Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey that
they are in a special possession to influence the judge. (Cannon 2, Rule
2.03)
Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie, A.M. No. 2131, May 10, 1985
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a foreign law firm, as
the latter cannot practice law in the Philippines and the use of the foreign
law firms name is unethical.
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a foreign law
firm.
Attorneys should be familiar with the Rules of Court and comply with
its requirements including express reglementary provisions.
Jose vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38581, March 31, 1976
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. He is the representative not of
an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to
govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and
whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a
case but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very
definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer.
General Bank and Trust Co. vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 125440,
January 31, 2000
Where the matter referred to in Rule 6.03, in which the lawyer intervened
as a government official in a case is different from the matter or case in
which he intervenes either as incumbent government official or as a former
or retired public officer, there is no violation of Rule 6.03 nor he will be taking
inconsistent positions nor will there be representation of conflict of interests,
nor violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law.
In re: Atty. Jose Principe, Bar Matter No. 543, 20 September 20,
1990
There is no such thing as retirement in the IBP as understood in labor law. A
lawyer, however, may terminate his bar membership after filing the required
verified notice of termination with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar.
A lawyer should not hesitate to tell his client that an appeal is futile to
avoid useless and expensive suits, and also to decrease the burden of
an appellate tribunal.
Lorenzana Food Corporation vs. Daria, A.C. No. 2736, May 27, 1991
An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has
represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client has
terminated. It is not a good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in
another case other persons against his former client under the pretext that
the case is distinct from and independent of the former case.
A lawyer owes loyalty to his client even after the termination of their
relationship, such that its not good practice to accept a case against
his former client.
A lawyer shall serve his client with utmost competence and diligence,
any negligence relating thereto shall render him liable. In addition, he
is obliged to keep his client informed of the status of the case.
Uy v. Mercado (1987)
Res Ipsa Loquitor applies to both judges and lawyers. Judges had been
dismissed form the service without the need of a formal investigation
because based on the records, the gross misconduct or inefficacy of the
judges clearly appears.
The act of a lawyer notarizing a Special Power of Attorney knowing that the
person who allegedly executed it is dead is a serious breach of the sacred
obligation imposed upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1.
Sales v. CA, 211 SCRA 858,865, G.R. No. L-40145 July 29, 1992
Notary may Notarize Instruments which refer to properties located outside
his territorial jurisdiction. What is important under the Notarial Law is that
the notary public concerned has authority to acknowledge the document
executed within his territorial jurisdiction.
Valid IDs are not necessary if the affiant is personally known by the
Notary Public.
A judge should not blemish his integrity and propriety, as well as that
of the Judiciary.
Armi M. Flordeliza, et al. vs. Judge Julia A. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-061625, September 18, 2009
Those who don the judicial robe must observe judicial decorum which
requires magistrate to be at all times temperate in their language, refraining
from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or from resorting to language of
vilification. The respondents use of vulgar language has no place in the
court. The frequent nocturnal gimmicks also impair the respect due to her as
a Judge. Furthermore, borrowing money from her staff is not illegal per se but
Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane vs. Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen A.M. No.
RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008
An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the
law. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily
on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum
ad hominem. In the case, the judge questions the capability and credibility of
the complainant just because he was not a graduate from UP Law School.
The Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the face of
boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct
themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.
Aleria, Jr. vs. Velez, G.R. No. 127400 November 16, 1998
Oktubre vs. Velasco, A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444, July 20, 2004
A municipal judge who filed complaints in his own court for robbery and
malicious mischief against a party for the purpose of protecting the property
interests of the judges co-heirs, and then issued warrants of arrest against
the party, was found guilty of serious misconduct and ordered dismissed
from the bench before he was able to recuse himself. The Supreme Court
held that "his subsequent inhibition from the cases which he filed in his own
court does not detract from his culpability for he should have not taken
cognizance of the cases in the first place the evil that the rule on
disqualification seeks to prevent is the denial of a party of his right to due
process.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Paderanga A.M. No. RTJ-011660, August 25 2005
RULE 2.04. A Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
A judge should exhibit utmost sobriety and self-restraint, and not allow
oneself to be annoyed to a point of wasting valuable court time and
resources on trivial matter.
J. King & Sons Company, Inc. vs. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr.,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802, September 21, 2004
The Court reiterates the common sense rule that once retired, judges may no
longer decide cases. Neither may they, or even their successors, promulgate
decisions written while they were still in office. In short, once retired, they
can no longer write or promulgate decisions, orders or other actions proper
only to incumbents.
A judges duty to observe courtesy to those who appear before him is not
limited to lawyers. The said duty also includes being courteous to litigants
and witnesses. Respondents conduct towards Consuelo Aznar leaves a lot to
be desired. As stated in the complaint, respondent ordered Consuelo Aznar
to go back to her house to get the original documents in five minutes or he
would dismiss the case. Respondent did not offer any explanation to this
charge against him. Respondents act in this instance smacks of judicial
tyranny.
A judges age and frail health does not absolve him from the liability or
excuse him from diligently fulfilling his duties.
A judge acting in good faith can never be subjected to any liability for
any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous.
may
be
treated
by
the
court
as
motion
for
Office of the Court Administrator v. Lorenza M. Martinez, A.M. No. P06-2223 (2013)
A Clerk of Court is the courts accountable officer. It was not the cash clerk. It
was her duty to supervise and monitor her subordinate to ensure that the
proper procedures were followed in the collection of the courts funds. Being
the custodian of the courts funds, revenues, records, properties, and
premises, she was liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of
such funds and property. Time and again, the Court reminds that "those
charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the
lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest
degree of honesty and integrity, and should be made accountable to all
those whom he serves. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who
cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. The
Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission
on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would
violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish, or even just
tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the Judiciary."
-
The Clerk of Court being the custodian of the courts funds, revenues,
records, properties, and premises, is liable for any loss, shortage,
destruction or impairment of such funds and property.
Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183952
(2013)
A client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at
any time with or without cause. But this right of the client is not unlimited
because good faith is required in terminating the relationship. The limitation
is based on Article 19 of the Civil Code, which mandates that "every person
must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."
The right is also subject to the right of the attorney to be compensated. A
client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place,
but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to writing
and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall be
entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the
contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene
in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation the
attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case
wherein his services had been retained by the client. In the absence of the
lawyers fault, consent or waiver, a client cannot deprive the lawyer of his
just fees already earned in the guise of a justifiable reason. The Court must
thwart any and every effort of clients already served by their attorneys
worthy services to deprive them of their hard-earned compensation. Truly,
the duty of the courts is not only to see to it that attorneys act in a proper
A lawyer is forbidded from contracting with his client for part of the
thing in litigation in exchange for conducting the case at the lawyers
expense is designed to prevent the lawyer from acquiring an interest
between him and his client.
Judges are not prohibited from joining social networking sites such as
Facebook since this is an exercise of freedom of expression, but they
should conduct themselves with the highest propriety.
Failure to decide a case within the reglamentary period makes a judge
administratively liable for undue delay.
ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA VS. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA; A.C. No. 9881;
04 June 2014
The rule on mistakes committed by lawyers in the exercise of their profession
is as follows: An attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law. For an
honest mistake or error, an attorney is not liable. The default rule is
presumption of good faith. On the other hand, bad faith is never presumed. It
is a conclusion to be drawn from facts. Its determination is thus a question of
fact and is evidentiary. There is no evidence, though, to show that the legal
advice, assuming it was indeed given, was coupled with bad faith, malice, or
ill-will. The presumption of good faith, therefore, stands in this case. The
foregoing considered, complainant failed to prove his case by clear
preponderance of evidence.
-
HENRY SAMONTE vs. ATTY. GINES ABELLANA; A.C. No. 3452; 23 June
2014
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, clearly preponderant evidence is
required to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the
respondent lawyers. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed
to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this country
should remain faithful to the Lawyer's Oath. Only thereby can lawyers
preserve their fitness to remain as members of the Law Profession. Any
resort to falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to cover up
one's misdeeds committed against clients and the rest of the trusting public,
evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law
and highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law Profession. It
deserves for the guilty lawyer stern disciplinary sanctions. The falsehoods
committed by Atty. Abellana, being aimed at misleading his client and the
Court to bolster his unworthy denial of his neglect in the handling of the
client's case, were unmitigated.
-
ALMIRA C. FORONDA, vs. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR.; A.C. No. 9976;
25 June 2014
The respondent's act of issuing worthless checks is a violation of Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The issuance of
checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
GEORGE T. CHUA vs. JUDGE FORTUNITO L. MADRONA; A.M. No. RTJ14-2394; 1 September 2014.
A trial judge is not accountable for performing his judicial functions and office
because such performance is a matter of public duty and responsibility.
Indeed, the judge's office and duty to render and administer justice, being
functions of sovereignty, should not be simply taken for granted. No
administrative charge for manifest partiality, gross misconduct, and gross
ignorance of the law should be brought against him for the orders issued in
the due course of judicial proceedings.
PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
51, SORSOGON CITY, vs. ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA; A.C. No. 7474; 9
September 2014
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with
a high sense of vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable
judges and inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that
direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self-interest. The
noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary is not advanced
otherwise. It is for that reason that Atty. Dealca's complaint against Judge
Madrid has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any trace of
idealism or altruism in the motivations for initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca
exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment,
considering that his bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and
even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or
The Lawyers Oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to
"wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit. Any violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action.
IMELDA CATO GADDI VS. ATTY. LOPE M. VELASCO; A.C. No. 8637; 15
September 2014
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routinary act. It converts a
private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law,
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason, notaries public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary
public should not notarize a document unless the signatory to the document
is in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization, and
personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity. At the time of notarization, the signatory
shall sign or affix with a thumb or mark the notary publics notarial register.
The purpose of these requirements is to enable the notary public to verify
the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document is the
signatorys free act and deed. If the signatory is not acting of his or her own
free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act. A
notary public is also prohibited from affixing an official signature or seal on a
notarial certificate that is incomplete.
-
A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face, for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
ADARIA O. DAGING VS. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS; A.C. No. 9395,
12 November 2014
Respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of
his present or former client. The prohibition against representing conflicting
interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good
faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. A lawyer who
takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged the
services of his law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute and
suspicion and undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondents
argument that he never took advantage of any information acquired by his
law firm in the course of its professional dealings with the complainant, even
assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably aware of the fact that
complainant is a client of his law firm, respondent should have immediately
informed both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other
members of his law firm, cannot represent any of them in their legal tussle;
otherwise, they would be representing conflicting interests and violate the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply
advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of
another lawyer.
-
The Halls of Justice may only be used for functions related to the
administration of justice and for no other purpose.
ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR. VS. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY; A.C. No.
8103; 03 December 2014 Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which
requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on
his behalf as notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice
law. By leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and with
his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint. Respondent also violated his obligation
under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into
his office while he was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity
being conducted therein. They expected that their documents would be
converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the
notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and
effect. By prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an
unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession was eroded.
-
Lawyers first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure and not
seek exceptions as loopholes.
Payment of the contingent fee is not made during the pendency of the
litigation involving the clients property but only after the judgment has
been rendered in the case handled by the lawyer.
A claim for attorneys fees may be asserted either in the very action in
which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate
action.