CANON 1: DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS

1. BONGALONTA VS CASTILLO 240 SCRA 310

CBD Case No. 176

January 20, 1995
SALLY D. BONGALONTA, complainant, vs. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and ALFONSO M.
MARTIJA, respondents.
MELO, J.:
In a sworn letter-complaint dated February 15, 1995, addressed to the Commission on Bar
Discipline, National Grievance Investigation Office, Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
complainant Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, members of
the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests
and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which
complainant might obtain.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Criminal Case No. 7635-55, for estafa, against the Sps. Luisa and Solomer Abuel. She also
filed, a separate civil action Civil Case No. 56934, where she was able to obtain a writ of
preliminary attachment and by virtue thereof, a piece of real property situated in Pasig, Rizal
and registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel under TCT No. 38374 was attached. Atty. Pablito
Castillo was the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.
During the pendency of these cases, one Gregorio Lantin filed civil Case No. 58650 for
collection of a sum of money based on a promissory note, also with the Pasig Regional Trial
Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the said case Gregorio Lantin was represented by Atty.
Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel were declared in default for their failure to file the
necessary responsive pleading and evidence ex-parte was received against them followed by
a judgment by default rendered in favor of Gregorio Lantin. A writ of execution was, in due
time, issued and the same property previously attached by complainant was levied upon.
It is further alleged that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) aforementioned cases,
Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the
same IBP receipt number to wit" Permanent Light Center, No. 7, 21st Avenue, Cubao, Quezon
City, PTR No. 629411 dated 11-5-89 IBP No. 246722 dated 1-12-88.
Thus, complainant concluded that civil Case No. 58650 filed by Gregorio Lantin was merely a
part of the scheme of the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the satisfaction of the money judgment
which complainant might obtain in Civil Case No. 56934.
After hearing, the IBP Board of Governors issued it Resolution with the following findings and
recommendations:
Among the several documentary exhibits submitted by Bongalonta and attached to the
records is a xerox copy of TCT No. 38374, which Bongalonta and the respondents admitted to
be a faithful reproduction of the original. And it clearly appears under the Memorandum of
Encumbrances on aid TCT that the Notice of Levy in favor of Bongalonta and her husband was
registered and annotated in said title of February 7, 1989, whereas, that in favor of Gregorio
Lantin, on October 18, 1989. Needless to state, the notice of levy in favor of Bongalonta and
her husband is a superior lien on the said registered property of the Abuel spouses over that
of Gregorio Lantin.
Consequently, the charge against the two respondents (i.e. representing conflicting interests
and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which
Bongalonta and her husband might obtain against the Abuel spouses) has no leg to stand on.
However, as to the fact that indeed the two respondents placed in their appearances and in
their pleadings the same IBP No. "246722 dated
1-12-88", respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo deserves to be SUSPENDED for using, apparently
thru his negligence, the IBP official receipt number of respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.
According to the records of the IBP National Office, Atty. Castillo paid P1,040.00 as his
delinquent and current membership dues, on February 20, 1990, under IBP O.R. No. 2900538,
after Bongalonta filed her complaint with the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.

The explanation of Atty. Castillo's Cashier-Secretary by the name of Ester Fraginal who alleged
in her affidavit dated March 4, 1993, that it was all her fault in placing the IBP official receipt
number pertaining to Atty. Alfonso M. Martija in the appearance and pleadings Atty. Castillo
and in failing to pay in due time the IBP membership dues of her employer, deserves scant
consideration, for it is the bounded duty and obligation of every lawyer to see to it that he
pays his IBP membership dues on time, especially when he practices before the courts, as
required by the Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his
co-respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.
The complaint against Atty. Martija is hereby DISMISSED for lack of evidence. (pp. 2-4,
Resolution)
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendations. It is well to stress again
that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and
candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty
to satisfy that expectation. for this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty committing a falsehood in
violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court
Resolved to SUSPEND him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a
warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a more severe penalty. A copy of the Resolution shall be spread on the personal
record of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant. SO ORDERED.
2. MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA

A.C. NO. 1109. APRIL 27, 2005

Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which
amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because the account
against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended
the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP
Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to
this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of
the Bar Confidant filed a Report regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further
made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for
having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a commercial
document.
Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn
against a closed account.
Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the
issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for
the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude.
In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may
be sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six
months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein
respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a
commercial document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely
suspended. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that
this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe
penalty. In fact, we have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction
by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of
Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of respondent's conviction no
longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No

elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed
on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has
proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.

3. ABELLA VS BARRIOS, JR.

A.C. NO. 7332

JUNE 18, 2013

FACTS:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a
Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the
Regional Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of
five (5) months, complainants motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to give
respondent a portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the former
how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but the
employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ of
execution wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it modifies
the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a
favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
complainants employer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01
and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
HELD:
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code,
delineate the lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition
against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct;
Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans
cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to
lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1)
promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to
interfere with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may
be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of
his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines
that 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. It
treads the line of grossness 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 communitys sense of decency. On the
other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is
found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been
disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.,
which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the
foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in

order to penalize respondents transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the
commission of the same or similar acts in the future.

CANON 2: DUTY TO BE AN EFFICIENT LAWYER

1. ULEP VS LEGAL CLINIC, INC. 233 SCRA 378
Facts: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res.
& Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption.
Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of
specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is
as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his
staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The
Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor,
litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the
US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include

various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote
divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of advertisement:
Advertisement in a reputable law list
Use of ordinary simple professional card
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization
2. VILLATUYA VS TABALINGCOS, A.C. NO. 6622 JULY 10 2012
FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for
resolution. The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he
was employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number
of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement
whereby he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the
cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients.
Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the
respondent being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together,
the latter did not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in
unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his
legal services. On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of
committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage
was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant
was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management,
Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was
unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal
agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees

paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been
paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention,
respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the VicePresident for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality,
respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management,
Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself.
Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous
marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of
respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to
in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he
had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing
his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved
for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome
of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that
the administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of
client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended
that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found
respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the
gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and
that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154,
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents disbarment.
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of
fees to complainant;
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
RULING:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is

proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a
person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been
proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision
that was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to
be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises
when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional
employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the
lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the
practice of law.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether
the former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those
occupations related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not
clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this
practice by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
Third charge: Bigamy.
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is
on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's
qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see
no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of
the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to
the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of
the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for
the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may
inquire into through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latters first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied
entering into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount
to a negative pregnant.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage
twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we
held thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not

only as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who
cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in
his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not
to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The
administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the
court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the
courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a
member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect
and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
3. BAR MATTER NO. 2012 FEB 10 2009
B.M. No. 2012

February 10, 2009

PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR PRACTICING LAWYERS

RESOLUTION
Acting on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of Justice Renato C. Corona re: Comment
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on our Suggested Revisions to the Proposed Rule of
Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the
same.
This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following publication of the said Rule and its
implementing regulations in at least two (2) newpapers of general circulation.
February 10, 2009
RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
SECTION 1. Title. - This Rule shall be known as "The Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service."
SECTION 2. Purpose. - This Rule seeks 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.
SECTION 3. Scope. - This Rule shall govern 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 Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:
(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of
parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the National
Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor
and Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and
National Commission for Indigenous Peoples. The term "practicing lawyers" shall exclude:

(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal
clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples
organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work
already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are employed in
the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasijudicial agencies.
(b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under Rule 141, Section 19 of the Rules of
Court and Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga (G.R. No.150135, 30
October 2006, 506 SCRA 81);
(c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and controversies that are criminal, civil and
administrative in nature in whatever stage wherein indigent and pauper litigants need legal
representation;
(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf
of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions. It shall also
cover assistance by a practicing lawyer to indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed
mediation and in other modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Services rendered when
a practicing lawyer is appointed counsel de oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid
services and credited as compliance under this Rule;
(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official national organization of lawyers in the
country;
(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the committee of the IBP which is specifically
tasked with handling legal aid cases;
(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked
with disciplining members of the Bar;
(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines located in the
different geographical areas of the country as defined in Rule 139-A and
(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the practicing lawyer rendered free
legal aid services. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding an
equivalent or similar position.
The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in agencies exercising quasijudicial functions, or a responsible officer of an accredited PO or NGO, or an accredited
mediator who conducted the court-annexed mediation proceeding.
SECTION 5. Requirements. (a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal
aid services to indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a period of
twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each month.
However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for more
than five (5) hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
succeeding periods.
For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk of Court for cases where
he may render free legal aid service. He may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid
Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases where he may render free legal aid

service. In this connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter shall regularly
and actively coordinate with the Clerk of Court.
The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement within ten (10) days of the
last month of each quarter of the year.
(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a certificate from the Clerk of
Court attesting to the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services in a case.
The certificate shall contain the following information:
(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was rendered, the party or parties in the said
case(s) for whom the service was rendered, the docket number of the said case(s) and the
date(s) the service was rendered.
(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing or conducting trial on a particular
case in the court or quasi-judicial body.
(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending mediation, conciliation or any other mode
of ADR on a particular case.
(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a pleading or for postponement of
hearing or conference) or pleading filed on a particular case shall be considered as one (1)
hour of service.
The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, one (1) copy to be retained by the
practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy to be
attached to the lawyer's compliance report.
(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter
within the courts jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked with
immediately verifying the contents of the certificate with the issuing Clerk of Court by
comparing the copy of the certificate attached to the compliance report with the copy
retained by the Clerk of Court.
(d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a compliance certificate to the concerned
lawyer. The IBP Chapter shall also submit the compliance reports to the IBPs NCLA for
recording and documentation. The submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after
the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the practicing lawyers.
(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial
bodies the number and date of issue of their certificate of compliance 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.
(f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(i)
and (ii), shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are
employed with the government or incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice
or lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court.
The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together
with the payment of an annual contribution of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). Said contribution
shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.
(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iii)
shall secure a certification from the director of the legal clinic or of the concerned NGO or PO
to the effect that, during that year, they have served as supervising lawyers in a legal clinic or
actively participated in the NGOs or POs free legal aid activities. The certification shall be
submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office.
(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iv)
shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are neither

practicing lawyers nor covered by Section (4)(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and
submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual
contribution of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of practicing
lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said contribution shall accrue to a
special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.
(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000) for that year which amount shall also accrue to the special fund for the legal
aid program of the IBP.
SECTION 6. NCLA. (a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid committees of the IBP local chapters
for the proper handling and accounting of legal aid cases which practicing lawyers can
represent.
(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of the Legal Aid Office with respect to
the coordination with Clerks of Court on legal aid cases and the collation of certificates
submitted by practicing lawyers.
(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records in compliance with this Rule.
(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate to be issued by the Clerk of Court
and forms mentioned in Section 5(e) and (g).
(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the contributions and penalties that will
be paid by lawyers pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry out the provisions of this Rule. For
this purpose, it shall annually submit an accounting to the IBP Board of Governors.
The accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme Court in connection
with its request for the release of the subsidy for its legal aid program.
SECTION 7. Penalties. (a) 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
NCLA, to explain why he was unable to render the minimum prescribed number of hours. 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. Upon approval of the NCLAs
recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall declare the erring lawyer as a member not
in good standing. Notice thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter
which submitted the lawyers compliance report or the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is
registered, in case he did not submit a compliance report. The notice to the lawyer shall
include a directive to pay Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) penalty which shall accrue to the
special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.
(b) The "not in good standing" declaration shall be effective for a period of three (3) months
from the receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of Governors. During the
said period, the lawyer cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as counsel. Provided,
however, that the "not in good standing" status shall subsist even after the lapse of the threemonth period until and unless the penalty shall have been paid.
(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for at least three (3)
consecutive years shall be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted motu
proprio by the CBD. The said proceedings shall afford the erring lawyer due process in
accordance with the rules of the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found
administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in the practice of law for one (1) year shall
be imposed upon him.
(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required to be submitted under this Rule
or any contents thereof shall be administratively charged with falsification and dishonesty

and shall be subject to disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of
criminal charges against the lawyer.
(e) 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 or PO 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.
SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). - A lawyer who renders
mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year for the three yearperiod covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the
following: two (2) credit units for legal ethics, two (2) credit units for trial and pretrial skills,
two (2) credit units for alternative dispute resolution, four (4) credit units for legal writing and
oral advocacy, four (4) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and
six (6) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under
Section 2(9), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.
A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year
for at least two consecutive years within the three year-period covered by a compliance
period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: one (1) credit unit for legal
ethics, one (1) credit unit for trial and pretrial skills, one (1) credit unit for alternative dispute
resolution, two (2) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2) credit units for
substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three (3) credit units for such subjects
as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on
MCLE.
SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. - The IBP, through the NCLA, is hereby given authority to
recommend implementing regulations in determining who are "practicing lawyers," what
constitute "legal aid cases" and what administrative procedures and financial safeguards
which may be necessary and proper in the implementation of this rule may be prescribed. It
shall coordinate with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed implementing
regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors, the said implementing
regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final approval.
SECTION 10. Effectivity. - This Rule and its implementing rules shall take effect on July 1,2009
after they have been published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

CANON 3: DUTY TO HONEST AND DIGNIFIED PRONOUNCEMENT OF LEGAL SERVICE

1. KHAN, JR., VS SIMBILLO AUGUST 19, 2003

Facts: Atty. Rizalino Simbillo publicized his legal services in the July 5, 2000 issue of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer via a paid advertisement which read: Annulment of Marriage
Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. A staff member of the Public Information Office of the
Supreme Court took notice and called the number posing as an interested party. She spoke
to Mrs. Simbillo, who said that her husband was an expert in handling annulment cases
and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, and that the fee was P48,000.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office
revealed that similar ads were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila
Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Star. Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr., in his
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in
violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation,
report and recommendation. IBP found respondent guilty. Respondent filed an Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari

Issue: WON Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court
Held: Yes, petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year and was sternly
warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio: The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public
service, not money is the primary consideration. Reasoning- Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not
do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.- Rule 3.01 - A
lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services.- Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and suspension
of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing asattorney for a party without authority to do so.- The following
elements distinguish legal profession from business:1. A duty of public service2. A relation
as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary4. A relation
to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, ordealing
directly with their clients.- Respondent advertised himself as an Annulment Specialist,
and by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage encouraging people
who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained form dissolving
their marriage bonds, to do so.- Solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed,
however, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession.
CANON 4: DUTY TO SUPPORT THE IMPORVEMENT OF THE LEGAL EDUCATION

CANON 5: DUTY TO KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

1. B.M. NO. 850 OCT 2 2001
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the
Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee
on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the
following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. Continuing legal education is required of members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these
Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall
commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program
in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7
shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education
activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4)
credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five
(5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws,
and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to
four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions
equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the
MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than
three (3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for
members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance
periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the
previous compliance period.
SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not exempt from the MCLE requirement
shall be divided into three (3) compliance groups, namely:

(a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are
assigned to Compliance Group 1.
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR are assigned to Compliance Group
2.
(c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao are assigned to Compliance
Group 3.
Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be
available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the MCLE requirement.
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the
program. Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program
shall be 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.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member is not required to comply with the program requirement for the
initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission
or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved
continuing legal education activities equal to the number of months remaining in the
compliance 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.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS
measure compliance with the MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the category of
the lawyers participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the guidelines for computing
credit units and the supporting documents required therefor:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER
RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF
ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH
NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS
CERTIFICATION
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS

EDITOR
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED
TECHNICAL
REPORT/PAPER
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF
BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW
DIRECTOR
Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS
SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory.
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory credit units may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions,
symposia, in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource
speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory credit units may be claimed
per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for
publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to
the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of
the members practice or employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)
SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed based on actual time
spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt
from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired
members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent
court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial
education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;

(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;

(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at
least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial
Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the Bar are likewise
exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A member may file a
verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability, illness,
post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) 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. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in
which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on
the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE
requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. Subject to the implementing regulations that may be
adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted
approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider
and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider
is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. All continuing legal education activities must
meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and
the legal profession, including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medicallegal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing
and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must
be distributed to all participants. Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the
activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free
from interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS

SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE

Committee.
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or group may be accredited
as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All
providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to
be accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee;
(b) Contain all information requested in the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the
following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the
provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall include the
member on the official record of attendance only if the members signature was obtained at
the time of attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the
members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location,
subject matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished
the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours
of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the
activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by
these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date,
location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education
activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of
the Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time
devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to
each participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation
Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period
of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. The accreditation of a provider may be renewed
every two (2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the
requirements of these Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the
preceding period.
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the accreditation of any provider referred to in
Rule 9 may be revoked by a majority vote of the MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing
and for good cause.
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER
SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education activity or accreditation
as a provider requires payment of the appropriate fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE
Fees.
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a
Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by
attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is
exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to
the Committee not later than the day after the end of the members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain sufficient record
of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required to be
provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a
sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity
shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt
status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance
within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or
evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance. -Members failing to
comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given
sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or
otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following
language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters:
IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT
BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT
MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE
PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to
attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this
period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement
unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be
counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance
at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member who fails to comply with the requirements
after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent
member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a
member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline as
a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active
rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member.
Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT
SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated
when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including
payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the

requirement for the period of non-compliance during the period the member is on inactive
status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number
needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting
the current compliance period requirement.
SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an administrative process. The termination of
listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND it shall be made by the MCLE
Committee.
Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members,
namely, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively
nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the
Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be
appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such
compensation as may be determined by the Court.
SEC. 2. Duty of committee. The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such
implementing rules as may be necessary subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. It
shall, in consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees with
the approval of the Supreme Court.
SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the MCLE
Committee shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the record-keeping,
auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.
SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. The MCLE Committee shall submit to the Supreme
Court for approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to establish, operate and maintain the
MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of September 2000, following its publication in
two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended on 02 October 2001.

2. B.M. NO 1922 JUNE 3 2008

RE. NUMBER AND DATE OF MCLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/EXEMPTION
REQUIRED IN ALL PLEADINGS/MOTIONS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc
dated June 3, 2008
"Bar Matter No. 1922. Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All Pleadings Filed with the Courts the
Counsels MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. The Court
Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters,
informing the Court of the diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the
MCLE requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal
Education

and

Bar

Matters,

to REQUIRE 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.
The New Rule shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation." Caprio-Morales Velasco, Jr., Nachura, JJ., on official leave.
(adv216a)

3. RIVERA-PASCUAL VS SPS. LIM, G.R. NO. 1911837 SEPT 19 2012

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions dated October 15, 20091
and March 11, 20102 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
109265.rbl r l l lbrr
The facts leading to the filing of this petition are undisputed.
chanrobles virtual law library
Subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land with an approximate area of 4.4
hectares and located at Bignay, Valenzuela City. The property is covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. V-73892, registered in the names of George and Marilyn Lim
(Spouses Lim).
On September 8, 2004, Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual (Consolacion) filed before the Office
of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region IV-A a petition to be
recognized as a tenant of a property located at Bignay, Valenzuela City against Danilo Deato
(Deato). At that time, the property, which has an approximate area of 4.4 hectares, was
covered by TCT No. 24759 under Deato s name. During the pendency of the petition, Deato
sold the property to Spouses Lim. The sale was registered on December 21, 2004 leading to
the issuance of TCT No. V-73892 in favor of Spouses Lim. Considering this development,
Consolacion filed a motion on March 3, 2005 to implead Spouses Lim as respondents.3rll
The petition, which was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0400-0012-04, was granted
byRegional Adjudicator Conchita C. Mias (RA Mias) in a Decision4 dated December 2,
2005, the dispositive portion of which states:rbl r l l lbrr
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1) Declaring that petitioner is the tenant of the subject landholding by succession from her
deceased father;
2) Declaring respondents spouses George and Marilyn Lim to have subrogated to the rights
and substituted to the obligation of spouses Danilo and Divina Deato;
3) Ordering the respondents and all persons claiming rights under them to maintain petitioner
in peaceful possession and cultivation of the agricultural land subject hereof;
4) Declaring petitioner to have the right to exercise the right of redemption of the subject
parcel of agricultural land pursuant to Section 12 of RA 3844 as amended; andcralawlibrary
5) Dismissing the petition against Louie Cruz, Fire Force Agency and Danny Boy Rivera for
having no proximate tenurial relationship with the petitioner hence beyond the jurisdictional
ambit of this Office.rbl r l l lbrr
SO ORDERED.5rll
chanrobles virtual law library
On July 7, 2006, the foregoing decision became final.6rll
chanrobles virtual law library
Upon Consolacion s motion for execution filed on January 7, 2008, RA Mias issued a writ of
execution on January 8, 2008.7rll
On January 21, 2008, Consolacion filed a petition against Spouses Lim and the Registrar of
Deeds of Valenzuela City praying for the issuance of an order directing Spouses Lim to accept
the amount of P 10,000,000.00 which she undertook to tender during the initial hearing,
declaring the property redeemed, and cancelling TCT No. V-73892.8 Consolacion consigned
with the RARAD the amount of P 10,000,000.00 on March 3, 2008.9rll
Consolacion s petition, which was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0400-001-08, was given due
course by RA Mias in a Decision10 dated June 2, 2008, the dispositive portion of which
states:rbl r l l lbrr
WHEREFORE,
foregoing
premises
considered,
rendered:rbl r l l lbrr

judgment

is

hereby

1. As prayed for, declaring that the landholding subject of the petition as lawfully redeemed;
2. Ordering respondent spouses to accept and withdraw the amount of the redemption price
consigned with this Office which was deposited for safekeeping indicated in Manager s Check
No. 0000004518 issued by Allied Bank in the name of Spouses Marilyn and George Lim and/or
DAR Adjudication Board Region IV-A in the amount of ten (10) million pesos;
3. Upon acceptance and the withdrawal of the redemption price as ordered in paragraph 2
hereof, ordering respondent spouses to execute a Deed of Redemption in favor of petitioner;
4. In case of refusal and/or failure of respondent spouses to execute the Deed of Redemption
as ordered above, the Regional Clerk of the Board is hereby ordered to execute a Deed of
Redemption in the name of the petitioner; andcralawlibrary
5. Directing the Register of Deeds for Valenzuela City to cause the cancellation of TCT No. V73892 registered in the name of respondent spouses Marilyn and George Lim and a new one
issued in the name of petitioner upon presentment of the Deed of Redemption.
SO ORDERED.11rll
chanrobles virtual law library
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a
Decision12 on February 18, 2009 reversing RA Mias Decision dated June 2, 2008.
Specifically:rbl r l l lbrr
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision dated 02 June 2008 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby rendered:rbl r l
l lbrr

1. DECLARING the landholding to be not lawfully redeemed;

2. DECLARING petitioner-appellee not a bona fide tenant of the subject landholding;
3. DECLARING that petitioner-appellee cannot redeem the subject parcel registered in the
names of the respondents-appellants;
4. ORDERING the respondents-appellants to be maintained in peaceful possession of the
subject landholding; andcralawlibrary
5. DIRECTING the Clerk of the Board of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Region IVA to return the Manager s Check No. 0000004518 issued by Allied Bank in the name of
Spouses Marilyn and George Lim and/or DAR Adjudication Board Region IV-A in the amount of
Ten Million pesos to herein petitioner-appellee.
SO ORDERED.13
chanrobles virtual law library
On April 13, 2009, Consolacion moved for reconsideration,14 which the DARAB denied in a
Resolution15 dated June 8, 2009 for being filed out of time.rbl r l l
lbrr
SECTION 12 Rule X of the 2003 DARAB Rules provides that a Motion for Reconsideration shall
be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the order, resolution, or decision of
the Board or Adjudicator. Records show that both the petitioner-appellee and her counsel
received a copy of the Decision dated 18 February 2009 on 27 February 2009 and that Legal
Officer Nancy Geocada, the alleged new counsel of the herein petitioner-appellee, filed the
Motion for Reconsideration only on 13 April 2009, clearly the Motion for Reconsideration was
filed beyond the fifteen (15) days (sic) reglementary period thus the herein Decision has
already become final and executory. x x x.16rll
chanrobles virtual law library
On June 25, 2009, Consolacion filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
with the CA.17rll
On July 1, 2009, the CA resolved to require Consolacion s counsel to submit within five (5)
days from notice his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance
or Exemption and an amended Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum-Shopping.18
Apparently, Consolacion s counsel failed to indicate in the petition his MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Exemption Number as required under Bar Matter No. 1922. Also, the jurat of
Consolacion s verification and certification against non-forum-shopping failed to indicate any
competent evidence of Consolacion s identity apart from her community tax certificate.
Considering the failure of Consolacion and her counsel to comply, the CA issued a
Resolution19 on October 15, 2009 dismissing the petition.rbl r l l
lbrr
On July 7, 2009, the counsel for the petitioner received the above-mentioned Resolution.
However, the counsel for the petitioner failed to comply with the said Resolution which was
due on July 19, 2009.
For failure of the counsel for the petitioner to comply with the Resolution dated July 1, 2009,
despite receipt of the notice thereof, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
chanrobles virtual law library
Consolacion moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA in a Resolution21 dated
March 11, 2010.
Consolacion is, before this Court, claiming that the CA s summary dismissal of her petition on
technical grounds is unwarranted. Consolacion invoked substantial justice against the CA s
strict application of the rule requiring her counsel to note his MCLE Compliance or Exemption
Certificate Number and the rule rendering the jurat of her verification and certification on
non-forum-shopping defective in the absence of the details of any one of her current
identification document issued by an official agency bearing her photograph and signature.
That there was merit in her petition and that she complied, albeit belatedly as her counsel s

MCLE Compliance Certificate Number was indicated and a verification and certificate on nonforum-shopping with a proper jurat was attached to her motion for reconsideration, should
have sufficed for the CA to reverse the dismissal of her petition and decide the same on its
merits. Consolacion alleged that procedural rules or technicalities are designed to facilitate
the attainment of justice and their rigid application should be avoided if this would frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice.
The Court finds no merit in the petition. The Court sees no reversible error committed by the
CA in dismissing Consolacion s petition before it on the ground of petitioner s unexplained
failure to comply with basic procedural requirements attendant to the filing of a Petition for
Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Notably, Consolacion and her counsel remained
obstinate despite the opportunity afforded to them by the CA to rectify their lapses. While
there was compliance, this took place, however, after the CA had ordered the dismissal of
Consolacion s petition and without reasonable cause proffered to justify its belatedness.
Consolacion and her counsel claimed inadvertence and negligence but they did not explain
the circumstances thereof. Absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested leniency and
liberality in the observance of procedural rules appears to be an afterthought, hence, cannot
be granted. The CA saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the rules. Neither does
this Court see any.
The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally construed.
However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a
satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal
interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an
exceptional treatment. It was never the Court s intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants to
violate the rules with impunity."22rll
This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the duty of every
member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptions
should they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on liberal
construction.
While it IS the negligence of Consolacion's counsel that led to this unfortunate result, she is
bound by such.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated October
15, 2009 and March 11, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 109265 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

CANON 6: THE CANONS APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

1. PCGG VS SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. NO. 151805 (2005)
FACTS
General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties. Later on,
Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent.
Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First
Instance praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANK's liquidation.
After EDSA 1, Pres. Aquino established the PCGG for the purpose of recovering ill gotten
wealth. The PCGG, on July 17, 1987, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion,
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Tan, et al. so PCGG

issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-named

persons by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with former President
Marcos. These respondents were represented by Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents. The
motions alleged that respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor General and counsel to Central
Bank, 'actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK, which was subsequently acquired by
respondents Tan, et al. and became Allied Banking Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule
6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting 'engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza?
HELD
NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter or the act of respondent Mendoza as Solicitor General
involved in the case at bar is 'advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said
bank's liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the
Court should resolve whether his act of advising the Central Bank on the legal procedure to
liquidate GENBANK is included within the concept of 'matter under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure
provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the necessary petition. The
subject 'matter of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is
different from the subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096 which is about the sequestration of
the shares of respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. It goes
without saying that Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to
respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc.
No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in Civil Case No.
0096.
Secondly, the supposed intervention of Mendoza in the liquidation case is not significant and
substantial. We note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance of the court in the
liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist
the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK.
Also, The disqualification of respondent Mendoza has long been a dead issue. For a fact, the
recycled motion for disqualification in the case at bar was filed more than four years after
the filing of the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Supreme Court
which were subsequently remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the very least, the
circumstances under which the motion to disqualify in the case at bar were refiled put
petitioner's motive as highly suspect.
It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for it correctly
disfavors lawyers who 'switch sides. It is claimed that 'switching sides' carries the danger that
former government employee may compromise confidential official information in the
process. But this concern does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As afore-discussed, the
act of respondent Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure how to liquidate
GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter of Civil Case No. 0005 which is about
the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. There is no switching
sides for there were no sides.