorance, or for the revelation
of the client’s secrets (RPC, Art. 208); 3. Representing conflicting interests
(RPC, Art. 209).
Other grounds for discipline

1. Non-professional misconduct

GR: A lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred for misconduct in his non-
professional or private capacity.

XPN: Where such is so gross as to show him to be morally unfit for office or
unworthy of privilege, the court may be justified in suspending or removing him
from the Roll of Attorneys. (2005 Bar Question)

NOTE: The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct as its

effect transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the
transaction and touches the interests of the community at large.

2. Gross immorality – An act of personal immorality on the part of a lawyer in

his private relation with opposite sex may put his character in doubt. But to
justify suspension or disbarment, the act must not only be immoral, it must be
grossly immoral (Abaigar v. Paz, A.M. No. 997, Sept. 10, 1979).

NOTE: Cohabitation per se is not grossly immoral. It depends on circumstances

and is not necessary that there be prior conviction for an offense before lawyer
may be disciplined for gross immorality. If the evidence is not sufficient to hold a
lawyer liable for gross immorality, he may still be reprimanded where evidence
shows failure on his part to comply with rigorous standards of conduct required
from lawyers.

3. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude – All crimes of which fraud or

deceit is an element or those inherently contrary to rules of right conduct, honesty
or morality in civilized community.

4. Promoting to violate or violating penal laws

5. Misconduct in discharge of official duties – 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 government official.

However, if the misconduct is in violation of the CPR or of his oath as a lawyer

or is of such a character as to affect his qualifications as a lawyer, he may be
subject to disciplinary action such as disbarment (Collantes v. Renomeron, A.C.
No. 3056, Aug. 16, 1991).

NOTE: This rule does not apply to impeachable officials like SC justices,
members of constitutional commissions and Ombudsman because they can be
removed only by impeachment.

6. Commission of fraud or falsehood; and

7. Misconduct as notary public
 NOTE: By applying for having himself commissioned as notary public, a lawyer
assumes duties in a dual capacity, the non-performance of which may be a
ground for discipline as a member of the bar.

3. Proceedings (Rule 139-B, Rules of Court as amended)

BAR MATTER NO. 1960

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1, RULE 139-B OF THE REVISED RULES OF

COURT

The Court, pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 5(5) of Article VIII
of the Constitution in relation to its power to administratively supervise courts
under Section 8 and to discipline judges of lower courts under Section 11 of the
same Article, resolved to AMEND Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
to read as follows:

“SECTION 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or

discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any
person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of
and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the
facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.
"The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the
Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any
person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including
those in the government service; Provided, however, that all charges against
Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the
Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with
them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court; Provided, further, that charges filed
against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their
appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for disposition and adjudication.

"Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the
IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same
to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.”
The foregoing amendment shall take effect on 01 May 2000 after publication of
this Resolution in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation not later than
15 March 2000..

RULE 139-B

Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Section 1. How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension,

or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any
person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of
and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the
facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.

The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the Supreme
Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate
and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those in the
government service.

Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the
IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the same
to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.

A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

Section 2. National Grievance Investigators. — The Board of Governors

shall appoint from among IBP members an Investigator or, when special
circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3) investigators to investigate the
complaint. All Investigators shall take an oath of office in the form prescribed by
the Board of Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath shall
be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth

degree of consanguinity of affinity to any of the parties of their counsel,
pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his having acted as counsel to his acting as
such Investigator. Where the Investigator does not disqualify himself, a party
may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors, which by majority vote of the
members present, there being a quorum, may order his disqualification.

Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing, by the vote of
at least six (6) members of the IBP Board of Governors. The decision of the
Board of Governors in all cases of disqualification or removal shall be final.

Section 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. — The National

Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints against members of the
Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors.

Section 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. — The proper IBP Chapter

may assist the complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of his complaint(s).

Section 5. Service or dismissal. — If the complaint appears to be

meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the
date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to
the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same
may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy
of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme
Court which may review the case motu propio or upon timely appeal of the
complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complainant.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme Court motu propio or
upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no
compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings
against the respondent. (Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution
dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter 356).

Section 6. Verification and service of answer. — The answer shall be

verified. The original and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall be filed with
the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the complainant or his
counsel.

Section 7. Administrative counsel. — The IBP Board of Governors shall

appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the
complainant of the respondent during the investigation in case of need for such
assistance.

Section 8. Investigation. — Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the

respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with
the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and
administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel.
However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.

The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from
the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of
Governors upon prior application.

Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by
the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The
corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of
Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten
(10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for
hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP
Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith
be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the
imposition of penalty.

Section 9. Depositions. — Depositions may be taken in accordance with the

Rules of Court with leave of the investigator(s).

Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member of the
Board of Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any officer authorized by
law to administer oaths.
Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before diplomatic or consular
representative of the Philippine Government or before any person agreed upon by
the parties or designated by the Board of Governors.

Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in the place where a deposition shall
be taken may be designated by the Investigator to assist the complainant or the
respondent in taking a deposition.

Section 10. Report of Investigator. — Not later than thirty (30) days from the
termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report containing
his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors,
together with the stenographic notes and the transcript thereof, and all the
evidence presented during the investigation. The submission of the report need
not await the transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the
report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes any relevant
and pertinent testimonies.

Section 11. Defects. — No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the

proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be considered as substantial unless
the Board of Governors, upon considering the whole record, finds that such
defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which event the
Board shall take such remedial action as the circumstances may warrant,
including invalidation of the entire proceedings.

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

a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board

of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator
with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing
and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is
based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days
from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's
Report.

b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership,

determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or
disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.

c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction

imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition,
reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the
complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders
otherwise.

d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all

parties through their counsel. A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the
Supreme Court.
B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation. — In proceedings initiated motu

propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest of justice
so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the
Solicitor-General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower
court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided
in sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall
be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.

Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court-designated

Investigator. — Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the
Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall
submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.

C. COMMON PROVISIONS

Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. — After receipt of

respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu
propio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the
recommendation of the Investigator, may suspend an attorney from the practice
of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during
the pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme
Court.

Section 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional

Trial Court. 1 — The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an
attorney from practice for any of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27 2,
until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

Section 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court,

further proceedings in Supreme Court. — Upon such suspension, the Court of
Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court
a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon
which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the
Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may revoke,
shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant.

Section 18. Confidentiality. — 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.

Section 19. Expenses. — All reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in

relation to disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are lawfull charges for which
the parties may be taxed as costs.

BAR MATTER NO. 1960 (MAY 1, 2000) AMANEDMENT OF SEC. 1,

RULE 139-B OF THE ROC
Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the:
1. Supreme Court motu proprio; or

2. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of

any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts
complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
documents as may substantiate said facts.

PROCEDURAL STEPS FOR DISBARMENT IN THE IBP

1. The Board of Governors shall appoint from among the IBP members
an investigator or when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of 3
investigators to investigate the complaint;

2. If the complaint is meritorious, the respondent shall be served with a

copy requiring him to answer within 15 days from service.

3. The respondent shall file a verified answer containing 6 copies; after

receipt of the answer or lapse of the period to do so, the Supreme Court,
may, motu proprio or at the instance of the IBP Board of Governors,
upon recommendation by the investigator, suspend an attorney from
practice, for any of the causes under Rule 138, Sec. 27, during the
pendency of the investigation

4. After joinder of the issues or failure to answer, the respondent shall be

given full opportunity to defend himself. But if the respondent fails to
appear to defend himself in spite of notice, the investigator may proceed
ex parte. The investigation shall be terminated within 3 months from
commencement which period may be extended.

5. The investigator shall make a report to the Board of Governors within

30 days from termination of the investigation which report shall contain
his findings and recommendations together with the evidence.

6. The Board of Governors shall have the power to review the decision of
the investigator. Its decision shall be promulgated within a period not
exceeding 30 days from the next meeting of the Board following the
submission of the report of the investigator.

7. If the decision is a finding of guilt of the charges, the IBP Board of

Governors shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final action together with the record. If the decision is for exoneration, or
if the sanction is less than suspension or dismissal, the Board shall issue
a decision exonerating the respondent of imposing a lesser sanction. The
resolution exonerating the respondent shall be considered as terminating
the case unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party
filed with the Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of the Board’s
decision.

RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED JUNE 17, 2008

B.M. NO. 1755 (RE: RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE
COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE)

Propriety of a motion for reconsideration

1. A party can no longer file a motion for reconsideration of any order or

resolution of the Investigating Commissioner, such motion being a
prohibited pleading.

2. Regarding the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration of a

decision or resolution of the Board of Governors (BOG) can be
entertained, an aggrieved party can file said motion with the BOG within
fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt thereof by said party.

3. In case a decision is rendered by the BOG that exonerates the

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

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

disbarment, the BOG shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations. The aggrieved party can file a motion for
reconsideration of said resolution with the BOG within fifteen (15) days
from notice. The BOG shall first resolve the incident and shall thereafter
elevate the assailed resolution with the entire case records to the
Supreme Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses without any
motion for reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG shall
likewise transmit to this Court the resolution with the entire case records
for appropriate action.

NOTE: Lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the
IBP National Office or their respective chapters of any change in office
or residential address and other contact details. In case such change is not
duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential address
appearing in the records of the IBP National Office shall constitute
sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings
against him (KeldStemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June
16, 2009).

All charges against the following shall be filed with the Supreme Court:
(1) Justices of the Court of Appeals;
(2) Justices of the Sandiganbayan;
(3) Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals; and
(4) Judges of lower courts [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B].

Charges filed against justices and judges before the IBP shall
immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and
adjudication, including those filed prior to their appointment in the
Judiciary [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B].

DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

General rule: A lawyer who holds a government office may not be

disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his
duties as a government official.

Exception: If that misconduct as a government official is of such

a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such
ground

In People v. Castaneda, G.R. 208290 (2013) the lawyers

representing the offices under the executive branch were reminded that
they still remain as officers of the court from whom a high sense of
competence and fervor is expected. The Court reminded the lawyers in
the government that the canons embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility equally apply to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks. They should exert every effort and
consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice.

QUANTUM OF PROOF

The proof required is clear, convincing and satisfactory

evidence.

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION OF

INNOCENCE The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension
proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court
exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the
complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that warrants the imposition
of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal 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. 7686 (2013)].

EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE PARDON

(1) Conditional pardon: disbarment case will not be dismissed
on such basis
(2) Absolute pardon granted before conviction: disbarment case
will be dismissed
 (3) Absolute pardon granted before conviction: No automatic
reinstatement to the bar. It must be shown by evidence aside from
absolute pardon that he is now a person of good moral character and fit
and proper person to practice law.

EFFECT OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS

The compromise agreement between the complainant and the lawyer, or

the fact that the complainant already forgave the latter, does not
necessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative case.
Exception: When as a consequence of the withdrawal or
desistance, no evidence is adduced to prove the charges [Banaag v.
Salindong, A.C. 1563 (1984)].

4. Recoverable amounts; intrinsically linked to professional engagement

A disbarment case is not a collection suit.

However, damages intrinsically linked to professional engagement may be
recovered in a disbarment case.

D. Readmission to the bar

Reinstatement and its requirements

Reinstatement is the restoration of the privilege to practice law after a lawyer has
been disbarred. The applicant must, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good
moral character – a fit and proper person to practice law.

NOTE: The power of the Supreme Court to reinstate is based on its constitutional
prerogative to promulgate rules on the admission of applicants to the practice of law
(1987 Constitution, Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII).

Lifting of suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court’s
decision

The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automatic upon the end of the
period stated in the Court’s decision, and an order from the Court lifting the
suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable [him] to resume the
practice of his profession (J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. et al.
v. Atty. de Vera, et al. and Atty. de Vera v. Atty. Encanto, et al.).

Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended lawyer must first present proof(s) of his
compliance by submitting certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and from the Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from the practice of law
during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon a
favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order of
suspension and thus allow him to resume the practice of law (Maniago v. Atty. De
Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010).
1. Lawyers who have been suspended

The following guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court, the same to be
observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the
practice of law:
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of
law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;

2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory
upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for
reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final
and executory;

3. Upon the 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;

4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the
IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases
handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;

5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s

compliance with the order of suspension;

6. 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

2. Lawyers who have been disbarred

CONSIDERATIONS FOR REINSTATEMENT

(1) The applicant’s character and standing prior to disbarment;
(2) The nature or character of the misconduct for which he is disbarred;
(3) His conduct subsequent to disbarment [Cui v. Cui, G.R. L-18727 (1964)];
(4) His efficient government service [In re: Adriatico, G.R. L-2532 (1910)];
(5) The time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for
reinstatement and the circumstances that he has been sufficiently punished and
disciplined [Prudential Bank v. Benjamin Grecia, A.C. 2756 (1986)];
(6) Applicant’s appreciation of significance of his dereliction and his assurance
that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity;

(7) Favorable endorsement of the IBP and local government officials and citizens
of his community, pleas of his loved ones [Yap Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. 44
(1989)];

GUIDELINES IN RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF

DISBARRED LAWYERS

(1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These include testimonials
of credible institutions and personalities;
 (2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure
a period of reformation;

(3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance
to redeem himself;

(4) There must be a showing of promise (e.g., intellectual aptitude, contribution

to legal scholarship), and potential for public service;

(5) Other relevant factors to justify clemency [Re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. 07-
7-17-SC (2007)].

Effects of reinstatement

1. Reinstatement to the roll of attorneys wipes out the restrictions and disabilities
resulting from a previous disbarment (Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, Aug. 31,
1964);

2. Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law;

3. Lawyer shall be subject to same law, rules and regulations as those applicable
to any other lawyer; and
4. Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed on his readmission.

NOTE: To be reinstated, there is still a need for the filing of an appropriate

petition with the Supreme Court (In re: Rovero, A.M. No. 126, Dec. 29, 1980).

E. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (Bar Matter No. 850, as amended

Bar Matter No. 850 (Dated Feb. 15, 2015. Effective Mar. 1, 2015)
Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
xxx The Court Resolved to REQUIRE all members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to file a written entry of appearance indicating their MCLE exemption or
compliance number for the current or immediately preceding compliance period and
date of issuance thereof before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral argument in
open court or before a quasijudicial body. However, counsels who affixed their
signatures in their pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption or compliance
number in their pleadings need not file a separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all
counsels, including partners of law firms whose names appear in the said pleadings,
shall also indicate their MCLE exemption or compliance number. This resolution
shall take effect on March 1, 2015 following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation."

MCLE: 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)]

Purpose of MCLE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the IBP to:
(1) Ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence;
(2) Maintain the ethics of the profession; and
(3) Enhance the standards of the practice of law [Sec. 1, Rule 1, BM 850]

Committee on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

1. Composition: a. Retired Justice of the SC – to act as Chairman, who is nominated

by the SC b. IBP National President – acts as the ViceChairman c. 3 other members
– nominated by the Philippine Judicial Academy, UP Law Center and Association of
Law Professors, respectively 2. Members are of proven probity and integrity 3.
Compensation as may be determined by the SC 4. The initial terms of each of the 3
members shall be 5, 4, and 3 years respectively

1. Requirements

Requirements of completion of MCLE

Members of the IBP, unless exempted under Rule 7, shall complete every 3 years
at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities. The 36 hours shall be
divided as follows: 1. 6 hours – legal ethics 2. 4 hours – trial and pretrial skills
3. 5 hours – alternative dispute resolution 4. 9 hours – updates on substantive
and procedural laws and jurisprudence 5. 4 hours – legal writing and oral
advocacy 6. 2 hours – international law and international conventions 7.
Remaining 6 hours – such other subjects as may be prescribed by the Committee
on MCLE

MCLE for a newly admitted member of the bar

Starts on the first day of the month of his admission. (Bar Matter No. 850, Sec. 5,
last par.)

Classes of credits

1. Participatory credit – Attending approved education activities like seminars,

conventions, symposia, and the like; speaking or lecturing, or assigned as
panelist, reactor, or commentator, etc. in approved education activities; teaching
in law school or lecturing in bar review classes.

2. Non-participatory – Preparing, as author or coauthor, written materials (article,

book or book review) which contribute to the legal education of the author
member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of his practice or
employment; editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.

2. Compliance

The IBP members covered by the requirement are divided into three compliance
groups:
(1) Compliance Group 1 consists of members in the National Capital Region
(NCR) or Metro Manila;
 (2) Compliance Group 2 consists members in Luzon outside NCR; and
(3) Compliance Group 3 consists of members in Visayas and Mindanao.

The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three months from the
constitution of the MCLE Committee. The compliance period shall be for 36
months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
[Sec. 1, Rule 3, BM 850]

For those admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, they will
be permanently assigned to the appropriate compliance group based on their
chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission. The initial
compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of
the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of
all other members in the same compliance group.

However:
(1) Where four months or less remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with the
program requirement for the initial compliance;

(2) Where more than four months remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of
hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period in which the member is admitted or
readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of
education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the
compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole
number [Sec. 5, Rule 3, BM 850].

Non-compliance of the MCLE

1. Failure to complete education requirement within the compliance period;

2. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;

3. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of

exempt status) within the prescribed period;

4. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such

compliance within 60 days from receipt of non-compliance notice;

5. Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period; or

6. Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to

circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.

NOTE: Members failing to comply will receive a NonCompliance Notice stating

the specific deficiency and will be given 60 days from date of notification to file
a response.

3. Exemptions
 Persons exempted from the MCLE

1. The President, Vice-President and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of

Executive Departments;

2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of Judicial Bar Council,
incumbent members of the MCLE Committee, incumbent court lawyers who
have availed of the Philippine Judicial Academy programs of continuing judicial
education (Amendment to Bar Matter 850, Resolution\ of the Court En Banc,
July 13, 2004);

4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Dept. of Justice;

5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;

6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate

Counsel;

7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;

8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and
the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;

9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasijudicial functions;

10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least 10 years in accredited law schools;

11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professional and
Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and

12. Governors and Mayors because they are prohibited from practicing their
profession

Other parties exempted:

1. Those who are not in law practice, private or public;

2. Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors.

Request for exemption under special circumstance

A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (e.g.,
physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law) from
compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension
of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the
MCLE Committee. [Sec. 3, Rule 7, BM 850]

When a member ceases to be exempt, the compliance period begins on the first day
of the month in which he ceases to be exempt and shall end on the same day as that
of all other members in the same Compliance Group. [Sec. 4, Rule 7, BM 850]

NOTE: Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement

shall be under oath and supported by documents.

5. Sanctions

Consequences of non-compliance

(1) A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the
compliance period shall pay a noncompliance fee.

(2) Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply shall be listed as a delinquent
member by the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE
Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A, Rules of Court, governing the IBP, shall
apply [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 13, BM 850]

A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the 60-day period
shall be listed as delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon
recommendation of the Committee on MCLE.

NOTE: The listing as a delinquent member is an administrative in nature but it

shall be made with notice and hearing by the Committee on MCLE. B.M. No.
1922, which took effect on January 1, 2009, 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.

Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

BAR MATTER 2012: THE RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE

PURPOSE

To enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the
courts as officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less
privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases involving
them. Mandatory free legal service by members of the bar and their active
support thereof will aid the efficient and effective administration of justice
especially in cases involving indigent and pauper litigants [Sec. 2, BM No. 2012
(2009)]

SCOPE

The rule governs the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to render free
legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative)
involving indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is
needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession to
support the legal aid program of the IBP.

Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in
behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, excluding the
following:

(1) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law
to practice;

(2) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;

(3) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly

accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental
organizations and peoples’ organizations, who by the nature of their work already
render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants; and

(4) Lawyers do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and
quasijudicial agencies. [B.M. 2012, Sec 4(a)

INDIGENT AND PAUPER LITIGANTS

(1) Those whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed
an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and

(2) Those who do not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the
current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos.
[Sec. 19, Rule 141]

Sanctions in case of non-compliance with the rule on mandatory legal aid service

1. At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer who fails to meet the
minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal aid service each year shall be required by
the IBP, through the National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA), to explain why
he was unable to render the minimum prescribed number of hours.

2. If no explanation has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation

unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall make a report and recommendation to the IBP
Board of Governors that the erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who
is not in good standing.
 3. Upon approval of the NCLA’s recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors
shall declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing.

4. The notice to the lawyer shall include a directive to pay P4,000.00 penalty
which shall accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.

5. The “not in good standing” declaration shall be effective for a period of 3

months from the receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of
Governors.

6. During the said period, the lawyer cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial
body as counsel.

7. Provided, however, that the “not in good standing” status shall subsist even
after the lapse of the 3-month period until and unless the penalty shall have been
paid.

8. Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for at least 3
consecutive years shall be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted
motu proprio by the Committee on Bar Discipline. (B.M. 2012, Sec. 7)

NOTE: The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof by any Clerk of Court or by any
Chairperson of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP local chapter where the case is pending or by the
Director of a legal clinic or responsible officer of an NGO (non-governmental organizations) or PO
(people’s organizations) shall be a ground for an administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or
Chairperson. This is without prejudice to the filing of the criminal and administrative charges against the
malfeasor (B.M. 2012, Sec. 7[e]).

F. Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended)

x_One of the favourite questions asked in the bar_x
READ NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULE: CODAL

Purpose of the Notarial Law

1. To promote, serve, and protect public interest;

2. To simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and

3. To foster ethical conduct among notaries public (Sec. 2, Rule I, A.M. No. 02-8-13-
SC)

Effect of notarized document

A document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document (RRC, Sec.

19, Rule 132) and may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate
of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved (RRC, Sec. 30, Rule 132).

1. Qualifications of a notary public

Notary public

A person 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 facts stated
therein and who is authorized by the statute to administer various oaths.

NOTE: “Notary Public" and "Notary" refer to any person commissioned to

perform official acts under the rules on Notarial Practice (Sec. 9, Rule II, A.M.
No. 02-8-13-SC).

QUALIFICATIONS OF NOTARY PUBLIC

1. Must be a Filipino citizen;

2. Must be over 21 years old;

3. Must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one year;

4. Must maintain a regular place of work or business in the city or province

where com-mission is to be issued;

5. Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing, with clearances

from: The Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court; and the IBP;

6. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving
moral turpitude [Sec. 1, Rule III, Notarial Rules]

Commission

It refers to the grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to the written
evidence of the authority (Sec. 3, Rule II, A.M. 02-8-13-SC).

Issuance of notarial commission

A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified

person who submits a petition in accordance with the Rules on Notarial Practice
(A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, first par., Sec. 1, Rule III).

Lawyers as notary public

GR: Only those admitted to the practice of law are qualified to be notaries public.

XPNs: When there are no persons with the necessary qualifications or where
there are qualified persons but they refuse appointment. In which case, the
following persons may be appointed as notaries:
 1. Those who passed the studies of law in a reputable university; or
2. A clerk or deputy clerk of court for a period of not less than two years.

Prohibition against the RTC judges to notarize

Section 35, Rule 138, of the Revised Rules of Court as well as Canon 5, Rule
5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that no judge or other official or
employee of the superior courts shall engage in private practice as a member of
the bar or give professional advice to clients. Notarization of documents is
considered a practice of law.

The rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are
so inherently incompatible with the official functions, duties, powers, discretions
and privileges of a judge of the Regional Trial Court.

Authority of MTC judges to notarize and its limitation

MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public exofficio in the notarization
of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and
duties. They may not, as notaries public ex-officio, undertake the preparation and
acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances
which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges.

However, MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no

lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex-officio,
perform any act within the competence of a regular notary public, provided that:

1. All notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over
to the municipal treasurer

2. Certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any

lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.

Their authority to notarize is limited to their sala. Hence, they cannot notarize
documents filed in another town because it will be considered as practice of law.

Clerk of court as notary

Clerk of court may at as notary public, provided he is commissioned and has

been permitted by his superior. Such consent is necessary because the act of
notarizing a document is a practice of law.

NOTE: A notary public who charges fee for notarial services shall issue a receipt
registered with the Bureau of Internal revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He
shall enter in the journal all fees charges for services rendered. A notary public shall post
in a conspicuous place in his office a complete schedule of chargeable notarial fees (A.
M. 02-813SC, Sec. 5, Rule V).
2. Term of office of a notary public

A notary public may perform notarial acts for a period of 2 years commencing
the 1st day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made until the
last day of December of the succeeding year regardless of the actual date when
the application was renewed, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has
resigned under the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Rules of Court (A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC, Section 11, Rule III).

NOTE: The period of 2 years of a notarial commission will commence at January

first regardless of when it was really granted and will end at exactly 2 years from
said date of commencement up to December of the 2nd year. Ex. Atty. Antonio
applied for and was given notarial commission on 12 November 2010, such term
will expire on 31 December 2011 (2011 Bar Question).

Expired Commission

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. A mark,
image or impression of the seal of the notary public shall be attached in the
application (A.M. No. 02-8-13SC, first par., Sec. 13, Rule III).

NOTE: If a person is applying for a commission for the first time, what he files is
a petition and not an application.

Failure of the notary public to file an application for the renewal of his
commission :

Failure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name of the notary
public in the register of notaries public and may only be reinstated therein after
he is issued a new commission (A.M. No. 02-8-13SC, second and third pars.,
Sec. 13, Rule III).

NOTE: The Executive Judge shall, upon payment of the application fee, act on
an application for renewal of a commission within thirty (30) days from receipt
thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive Judge shall state the reasons
therefor (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Sec. 14, Rule III).

3. Powers and limitations

Powers of a notary public

A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts: (JAO-CAS)

1. Acknowledgements;

Refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

1. Appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally
complete instrument or document;
 NOTE: A notary public cannot perform a notarial act over a
document that has missing pages, or that contains blanks that should be
filled-in prior to the notarial act.

2. Is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by

the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the
Rules on Notarial Practice; and
3. Represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or
document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the
instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or
document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a
particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that
capacity (Sec. 1, Rule II, A.M. 02-8-13-SC).

Under Section 1(a) of Act 2103, a notary public taking the

acknowledgment in a document or instrument is mandated to certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that
he is the same person who executed it and acknowledged that the same is his
free act and deed. To "acknowledge before" means to avow; to own as
genuine, to assert, to admit; and "before" means in front or preceding in
space or ahead of. A party acknowledging must appear before the notary
public. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of
what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the
acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a
fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary public is, among
others, to guard against any illegal deed (Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, A.C.
No. 6139, Nov. 11, 2003).

2. Oaths and affirmations;

Refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: 1. Appears

in person before the notary public; 2. Is personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by the Rules on Notarial Practice; and 3. Avows
under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument
or document (Sec. 2,Rule II, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9406 MARCH 23, 2007

AN ACT REORGANIZING AND STRENGTHENING THE PUBLIC

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF
1987", AS AMENDED, GRANTING SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO
PAO OFFICIALS AND LAWYERS, AND PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR
 Officers allowed to administer oaths:

1. President;
2. Vice-President;
3. Members and Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress;
4. Members of the Judiciary;
5. Secretaries of Departments;
6. Provincial governors and lieutenant-governors;
7. City mayors;
8. Municipal mayors;
9. Bureau directors;
10. Regional directors;
11. Clerk of courts;
12. Registrars of deeds;
13. Other civilian officers in the public service of the government of the
Philippines whose appointments are vested in the President and are
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments;
14. All other constitutional officers;
15. PAO lawyers in connection with the performance of duty; and
16. Notaries public (Sec. 41)

Duty to administer oaths

Officers authorized to administer oaths, with the exception of notaries public,

municipal judges and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer oaths or
execute certificates save in matters of official business or in relation to their
functions as such; and with the exception of notaries public, the officer
performing the service in those matters shall charge no fee, unless
specifically authorized by law (Section 42).

NOTE: P.A.O. Lawyers now have the authority to administer oaths, provided
it is in connection with the performance of their duties.

The fiscal or the state prosecutor has the authority to administer oaths (RA
No. 5180, as amended by P.D. 911).

3. Jurats;

Refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

1. Appears in person before the notary public and presents an
instrument or document;
2. Is personally known to the notary public or identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the
Rules on Notarial Practice;
3. Signs the instrument or document in the presence of the
notary; and
4. Takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to
such instrument or document (A.M. 02-8-13-SC, Sec. 6, Rule II).
 NOTE: A jurat is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences
the fact that the affidavit was properly made. The claim or belief of Atty.
Dela Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was not necessary for
the jurat because it is not an acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this
had been his belief since he was first commissioned as a notary public,
then he has been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a
jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or
to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties
appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public policy
and are impressed with public interest (Gamido v. Bilibid Prisons
Officials, G.R. No. 114829, Mar. 1, 1995).

4. Signature witnessings;

Refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion:

1. Appears in person before the notary public and presents an
instrument or document;
2. Is personally known to the notary public or identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined
by the Rules on Notarial Practice; and
3. Signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary
public (A. M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Sec. 14, Rule II).

5. Copy certifications; and

Copy Certification
Refers to a notarial act in which a notary public: (PC-CD)

(1) Is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a

vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable;
(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, Notarial Rules]

This assists litigators in doing away with the requirement of

proving that a copy is a faithful reproduction of an original
instrument or document. [Uy (2004)]

NOTE: The document copied must be an original document. It

cannot be a copy itself.

6. Any other act authorized by these rules (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Section 1(a),
Rule IV):
(1) Certifying the affixing of signature by thumb or other mark on an
instrument or document presented for notarization [Sec. 1(b), Rule III,
Notarial Rules]
 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

(4) The notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other

mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
[Sec. 1(b), Rule IV, Notarial Rules]

(2) Signing on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or

make a mark on an instrument or document [Sec. 1(c), Rule III, Notarial
Rules]

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, Notarial Rules].

“Physically unable to sign” does not include the situation where a person is
physically unable to sign because he is in another place [Uy (2004)

Notarization of a private document

Notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it
admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its
authenticity and due execution. A notarized document is by law entitled to full
credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the
basic requirements in notarizing documents (Dolores dela cruz, ET AL V. Atty.
Jose Dimaano, Jr., September 12, 2008, A.C. No. 7781).

Absence of notarization in a deed of sale

The absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily invalidate
the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the
form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable
property should be in a public document, yet it is also an accepted rule that the
failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. Thus, it
has been uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 is not essential to
the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but required merely for
convenience (Leonor Camcam v. CA; Tigno v. Aquino).

NOTE: If the notary public admited that he has personal knowledge of a false
statement contained in the instrument to be notarized yet proceeded to affix his or
her notarial seal on it, the court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity
and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public
confidence on notarial documents diminished.

Disqualification of a notary public to perform a notarial act

A notary public is disqualified to perform notarial act when he:

1. Is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;

2. Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee,

advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as
provided by the Rules on Notarial Practice and by law; or

3. Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by

affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree (A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC, Sec. 3, Rule IV).

NOTE: The function would be defeated if the notary public is one of the
signatories to the instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the
validity thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It
would place him in an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of the
acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted (Villarin v.
Sabate, A.C. No. 3224,Feb. 9, 2000).

Instances when notary public may refuse to notarize

1. The notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or
transaction is unlawful or immoral;
 2. 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;

3. In the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will;
(A.M. No. 02-813-SC, Sec.4, Rule V) or

4. If the document or instrument to be notarized is considered as an improper

document by the Rules on Notarial Practice.

NOTE: Improper instrument/document is a blank or incomplete instrument or an

instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification (A.M. No. 02-
8-13SC, Sec. 6, Rule V).

Notarial certificate

Refers to the part of, or attachment to a notarized instrument or document that is

completed by the notary public which bears the notary's signature and seal, and
states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as
provided for by the Rules on Notarial Practice (A. M. No. 02-8-13, Sec. 8, Rule
II).

NOTE: “Loose notarial certificate” refers to a notarial certificate that is attached

to a notarized instrument or document.

Limitations to the performance of a notarial act

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
the instrument or document is:
a. Not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and (A.M. No. 02-8-13SC, Sec. 2(b)(1), RuleIV).
b. Not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC,
Sec.2(b)(2), Rule IV)
c. The document is blank or incomplete; (A.M. 02-813-SC, Sec.6
(a) Rule IV)
d. An instrument or document is without appropriate notarial
certification (A.M. 02-8-13SC, Sec. 6, Rule IV).

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, Notarial Rules]

Rule VI, Sec.s I and 2 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice 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.
9385 (2013)].

The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor

General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost
thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the
Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the book
consists (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Sec. 1(a), RuleVI).

NOTE: Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law
is a ground for revocation of his commission. (Father Ranhilio C.
Aquino Et. Al., s. Complainants, Vs. Atty. Edwin Pascua, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5095, November 28, 2007, En Banc)

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;
(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, Notarial Rules]

Signing or affixing a thumbmark in the notarial register

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 (A.M. No. 02-813-
SC, Sec. 3,Rule VI).
 Rules in case of loss, destruction or damage of notarial register

1. In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or

otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary
public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement
agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any
means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail
and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report.

2. Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death of

the notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall immediately be
delivered to the office of the Executive Judge (Sec. 5, Rule VI, A. M. No. 02-8-
13SC, Sec. 5, 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, Notarial Rules]

This applies even if notarization is allowed in places other than the

regular place of business of the notary public. [Sec. 2(a), Rule IV, Notarial
Rules]

A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place
of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the
following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:
1) Public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of
office may be administered;
2) Public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of
documents requiring notarization;
3) Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument
or document is confined for treatment; and
4) Any place where a party to the instrument or document requiring
notarization is under detention. [Sec. 2, Rule VI, Notarial Rules]
5) Such other places as may be dictated because of emergency.

NOTE: It is improper for a notary public to notarize documents in sidewalk since it is now required that a
notary public should maintain a regular place of work or business within the city or province where he is
commissioned. The SC evidently wants to eradicate the practice of “fly by night” notaries public who
notarized documents in “improvised” offices.

NOTE: Functions of notary public – violations: suspension as notary not for the practice of law (Villarin
v. Sabate, A.C. No. 3224,Feb. 9, 2000).

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)]

Duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
“Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity
of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.” [Tenoso vs. Echavez, A.C.
No. 8384 (2013)]

6. Competent evidence of identity

Competent evidence of identity means the identification of an individual based

on:
(1) At least one current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or
(2) The oath or affirmation of:
(a) One credible witness not privy to the instrument, document
or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual; or
(b) Two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the
instrument, document or trans-action who each personally knows the
individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
[Sec. 12, Rule II, Notarial Rules]

NOTE: Competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is personally
known to the Notary Public (Amora, Jr. v. Comelec, G.R. No.192280, Jan. 25, 2011).

7. Sanctions

The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings

against a notary public and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on
the grounds for revocation of commission mentioned [Sec. 1(d), Rule XI,
Notarial Rules]

Also, the Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:

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.

NOTE: Notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefore constitutes malpractice,
if not the crime of falsification of public documents (St. Louis Laboratory High School Faculty And Staff
V. Dela Cruz , A.C. No. 6010. August 28, 2006).
8. Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility

Canon 1- Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.

UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
An unlawful conduct is act or omission which is against the law.
Dishonesty involves lying or cheating [Agpalo (2004)]

IMMORAL AND GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT DISTINGUISHED

Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the community’s sense of decency. The Court makes these distinctions,
as the supreme penalty of disbarment from conduct requires grossly immoral, not
simply immoral, conduct. [Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816 (2015)

A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her obligation [Toledo
v. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419 (1999)], but unwarranted obstinacy in evading the
payment of a debt has been considered as a gross misconduct. [Constantino v.
Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)]. However, issuance of bouncing checks
reflects on the lawyer’s moral character and he may be disciplined. [Lex Pareto,
Bar 2001, 2002]

A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal processes. This

includes order of the commission on Bar discipline of the IBP. (The lawyer’s
oath likewise says, “I will obey the duly constituted authorities.”) [Lex Pareto,
Bar 2002]

GROSSLY IMMORAL ACTS

(1) Wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage as shown when the
lawyer pursued a married woman and thereafter cohabited with her [Guevarra v.
Eala, A.C. No. 7136 (2007)]
(2) Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes serious moral depravity,
even if his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal
prosecution for rape [Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. 1474 (2000)]

NOT GROSSLY IMMORAL

(1) Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both of whom possess
no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried and devoid of deceit on the part of
the respondent, even if a child was born out of wedlock of such relationship; it
may suggest a doubtful moral character but not grossly immoral [Figueroa v.
Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 (1997)]
(2) Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204
(2007)]
 MORAL TURPITUDE
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man owed his fellowmen, or tosociety in
general [Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585 (2004)]. Murder, estafa, rape,
violation of BP 22, bribery, bigamy, adultery, seduction, abduction, concubinage
and smuggling are considered crimes involving moral turpitude.

II. JUDICIAL ETHICS

The branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper conduct to be
observed by all judges in trying and deciding controversies brought before them for
adjudication which conduct must be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity, competence,
independence and freedom from improprieties. This freedom from improprieties must be
observed in both the public and private life of a judge – being the visible representation
of the law.

A judge is a public officer who, by virtue of his office, is clothed with judicial
authority; A public officer lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions in accordance
with law (People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L14129, Aug. 30, 1962).

A. Sources
1. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)

READ: NCJC CODAL AND

THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE

JUDICIARY (BANGALORE DRAFT) (A.M. NO. 03-05-01)

The New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) for the Philippine Judiciary which
took effect on June 1, 2004 supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the
Code of Judicial Conduct. Provided, however, that in case of deficiency or
absence of specific provisions in this New Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics
and Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character (2007,
2009 Bar Questions).

This was adopted from the universal declaration of standards for ethical conduct
embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at the Round Table Conference of
Chief Justices at the Hague.

The purpose of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary is
to update and correlate the code of judicial conduct and canons of judicial ethics
adopted for the Philippines, and also to stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the
universal clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics (See aforementioned "four
Ins" and "four ACID" problems by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban).

NOTE: The New Code contains 6 Canons and 44 Rules.

Q: One of the foundations of the Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct
is the importance in a modern democratic society of what? (2011 Bar Question)
 A: Public confidence in its judicial system and in the moral authority and
integrity of its judiciary.

The six (6) canons under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary

1. Independence
2. Integrity
3. Impartiality
4. Propriety
5. Equality
6. Competence and Diligence

Duties of a magistrate that will bolster the public’s confidence to our judicial
system

1. Duty to be above reproach and to appear above reproach (NCJC,

Sec.1, Canon 2)
2. Duty to be impartial (NCJC, Canon 3)
3. Duty to avoid improprieties and appearance of improprieties (NCJC,
Sec. 1, Canon 4)
4. Duty of Financial Transparency and duty to avoid financial conflicts
of interest (NCJC, Sec. 7, Canon 4)
5. Duty to be efficient, fair and prompt (NCJC, Sec. 5, Canon 6)
6. Duty to be free from favor, bias, or prejudice (NCJC, Sec. 1, Canon 3).

2. Code of Judicial Conduct

READ: CODAL CJC

NOTES: NCJC: BANGALORE DRAFT

Canon 1 - Asked 11 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)]

Summary of judicial duties under Canon 1, Independence [Lex Pareto (2014)]

a. Judges shall exercise judicial function independently

An independent judiciary has been described as “one free of inappropriate outside

influences.” Judges frequently experience pressures in the exercise of their judicial functions. Once a
judge gives in to pressures from whatever source, that judge is deemed to have lost his independence and
is considered unworthy of the position.

More than just a breach of the rudiments laid down in the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges who
succumb to pressure and, as a result, knowingly ignore proven facts or misapply the law in rendering a
decision commit corruption. Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but
also to the personal demeanor of judges.

In every case, a judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan or personal interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. The fact that the
complainant and his sympathizers had staged a rally demanding the issuance of a warrant of arrest against
the accused is not a sufficient excuse for the unjustified haste of respondent judge's act of fixing bail
without a hearing [Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286 (1991)]

Judges must adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct and must be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence; not only pure but above suspicion. The exacting standards of
conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary because the people’s confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on
the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest
standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. [Tan v. Rosete, A.M. MTJ-04-
1563 (2004)]

Judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the
administration of justice deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and
undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied (Angeliav.
Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220, Feb. 7, 2011)

b. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues

The confessed act of succumbing to pressure is a patent betrayal of public trust. [Ramirez
v. Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ (1986)]

c. Judges shall refrain from influencing the outcome of litigations and administrative cases

In the case of Sabitsana v. Villamor (1991) the respondent judge of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) wrote a letter to a lower court judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge seeking to
influence him to hear a case and even intimating that he issue an order of acquittal. The High Court ruled
that a judge who tries to influence the outcome of a litigation pending before another court not only
subverts the independence of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and
impartiality. The interference in the decision-making process of another judge is a breach of conduct so
serious as to justify dismissal from service based only on a preponderance of evidence

d. Judges shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct

It should be noted that when a judge is related to one of the parties within the sixth degree
of consanguinity or affinity, his disqualification is mandatory. This provision is intended to ensure that
judges are spared from potential influence of family members by disqualifying them even before any
opportunity for impropriety presents itself.

(A companion or EE of the judge who lives in the judge’s household is included in the
definition of the “judge’s family”)

e. Judges shall be free from inappropriate connections and influence from the executive and
legislative branches.

(“A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid
suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party
funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political
activities” [Rule 5.10, Old Code]
 Mere congeniality between a judge and a governor may not necessarily be unethical, but
it may still create the appearance of impropriety. This congeniality was not necessarily
detrimental to judicial independence, provided that there was no showing that such relations were
for corrupt ends. However, had this case been tried under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the
judge’s acts would likely have created an “appearance” of an improper connection. To the
common person, the accommodation may seem a reason for the judge to ingratiate himself
towards his benefactors, which may ultimately be perceived as affecting the judge’s ability to rule
independently. Therefore, whether or not the congenial relationship was indeed used for corrupt
ends, it would be advisable for judges to avoid becoming dependent on other parties, especially
for basic needs like transportation to the judge’s workstation. [Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court
Rogelio R. Joboco, A.M. No. 9310-1296-RTC (1998)].

f. Judges shall be independent in relation to society

(“A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions” [Rule 5.09, Old Code]

Judges should not fraternize with litigants and their counsel. In fact, they should make a
conscious effort to avoid them in order to avoid the perception that their independence has been
compromised [ABA (2007)]

A judge’s act of sending a member of his staff to talk with a complainant and show
copies of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting beyond office hours violate the standard of
judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the bench. They constitute gross
misconduct which is punishable under Rule 140, Rules of Court [Tan v. Rosete, A.M. MTJ04-
1563 (2004)]

g. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties

h. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct

The judge should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice. He must view himself as a priest,
for the administration of justice is akin to a religious crusade [Dimatulac v. Villon, G.R. No. 127107
(1998)].

Canon 2- INDEPENDENCE

CANON 2 – Asked 3 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)]

Summary of the duties of a judge under Canon 2, Integrity:

a. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach but that it is perceived to be
so in the view of a reasonable observer.

The conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his
performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private morals. [In Re:
Complaint of Mrs. Marcos Against Judge Marcos, A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC (2001)]
 With regard to professional integrity, judges have been penalized for:

1. Demanding and/or accepting bribes [Tan v. Rosete (2004)];

2. Fraternizing with litigants and/or lawyers [Dela Cruz v. Bersamin (2000)];

3. Altering orders [Rallos v. Gako (2000)];

4. Delay in rendering decisions [Fernandez v. Hamoy (2004)];

5. Sexual harassment of employees [Dawa v. De Asa (1998)]; and

6. Ignorance of the law [Macalintal v. The (1997)].

With respect to personal integrity, judges have been penalized for transgressions in their private
lives such as:

1. Keeping and/or flaunting a mistress [In Re: Judge Marcos A.M. No. 97-253-RTC (2001)];

2. Inebriated/drunk behavior [Lachica v. Flordeliza, A.M. No. MTJ-94-921 (1996)]; and

3. Frequenting casinos and cockfights [City of Tagbilaran v Hontanosas, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1169
(2002)].

b. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the
judiciary. Justice must not merely be done, but must also be seen to be done.

A judge has the duty to not only render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in
such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the
judge’s integrity. It is obvious, therefore, that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order that
they can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should act and behave
in such a manner that the parties before them should have confidence in their impartiality [Sibayan-
Joaquin v. Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 (2001)].

c. Judges should take or initiate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for any
unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

Judges should not be lenient in in the administrative supervision of their employees. A

judge must ensure that all court personnel perform efficiently and promptly in the administration of
justice. The inclination to leniency in the administrative supervision of court employees is an undesirable
trait. Oftentimes, such leniency provides the court employees the opportunity to commit minor
transgressions of the laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies.
A judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize that
big start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the part
of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his subordinates would know that any misdemeanor will
not remain unchecked. The slightest semblance of impropriety on the part of the employees of the court,
in the performance of their official duties stirs ripples of public suspicion and public distrust of the
judicial administrators. The slightest breach of duty by and the slightest irregularity in the conduct of
court officers and employees detract from the dignity of the courts and erode the faith of the people in the
judiciary [Buenaventura v. Benedicto, A.C. No. 137-J (1971)].
 Judges must be “models of uprightness, fairness and honesty.” [Rural Bank of Barotac Nuevo,
Inc. vs. Cartagena, A.M. No. 707-MJ (1978)

Canon 3- IMPARTIALITY

CANON 3 – Asked 17 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)]

JUDICIAL DUTIES FREE FROM BIAS

Sec. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or prejudice.

Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice [Dimo Realty & Dev. Inc. v.
Dimaculangan (2004)]. A judge's conduct must be clearly indicative of arbitrariness and prejudice before
it can be stigmatized as biased and partial [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003)].

EXTRAJUDICIAL SOURCE RULE

Bias and prejudice must be shown to have resulted in an opinion on the merits on the basis of an
extrajudicial source, not on what the judge learned from participating in the case. As long as opinions
formed in the course of judicial proceedings are based on the evidence presented and the conduct
observed by the magistrate, such opinion – even if later found to be erroneous – will not prove personal
bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. While palpable error may be inferred from the decision or the
order itself, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose [Gochan
v. Gochan (2003)].

PROMOTE CONFIDENCE, IMPARTIALITY

Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the
confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.

There is undue interference where the judge's participation in the conduct of the trial tends to
build or to bolster a case of one of the parties such as when he orders the presentation of specific
documentary evidence without motion from any party or without participation of the parties as in the case
of Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (2004). [However,] it is within the sound discretion
of the trial judge to ask questions from witnesses, if only to clarify what may appear to be vague points in
the narration. Questions designed to avoid obscurity in the testimony and to elicit additional relevant
evidence are not improper [Paco et al. v. Quilala (2003)].

MINIMIZE INSTANCES OF DISQUALIFICATIONS

Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions
on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.

The underlying reason for the rules on disqualification is to ensure that a judge, sitting in a case,
will at all times be free from inclinations or prejudices and be well capable to render a just and
independent judgment.

A litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of a judge. Due process requires it
[Parayno v. Meneses (1994)].
 The rule of disqualification of judges must yield to demands of necessity. Simply stated, the rule
of necessity means that a judge is not disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other judge available to
hear and decide the case [46 Am. Jur. 2d Judges § 89 (1969)].

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PENDING AND IMPENDING CASES

Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could come before them,
make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair
the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might
affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

This Sec. warns judges against making any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect
the outcome of the proceedings before them or "impair the manifest fairness of the process.” [ABA
(2007)]

In Martinez v. Gironella (1975), a judge was disqualified from trying a murder case against the
accused (as principal), because, in a decision in a prior case involving an alleged accessory, he stated that
the accused in the present case committed the crime.

In Palang v. Zosa (1974), the judge, in deciding a previous estafa case, stated that the charge was
a “clear concocted story” which caused great damage to the accused. When a case for damages was filed
by the accused against the complainant in the estafa case, the judge voluntary inhibited himself. The
Supreme Court stated that the judge’s inhibition reinforced public faith in the impartial administration of
justice.

In Gutierrez vs. Santos (1961) a judge’s act of recusing himself from presiding over a case was
upheld by the Supreme Court. While in private practice, the judge had expressed an opinion concerning
an issue that would unduly benefit one of the parties. However, the Supreme Court has recently held that
judges and justices are not disqualified from participating in a case simply because they have written legal
articles on the law involved in the case [Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250 (2003)]

A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case and
should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel. [Rule 3.07, Old Code of Judicial Conduct]

VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATIONS

Sec. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are
unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where:

(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;

In Umale v. Villaluz (1973), a judge inhibited himself from trying a robbery case due to
his personal knowledge of the case. The Supreme Court stated that it is possible that the
respondent Judge might be influenced by his personal knowledge of the case when he tries and
decides the same on the merits, which would certainly constitute a denial of due process to the
party adversely affected by his judgment or decision. Thus, it is best that, after some reflection,
 the judge, on his own initiative disqualified himself from hearing the robbery case and thereby
rendering himself available as witness to any of the parties subject to cross-examination.

In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge dismissed criminal informations on the suspicion,
arising from a dinner invitation from a stranger and a subsequent personal investigation, that the
court was being used as a forum for extortion and exploitation of the persons charged. The
Supreme Court found this unstated extraneous matter makes the dismissal as one affected with
partiality and bias. The prayer of the judge to bedisqualified in hearing the case because he has
lost all respect in the manner in which the prosecutor has been prosecuting the case was granted.

(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;

In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge dismissed criminal informations on the suspicion,
arising from a dinner invitation from a stranger and a subsequent personal investigation, that the
court was being used as a forum for extortion and exploitation of the persons charged. The
Supreme Court found this unstated extraneous matter makes the dismissal as one affected with
partiality and bias. The prayer of the judge to be 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.

(c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the
matter in controversy;

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.

(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;

In Sandoval v. CA (1996), the Supreme Court that an Associate Justice who only partly presided
over a case in the trial court and who did not render the final decision cannot be said to have been placed
in a position where he had to review his own decision and, as such, was not legally bound, on this ground,
to inhibit himself as ponente of the case. Nevertheless, it was held that he should have voluntarily
inhibited himself for his earlier involvement in the case constitutes just or valid reason under Sec. 1, Rule
137. A judge should not handle a case in which he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be
susceptible to bias and partiality.

(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil degree
or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; [Bar 1996, 1999, 2001] or
 (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.

“UTANG NA LOOB”

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

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)]

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS

Sec. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding,
disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. If based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of a judge's participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial
or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties
and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.

The decision to continue hearing the case, despite the existence of reasons for disqualification
should be:

(1) coupled with a bona fide disclosure to the parties-inlitigation, and

(2) subject to express acceptance by all the parties of the cited reason as not material or
substantial; absent these two, the judge may not be permitted to continue hearing the case. The basis of
the disqualification should be disclosed, not mere “personal reasons” [ABA (2007)].

NOTICE The Court held that there is nothing in Rule V or in any other part of the Internal Rules
of the Court of Appeals that specifically requires that the party-litigants be informed of the mandatory or
voluntary inhibition of a Justice. However, the Court held that henceforth all the parties in any action or
proceedings should be immediately notified of any mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition of
the Justice who has participated in any action of the court, stating the reason for the mandatory
disqualification or voluntary inhibition. The requirement of notice is a measure to ensure that the
disqualification or inhibition has not been resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to prejudice any
party or cause [Re: Letters of Judge Eduardo (2014)].

Canon 4- PROPRIETY

Canon 4. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the

performance of all the activities of a judge.

CANON 4 – Asked 23 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)]

Section 1. AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

By prohibiting not only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety, the Code
recognizes that even acts that are not per se improper can nevertheless be perceived by the larger
community as such [ABA (2007)]. This is so because the community holds judges to higher standards of
integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys and other persons not invested with public trust. [Oca v.
Estacion Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-87-104 (1995)].

The Philippine courts have also acknowledged the irrelevance of the judge’s perception of
impropriety [Vidal v. Dojilo (2005)]. Thus, acts of judges which are not illegal may still violate the Code:

(1) Hearing cases on the day when the judge was supposed to be on official leave [Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Acuña (2005)];

(2) Hearing a motion while on vacation in the judge’s room dressed in a polo jacket [Ignacio v.
Valenzuela (1982)];

(3) Coming out of a hotel together with a subordinate, even when there is no clear evidence of
sexual congress [Liwanag v. Lustre (1999)];

(4) Making a joking remark to a litigant suggesting for the latter to prove that he harbored no ill
feelings toward the judge [Co v. Plata (2005)];

(5) Admonishing the bride and the groom, after conducting a marriage ceremony, to sexually
satisfy each other so that they will not go astray [Hadap v. Lee (1982)].

(6) Posting credentials as judge in Friendster and posting a picture with indecent attire [Lorenzana
v. Austria (2014)].

Violent action in a public place, whatever the motive, constitutes serious misconduct and
resultant outrage of the community [Arban v. Boraha (1989)].

It is highly improper for a judge to wield a high-powered firearm in public and besieged the
house of a perceived defamer of character and honor in warlike fashion, berating the object of his ire with
his firearm aimed at him [Saburnido v. Madrano (2001)].

Section 2. ACCEPTANCE OF PERSONAL RESTRICTIONS

Indeed, a judge’s personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties,
must be beyond reproach, being the visible personification of law and of justice [Re: Anonymous
Complaint Against Acuña (2005)].
 Section 3. AVOIDANCE OF CONTROVERSY

A judge is commanded at all times to be mindful of the high calling of a

dispassionate and impartial arbiter expected at all times to be a “cerebral man who deliberately
holds in check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences which he shares with his fellow
mortals.” [Oca v. Paderanga (2005)]. Judges should refrain from inviting counsel for one side into
their chambers after or prior to sessions in court without disclosing to the other counsel the reason
for such meetings, [Martinez v. Gironella (1975); being aggressive in demeanor towards a lawyer
appearing before them, [Royeca v. Aminas (1976)]; and making public comments, or allowing
court staff to make comments, on pending cases, [Geotina v Gonzales (1971)].

Constant company [or fraternizing] with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and
camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from a judge which he may find
hard to resist. The actuation of a judge of eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who
has pending cases in his sala may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode
the trust of the litigants in the impartiality of the judge [Padilla v. Zantua (1994)].

Section 4. NOT PARTICIPATE IN CASES WHERE HE MAY BE IMPARTIAL

This rule rests on the principle that no judge should preside in a case in which the
judge is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has both the duty
of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from
suspicion as to fairness and integrity. The purpose is to preserve the people’s faith and
confidence in the courts of justice. [ABA (2007)].

Section 5. NOT ALLOW THE USE OF HIS RESIDENCE BY OTHER

It is grossly improper for a judge to meet with a litigant at his home and to
frequent the karaoke bar owned by such litigant, enjoying the use thereof for free [J. King &
Sons v. Hontanosas (2004)]. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes the appearance of
impartiality. It is improper for a judge to meet privately with the accused without the
presence of the complainant [De Guzman, Jr. v. Sison (2001)].

Section 6. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

While judges are not expected to live a hermit-like existence or cease functioning
as citizens of the Republic, they should remember that they do not disrobe themselves of their
judicial office upon leaving their salas.

In the exercise of their civil liberties, judges should be circumspect and ever
mindful that their continuing commitment to upholding the judiciary and its values places
upon them certain implied restraints to their freedom. A judge was admonished for the
appearance of engaging in partisan politics when he participated in a political rally sponsored
by one party, even though he only explained the mechanics of block voting to the audience
[ABA (2007)].

The use of expletives [In Re Judge Acuna] and display of unbecoming behavior
through sarcastic comments [Seludo v. Fineza] are frowned upon by the Court.
 Section 7. BE INFOMED OF HIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS

Under Sec. 7(a), RA 6713, public officials and employees are prohibited
from directly or indirectly having any financial or material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.

The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that “a judge shall refrain from financial
and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere
with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers
or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and
other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for
disqualification” [Catbagan v. Barte (2005)].

When may a judge serve as an executor?

A judge may only serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other
fiduciary, for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the immediate family (spouse and
relatives within the 2nd degree of consanguinity), and then only if such service will not
interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. (Rule 5.06, Old Code). He is not
allowed to serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary of
estates other than the above. [Bar 2005, 2000, 1999, 1995, Lex Pareto (2014)]

Section 8. INFLUENCE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

This rule has two parts. The first is that a judge may not use judicial office to
advance private interests. The second is that a judge may not give the impression that he or she
can be influenced to use the judicial office to advance the private interests of others.

The court ruled that using the said letterhead and requiring payment at his office
is clearly intended to use the prestige of his judicial office to advance private interests [Oktubre v.
Velasco (2004)].

Another judge who, as creditor, filed a collection case in a venue where he was
one of the trial judges, was severely censured by the Supreme Court, stating that a sense of
propriety should have impelled him to desist from filing in said venue, even when, under the law,
he had the choice of venue. In the eyes of the public, it arouses suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that
advantage is being taken of one’s position (Javier v. De Guzman, Jr. (1990)].

SECTION 9. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Releasing a draft decision to a party was considered not as a simple breach of

confidentiality of the decision-making process in the case of Centrum Agri-Business Realty Corp.
v. Katalbas-Moscardon (1995), but a scheme to extort money from a party.

Also, a judge’s act of personally furnishing a party copies of orders issued, without the
same passing through the court docket, is highly irregular, giving rise to the suspicion that the
judge is partial to one of the parties in the case pending before him [Co v. Calimag (2000)].

Records of cases are necessarily confidential, and to preserve their integrity and
confidentiality, access thereto ought to be limited only to the judge, the parties or their counsel
and the appropriate court personnel in charge of the custody thereof. It is improper to allow a
judge’s wife, who is not a court employee, much less the employee specifically in charge of the
custody of said records, to have access thereto [Gordon v. Lilagan (2001)].
 Section 10. EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES OF A JUDGE

This Sec. should be read in conjunction with Sec. 12, Article VIII, Constitution,
which prohibits members of the judiciary from being designated to any agency performing
quasijudicial or administrative functions.

Thus, membership of a judge in a Provincial Committee on Justice, which discharges

administrative functions, will be in violation of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court
stated that this does not mean that judges should adopt monastic insensibility or unbecoming
indifference to such institutions and that even as non-members, they should render assistance to
help promote the laudable purposes for which they exist when such assistance may be reasonably
incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties [In Re: Designation of Judge Manzano
(1988)].

This Sec. allows the judge to participate in legal academia and public discourse on legal
matters with the proviso that there shall be no interference in the performance of the judge’s
primary functions with respect to his or her jurisdiction. However, in dealing with the media, the
Philippine Judicial Academy suggests that a judge or court should avoid acrimonious debate with
reporters and the public, for a knee-jerk reaction from the court or judge may only provoke
negative follow-up reports and articles [ABA (2007)].

Section 11. PRACTICE OF PROFESSION

This prohibition is based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges
and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that judges
give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special
favors to their own private interests and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance
of their functions [Carual v. Brusola (1999)]

NOTARIAL WORK

General rule: Municipal judges may not engage in notarial work.

Exception:

They may do so as notaries public ex-officio, in which case, they may only notarize
documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. As such, they may not
undertake the preparation and acknowledgement of private documents, contracts and other
acts of conveyance, which bear no relation to the performance of their functions as judges.

Exception to the exception:

In far-flung municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, municipal
judges assigned to those municipalities or circuits may, in their capacity as notaries public ex-
officio, perform any act within the competence of a regular notary public, provided: (1) All
notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal
treasurer; and (2) A certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of
any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit [Tabao v. Asis (1996)].
 Section 12. FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS

This rule recognizes a difference between membership in associations of judges

and membership in associations of other legal professionals. While attendance at lavish
events hosted by lawyers might create an appearance of impropriety, participation in judges-
only organizations does not [ABA (2007)].

Section 13. GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS

The act of a judge in demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant before
his court constitute serious misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross and flaunting
misconduct on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the
law and rendering justice that so quickly and surely corrodes the respect for law and the
courts without which government cannot continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our
polity [Haw Tay v. Singayao (1987)].

Section 14. GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS BY STAFF

This Sec. complements the previous Sec. and assures that what the judge cannot do
directly may not be done indirectly through the use of employees or staff members [ABA
(2007)].

Section 15. PERMISSIBLE TOKENS AND REWARDS

General rule: Judges and members of their families are prohibited from accepting
any token, gift, award or benefit.

Exception: Subject to legal requirements like public disclosure, they may accept
gifts provided that it might not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence judge.

As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, Sec. 7(d), RA 6713 allows:

(a) A gift of nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark

of courtesy;

(b) A gift in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical

treatment; or

(c) Travel grants or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the
Philippine of more than nominal value if such acceptance is:

(i) Appropriate or consistent with the interests of the

Philippines; and

(ii) Permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to which

he belongs.

Canon 5. EQUALITY

CANON 5 – Asked 6 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)]

 As the guardians of justice, courts must adhere to the principle of equality. People expect
the courts to be unaffected by differences in social status, degree of education, and even physical
abilities.

Section 1. UNDERSTANDING DIVERSITY IN SOCIETY

To render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the judicial system,
judges are expected to be aware of the diversity in society that results from an increased
worldwide exchange of people and ideas. Judges must be able to avoid the infiltration of
preconceptions into their decisions. They should be mindful of the various international
instruments and treaties ratified by the Philippines, which affirm the equality of all human beings
and establish a norm of non-discrimination without distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion [ABA (2007)].

Section 2. NOT TO MANIFEST BIAS OR PREJUDICE

Judges should avoid private remarks, hasty conclusions, or distasteful jokes that
may give even erroneous impressions of prejudice and lead public to believe that cases before
them are being prejudged [Castillo v. Juan (1975)]

Section 3. NOT TO DIFFERENTIATE

Unequal and disparate treatment in the courthouse, whether intentional or

perceived, is unacceptable and can negatively impact the professional lives of attorneys and
employees, the assessment of claims of litigants, and the respect and credibility of the justice
system [ABA (2007)].

Section 4. NOT TO INFLUENCE STAFF

Judges should organize their courts to ensure the prompt and convenient dispatch
of business and should not tolerate misconduct by clerks, sheriffs and other assistants who are
sometimes prone to expect favors or special treatment due to their professional relationship
with the judge.

Court personnel shall not discriminate by dispensing special favors to anyone.

They shall not allow kinship, rank, position or favors from any party to influence their official
acts or duties [Sec. 3, Canon 1, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel].

Section 5. ATTITUDE TO PARTIES APPEARING IN COURT

Judges should conduct proceedings in court with dignity and in a manner that
reflects the importance and seriousness of proceedings. They should maintain order and
proper decorum in the court [Rule 3.03, Canon 3, 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct].

The effect is the same when the insensitive act or comment is made by a lawyer
appearing in the court and the judge does not admonish the lawyer for the insensitivity [ABA
(2007)].

Thus, judges have the duty to prevent lawyers from violating the rights of
witnesses. This complements Rule 12.07, Canon 12, which directs that a lawyer shall not
abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
 Since judges set the tone and environment of the court proceedings, they should
censure lawyers who use sexist language or inappropriate behavior in court [ABA (2007)
citing AmJur; In Re Romano (1999)

Canon 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Canon 6 – Asked 11 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)].

A judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence, and

be studiously careful to avoid the slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing
example to others [OCA v. Gines (1993)].

Section 1. DUTIES TAKE PRECEDENCE

A judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, inhibit himself voluntarily from
sitting in a case, but it should be based on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just and
valid reasons. No less than imperative is that it is the judge’s sacred duty to administer justice
without fear or favor [Parayno v. Meneses (1994)]

Section 2. PERFORM ADMINISTRAIVE DUTIES

Failure to speedily dispose of cases on account of missing records of cases

reflects an inefficient and disorderly system in the recording of cases assigned to a judge’s
sala. Proper and efficient court management is as much the judge’s responsibility, for the
court personnel are not the guardians of a judge’s responsibilities. A judge is expected to
ensure that the records of cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is no justification for
missing records, except fortuitous events. The loss of eight records is indicative of gross
misconduct and inexcusable negligence unbecoming of a judge [Longboan v. Polig (1990)].

Section 3. MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

When a judge accepts his position, he owes it to the dignity of the court, to the
legal profession, and to the public, to know the very law he is supposed to apply to a given
controversy. Even in the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary he should keep abreast
with the changes in the law and with the latest decisions and precedents.

What is gross ignorance of the law? [Bar 1991, Lex Pareto (2014)]

It is failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the ROC
from which no one is excused, surely not a judge. (Fr. Guillen v. Judge Canon, AM No. MTJ-
01-1381 (2002)].

Section4. BE INFORMED ABOUT THE LAW

Subject to the conditions set forth in Sec. 2, Article II and Sec. 21, Article VII,
Constitution, international law, both customary and conventional, are part of Philippine law.
 The Supreme Court held that not only did Judge Bitas deviate from the
requirement of a hearing where there is an application for bail, he also granted bail to
Miralles without neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for application for bail. Judge
Bitas’ acts are not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on his part, but a
patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error
produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.
[Jorda v Bitas (2014)]

Section 5. PROMPT DECISION MAKING

Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and

dedication to duty of judges. In a case, the civil case was already submitted for resolution. Being
an ejectment case, it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period
of 30 days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper within which a decision
must be issued. Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered judgment only more than 2 years later.
While rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, should be regarded as
mandatory, the Court has nevertheless been mindful of the plight of judges and has been
understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses
and, as such, has allowed extensions of time due to justifiable reasons. However, Judge Regencia
failed to proffer any acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of the ejectment case, thus,
making her administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. [Gershon N. Dulang
v. Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia, MCTC, Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-141841
(2014)].

Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and
observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith
and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross
inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge [In Re
Cases for Decisions Submited to Judge Baluma (2013)].

Section 6. MAINTAIN ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS

Another judge was found guilty of serious misconduct and inefficiency by reason
of habitual tardiness. He was fined and suspended for judicial indolence [Yu-Asensi v.
Villanueva (2000)].

The rights of the accused to a fair trial is far more superior to the right of press
freedom. [Perez v. Estrada; Bar 2004; Lex Pareto (2014)] What are the conditions for the
intervention of a judge in the presentation of evidence? [Bar 2002, 1996] While a judge may
intervene in the presentation of evidence to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up
some obscurity, properly intervent in the presentation of evidence during trial, it should always be
borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of truth. (Rule 3.06, Old Code, applied in a suppletory character; Lex Pareto
(2014)].
 Section 7. NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT CONTRARY TO DUTIES

Although a judge is nearing retirement he should not relax in his study of

the law and court decisions. Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research
on the law from beginning to end [Ajeno v. Inserto (1976)].

Judges are not, however, expected to be infallible; not every error or

irregularity committed by judges in the performance of official duties is subject to
administrative sanction. In the absence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or deliberate intent to
do injustice, incorrect rulings do not constitute misconduct and may not give rise to a charge
of gross ignorance of the law [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003)].

Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not

complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether
ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies are
prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned,
whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial
remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the
door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have
opened, or closed [Maquiran v. Grageda (2005)].

B. Disqualifications of judicial officers (Rule 137)

1. Compulsory

COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION

No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case, without the written consent of all
parties in interest and entered upon the record, in which:

(1) He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,

creditor or otherwise; or

(2) He is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity

or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the
rules of the civil law;

(3) He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or

(4) He has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is
the subject of review. [Sec. 1, 1st par., Rule 137]

REASON FOR THE RULE

The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to hear a case

rests on the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a case in
which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. A
judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing
it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to
his integrity. The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot
objectively or impartially sit in such a case and, for that reason, prohibits
him and strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in the absence of
written consent of all parties concerned. The purpose is to preserve the
 people's faith and confidence in the courts' justice [Garcia v. De La Peña
(1994)]

The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color
the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this
is probable or even only possible, due process demands that the judge
inhibit himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza [Javier v. Comelec
(1996)].

2. Voluntary

VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION

Rule 137. Sec. 1., 2nd par. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those
mentioned.

REASON FOR THE RULE

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

A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but

when circumstances appear that will induce doubt to his honest actuations and
probity in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he should conduct a
careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the
people's faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better course for the
judge under such circumstances is to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids
being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved
[Bautista v. Rebueno (1978)].

Intimacy or friendship between a judge and an attorney of record of one

of the parties to a suit is no ground for disqualification. That one of the counsels
in a case was a classmate of the trial judge is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of the said judge. To allow it would unnecessarily burden other
trial judges to whom the case would be transferred. But if the relationship
between the judge and an attorney for a party is such that there would be a
natural inclination to prejudice the case, the judge should be disqualified in order
to guaranty a fair trial [Query of Executive Judge Estrada (1987)]

C. Administrative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Judges and Justices (all levels)

The power to disbar an erring lawyer is vested with the Supreme Court.
The IBP can only recommend disbarment to the SC.

III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

A. Demand and authorization letters
B. Simple contracts: lease and sale
C. Special power of Attorney
D. Verification and certificate of non-forum shopping
E. Notice of hearing and explanation in motions
F. Judicial Affidavits
G. Notarial Certificates: jurat and acknowledgement
H. Motions for extension of time, to dismiss, and to declare in default