1
Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
A.C. No. 7297 [2009]
The lack of bad faith notwithstanding, we nonetheless
concur with the findings of Investigating
Commissioner Velez that the respondent's notarizing
the amended verification and affidavit of non-forum
hopping in the absence of Bides as the affiant
constituted a clear breach of the notarial protocol and
was highly censurable. The jurat is that end part of the
affidavit in which the notary certifies that the
instrument is sworn to before her. As such, the
notarial certification is essential. Considering that
notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act, the faithful observance and utmost respect of the
legal solemnity of the oath in the jurat are sacrosanct.
Being a lawyer commissioned as a notary, the
respondent was mandated to discharge with fidelity
the sacred duties appertaining to her notarial office.
Such duties being dictated by public policy and
impressed with public interest, she could not
disregard the requirements and solemnities of the
Notarial Law. It was emphatically her primary duty as
a lawyer-notary to obey the laws of the land and to
promote respect for the law and legal processes. She
was expected to be in the forefront in the observance
and maintenance of the rule of law. She ought to have
remembered that a graver responsibility was placed
upon her shoulders by virtue of her being a lawyer.
A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC [2009]
The basis for the exemption from legal and filing fees
is the free access clause , embodied in Sec. 11, Art. III
of the 1987 Constitution, thus: Sec. 11. Free access to
the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
In implementation of the right of free access under
the Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated
rules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and
Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court, which respectively
state thus:
Sec. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized
to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if
the court, upon an ex part e application and hearing,
is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or
property sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from
payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may
order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket
and other lawful fees which the indigent was
exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment
rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless
the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such
authority at any time before judgment is rendered by
the trial court. If the court should determine after
hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact
a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed
and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not
made within the time fixed by the court, execution
shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice
to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
A.M. No. P-09-2676 [2009]
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To
warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct
must be grave, warrant dismissal from the service, the
misconduct must be grave, serious, important,
weighty, momentous and not trifling.
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. August 24, 2010
Indeed, Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary clearly enjoins
that:
Section 6.Judges shall maintain order and decorum in
all proceedings before the court and be patient,
dignified and courteous in relation to litigants,
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require
similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff
and others subject to their influence, direction or
control.
We point out that publicizing professional
qualifications or boasting of having studied in and
graduated from certain law schools, no matter how
prestigious, might have even revealed, on the part of
Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez, their bias for or
against some lawyers. Their conduct was
impermissible, consequently, for Section 3, Canon 4 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, demands that judges avoid situations that
may reasonably give rise to the suspicion or
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
appearance of favoritism or partiality in their personal
relations with individual members of the legal
profession who practice regularly in their courts.
Judges should be dignified in demeanor, and refined
in speech. In performing their judicial duties, they
should not manifest bias or prejudice by word or
conduct towards any person or group on irrelevant
grounds. It is very essential that they should live up to
the high standards their noble position on the Bench
demands. Their language must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be
misconstrued.
In this regard, Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, mandates
judges to carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial colleagues,
without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1924. October 13, 2010
Section 15 (1), Article VIII, of the Constitution requires
a trial judge to dispose of all cases or matters within
three months from the time of their submission for
decision. Conformably with the constitutional
prescription, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of
their courts' business promptly and to decide cases
within the required period. Unless every trial judge
earnestly, painstakingly, and faithfully complies with
this mandate of efficiency, the present clogged
dockets in our judicial system cannot be cleared.
The Court has impressed upon trial judges the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously to accord
with the time-honored precept that justice delayed is
justice denied.
G.R. No. 154124. August 4, 2010
A client is generally bound by the mistakes of his
lawyer; otherwise, there would never be an end to a
litigation as long as a new counsel could be employed,
and who could then allege and show that the
preceding counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or
experienced or learned. The legal profession demands
of a lawyer that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family; such lawyer
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
2
should adopt the norm of practice expected of men of
good intentions. Moreover, a lawyer owes it to
himself and to his clients to adopt an efficient and
orderly system of keeping track of the developments
in his cases, and should be knowledgeable of the
remedies appropriate to his cases.
G.R. No. 157315. December 1, 2010
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which
contains the rule on inhibition and disqualification of
judges, states:
Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial
officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or
child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to
either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in
which he has been executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject
of review, without the written consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or
valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
The self-inhibition of Judge Dabalos was one taken in
accordance with the second paragraph of Section 1.
The second paragraph of Section 1 (unlike the first
paragraph) does not expressly enumerate the specific
grounds for inhibition. This means that the
determination of the grounds is left to the sound
discretion of the judge, who must discern with only
his or her conscience as guide on what may be just
and valid reasons for self-inhibition. The vesting of
discretion necessarily proceeds from the reality that
there may be many and different grounds for a judge
to recuse from a case, and such grounds cannot all be
catalogued in the Rules of Court.
We hold that although a trial judge who voluntarily
inhibits loses jurisdiction to hear a case, he or she may
decide to reconsider the self-inhibition and re-assume
jurisdiction after a re-assessment of the
circumstances giving cause to the inhibition.
The discretion to reconsider acknowledges that the
trial judge is in the better position to determine the
issue of inhibition, and a reviewing tribunal will not
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
disturb the exercise of that discretion except upon a
clear and strong finding of arbitrariness or
whimsicality. Thus, Judge Dabalos' re-assumption of
jurisdiction was legally tenable, having come from his
seizing the opportunity to re-assess the circumstances
impelling his self-inhibition upon being faced with the
urgent need to hear and resolve CBS's application for
preliminary injunction. Such action was commendable
on his part, given that the series of self-inhibitions by
the other RTC Judges had left no competent judge in
the station to hear and resolve the application. It can
even be rightly said that a refusal by Judge Dabalos to
re-assess and reconsider might have negated his
sacred and sworn duty as a judge to dispense justice.
G.R. No. 157659. January 25, 2010
Verily, the petitioner wittingly adopted his
aforedescribed worthless and vexatious legal
maneuvers for no other purpose except to delay the
full enforcement of the writ of possession, despite
knowing, being himself a lawyer, that as a
nonredeeming mortgagor he could no longer impugn
both the extrajudicial foreclosure and the ex parte
issuance of the writ of execution cum writ of
possession; and that the enforcement of the duly-
issued writ of possession could not be delayed. He
thus deliberately abused court procedures and
processes, in order to enable himself to obstruct and
stifle the fair and quick administration of justice in
favor of mortgagee and purchaser GSIS. His conduct
contravened Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, by which he was enjoined
as a lawyer to "observe the rules of procedure and . . .
not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice." By
his dilatory moves, he further breached and
dishonored his Lawyer's Oath, particularly:
. . . I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or
malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients . . .
We stress that the petitioner's being the party litigant
himself did not give him the license to resort to
dilatory moves. His zeal to defend whatever rights he
then believed he had and to promote his perceived
remaining interests in the property already lawfully
transferred to GSIS should not exceed the bounds of
the law, for he remained at all times an officer of the
Court burdened to conduct himself "with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients." His
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
3
true obligation as a lawyer should not be warped by
any misplaced sense of his rights and interests as a
litigant, because he was, above all, bound not to
unduly delay a case, not to impede the execution of a
judgment, and not to misuse Court processes.
Consequently, he must be made to account for his
misconduct as a lawyer.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845
Every judge should be faithful to the law and should
maintain professional competence. His role in the
administration of justice requires a continuous study
of the law and jurisprudence, lest public confidence in
the Judiciary be eroded by incompetence and
irresponsible conduct.
In that light, the failure of Judge Infante to conduct a
hearing prior to the grant of bail in capital offenses
was inexcusable and reflected gross ignorance of the
law and the rules as well as a cavalier disregard of its
requirement. He well knew that the determination of
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong was a
matter of judicial discretion, and that the discretion
lay not in the determination of whether or not a
hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and
evaluation of the weight of the Prosecution's evidence
of guilt against the accused. His fault was made worse
by his granting bail despite the absence of a petition
for bail from the accused. Consequently, any order he
issued in the absence of the requisite evidence was
not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim
and caprice and outright arbitrariness.
G.R. No. 174759
By such statements, the petitioners clearly and
definitely overstepped the bounds of propriety as
attorneys, and disregarded their sworn duty to
respect the courts. An imputation in a pleading of
gross ignorance against a court or its judge, especially
in the absence of any evidence, is a serious allegation,
and constitutes direct contempt of court. It is settled
that derogatory, offensive or malicious statements
contained in pleadings or written submissions
presented to the same court or judge in which the
proceedings are pending are treated as direct
contempt because they are equivalent to a
misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near
a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of
justice.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
This is true, even if the derogatory, offensive or
malicious statements are not read in open court.
Indeed, in where the petitioner's motion for
clarification stated that the respondent judge's
decision constituted gross negligence and ignorance
of the rules, and was pure chicanery and sophistry,
the Court held that "a pleading containing derogatory,
offensive or malicious statements when submitted
before a court or judge in which the proceedings are
pending is direct contempt because it is equivalent to
a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so
near a court or judge as to interrupt the
administration of justice."
A.C. No. 4808
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy
his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as provided
for in the Rules of Court.
- Code of Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 4808
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
requires that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of her client that may come into her
possession. Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 imposes on the
lawyer the duty to account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03
of Canon 16 demands that the lawyer shall deliver the
funds and property of his client when due or upon
de a d, su je t to the la e s lie o e the fu ds,
o the la e s optio to appl so u h of the fu ds
as may be necessary to satisfy the lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to
the client.
The canons are appropriate considering that the
relationship between a lawyer and her client is highly
fiduciary, and prescribes on a lawyer a great degree of
fidelity and good faith. There is no question that the
money or property received by a lawyer for her client
properly belongs to the latter. Conformably with
these canons of professional responsibility, we have
held that a lawyer is obliged to render an accounting
of all the property and money she has collected for
her client. This obligation includes the prompt
reporting and accounting of the money collected by
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
4
the lawyer by reason of a favorable judgment to his
client.
A.C. No. 4808
Without dou t, Att . RRRs failu e to i ediatel
account for and to deliver the money upon demand
was deceit, for it signified that she had converted the
money to her own use, in violation of the trust BBB
had reposed in her. It constituted gross misconduct
for which the penalty of suspension from the practice
of law became justified pursuant to Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court, grounds therefor. 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 admission to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
A.C. No. 4808
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he
has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for
his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
action includes any of the acts hereinabove
enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court
or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of
the ground for disbarment or suspension.
A.C. No. 4808
The filing of the perjury charge by Atty. RRR against
BBB and of the estafa charge by BBB against Atty. RRR
could not halt or excuse the duty of Atty. RRR to
render an accounting and to remit the amount due to
BBB. Nor did the pendency of such cases inhibit this
administrative matter from proceeding on its due
course. It is indisputable that the pendency of any
criminal charges between the lawyer and her client
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
does not negate the administrative proceedings
against the lawyer.
The settled rule is that criminal and civil cases are
different from administrative matters, such that the
disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern
the third and vice versa. In this light, we refer to this
Cou ts uli g i Be a o s. Ba elo a, iti g I e
Almacen, where it was held:
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they
do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather
investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of
its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment,
[they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the
Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary
objective, and the real question for determination is
whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be
allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise
of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon
a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as
an officer of the Court with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
proper and honest administration of justice by
purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer
worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
Hence, our only concern in the instant case is the
dete i atio of espo de ts ad i ist ati e lia ilit
and our findings herein should not in any way be
treated as having any material bearing on any other
judicial action which the parties may choose to file
against each other.
A.C. No. 4808
Atty. RRR contends that she was denied her right to
due process because the IBP Board of Governors did
not permit her to personally confront the
complainant.
We do ot o side Att . RRRs o te tio alid. She
was accorded full due process, for she in fact
participated in all stages of the proceedings.
It is true that a lawyer shall not be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law until she has had
full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the
charges against her, to produce witnesses in her
behalf, and to be heard by herself or counsel.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
5
Co t a to Att . RRRs i siste e, ho e e , the IBP
Board of Governors was under no legal obligation to
conduct a trial-type proceeding at which she could
have personally confronted BBB. In other words, the
lack of such proceeding neither diminished her right
to due process nor deprived her of the right. A formal
investigation entailing notice and hearing is required
in administrative proceedings for disbarment, but the
imperative need of notice and hearing does not
always mean the holding of an adversarial trial-type
proceeding. Due process is still satisfied when the
parties are afforded the reasonable opportunity to be
heard and to submit evidence in support of their
respective sides.
A.C. No. 8620
Atto e s O ligatio to tell the t uth
All attorneys in the Philippines, including the
respondent, have sworn to the vows embodied in
follo i g La e s Oath, iz:
I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I
will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I
will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
A.C. No. 8620
The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the
La e s Oath, p o idi g:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all
attorneys, as officers of the Court, to act with the
highest standards of honesty, integrity, and
trustworthiness. All attorneys are thereby enjoined to
obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any
falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the
doing of any in court, and to conduct themselves
according to the best of their knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to their clients. Being also servants of the Law,
attorneys are expected to observe and maintain the
rule of law and to make themselves exemplars worthy
of emulation by others. The least they can do in that
regard is to refrain from engaging in any form or
manner of unlawful conduct (which broadly includes
any act or omission contrary to law, but does not
necessarily imply the element of criminality even if it
is broad enough to include such element).
A.C. No. 8620
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon
his admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court" and he shall
"conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of
his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to his clients." He should bear in
mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is
to correctly inform the court upon the law and the
facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and
arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other
hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty
from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.
While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his
lie ts ights a d is e pe ted to display the utmost
zeal i defe se of his lie ts ause, his o du t ust
never be at the expense of truth.
Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys
not only the presumption of regularity in the
discharge of their duties, but also the immunity from
liability to others for as long as the performance of
their obligations to their clients does not depart from
their character as servants of the Law and as officers
of the Court. In particular, the statements they make
in behalf of their clients that are relevant, pertinent,
or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely
privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such
cloak of privilege is necessary and essential in
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
6
e su i g the u hi de ed se i e to thei lie ts
causes and in protecting the lie ts o fide es. With
the cloak of privilege, they can freely and
courageously speak for their clients, verbally or in
writing, in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial
proceedings, without running the risk of incurring
criminal prosecution or actions for damages.
A.M. No. 08-4-253-RTC
Section 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary directs a judge to
take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become aware.
This imperative duty becomes the more urgent when
the act or omission the court personnel has
supposedly committed is in the nature of a grave
offense, like the bundy-cards incident involved herein.
It would have been surely demanded in the best
interest of the public service, if not of the court itself,
that the act or omission reported by the judicial audit
team to Judge CCC as the Acting Executive Judge be
investigated and properly dealt with promptly.
The explanation of Judge CCC of having no more time
and space to look into the bundy-cards incident was
implausible. Having been informed of the anomaly on
September 19, 2007, he had at least two months prior
to November 21, 2007, his retirement date, within
which to carry out his investigation, and to render a
report thereon. That length of time was ample, if only
he had acted promptly to investigate the incident.
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J
Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary clearly enjoins
that:
Section 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in
all proceedings before the court and be patient,
dignified and courteous in relation to litigants,
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require
similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff
and others subject to their influence, direction or
control.
We point out that publicizing professional
qualifications or boasting of having studied in and
graduated from certain law schools, no matter how
prestigious, might have even revealed, on the part of
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Justice OOO and Justice HHH, their bias for or against
some lawyers. Their conduct was impermissible,
consequently, for Section 3, Canon 4 of the New Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
demands that judges avoid situations that may
reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality in their personal relations with
individual members of the legal profession who
practice regularly in their courts.
Judges should be dignified in demeanor, and refined
in speech. In performing their judicial duties, they
should not manifest bias or prejudice by word or
conduct towards any person or group on irrelevant
grounds. It is very essential that they should live up to
the high standards their noble position on the Bench
demands. Their language must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be
misconstrued. In this regard, Section 3, Canon 5 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, mandates judges to carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as
the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial
colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant
ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such
duties.
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1714
As can be seen, Judge LLL made or allowed too many
unreasonable postponements that inevitably delayed
the proceedings and prevented the prompt
disposition of Criminal Case No. 111 out of manifest
bias in favor of the accused, to the prejudice of SSS as
the complainant in Criminal Case No. 111.
Thus, he flagrantly violated the letter and spirit both
of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which
enjoined all judges to administer justice impartially
and without delay; and of Canon 6 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics, which required him as a trial judge "to
be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to
him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice
denied."
That his conduct proceeded from his bias towards the
accused rendered his acts and omissions as gross
misconduct. It is settled that the misconduct is grave if
it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or
disregard of long-standing rules, which must be
established by substantial evidence; otherwise, the
misconduct is only simple.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
7
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182 (Formerly A.M. No. 08-3007-RTJ)
In the absence of any showing that improper motives
or corruption had actuated the respondents, the
respondents should be presumed to have acted in
utmost good faith in assigning Civil Case No. MC08-
3660 according to the existing practice of raffling
cases adopted by the Raffle Committee. As such, they
could not be held guilty of either gross ignorance of
the law or grave misconduct. To constitute gross
ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not
only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but
must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty
and corruption. Grave misconduct refers to a
wrongful act inspired by corruption or intention to
violate the law.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ
Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution
requires that all cases or matters filed after the
effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless
reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all
lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other
lower courts. Thereby, the Constitution mandates all
justices and judges to be efficient and speedy in the
disposition of the cases or matters pending in their
courts.
Reiterating the mandate, the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to
"devote their professional activity to judicial duties,
which include xxx the performance of judicial
functions and responsibilities in court and the making
of decisions xxx," and to "perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness." Likewise, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct imposes on all judges the duty to
dispose of thei ou ts usi ess p o ptl a d to
decide cases within the required periods.
These judicial canons directly demand efficiency from
the judges in obvious recognition of the right of the
public to the speedy disposition of their cases. In such
context, the saying justice delayed is justice
denied becomes a true encapsulation of the felt need
for efficiency and promptness among judges.
Adm. Case No. 9058
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach,
the negligent act of the attorney should be gross and
inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly
p ejudi ial to the lie ts interest. Accordingly, the
Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a
grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to
file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to
file an appeal, especially when the failure occurred
after the attorney moved for several extensions to file
the pleading and offered several excuses for his
nonfeasance. The Court has found the attendance of
inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a
wrong remedy, or belatedly files an appeal, or
inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to
attend scheduled court hearings. Gross misconduct on
the part of an attorney is determined from the
circumstances of the case, the nature of the act done
and the motive that induced the attorney to commit
the act.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
prohibits an attorney from representing a party in a
controversy that is either directly or indirectly related
to the subject matter of a previous litigation involving
another client. Relevantly, Rule 15.01, Rule15.02 and
Rule15.03 provide:
Rule 15.01A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective
client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether
the matter would involve a conflict with another client
or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform
the prospective client.
Rule 15.02A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Representing conflicting interests would occur only
he e the atto e s e e gage e t ould e ui e
her to use against a former client any confidential
information gained from the previous professional
relation. The prohibition did not cover a situation
where the subject matter of the present engagement
was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of
the attorney. To constitute the violation, the attorney
should be shown to intentionally use against the
former client the confidential information acquired by
her during the previous employment. But a mere
allegation of professional misconduct would not
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
8
suffice to establish the charge, because accusation
was not synonymous with guilt.
G.R. No. 156296
As a ule, a lie t is ou d his ou sels o du t,
negligence and mistake in handling a case. To allow a
lie t to diso his ou sels o du t ould e de
proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to
reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing
counsel.
But the rule admits of exceptions. In several rulings,
the Court held the client not concluded by the
negligence, incompetence or mistake of the counsel.
For instance, the Court set aside the judgment and
mandated the trial court to reopen the case for the
reception of the evidence for the defense after finding
that the eglige e of the the ei petitio e s ou sel
had deprived her of the right to present and prove her
defense. Also, the Court ordered restored to the
petitioner her property that had been sold at public
auction in satisfaction of a default judgment resulting
from the failure of her counsel to file an answer and
f o ou sels la k of igila e i p ote ti g he
interests in subsequent proceedings before the trial
court and the CA. Lastly, the Court declared that an
exception to the rule that a client is bound by the
mistakes of his counsel is when the negligence of the
counsel is so gross that the client was deprived of his
day in court, thereby also depriving the client of his
property without due process of law.
G.R. No. 156296
When the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience
of counsel is so great and the result is so serious that
the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is
prejudiced and denied his day in court, the client
deserves another chance to present his case; hence,
the litigation may be reopened for that purpose. Also,
when an unsuccessful party has been prevented from
fully and fairly presenting his case because of his
atto e s p ofessio al delinquency or infidelity the
litigation may be reopened to allow the party to
present his side. Lastly, where counsel is guilty of
gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty,
hi h esulted i the lie ts ei g held lia le fo
damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his
day in court and the judgment may be set aside on
such ground.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217
A judge may not involve himself in any activity that is
an aspect of the private practice of law. His
acceptance of an appointment to the Bench inhibits
him from engaging in the private practice of law,
regardless of the beneficiary of the activity being a
member of his immediate family. He is guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a judge otherwise.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217
Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly
prohibits sitting judges like Judge MMM from
engaging in the private practice of law or giving
professional advice to clients.
Section 11, Canon 4 (Propriety), of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct and Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct reiterate the prohibition from engaging in the
private practice of law or giving professional advice to
clients. The prohibition is based on sound reasons of
public policy, considering that the rights, duties,
privileges and functions of the office of an attorney
are inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of
a sitting judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give
their full time and attention to their judicial duties,
prevent them from extending favors to their own
private interests, and assure the public of their
impartiality in the performance of their functions.
These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral
decency and desire to promote the public interest.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217
The term practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases in court or to participation in court
proceedings, but extends to the preparation of
pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, the
giving of legal advice to clients or persons needing the
same, the preparation of legal instruments and
contracts by which legal rights are secured, and the
preparation of papers incident to actions and special
proceedings.
To the Court, then, Judge MMM engaged in the
private practice of law by assisting his daughter at his
wife's administrative case, coaching his daughter in
making manifestations or posing motions to the
hearing officer, and preparing the questions that he
prompted to his daughter in order to demand that
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
9
Atty. EEE, collaborating counsel of the complainants'
principal counsel, should produce his privilege tax
receipt. Judge MMM did so voluntarily and knowingly,
in light of his unhesitating announcement during the
hearing that he was the counsel for Atty. KKK, the
counsel of the respondent, as his response to the
query by the opposing counsel why he was seated
next to Atty. KKK thereat.
A.C. No. 6664
An attorney who wittingly represents and serves
conflicting interests may be suspended from the
practice of law, or even disbarred when circumstances
so warrant.
A.C. No. 6664
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts." Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his
group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of their
rights. He was expected to exert his best efforts and
a ilit to p ese e the lie ts ause, for the
unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise
served the ends of justice.
A.C. No. 6664
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one
lie t, it is the la e s dut to fight fo a issue o
claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other
client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when he argues for
the other client." This rule covers not only cases in
which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has
been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict
of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which
he represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent
an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.
A.C. No. 6664
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned
to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be
representing a client whose interest is directly adverse
to any of his present or former clients. In the same
way, a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a
client involving the same or a substantially related
matter that is materially adverse to the former client
only if the former client consents to it after
consultation.
The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of
loyalty. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected
with the client's case, including the weak and strong
points of the case. Knowledge and information
gathered in the course of the relationship must be
treated as sacred and guarded with care. It behooves
la e s ot o l to keep i iolate the lie ts
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing, for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice. The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree.
A.C. No. 6664
The termination of the attorney-client relationship
does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.
The spi it ehi d this ule is that the lie ts
confidence once given should not be stripped by the
mere expiration of the professional employment.
Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer
should not do anything that will injuriously affect his
former client in any matter in which the lawyer
previously represented the client. Nor should the
la e dis lose o use a of the lie ts o fide es
acquired in the previous relation. In this regard, Canon
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly
declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him."
The la e s highest a d most unquestioned duty is
to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
10
himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual
and does not cease with the termination of the
litigatio , o is it affe ted the lie ts easi g to
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any
other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.
A.C. No. 6732
The respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for
having authored the falsification of the decision in a
non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers
should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of
the Legal Profession.
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to
engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct.
A.C. No. 6732
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify
a la e s dis a e t o suspension from the practice
of law. Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the
court decision by the respondent was an act that
reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part.
Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration
of justice in this country, given the purpose of the
falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal
on the personal status of a person. He thereby
became unworthy of continuing as a member of the
Bar.
A.C. No. 6732
It then becomes timely to remind all members of the
Philippine Bar that they should do nothing that may in
any way or degree lessen the confidence of the public
in their professional fidelity and integrity. The Court
will not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline
on those among them who wittingly and willingly fail
to eet the e du i g de a ds of thei Atto e s
Oath for them to:
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; x x x not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue on groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; x x
x delay no man for money or malice, and x x x conduct
themselves as lawyers according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to their clients x x x.
A.C. No. 6732
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the
practice of the legal profession is always a privilege
that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that
the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him
ho fails to o se e a d espe t the La e s Oath
and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional
and private capacities. He may be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law not only for acts
and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his
professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct
not directly connected with his professional duties
that reveal his unfitness for the office and his
unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to
practice law confers upon him.
Adm. Case No. 9612
Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and
concerns of his clients. He must be ever mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him by the clients. His
duty to safegua d the lie ts i te ests o e es
from his engagement as such, and lasts until his
effective release by the clients. In that time, he is
expected to take every reasonable step and exercise
o di a a e as his lie ts i te ests a e ui e.
Adm. Case No. 9612
A atto e s a epta e of the su s of o e to
enable him to attend to the transfer of title and to
complete the adoption case initiated the lawyer-client
relationship. From that moment on, the attorney
assumed the duty to render competent and efficient
professional service to his clients. Yet, he failed to
discharge his duty. He was inefficient and negligent in
going about what the professional service he had
assumed required him to do. He concealed his
inefficiency and neglect by giving false information to
his clients about having already paid the capital gains
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
11
tax. In reality, he did not pay the capital gains tax,
rendering the clients liable for a substantial financial
liability in the form of penalties.
Without doubt, Atty. MMM had the obligation to
serve his clients with competence and diligence. Rule
18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, expressly so demanded of him, to wit:
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC
The Court cannot overstress its policy on prompt
disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in the
disposition of cases is a major culprit in the erosion of
public faith and confidence in the judicial system, as
judges have the sworn duty to administer justice
without undue delay. Thus, judges have been
constantly reminded to strictly adhere to the rule on
the speedy disposition of cases and observe the
periods prescribed by the Constitution for deciding
cases, which is three months from the filing of the last
pleading, brief or memorandum for lower courts.
Nonetheless, the Court has been mindful of the plight
of our judges and understanding of circumstances
that may hinder them from promptly disposing of
their businesses. Hence, the Court has allowed
extensions of time to decide cases beyond the 90-day
period. All that a judge needs to do is to request and
justify an extension of time to decide the cases, and
the Court has almost invariably granted such request.
A.M. No. CA-13-51-J
A judges failu e to o e tl i te p et the la o to
properly appreciate the evidence presented does not
necessarily incur administrative liability, for to hold
him administratively accountable for every erroneous
ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred,
will be nothing short of harassment and will make his
position doubly unbearable. His judicial office will
then be rendered untenable, because no one called
upon to try the facts or to interpret the law in the
process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment. Administrative sanction and criminal
liability should be visited on him only when the error
is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or is committed
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
with evident bad faith, or only in clear cases of
violations by him of the standards and norms of
propriety and good behavior prescribed by law and
the rules of procedure, or fixed and defined by
pertinent jurisprudence.
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320
The requirements for a valid administrative charge
against a sitting Judge or Justice are found in Section
1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes as
follows:
Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for the
discipline of judges of regular and special courts and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the
Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint,
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said allegations,
or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by
public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint
shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely
the acts and omissions constituting violations of
standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the
Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Based on the rule, the three modes of instituting
disciplinary proceedings against sitting Judges and
Justices are, namely: (a) motu proprio, by the Court
itself; (b) upon verified complaint, supported by the
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the
facts alleged therein, or by the documents
substantiating the allegations; or (c) upon anonymous
complaint but supported by public records of
indubitable integrity.
G.R. No. 161878
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which required him as an attorney to exert every
eo t a d to o side it his dut to assist i the
speed a d e ie t ad i ist atio of justi e. He
should not ever ignore such duty, even upon the
pretext of giving his entire devotion to the interest of
his clients. He ought not to forget that as an attorney,
he as, st a d fo e ost, a o e of the ou t,
ou d to e e t e e eo t to o pl ith the
requirement under Canon 12.
G.R. No. 183952
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
12
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.
G.R. No. 183952
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 26. Change of attorneys. - An attorney may
retire at anytime from any action or special
proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in
court. He may also retire at any time from an action or
special proceeding, without the consent of his client,
should the court, on notice to the client and attorney,
and on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of
the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the
docket of the court in place of the former one, and
written notice of the change shall be given to the
adverse party.
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.
G.R. No. 183952
It remains entitled to the compensation, and its right
is safeguarded by the Court because its members are
officers of the Court who are as entitled to judicial
protection against injustice or imposition of fraud
committed by the client as much as the client is
against their abuses as her counsel. In other words,
the duty of the Court is not only to ensure that the
attorney acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also
to see to it that the attorney is paid his just fees. Even
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
if the compensation of the attorney is dependent only
on winning the litigation, the subsequent withdrawal
of the ase upo the lie ts i itiati e ould ot
deprive the attorney of the legitimate compensation
for professional services rendered.
IPI No. 12-203-CA-J
The rule on inhibition and disqualification of judges is
laid down in Sec. 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 1.Disqualification of judges. No judge or
judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his
wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to
either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in
which he has been executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in ny
inferior court when his rulingor decision is the subject
of review, without the written consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or
valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
IPI No. 12-203-CA-J
Thus stated, the rule contemplates two kinds of
inhibition: compulsory disqualification assumes that a
judge cannot actively or impartially sit on a case for
the reasons stated in the first paragraph,
while voluntary inhibition under the second paragraph
lea es to the judges dis etio hethe he should
desist from sitting in a case for other just and valid
reasons with only his conscience to guide him.
The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter
of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the
judge. This discretion is an acknowledgement of the
fact that judges are in a better position to determine
the issue of inhibition, as they are the ones who
directly deal with the parties-litigants in their
courtrooms. The decision on whether he should
inhibit himself, however, must be based on his
rational and logical assessment of the circumstances
prevailing in the case brought before him.
The rule does not give the judge the unfettered
discretion to decide whether he should desist from
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
13
hearing a case. The inhibition must be for just and
valid causes. The mere imputation of bias, partiality
and prejudgment will not suffice in the absence of
clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that the judge will undertake his noble
role to dispense justice according to law and evidence
and without fear or favor. The disqualification of a
judge cannot be based on mere speculations and
surmises or be predicated on the adverse nature of
the judges uli gs to a ds the o a t fo i hi itio .
A.M. No. RTJ-13-2356
It is a general principle, abundantly sustained by
authority and reason, that no civil action can be
sustained against a judicial officer for the recovery of
damages by one claiming to have been injured by the
officer's judicial action within his jurisdiction. From the
very nature of the case, the officer is called upon by
law to exercise his judgment in the matter, and the law
holds his duty to the individual to be performed when
he has exercised it, however erroneous or disastrous in
its consequences it may appear either to the party or
to others.
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has
the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint
by substantial evidence. Failure to do so will lead to
the dismissal of the complaint for its lack of merit. This
is because an administrative charge against any
official of the Judiciary must be supported by at least
substantial evidence. But when the charge equates to
a criminal offense, such that the judicial officer may
suffer the heavy sanctions of dismissal from the
service, the showing of culpability on the part of the
judicial officer should be nothing short of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, especially because the
charge is penal in character.
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment constitutes a
serious criminal offense. Article 204, Revised Penal
Code, provides that any judge who "knowingly
render[s] an unjust judgment in any case submitted to
him for decision" is punished with prision mayor and
perpetual absolute disqualification.
To commit the offense, the offender must be a judge
who is adequately shown to have rendered an unjust
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
judgment, not one who merely committed an error of
judgment or taken the unpopular side of a
controversial point of law. The term knowingly means
"sure knowledge, conscious and deliberate intention
to do an injustice."
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
The filing of unfounded and baseless administrative
charges against sitting judicial officers may constitute
indirect contempt under Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has
been filed, and an opportunity given to the
respondent to comment thereon within such period
as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by
himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
process, order, or judgment of a court, including the
act of a person who, after being dispossessed or
ejected from any real property by the judgment or
process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters
or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon
such real property, for the purpose of executing acts
of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs
the possession given to the person adjudged to be
entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court,
and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an
order or process of a court held by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to
prevent the court from issuing process to bring the
respondent into court, or from holding him in custody
pending such proceedings.
A.C. No. 3452
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
14
B the La e s Oath is e e la e e joi ed ot o l
to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from
doing any falsehood in or out of court or from
consenting to the doing of any in court, and to
conduct himself according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to his clients.
A.C. No. 3452
Every lawyer is a servant of the Law, and has to
observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an
exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no
means a coincidence, therefore, that honesty,
integrity and trustworthiness are emphatically
reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
to wit:
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court
hearings.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
easo a le ti e to lie ts e uest fo i fo atio .
Atty. AAA abjectly failed the expectations of honesty,
integrity and trustworthiness in his dealings with SSS
as the client, and with the RTC as the trial court. He
resorted to outright falsification by superimposing "0"
on "4" in order to mislead SSS into believing that he
had already filed the complaint in court on June 10,
2008 as promised, instead of on June 14, 2008, the
date when he had actually done so.
A.C. No. 3452
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 La e s Oath. O l the e a la e s p ese e
their fitness to remain as members of the Law
Profession. Any resort to falsehood or deception,
i ludi g adopti g a tifi es to o e up o es
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
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Law Profession. It deserves for the guilty lawyer stern
disciplinary sanctions.
A.C. No. 5329
To begin with, the holding of the meeting between
Att . BBB, HHHs ou sel, a d Att . AAA i the
espo de ts offi e as ot suspi ious o i egula ,
contrary to the insinuation of HHH. We are not
unmindful of the practice of some legal practitioners
to arrange to meet with their opposing counsels and
their clients in the premises of the offices of the public
prosecutors or in the courthouses primarily because
such premises are either a convenient or a neutral
ground for both sides. Accordingly, holding the
meeting between HHH and his adversary, with their
espe ti e ou sels, i the espo de ts offi e did ot
by itself indicate any illegal or corrupt activity. We also
note that the respondent was not present in the
meeting.
A.C. No. 7474
The La e s Oath is a sou e of o ligatio s a d
duties for every lawyer, and any violation thereof by
an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment,
suspension, or other disciplinary action. The oath
exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit." These are not mere facile words, drift
and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld
and keep inviolable.
As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. DDD was aware of his
dut u de his La e s Oath ot to i itiate
groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also
been expressly embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility thuswise:
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive
or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
a a s ause.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled
him to see to it that the orderly administration of
justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he
must resist the whims and caprices of his clients and
te pe his lie ts p ope sities to litigate, so ust he
equally guard himself against his own impulses of
initiating unfounded suits. While it is the Cou ts dut
to investigate and uncover the truth behind charges
against judges and lawyers, it is equally its duty to
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
15
shield them from unfounded suits that are intended
to vex and harass them, among other things.
A.C. No. 7474
Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility pertinently state:
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.
xxxx
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound
to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and
to promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees
the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the
institution would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.
A.C. No. 10179
Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty
and responsibility to maintain his good moral
character. In this regard, good moral character is not
only a condition precedent relating to his admission
into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition
in order for him to maintain his membership in the
Philippine Bar. The Court unwaveringly demands of
him to remain a competent, honorable, and reliable
individual in whom the public may repose confidence.
Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in
serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the
practice of law.
A.C. No. 10179
Being a lawyer, Atty. DS was well aware of the
objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. If
he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know
them, for the law was penal in character and
application. His issuance of the unfunded check
involved herein knowingly violated Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the
pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest
a d pu li o de . He the e s ept aside his La e s
Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution
and obey the laws. He also took for granted the
express commands of the Code of Professional
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03, viz:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
A.C. No. 10179
A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety,
and his behavior should be beyond reproach
anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the
courts and keepers of the public's faith, they are
burdened with the highest degree of social
responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all
times in a manner consistent with truth and honor.
Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to impresses
upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor in their
relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be
disciplined for any conduct, whether in their
professional or in their private capacity, if such
conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers
of the court.
That his act involved a private dealing with OOO did
not matter. His being a lawyer invested him whether
he was acting as such or in a non- professional
capacity with the obligation to exhibit good faith,
fairness and candor in his relationship with others.
There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined
not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also
for any misconduct committed outside of his
professional capacity. His being a lawyer demanded
that he conduct himself as a person of the highest
moral and professional integrity and probity in his
dealings with others.
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
16
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1823
The fo egoi g i o g uities o tai ed i Judge AAAs
explanation inevitably lead us to conclude that he
took a personal interest in the firearm and
appropriated it. Accountability for his actuations is
inescapable for him. He was guilty of misusing
evidence entrusted to his court. He thereby did not
live up to the exacting standards prescribed by
the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically its
Canon 2 and Canon 4, viz:
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge
of the judicial office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges.
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be
so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must
eaffi the peoples faith i the i teg it of the
judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must
also be seen to be done.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a
judge.
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J
It is a general principle, abundantly sustained by
authority and reason, that no civil action can be
sustained against a judicial officer for the recovery of
damages by one claiming to have been injured by the
offi e s judi ial a tio ithi his ju isdi tio . F o
the very nature of the case, the officer is called upon
by law to exercise his judgment in the matter, and the
law holds his duty to the individual to be performed
when he has exercised it, however erroneous or
disastrous in its consequences it may appear either to
the party or to others.
A.C. No. 6738
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes. He shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct; or counsel or abet
activities aimed at a defiance of the law or at a
lessening of confidence in the legal system. He should
advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or
disobey it. Conversely, he should not recommend to
his client any recourse or remedy that is contrary to
law, public policy, public order, and public morals.
A.C. No. 6738
The lawyer argues that his proposal did not deceive
the complainant because he had informed her on all
the "steps" to be taken on her behalf. His argument
misses the point, which is that he made the proposal
despite its patent illegality in order to take advantage
of the complainant's limited legal knowledge of the
regular procedures for the transfer of title under
circumstances of intestacy. In other words, he made
her agree to the "direct registration" through deceitful
misrepresentation. He then ignored the written
demands from her, which forced her in the end to
finally charge him with disbarment. He thereby
abused his being a lawyer to the hilt in order to cause
not only his client but also the public in general to
doubt the sincerity of the members of the Law
Profession, and consequently diminish the public's
trust and confidence in lawyers in general.
A.C. No. 8261
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a
lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed
either in his professional or private capacity. The test
is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, or whether his conduct renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.
Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all
times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession.
Lawyers are similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the same Code not to engage in any unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Failure to
observe these tenets of the Code of Professional
Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary
sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, viz.:
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
17
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court, grounds therefor. 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 wilful
disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
A.C. No. 8261
Even assuming that Atty. VVV and Atty. TTT initiated
and participated in the settlement of the case, there
was nothing wrong in their doing so. It was actually
their obligation as lawyers to do so, pursuant to Rule
1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, viz.:
Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, viz.:
RULE 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement.
A.C. No. 8261
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglecta legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
easo a le ti e to the lie ts e uest fo
information.
A.C. No. 8261
The Law Profession did not burden its members with
the responsibility of indefinite service to the clients;
hence, the rendition of professional services depends
on the agreement between the attorney and the
client.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383
Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides
that conduct above reproach is essential not only in
the proper discharge of the judicial office but also in
the personal life of judges. Section 1 of Canon 2
clearly states:
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure. that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be
so in the view of a reasonable observer.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383
A judge should always conduct himself in a manner
that would preserve the dignity, independence and
respect for himself/herself, the Court and the
Judiciary as a whole. He must exhibit the hallmark
judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-
restraint. He should choose his words and exercise
more caution and control in expressing himself. In
other words, a judge should possess the virtue
of gravitas.
A.C. No. 2404
The lawyer-client relationship begins from the
moment a client seeks the lawyer's advice upon a
legal concern. The seeking may be for consultation on
transactions or other legal concerns, or for
representation of the client in an actual case in the
courts or other fora. From that moment on, the
lawyer is bound to respect the relationship and to
maintain the trust and confidence of his client. No
written agreement is necessary to generate a lawyer-
client relationship, but in formalizing it, the lawyer
may present a retainer agreement to be considered
and agreed to by the client. As with all contracts, the
agreement must contain all the terms and conditions
agreed upon by the parties.
A.C. No. 2404
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
transactions with their clients. Specifically, Canon
15.03 demands that: "A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." A
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
18
conflict of interest exists where a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two opposing parties, like
when the lawyer performs an act that will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he
represented him, or when the lawyer uses any
knowledge he previously acquired from his first client
against the latter. The prohibition against conflict of
interest is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste, inasmuch as the lawyer-client relationship
is based on trust and confidence. A lawyer has a duty
to preserve his client's confidence in him, even if their
relationship ends. The purpose is to assure freedom of
communication between the lawyer and the client in
order to enable the former to properly represent and
serve the latter's interests. To use against the latter
any information the former gains during the
relationship is deplorable and unethical.
A.C. No. 7072
As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, the
respondent was mandated to discharge his sacred
duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for
the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment
or jurat. Indeed, such responsibility was incumbent
upon him by virtue of his solemn Lawyer's Oath to do
no falsehood or consent to the doing of any, and by
virtue of his undertaking, pursuant to the Code of
Professional Responsibility, not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. His failure to ascertain the identity of
the person executing the same constituted gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as a
notary public. As such, it is now unavoidable for him
to accept the commensurate consequences of his
indiscretion.
He thus breached Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, by which he as an attorney
commissioned to serve as a notary public was
required to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land, and promote respect for the law and legal
processes.
A.C. No. 7388
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service.
To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the respondent must be
shown to have accepted the engagement or
employment in relation to a matter that, by virtue of
his judicial office, he had previously exercised power
to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
A.C. No. 7927
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - 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 admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
A.C. No. 8494
To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees,
the following factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility may serve as a
guide, to wit:
(a) the time spent and the extent of the services
rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
(c) the importance of the subject matter;
(d) the skill demanded;
(e) the probability of losing other employment as a
result of acceptance of the proffered case;
(f) the customary charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
belongs;
(g) the amount involved in the controversy and the
benefits resulting to the client from the service;
(h) the contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) the character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
19
(j) the professional standing of the lawyer.
A.C. No. 8494
A contingent fee arrangement is a contract in writing
in which the fee, usually a fixed percentage of what
may be recovered in the action, is made to depend
upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a
supposed right. The amount of the contingent fee
agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation
that counsel will be paid for his legal services only if
the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher
compensation is allowed as contingent fee in
consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get
nothing should the suit fail. Such arrangement is
generally recognized as valid and binding in this
jurisdiction but its terms must be reasonable. Canon
13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states that "a
contract for a contingent fee, when sanctioned by
law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances
of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the
compensation, but should always be subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness."
A.C. No. 7927
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly
provides:
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as
to fees. -- An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall
be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert
witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may
disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on
its own professional knowledge. A written contract for
services shall control the amount to be paid therefor
unless found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.
A.C. No. 7927
Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest immoral or deceitful conduct.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Canon 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients.
Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Canon 20- A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees. Rule 20.4 A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only
to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
A.C. No. 9226
The good moral conduct or character must be
possessed by lawyers at the time of their application
for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained
until retirement from the practice of law. In this
regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxxx
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
xxxx
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
A.C. No. 9226
It is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the
Court, must not only be in fact of good moral
character, but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. More
specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the
Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
20
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards. If the practice of law is to remain an
honorable profession and attain its basic ideals,
whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master
its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives,
accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement
of good moral character is of much greater import, as
far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.
A.C. No. 9226
Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that
is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. To be the basis of
disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so
corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree
or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency.
A.C. No. 9226
The extreme penalty of disbarment was imposed on
the respondent who had abandoned his wife and
maintained an illicit affair with another woman.
Likewise, disbarment was the penalty for a lawyer
who carried on an extra-marital affair with a married
woman prior to the judicial declaration that her
marriage was null and void, while he himself was also
married. In another case we have suspended for two
years, a married attorney who had sired a child with a
former client. Suspension of six months from the
practice of law was meted on the philandering lawyer.
A.C. No. 9464
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court requires that
any applicant for admission to the Bar must show that
no charges against him or her for crimes involving
moral turpitude have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines.
A.C. No. 9464
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
Under Section 27,8 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
lawyer may be disbarred on any of the following
grounds, namely:
(1) deceit;
(2) malpractice;
(3) gross misconduct in office;
(4) grossly immoral conduct;
(5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) violation of the lawyers oath;
(7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court; and
(8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a
party to a case without authority so to do.
In fine, in order to hold the lawyer amenable to
disbarment by reason of his or her having committed
a crime involving moral turpitude, it is not enough to
show that there is a pending case involving moral
turpitude against him or her, because Section 27 of
Rule 138 expressly requires that he or she must have
been found by final judgment guilty of the crime
involving moral turpitude.
A.C. No. 10543
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
serviee which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain
as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent
on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
A.C. No. 10757
Every lawyer is required to act with courtesy at all
times, even towards the adverse parties. This duty is
clearly imposed by the Rules of Court which mandates
lawyers to "abstain from all offensive personality and
to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by
the justice of the cause with which he is charged."
Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility reiterates this duty by commanding that
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
21
"[a] lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper."
A.C. No. 10757
The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our
legal system which has necessitated lawyers to use
strong language in the advancement of the interest of
their clients. However, as members of a noble
profession, lawyers are always impressed with the duty
to represent their clients' cause, or, as in this case, to
represent a personal matter in court, with courage and
zeal but that should not be used as license for the use
of offensive and abusive language. In maintaining the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's
language spoken or in his pleadings must be
dignified.
A.C. No. 10757
Atty. PPP's alleged usage of a wrong MCLE compliance
certificate number, or of that pertaining to another
lawyer, if established, could really constitute a
violation of Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which directs that "[a]
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the Court to be misled by any artifice."
A.C. No. 10945
Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the
Philippi e Ba , sole l takes the La e s Oath,
which he vows, among others, that: "I will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to my clients." If he should violate the vow, he
contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly its Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
Canon 18, viz.:
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman
reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
A.C. No. 10945
It is beyond debate, therefore, that the relationship of
the lawyer and the client becomes imbued with trust
and confidence from the moment that the lawyer-
client relationship commences, with the lawyer being
bound to serve his clients with full competence, and
to attend to their cause with utmost diligence, care
and devotion. To accord with this highly fiduciary
relationship, the client expects the lawyer to be
al a s i dful of the fo e s ause a d to e
dilige t i ha dli g the fo e s legal affai s. As an
essential part of their highly fiduciary relationship, the
client is entitled to the periodic and full updates from
the lawyer on the developments of the case. The
lawyer who neglects to perform his obligations
violates Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 11078
The respondent's conduct patently breached Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the
unlawful act or omission of the respondent within the
coverage of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Code exacted from her not only a
firm respect for the law and legal processes but also
the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing
with clients and the moneys entrusted by them
pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275
Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct admonishes all judges to promptly dispose of
the court's business and to decide cases within the
required periods. Failure to render a decision within
the 90-day period from the submission of a case for
decision is detrimental to the honor and integrity of
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)
COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR
22
the judicial office, and constitutes a derogation of the
speedy administration of justice. Accordingly, any
judge who delays the disposition of any case or matter
beyond the prescribed period without the Court's
express clearance is liable for gross inefficiency and
must be administratively sanctioned.
G.R. No. 163157
The award of attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation is governed by Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
to wit:
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's
fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages is awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or
incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against
the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil case or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly
valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just
and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING
 23

Ponencia by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, 2017 Bar Chairman

G.R. No. 163157

The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be

recovered as part of damages because of the policy
that no premium should be placed on the right to
litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party
wins a suit. The power of the court to award
attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual,
legal, and equitable justification. Even when a
claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or
to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's
fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing
of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence
in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the
righteousness of his cause.

To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. (Proverbs 1:7)

COMPILED BY ATTY. R.A.L. CASABAR RESEARCHED BY J. MANINGDING