LEGAL ETHICS

CANON 12, CPR

 Jardin v. Atty. Villar, Jr.,
A.C. No. 5474, Aug. 28, 2003)
• Jardin engaged the services of Atty. Villar Jr. to represent him
in a collection case. The case went its course, but later
despite several extensions of time given by the trial court,
Atty. Villar Jr. failed to file his formal offer of exhibits.

• The dismissal of the collection case prompted Jardin to file a

verified affidavit-complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Villar
Jr. with the Court, wherein he alleged
• that after the dismissal of the collection case, he terminated
the services of Atty. Villar Jr. as his counsel;
• that Atty. Villar Jr. failed to return the originals of the
documentary exhibits entrusted to him; and
• that Atty. Villar Jr. finally handed over the documents only as
an aftermath of a heated argument he had with the Jardin's
wife.
• Was Atty. Villar Jr. remiss in his duties as counsel when he
failed to file his formal offer of exhibit?
RULING:
• Yes. Canon 12 of CPR states that a lawyer shall exert effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice
• The record clearly shows that Atty. Villar Jr. has been languid
in the performance of his duties as counsel for the
complainant. He was given by the trial court several
extensions of time. Therefore, Atty. Villar Jr. had three (3)
months and nine (9) days within which to file the formal offer
of exhibits. Atty. Villar Jr. did not bother to give an explanation
even in mitigation or extenuation of his inaction.
• Manifestly, Atty. Villar Jr. has fallen short of the competence
and diligence required of every member of the law. It is indeed
dismaying to note Atty. Villar Jr.’s patent violation of his duty as
a lawyer.
• He committed a serious transgression when he failed to exert
his utmost learning and ability and to give entire devotion to
his client's cause. His client had relied on him to file the formal
offer of exhibits among other things. But he failed him.
Resulting as it did in the dismissal of the case, his failure
constitutes inexcusable default.
CANON 12, CPR
A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY
TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE
 (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. CA,
G.R. No. 123698, Aug. 5, 1998)
• Judgment was rendered against Eternal Gardens ordering it
to reconvey the cemetery to the rightful owners. Despite the
final decision of the SC, Eternal Gardens was able to prevent
the execution for 17 years, rendering the judgment
ineffectual.
• They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration
with the trial court and the CA despite the fact that it would
never prosper as the trial court’s decision had long become
final before the said petitions were filed.

• Did the lawyers violate Canon 12 of the CPR?

• While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the
client and zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they are
also officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the

ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution
of a judgment or misuse court processes.
• All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi- judicial or administrative
bodies.
• (Sec. 16, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Note:
• The duty of a lawyer to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice includes the duty to refrain from
talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial
while the witness is still under examination.

• The dilatory tactics of the defense counsel and the failure of

both the judge and the fiscal to take effective counter
measures to obviate the delaying acts constitute obstruction
of justice.
Examples of acts which amount to obstruction of justice?

• Instructing a complaining witness not to appear at trial,

• asking a client to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit,
• advising a client to escape from prison,
• employing dilatory tactics,
• prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals,
• filing multiple actions.
 Villasis v. CA, G.R. Nos. L- 34369, Sept. 30, 1974

• An action for quieting of title against the Petitioner-

respondents. An appeal to the CA was duly filed.

• On Aug. 10, last day of filing appellant’s brief, -petitioners’

counsel, Atty. Valente, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
due to his having been employed as technical assistant in the
Supreme Court
• New counsel, Atty. Esdras F. Tayco, filed on August 18, 1970 his
appearance with the appellate court.

• On August 27, 1970, the appellate court received respondents-

appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal dated August 5, 1970 for
appellants’ failure to file their brief within the reglementary
period.
• On September 12, 1970, the appellate court required both
counsels of appellants, Atty. Valente and Atty. Tayco to
comment on the dismissal motion.
• Valente said he had not received the motion.
• New counsel Tayco filed no comment whatsoever.
• After the lapse of more than eleven (11 months (or to be more
exact, 319 days) without appellants having filed their brief at
all, the CA issued its resolution granting the dismissal motion
and dismissing the appeal on the ground that appellants had
failed to file their brief within the reglementary 45-day period.

• It was only then that new counsel Tayco apparently stirred from
almost a year of inaction and filed a motion dated July 13, 1971
for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal on the
ground that he as new counsel had not received the notice to
file brief.
• The appellate court per its resolution of August 17, 1971
denied the motion for reconsideration,
• pointing out that "Attorney Tayco’s appearance was entered
[on August 18, 1970] after the period for filing brief had
already expired [on August 10, 1970]
• New counsel Tayco filed a second motion for reconsideration
on September 10, 1971 still without having filed appellants’
brief, which the appellate court 3 denied per its resolution of
October 6, 1971.

Hence, the present appeal by certiorari wherein petitioners

are represented by their third counsel, Atty. Augusto A.
Kimpo, vice Atty. Tayco.
What rule was violated?
Rule 12.01, Canon 12, CPR . A lawyer shall not appear for trial
unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the
facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
preference. He should also be ready with the original documents
for comparison with the copies.

It has been held that in the case at bar, a newly hired counsel who
appears in a case in the midstream is presumed and obliged to
acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings
that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover.
• Rule 12.02, Canon 12, CPR. A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.

• What is Forum-Shopping and how are they committed?

What is forum-shopping?
• It is the improper practice of filing several actions or petitions
in the same or different tribunals arising from the same cause
and seeking substantially identical reliefs in the hope of
winning in one of them.
• The omission to disclose pendency of appeal or prior dismissal
of his case by a court of concurrent jurisdiction with intent of
seeking a favorable opinion.
• The prohibition includes the filing of petitions for writs of
certiorari, mandamus and prohibition when there are similar
petitions already filed or pending.
How is forum shopping committed?
1. Going from one court to another in the hope of securing a
favorable relief in one court, which another court has
denied.

2. Filing repetitious suits and proceedings in different courts

concerning the same subject matter after one court has
decided the suit with finality; or

3. Filing a similar case in a judicial court after receiving an

unfavorable judgment from an administrative tribunal.
Elements of Forum- Shopping
• 1. Identity of Parties or at least such parties as represent the
same interest in both actions;
• 2. Identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and
• 3. The identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any
judgment rendered in the other will, regardless of which
party is successful amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.
What is meant by Res Judicata?
• Res Judicata or Bar By Prior Judgment is a doctrine which
holds that a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of
competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally
and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent
litigation between the same parties and for the same cause.
ENGR. BESANA VS. MAYOR [2010].
• The doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy
against re-opening that which has previously been decided, so
as to put the litigation to an end. Matters settled by a court’s
final judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again.

• Relitigation of issues already settled merely burdens the

courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion,
and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to
worthier cases.
• Determine WON there is FORUM SHOPPING
• PETITIONER filed the application for free patent. Thereafter, a
criminal case for perjury was filed , based on false statements
allegedly made in 1975 by petitioner. in connection with his free
patent application.
• Another case, was filed in the Sandiganbayan, based on the
filing of the same application for free patent, for violation of
the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, on the allegation that
petitioner, as Provincial Attorney, had unduly influenced the
Public Land Inspector to secure the approval of his free patent
application.
• On the other hand, as already stated, the present cases are for
falsification of court records pertaining to
 (Paredes v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 108251, Jan. 31, 1996)

• The mere filing of several cases based on the same incident

does not necessarily constitute forum shopping.

• The question is whether the several actions filed involve the

same transactions, essential facts and circumstances.

• If they involve essentially different facts, circumstances and

causes of action, there is no forum shopping.
• Here, although several cases were filed by the same
complainant against the same defendant and the subject
matter of the actions of two of the cases was the same incident
(i.e., the application for free patent of petitioner Ceferino
Paredes, Jr.),

• the fact is that the several cases involve essentially different

facts, circumstances and causes of action.
• Criminal Case No. 1393. A.P. Case No. P-90-396 is an
administrative case against petitioner Honrada based on the
same incident and facts that are subject of the preceding
criminal cases.

• The rest are incidents of these cases, being the petition for
review and motions for reconsideration in Criminal Case No.
13800 and A.P. Case No. P-90-396.

• Thus the present cases involve substantially different

transactions, facts and circumstances from those involved in
the other, though related, cases.
• Although they arose from the same incident, i.e., petitioner’s
public land application, they involve different issues.

• It is well settled that a single act may offend against two or

more distinct and related provisions of law or that the same
act may give rise to criminal as well as administrative liability.

• As such, they may be prosecuted simultaneously or one after

another, so long as they do not place the accused in double
jeopardy of being punished for the same offense.
Who signs the forum shopping certification?

• GR: The party himself as he has personal knowledge of the

facts therein stated.

• XPN: Counsel, when clothed with a special power of attorney

to do so. (The lawyer shall certify that he has personal
knowledge of the facts therein stated and shall give
justifiable reason or explanation why the party himself
cannot sign the same).
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATIONOF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, _________legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-stated case;
2. I have caused the preparation and filing thereof before the
Honorable Court;
3. I have read its contents thereof and the facts stated therein
are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the
basis of copies of documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
this Honorable Court.

NATHAN KHO
Petitioner
• In case of a juridical person, its lawyer authorized through a
board resolution must sign the certification.

• Should there be more than one plaintiff or petitioner, all of

them must execute the certification and verification.
Unless, it is a suit involving conjugal property, in such a
case, the husband alone may execute the same.

• Not curable by mere amendment of the complaint but shall

be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided , upon motion and after hearing
Top Rate Construction and General Services v. Paxton Devt.
Corp., G.R. No. 151081, Sept. 11, 2003)
• The trial court declared Paxton Development Corporation
(PDC) the lawful owner of the subject lots. CA affirmed.

• Top Rate as the losing party sought to have the said

resolution set aside and thereafter filed with the Supreme
Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition for
review from the adverse CA decision and resolution.
• The motion contained a "verification/certification" under
oath as to non- forum shopping, without mentioning the
pending manifestation and motion with the CA, which was
notarized by Atty. Manlangit.

• Both Atty. Manlangit and Atty. Gana knew the relevant case
status after having invariably acted as counsel of Top Rate
before the trial court, the Court of Appealsand the Supreme
Court.
• Top Rate then filed a series of motions with the SC, all of which failed
to state that Top Rate still has a pending manifestation and motion
with the CA.

• It was only when it withdrew its Petition for Review on Certiorari

that Top Rate bared before the SC the existence of the said
manifestation and motion pending with the CA.

• Should Top Rate and its counsel be found guilty of forum shopping?
• Ans: Yes. Although Top Rate as principal party executed the
several certifications of non-forum shopping, Atty. Gana and
Atty. Manlangit cannot deny responsibility therefore since
Atty. Manlangit notarized the certifications and both of them
definitely knew the relevant case status after having
invariably acted as counsel of Top Rate before the trial court,
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
• Attys. Gana and Manlangit of the Gana and Manlangit Law
Office, counsel of record of Top Rate, are administratively
liable for gross violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
What are the possible consequences of forum
shopping?
• Summary dismissal of the multiple petition or complaint
• Penalty for direct contempt of court on the party and his
lawyer
• Criminal action for a false certification of
• non forum shopping and indirect contempt
• Disciplinary proceedings for the lawyer concerned. (Sec. 5, Rule 7,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
• J sustained serious physical injuries due to a motor vehicle
collision between the car she was driving and a public utility
bus, requiring her confinement for 30 days at the Makati
Medical Center.

• After her release from the hospital, she filed a criminal

complaint against the bus driver for serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence before the Makati Prosecutor’s
Office.
• She also filed a civil complaint before the Paranaque Regional Trial
Court against the bus operator and driver for compensatory, moral,
exemplary and other damages.

• Aside from the two complaints, she additionally filed an

administrative complaint against the bus operator with the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board for cancellation or
suspension of the operator’s franchise.

• Would you say that she and her lawyer were guilty of forum-
shopping?
• No. There is no forum-shopping in the simultaneous filing of a
criminal case and a civil case in this instance.

• Article 33 of the Civil Code allows the filing by an injured party

of a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct from
the criminal action in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries.
• There is no forum- shopping involved in filing an
administrative complaint against the bus operator with the
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board.

• The cancellation or suspension of the operator’s franchise is

for a different cause of action.
Give five (5) instances of forum-shopping.
1. When, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another
2. When he institutes two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition
(Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NEA, G.R. No. 93924, Jan. 23,
1991)
3. Filing a second suit in a court without jurisdiction
(New Pangasinan Review, Inc. v. NLRC,G.R. No. 85939, April 19, 1991)
4. Filing an action in court while the same cause of action is
still pending in an administrative proceeding
(Earth Minerals Exploration, Inc. v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 78569, February
11, 1991)

5. When counsel omits to disclose the pendency of an appeal,

in filing a certiorari case
(Collado v. Hernando, G.R. No.L- 43866, May 30, 1988).
RULE 12.03, CANON 12, CPR- A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
• The court censures the practice of counsels who secures
repeated extensions of time to file their pleadings and
thereafter simply let the period lapse without submitting the
pleading or even an explanation or manifestation of their
failure to do so.

• (Achacoso v. CA, G.R. No. L-35867, June 28, 1973).

• Asking for extension of time must be in good faith. Otherwise,
it is an obstruction of justice and the lawyer is subject to
discipline.

• The same rule applies more forcefully to motion for

continuance. Postponement is not a matter of right but of
sound judicial discretion.

• (Edrial v. Quilat- Quilat, G.R. No. 133625, Sept. 6, 2000)

RULE 12.04, CANON 12, CPR- A lawyer shall not unduly delay
a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes.
• It is understandable for a party to make full use of every
conceivable legal defense the law allows it.

• However, of such attempts to evade liability to which a party

should respond, it must ever be kept in mind that
procedural rules are intended as an aid to justice, not as
means for its frustration.
• Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing
party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some
subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the
enforcement in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught
the role of the courts in disposing justiciable controversies
with finality.

• (Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, GR No. 157911,

September 19, 2006)
• Lawyers should not resort to nor abet the resort of their
clients, to a series of actions and petitions for the purpose of
thwarting the execution of a judgment that has long become
final and executory.

• (Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, No. L-22320, May 22, 1968)

RULE 12.05, CANON 12, CPR- A lawyer shall refrain from
talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial,
while the witness is still under examination.
What is the reason for the rule?

• To prevent the suspicion that he is coaching the witness

what to say during the resumption of the examination.

• Rationale: To uphold and maintain fair play with the other

party and to prevent the examining lawyer from being
tempted to coach his own witness to suit his purpose.
• A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client.

• The function of a witness is to tell the facts as he recalls them

in answer to questions while the function of an advocate is
that of a partisan.

• It is difficult to distinguish between the zeal of an advocate

and the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness.
• Although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness
and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer
that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is
necessary and that they should withdraw from the active
management of the case.

• (PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. No. L- 35252, Oct. 21, 1932

Rule 12. 06, canon 12, CPR . A lawyer shall not knowingly
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.
What are the sanctions on a lawyer who shall knowingly
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another?
• Art. 184, Revised Penal Code provides: The lawyer who
presented a witness knowing him to be a false witness is
criminally liable for “Offering False Testimony in Evidence”.

• Note: The lawyer who is guilty of the above is both criminally

and administratively liable.
• Rule 12.07, Canon 12, CPR
A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
(People v. Boras, G.R. No. 127495, Dec. 22, 2000)
Nolito Boras was convicted of statutory rape. The victim, a
minor, testified and the manner of examination was excessive.

The lawyer of Boras was asking questions like, “Did you have
any opportunity at the time you were raped to hold the penis
of Nolito Boras?”,

“At the time, when you were raped by Nolito Boras, is his penis
hard or soft?”,
and “Did you see your uncle Cerilo after the accused stop
pushing and pulling his penis to your vagina or while he was
still in the process of pushing and pulling his penis to your
vagina?”

Did the lawyer of Nolito Boras violate Rule 12.07?

• Yes. It must be stressed that in dealing with rape cases of
children, especially those below 12 years of age, due care must
be observed by the trial court in handling the victim. In fact,
more often than not, the gruelling experience in the trial court
in the course of direct examination and cross-examination is
more traumatic than the fact of the rape itself.

• On such occasions, mishandling of victims lead to psychological

imbalances which, if not properly treated by medical experts
will lead to an abnormal behavioral response against the idea
of sex itself and disturbed interaction with the opposite or
same sex.
• Rule 12.08, Canon 12, CPR – A lawyer shall avoid testifying
in behalf of his client, except:
• A. On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or
custody of an instrument, and the like; or
• B. On substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must,
during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another
counsel.
What is the reason for the rule?

• The function of a witness is to tell the facts as he recalls

them in answer to questions.

• The function of an advocate is that of a partisan. It is difficult

to distinguish between the zeal of an advocate and the
fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness.
What are the instances when a lawyer may not testify as
a witness in a case which he is handling for a client?
A: TARCC

1. When as an attorney, he is to Testify on the theory of the

case

2. When such would Adversely affect any lawful interest of the

client with respect to which confidence has been reposed on
him
3. Having accepted a Retainer, he cannot be a witness against
his client;

4. He cannot serve Conflicting interests

5. When he is to violate the Confidence of his client

What are the instances when a lawyer may testify as a
witness in a case which he is handling for a client?
A: FETAD
1. On Formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody
of instrument and the like;
2. Acting as an Expert on his fee;
3. 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;
5. Acting as an Arbitrator;
6. Deposition.