ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

COLLEGE OF LAW

THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Atty. Cristina Regina Bonoan

Primary Sources:
1987 Constitution
Revised Rules of Court
Code of Professional Responsibility
New Code of Judicial Conduct
Supreme Court Decisions

Reference: “The Code of Professional Responsibility,” Ruben Agpalo

Computation of Grades: Recitation: 50%

Midterms: 20%
Finals: 30%

I. Legal Profession
A. Supervision and Control - Constitution Art. VIII sec. 5(5); Art.
XII sec. 14(2); Art. XVIII sec. 10
 In Re Cunanan, March 18, 1954 (94 Phil 534)
 In the Matter of the IBP, January 9, 1973 (49 SCRA 22)
B. Practice of Law
 Cayetano v. Monsod GR No. 100113; September 3,
1991 (201 SCRA 1991)
 In Re Proposed Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service;
BM No. 2012; February 10, 2009
http://www.lawphil.net/courts/bm/bm_2012_2009.ht
ml

II. Requirements for Admission to the Practice of Law

A. Legal Education
1. Pre-Law: Rule 138 sec. 6, Rules of Court
 2. Law Proper: Rule 138 sec. 5, Rules of Court
3. Republic Act No. 7662 (1993) – Legal Education
Reform Act
4. Legal Education Board Policies and Standards of
Legal Education and Manual of Regulations for Law
Schools (2011) Article III and IV
http://www.leb.gov.ph/attachments/article/43/LEB
MEMO%20Book-Final%20Draft.pdf
B. Citizenship
Constitution, Art. XII sec. 14(2)
Republic Act No. 9225 (2003) – Dual Citizenship Act
 Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice of Law
by Epifanio Muneses; B.M. No. 2112, 24 July 2012
C. Bar Examinations
Rules of Court 138 secs. 7-16
 Re: Reforms in the Bar Examinations; Bar Matter No.
2265, 28 January 2001
 Reforms in the Bar Examinations; B.M. No. 1161, 8
June 2004
 Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing
Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through
Amendments to Rule 138, secs. 5 & 6 of the Rules of
Court; Bar Matter No. 1153, 9 March 2010
 Bar Matter No. 2502, 20 March 2012
 Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Daniel de Guzman,
B.M. No. 1722, 24 April 2009

D. Good Moral Character as Prerequisite to Bar Admission

 In Re: Al C. Argosino, 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
 In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee
Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations, 431
SCRA 146 (2004)
E. Law Student Practice Rule
Rules of Court, Rule 138-A
 Cruz v. Mina 522 SCRA 387 (2007)
 F. Non-Lawyers Authorized to Appear in Court and Quasi-judicial
Agencies
G. Lawyers’ Oath
 SC Resolution dated 25 October 1979 Revised Rules of
Court Form 28; 91 SCRA XV

PART I: CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Canon 1: Promote and Respect Law and Legal Process

 In re Gutierrez 5 SCRA 661 (1962)
 Zaldivar v. Gonzales 166 SCRA 316 (1988)

Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

 Piatt v. Abordo 58 Phil. 350 (1933)
 Ui v. Bonifacio [AC No. 33519, 8 Jun 2000; 333 SCRA 38]
 Figueroa v. Barranco [SBC Case No. 519, 31 Jul 1997; SCRA 445]
 Pimentel v. Llorente [AC No. 4680, 29 Aug 2000; 339 SCRA 154]
 Cordova v. Cordova [AC No. 3249, 29 Nov 1989; 179 Phil 680]
 People v. Tuanda [AC No. 3360, 30 Jan 1990; 181 SCRA 692]
 Castillo vda. de Mijares v. Villaluz [AC No. 4431, 19 Jun 1997; 274
SCRA 1]
 Stemmerik v. Mas [AC No. 8010, 16 Jun 2009; 589 SCRA 114]
 Cordova v. Cordova 179 SCRA 680 (1989)
 Calub v. Suller 323 SCRA 556 (2000)
 Garrido v. Garrido 611 SCRA 508 (2010)
 Ventura v. Samson 686 SCRA 430 (2012)
 De Leon v. Pedrena 708 SCRA 13 (2013)
 Roa v. Moreno 618 SCRA 693 (2010)

September 10

Rule 1.02 – No Counseling to Defy Law

  In re Terrell [GR No. 1203, 15 May 1903; 2 Phil 266]
 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan [GR Nos. 159486-88, 25 Nov 2003; 416
SCRA 465]
 Kupers v. Hontanosas [AC No. 5704, 8 May 2009; 587 SCRA 325]
Rule 1.03 – Not to Encourage Lawsuit or Proceedings

Rule 1.04 – Encourage Client to Avoid Controversy

- Castaneda v. Ago [GR No. 28546, 30 Jul 1975; 65 SCRA 505]

Canon 2 Provide Efficient and Convenient Legal Services

Rule 2.01 – Not to Reject or Oppressed Defenseless or Oppressed Services

 IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment and
Operation of Legal Aid Office, Art.1 sec.1
 Ledesma v. Climaco [GR No. L-23815, 28 Jun 1974; 57 SCRA 473]

Rule 2.02 – Not to Refuse to Give Legal Advice

Rule 2.03 – No Solicitation

Rule 138 sec. 27, Rules of Court
 In Re: Tagorda [G.R. No. 32329. March 23, 1929; 53 Phil 37]
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic [BM No. 553. June 17, 1993; 223 SCRA 378]
 Linsangan v. Tolentino [A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009]
 Villatuya v. Tabalingcos [A.C. No. 6622. July 10, 2012 676 SCRA 37]

Rule 2.04 – No Rates Lower Than Customarily Charged

Canon 3 Information on Legal Services that is True, Honest, Fair, Dignified,

and Objective

Rule 3.01 – No False or Unfair Claim re: Qualifications

 Khan v. Simbillo [A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003; 409 SCRA 299]

Rule 3.02 – No False or Misleading Firm Name

 Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie [AC No. 2131. May 10, 1985; 136
SCRA 349]
  In re Petition of Sycip [July 30, 1979; 92 SCRA 1]

Rule 3.03 – Partners Assuming Public Office

Constitution Art. 6, sec. 14; Art. 7, sec. 13; Art. 9, sec. 2
 Samonte v. Gatdula [AM No. P-99-1292. February 26, 1999; 303 SCRA
756]

Rule 3.04 – Not Use Media to Attract Legal Business

 Cruz v. Salva [G.R. No. L-12871. July 25, 1959; 105 Phil 1151]

Canon 4 Particitipate in Improvement of the Legal System: Support Law

Reforms and Administration of Justice

Canon 5 Participate in Legal Education Program

 Bar Matter 850 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Bar Matter
No. 1922, dated June 3, 2008
 Rodriguez Manahan v. Flores [AC No. 8954. Nov. 13, 2013; 709
SCRA 297]

Canon 6 Canons Apply to Lawyers In Government Service

RA 6713 CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES (1989) sec. 4
 Collantes v. Renomeron [A.C. No. 305. August 16, 1991; 200 SCRA
584]
 Office of the Court Administrator v. Ladaga [A.M. No. P-99-
1287. January 26, 2001; 350 SCRA 326]
 Pimentel v. Fabros [A.C. No. 4517. September 11, 2006; 501 SCRA
346]
 Lahm III v. Mayor [A.C. 7430. February 15, 2012; 666 SCRA 1]

Rule 6.01 – Primary Duty: That Justice is Done

 People v Pineda [G.R. No. L-26222. July 21, 1967; 20 SCRA 748]

Rule 6.02 – Not to Use Public Position for Private Interest

 Misamin v. San Juan [A.M. No. 1418. August 31, 1976; 72 SCRA 491]
  Vitriolo v. Dasig [A.C. No. 4984. April 1, 2003; 400 SCRA 172]
 Huyssen v. Gutierrez [A.C. No. 6707. March 24, 2006; 485 SCRA
244]
 Ramos v. Imbang [A.C. No. 6788. August 23, 2007; 530 SCRA 759]
 In re Avecilla [A.C. No. 6683, June 21, 2011]

Rule 6.03 – Not to Accept Employment After Government Service

RA 6713 sec.7 (b)
RA 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT sec. 3 (d)

 Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio [A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC. August 19,

2009]
 PNB v. Cedo [A.C. No. 3701. March 28, 1995; 243 SCRA 1]
 PCGG v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005; 455 SCRA
526]

THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Canon 7 Uphold Dignity and Integrity of the Profession

RA 6397 – Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Rules of Court, Rule 139-A, secs. 9 & 10.
 In re 1989 Elections of the IBP [A.M. No. 491. October 6, 1989; 178
SCRA 398]
 Fernandez v. Grecia [A.C. No. 3694. June 17, 1993; 223 SCRA 425]
 Santos Jr. v. Llamas [A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000; 322 SCRA 529]
 Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo [B.M. No. 1370. May 9, 2005; 458 SCRA
209]
 Velez v. de Vera [A.C. No. 6697. July 25, 2006; 496 SCRA 345]
 2009 IBP Elections [A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC. December 14, 2010; 638 SCRA
1]

Rule 7.01 – No False Statement

 In The Matter Of The Petition For Disbarment Of Telesforo A. Diao
[A.C. No. 244. March 29, 1963; 7 SCRA 475]

Rule 7.02 – Not to Support Unqualified Bar Applicant

Rule 7.03 – No Conduct Adversely Affecting the Profession
 Zaguirre v. Castillo [A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003; 398 SCRA 659]
 Tan v. Sabandal [B.M. No. 44. February 24, 1992; 206 SCRA 473]
 Tapucar v. Tapucar [A.C. No. 4148. July 30, 1998; 293 SCRA 331]
 Guevara v. Eala [A.C. No. 7136. August 1, 2007; 517 SCRA 600]
 Advincula v. Macabata [A.C. No. 7204. March 7, 2007; 517 SCRA 604]

Canon 8 Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards Professional Colleagues

 Bugarin v. Espaol [G.R. No. 133090. January 19, 2001; 349 SCRA 687]
 Reyes v. Chiong [A.C. No. 5148. July 1, 2003; 405 SCRA 212]
 Barandon v. Ferrer [A.C. No. 5768. March 26, 2010; 616 SCRA 529]

Rule 8.01 – No Abusive and Improper Language

 Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro [A.C. No. 6396. October 25, 2005; 474
SCRA 1]
 Alcantara v. Pefianco [A.C. No. 5398. December 3, 2002; 393 SCRA
247]
Rule 8.02 – Not to Encroach on Professional Employment
 Camacho v. Pangulayan [A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000; 328 SCRA
631]

Canon 9 Unauthorized Practice of Law

 Spouses Suarez v. Salazar [G.R. No. 139281. September 29, 1999; 315
SCRA 502]
 Aguirre v. Rana [B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003; 403 SCRA 342]
 Office of the Court Administrator v. Ladaga [A.M. No. P-99-
1287. January 26, 2001; 350 SCRA 326]
 Alawi v. Alauya [A.M. SDC-97-2-P. February 24, 1997; 268 SCRA 639]
Exception: Rules of Court, Rule 138-A
(see earlier case of Cruz v. Mina 522 SCRA 387 (2007)—page 2 of
syllabus)

Rule 9.01 – Not to Delegate Work

Rule 9.02 – Not to Divide Legal Fees
 Halili v. CIR [G.R. No. L-24864 April 30, l985; 136 SCRA 113]
 Lijuaico v. Terrado [A.C. No. 6317. August 31, 2006; 500 SCRA 301]

THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

Canon 10 Observe Candor, Fairness and Good Faith

 Ting Dumali v. Torres [A.C. No. 5161. April 14, 2004; 427 SCRA 108]
 Masinsin v. Albano [G.R. No. 86421. May 31, 1994; 232 SCRA 631]

Rule 10.01 – Truthfulness Towards the

Court
 Young v. Batuegas [A.C. No. 5379. May 9, 2003; 403 SCRA 123]

Rule 10.02 – Not to Misquote or Misrepresent Contents of Paper

 Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association [G.R. No. L-25291
January 30, 1971; 37 SCRA 244]

Plagiarism Cases
 Re: Letter of the U.P. Law Faculty 633 SCRA 418 (2010); March 8,
2011, 644 SCRA 543 (2011), June 7, 2011 [A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC]
o See dissents (Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Sereno, JJ.)
 In the Matter of charges of Plagiarism against Assoc. Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, October 12, 2010 & February 8, 2011 [A.M.
No. 10-7-17-SC]
 Cf. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010
Rule 10.03 – Observe Rules of Procedure
Rule 138, sec. 20 (d), Rules of Court

Canon 11 Respect Courts and Judicial Officers

 In re Sotto, [January 21, 1949; 82 Phil 595]
 Bueno v. Raneses [Adm. Case No. 8383; December 11, 2012]
Rule 11.01 – Proper Attire

Rule 11.02 – Punctuality

Rule 11.03 – Proper Language and Behavior

 In re Almacen [G.R. No. L-27654. February 18, 1970]
 Baculi v. Battung [A.C. No. 8920. September 28, 2011]
 Lacurom v. Jacoba [A.C. No. 5921. March 10, 2006]

Rule 11.04 – Not to Attribute to Judge Motives

 Embido v. Pe Jr. [A.C. No. 6732. October 22, 2013]

Rule 11.05 – Grievances Against Judge

Constitution Art. VII sec. 6
 Maceda v. Vasquez [G.R. No. 102781. April 22, 1993]

Canon 12 Assist in Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice

Rule 138 sec. 20 (g) Rules of Court
Constitution, Art. III sec. 16

Rule 12.01 and Rule 18.02 – Adequate Preparation

Rule 12.02 – Forum Shopping

Rule 12.03 – Not to Delay Cause

Rule 12.04 – Court Process

 Saa v. IBP-CBD [G.R. No. 132826. September 3, 2009]
 Plus Builders v. Revilla [A.C. No. 7056. February 11, 2009]

Rule 12.05 - Rule 12.07 – Proper Behavior

PD 1829 Penalizing Obstruction of Justice

Rule 12.08 – Not to Testify on Behalf of Client

 PNB v. Uy Teng Piao [G.R. No. L-35252. October 21, 1932]
Canon 13 Refrain from Act Giving Appearance of Influence
 Nestle Phil. v. Sanchez [G.R. No. 75209. September 30, 1987]
 Perez V. Estrada Or RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE COVERAGE OF PLUNDER TRIAL
AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT ESTRADA [A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC. September
13, 2001]

Rule 13.01 – No Extraordinary Attention

Rule 13.02 – No Public Statements to Media

 Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio [A.C. No. 7199. July 22, 2009]
 Case apt for Rule 3.04
 See also Cruz v. Salva above discussed under Rule 3.04

Rule 13.03 – Not to Invite Outside Interference

 Maglasang v. People [G.R. No. 90083. October 4, 1990]

THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

Canon 14 Service to the Needy

Republic Act No. 9999 or the Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010

Rule 14.01 – Availability of Services Regardless of Status

Rule 138 sec. 20 Rules of Court See also Rule 2.01

Rule 14.02 – Providing Counsel de Oficio

Rules of Court: Rule 138 sec. 31, 20 (h);
Rule 116 sec. 6-8; Rule 124 sec. 2
PD 543

Rule 14.03 – Valid Ground for Refusal

Rule 14.04 – Same Standard of Conduct for Paying and Non-Paying Clients
RA 6033, RA 6034, RA 6035, RA 6036
Rule on the Exemption from the Payment of Legal Fees of the Clients
of the National Legal Aid Committee and the Local Chapters of the IBP,
A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC (IRR), Sept. 10, 2009
 RA 9406 (2007), sec. 16-D

Canon 15 Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty

Rule 138 sec. 3, Rules of Court

Rule 15.01 and Rule 15.03 – Conflict of Interest

 Hornilla v. Salunat [A.C. No. 5804. July 1, 2003]
 Gonzales v. Cabucana [A.C. No. 6836. January 23, 2006]
 De Guzman v. de Dios [A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001]
 Perez v. de la Torre [A.C. No. 6160. March 3, 2006]

Rule 15.02 – Privileged Communication

 Regala v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 105938. September 20, 1996]
 Castillo v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 138231. February 21, 2002]
 Anion v. Sabitsana [A.C. No. 5098. April 11, 2012]

Rule 15.04 – Mediator, Conciliator or Arbiter

Rule 15.05 – Candid, Honest Advice

Rule 15.06 – Not to Claim Influence

 Mercado v. Security Bank [G.R. No. 160445. February 16, 2006]

Rule 15.07 – Impress Compliance with Laws

Rule 15.08 – Dual Profession

 Nakpil v. Valdez [A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998]

Canon 16 Hold in Trust Client’s Moneys and Properties

Art. 1491, Civil Code

Rule 16.01 – Account

 Berbano v. Barcelona [A.C. No. 6084. September 3, 2003]
 Licuanan v. Melo [A.M. No. 2361. February 9, 1989]
Rule 16.02 – Keep Client’s Fund Separate
 Hernandez v. Go [A.C. No. 1526. January 31, 2005]

Rule 16.03 – Delivery of Funds; Lawyer’s Lien

 Businos v. Ricafort [A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997]
 Rayos v. Hernandez [G. R. No. 169079. Feb. 12, 2007]

Rule 16.04 – No Borrowing, Lending

Canon 17 Trust and Confidence

 Cantiller v. Potenciano [A.M. Case No. 3195. December 18, 1989]
 In re Maquera [B.M. No. 793. July 30, 2004]
 Solatan v. Inocentes [A.C. No. 6504. August 9, 2005]
 Angalan v. Delante [A.C. No. 7181. February 6, 2009]

Canon 18 Competence and Diligence

Rule 18.01 – Client Consent with Collaborating Counsel

Rule 18.02 – Adequate Preparation

Rule 18.03 – Not to Neglect Legal Matters

 Endaya v. Oca [A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003]
 Carandang v. Obmina AC No. 7813, April 21, 2009

Rule 18.04 – Inform Client on Status of Case

 Blanza v. Arcangel [A.C. No. 492. September 5, 1967]
 Abay v. Montesino [A.C. No. 5718. December 4, 2003]

Canon 19 Representation with Zeal

Rule 19.01 – Fair and Honest

Rule 138 sec. 20 (d)

Rule 19.02 – Rectify Client’s Fraud

Rule 19.03 – Control Proceedings

Canon 20 Attorney’s Fees

RA 5185 sec. 6
Rule 138 sec. 24, 32, Rules of Court
 Quirante v. IAC [G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989]
 Albano v. Coloma [A.C. No. 528. October 11, 1967]

Rule 20.01 – Fee Guide

 Roxas v. de Zuzuarregui [G.R. No. 152072. July 31, 2006]
 Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385, February 13, 2009

Rule 20.02 – Client’s Consent of Fees for Referral

 Urban Bank v. Peña [A.C. No. 4863, September 7, 2001, 364 SCRA 597]
 See In re Peña, A.C. 6332, April 17, 2012 – Peña disbarred for
violating Canons 8, 10 & 11
 See Re Letter-Complaint Against Justices Antonio Carpio and
Ma. Lourdes Sereno [A.M. No. 12-6-11-SC. June 13, 2012]

Rule 20.03 – Client’s Consent of Acceptance of Fee

 Rule 138 sec. 20 (e)

Rule 20.04 – Avoid Compensation Controversy with Client

Rule 138 sec. 24, 32, Rules of Court
 Corpus v. CA [G.R. No. L-40424 June 30, 1980]

Canon 21 Preserve Client’s Confidence

Rule 138 sec. 20 (e), Rules of Court
Rule 130 sec. 21 (b), Rules of Court
Art. 208 Revised Penal Code
 Hilado v. David [G.R. No. L-961. September 21, 1949]
 Genato v. Silapan [A.C. No. 4078. July 14, 2003]

Rule 21.01 – Revelations of Confidence and Secrets Allowed

Rule 21.02 – Use of Information Received in Course of Employment Allowed

Rule 21.03 – Prohibition to Giving of Information to Outside Agency

Rule 21.04 - Rule 21.05 – Protection from Disclosure

Rule 21.06 – Prohibition of Indiscreet Conversation

Rule 21.07 – Not to Reveal that Lawyer was

Consulted
Cf Rule 15.01, Rule 14.03

Canon 22 Withdrawal of Services for Good Cause

Rule 22.01 – Good Causes for Withdrawal of Services

 Montano v. IBP [A.C. No. 4215. May 21, 2001]

Rule 22.02 – Duties of Lawyer Who Withdraws

 Obano v. Figueras [G.R. No. 134854. January 18, 2000]

Specific Rules of Practice

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Sup. Ct. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, promulgated
July 6, 2004.
 Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo [A.C. No. 5838. January 17, 2005]
 Sicat v. Ariola [A.C. No. 5864. April 15, 2005]
 Lee v. Tambago [A.C. No. 5281. February 12, 2008]

Discipline of Lawyers
Rules of Court, Rule 139 - B
 Supreme Court Bar Matter No. 1755, dated September 25, 2007
 Maniago v. De Dios [A.C. No. 7472. March 30, 2010]
 Macarubbo v. Macarubbo [Adm. Case No. 6148. January 22, 2013]