TABLE OF CONTENTS i LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Confidentiality Rule .................................................. 20
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
I. Legal Ethics ........................................................ 1
A. PRACTICE OF LAW (RULE 138) ........... 1
1. Concept........................................ 1
Definition .....................................................................1
Practice of Law is Not a Business ................................1
Practice of Law is of mere privilege ............................1
POWER TO CONTROL & REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF
LAW .............................................................................1
2. SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS ................. 2
3. LAWYER’S OATH .............................. 2
4. QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRACTICE OF
LAW ............................................... 2
a. Who May Practice Law ...........................................2
b. Citizenship ...............................................................2
c. Residence .................................................................3
d. Age ..........................................................................3
e. Good Moral Character.............................................3
f. Additional Requirements for Other Applicants ........3
Pre-Law .......................................................................4
Continuing Requirements for the Practice of Law ......4
5. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS ............ 4
a. Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) ..................4
b. NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS......................................5
c. NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ....5
e. PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE PROHIBITED
FROM APPEARING AS COUNSELS................................6
f. SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR APPEARANCE
WITHOUT AUTHORITY ................................................6
6. PRIVILEGES OF ATTORNEY .................. 6
7. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW 6
a. Prohibition or Disqualification of Former
Government Attorneys ................................................7
8. Lawyers Authorized to Represent the
Government ...................................... 7
B. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY ................................ 7
Four-fold duties of a lawyer ................... 8
1. To the Society (Canons 1-6) ................ 8
CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE ..............................9
Valid reasons for refusing to accept representation of
indigent clients (Canon 14, Rule 14.03): ...................10
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
(MCLE) .......................................................................11
2. TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION................ 13
Rule 139-A (Integrated Bar of the Philippines) .........13
In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the
Philippines, January 9, 1973 ......................................13
3. TO THE COURT ............................. 15
Forum Shopping ........................................................17
Requisites of Litis Pendentia .....................................17
Res Judicata requires that: ........................................17
4. TO THE CLIENTS ............................ 18
Circumstances under which a counsel de oficio may
be appointed .............................................................19
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
Privileged communications ...................................... 20
Conflict of interest .................................................... 21
Compliance with laws............................................... 21
Concurrent practice of another profession .............. 21
Authority to Compromise ......................................... 24
Negligence of Lawyer Binding Upon Client .............. 24
Acceptance Fee and Contingency Fee ...................... 25
Contingency fee arrangements ................................ 25
Validity of contingency fee arrangements ............... 25
Attorney’s liens ......................................................... 25
Fees and controversies with clients .......................... 26
CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES .............................. 26
kinds of retainer fees ................................................ 26
Circumstances to be considered in determining the
reasonableness of a claim for attorney’s fees:......... 27
Prohibited disclosures and use ................................. 28
TERMINATION OF ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
.................................................................................. 28
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF
LAWYERS (RULE 139-B) ............................................ 28
READMISSION TO THE BAR ...................................... 31
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
................................................... 32
Persons required to comply with the continuing legal
education:................................................................. 32
REQUIREMENTS........................................................ 32
36 hours of continuing legal education allocation ... 32
COMPLIANCE ............................................................ 32
EXEMPTIONS ............................................................ 33
SANCTIONS ............................................................... 33
REQUIREMENT AMONG PRACTICING LAWYERS IN
THEIR PLEADINGS IMPOSED UNDER BAR MATTER NO.
1922 .......................................................................... 33
MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE ............................ 33
NOTARIAL PRACTICE (A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC,
AS AMENDED) ................................... 34
DEFINITIONS ............................................................. 34
QUALIFICATIONS OF A NOTARY PUBLIC ................... 35
TERM OF OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC ...................... 35
DUTIES OF NOTARY PUBLIC ...................................... 35
REQUIREMENT OF AFFIANT’S PERSONAL
APPEARANCE ............................................................ 35
NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF A NOTARY PUBLIC ....... 36
POWERS AND LIMITATION ....................................... 36
PROHIBITIONS .......................................................... 36
DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 37
Refusal to Notarize ................................................... 37
False or Incomplete Certificate ................................. 37
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC .......................................... 37
NOTARIAL REGISTER ................................................. 37
Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Term of Notarization
.................................................................................. 38
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION ................................ 38
II. JUDICIAL ETHICS .......................................... 40
TERMS:...................................................................... 40
QUALIFICATIONS: .............................40
 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

SOURCES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS ............. 40

Principles of Bangalore Draft .............. 40
QUALITIES ...................................... 40
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT........ 40
Two Concepts of Judicial Independence: .. 41
Individual Judicial Independence ..............................41
Institutional Judicial Independence...........................41
Grounds for Compulsory Inhibition of a Judge..........43
NOTARIAL WORK.......................................................45
Prohibition Against Soliciting Gifts............................45
Duty to Exhibit Competence and Diligence ...............46
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.............................................47
Mandatory 90-day Period for Deciding Cases in Lower
Courts [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec.15(1)]: .......48
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY 48
1. MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT ....................48
2. LOWER COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND SANDIGANBAYAN.............48
INITIATION OF COMPLAINT.......................................49
Hearing and Termination ..........................................49
Report and Action .....................................................49
AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CASES TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ....................49
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR DESISTANCE ...............50
PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES (RULE 140)
...................................................................................50
GROUNDS FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY ..................................................................51
SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON
ERRING MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY ......................51
Malicious Delay in the Administration of
Justice .......................................... 52
DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES (RULE
137) ...........................................................................52
MANDATORY OR COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION52
Voluntary DISQUALIFICATION ...................................53
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 5, RULE
136 OF RULES OF COURT ..................... 53
AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE ................. 54
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OVER
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS .............. 54
POWERS AND DUTIES OF COURTS AND
JUDICIAL OFFICERS (RULE 135) .............. 54
PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS ................. 54
COURT RECORDS AND GENERAL DUTIES OF
CLERKS AND STENOGRAPHER (RULE 136)... 54
Duties of a Clerk ........................................................54
Duty of a Stenographer ....................... 55

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS

LEGAL ETHICS
I. Legal Ethics
It is the branch of moral science which treats of the
duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his
client, to his colleagues in the profession, and to the
public (Malcolm) as embodied in the Constitution,
Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral
law and special laws. (Pineda)
A. PRACTICE OF LAW (RULE 138)
1. CONCEPT
DEFINITION
Any activity in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training, and experience.
According to Justice Padilla, in his dissent in Cayetano
v. Monsod, the following factors are considered in
determining whether there is practice of law
[H.A.C.A]:
(1) Habituality – Practice of law implies customarily
or habitually holding one's self out to the public as
a lawyer. It is more than an isolated appearance
for it consists in frequent or customary action.
✓ However, an isolated appearance may
constitute practice of law when there is a
rule prohibiting some persons from engaging
in the exercise of the legal profession.
(2) Application of law, legal principles, practice or
procedure – It calls for legal knowledge, training
and experience.
(3) Compensation– Practice of law implies that one
must have presented himself to be in the active
and continued practice of the legal profession and
that his professional services are available to the
public for compensation.
(4) Attorney-client relationship – Where no such
relationship exists, such as in cases of teaching
law or writing law books or articles, there is no
practice of law.
Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render
any kind of service which device or service requires
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
Hence, the Supreme Court declared that a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur,
and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor as
engaged in the practice of law. (Cayetano v. Monsod,
G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991)
Teaching law is considered practice of law because the
fact of their being law professors is inextricably
intertwined with the fact that they are lawyers. (Re:
Letter of UP Law Faculty, A.M. 10-10-4-SC)
PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A BUSINESS
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
1 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. Duty to public service and to
the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
(Burbe v. Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002)
PRACTICE OF LAW IS OF MERE
PRIVILEGE
The right to practice law is not a natural or
constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to
persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of
integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment,
and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of
the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right
to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that
can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced law without a license. (Aguirre v. Rana, B.
M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003)
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become
an attorney-at-law. The two essential requisites for
becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely:
His lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and
His signature in the Roll of Attorneys. (Aguirre v.
Rana, supra)
POWER TO CONTROL & REGULATE THE
PRACTICE OF LAW
1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). The Supreme
Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning
the admission to the practice of law.
The authority to decide who may be admitted to the
bar naturally and logically belongs to the judiciary
represented by the Supreme Court in view of the
nature of its judicial function and in the role played by
the attorneys in the administration of justice.(Agpalo)
THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REGULATE
THE PRACTICE OF LAW INCLUDES THE AUTHORITY TO:
(a) Define the term;
(b) Prescribe the qualifications of a candidate to and
the subjects of the bar examinations;
(c) Decide who will be admitted to practice;
(d) Discipline, suspend, or disbar any unfit and
unworthy member of the bar;
(e) Reinstate any disbarred or indefinitely suspended
attorney;
(f) Ordain the Integration of the Philippine Bar;
(g) Punish for contempt any person for unauthorized
practice of law;
(h) Exercise overall supervision of the legal
profession;
(i) Exercise any other power as may be necessary to
LEGAL ETHICS
elevate the standards of the bar and preserve its
integrity. (Agpalo)
2. SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS
1987 Constitution
Rules of Court
Code of Professional Responsibility
Code of Judicial Conduct
Lawyer’s Oath
Supreme Court decisions
Revised Penal Code
New Civil Code
Local Government Code
3. LAWYER’S OATH
I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I
will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support the 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 court; I will not
wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, or 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 obligations without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God.
By the Lawyer's Oath, every lawyer is enjoined not
only 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. 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. (Samonte v. Abellana, 727
SCRA 80, June 23, 2014)
An applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to be
entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and
subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding
oath of office. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 7)
The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or formality
for practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times
weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he
makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers
conducted themselves strictly according to the
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the administration of justice will
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
2 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned (In re: Argosino, supra).
4. QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW
General Rule: Only those who are licensed to practice
law can appear and handle cases in court.
A. WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW
Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of
the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance
with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and
regular standing. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 1)
Exception: The following are also allowed in
exceptional circumstances:
a) Law students,
b) By an agent/friend,
c) By the litigant himself.
Every applicant for admission as a member of the
bar must be:
1. a citizen of the Philippines,
2. at least twenty-one years of age,
3. of good moral character, and
4. a resident of the Philippines; and
5. must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character,
and
6. that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines. (Rules of Court, Rule
138, Sec.2)
B. CITIZENSHIP
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed
by law (Sec. 14, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution).
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be a citizen of the Philippines. (Rules of Court,
Rule 138, Sec. 2)
Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic
and its laws. The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines except when citizenship is lost by reason of
naturalization and reacquired through RA 9225
(Petition to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay, B.M.
1678, December 17, 2007).
A Filipino lawyer who has lost and reacquired his
citizenship under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003) is deemed not to have lost
his Philippine citizenship. However, he still needs to
apply with the Supreme Court for a license or permit
to engage in such practice after compliance with the
following:
(a) Updating and payment of annual
(b) membership dues in the IBP;
LEGAL ETHICS
(c) Payment of professional tax;
(d) Completion of 36 hours of MCLE;
(e) Retaking of the lawyer’s oath (Sec. 5(4), RA
9225).
A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship
under RA 9225, remains to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the
practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides
that a person who intends to practice his profession in
the Philippines must apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by
the Court for the practice of law, the OBC requires the
following:
(a) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
Citizenship;
(b) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
citizenship);
(c) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines;
(d) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau
of Immigration;
(e) Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
(f) Certification from the IBP indicating updated
payments of annual membership dues;
(g) Proof of payment of professional tax; and
(h) Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE
Office. (Petition to Reacquire the Privilege to
Practice Law of Muneses, B.M. 2112, July 24,
2012).
C. RESIDENCE
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be... a resident of the Philippines. (Rules of
Court, Rule 138, Sec.2)
Ratio: His/her duties to his client and to the court will
require that he be readily accessible and available .
D. AGE
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be at least 21 years of age. (Rules of Court, Rule
138, Sec.2)
Ratio: Maturity and discretion are required in the
practice of law.
E. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
Good moral character is a continuing qualification
required of every member of the bar, it is not only a
qualification precedent to the practice of law (Narag
v. Narag, A.C. 3405, June 29, 1998).
Absence of a proven conduct or act which has been
historically and traditionally considered as a
manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or conduct
need not amount to a crime; and even if it does
constitute an offense, a conviction upon a criminal
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
3 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
charge is not necessary to demonstrate bad moral
character although it may show moral depravity
(Agpalo).
Good moral character is what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, the estimate in
which he is held by the public in the place where he is
known [In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar
Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar
Examinations and For Disciplinary Action As Member
of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154, June 8,
2004).
The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oathtaking
based on a conviction for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide (hazing case). But after
submission of evidence and various certifications “he
may now be regarded as complying with the
requirements of good moral character…he is not
inherently of bad moral fiber”. (In re: Argosino, A.M.
712, March 19, 1997).
Concealment of pending criminal cases constitutes
lack of good moral character (in petition to take the
bar examinations) (In the Matter of the
Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In
The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action
As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154
June 8, 2004).
F. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
OTHER APPLICANTS
All applicants for admission shall, before being
admitted to the examination:
satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied
law for four years, and successfully completed all
prescribed courses, in a law school or university,
officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of
Education;
PRESCRIBED COURSES:
Civil Law,
Commercial Law,
Remedial Law,
Criminal Law,
Public and Private International Law,
Political Law,
Labor and Social Legislation,
Medical Jurisprudence,
Taxation
Legal Ethics.
The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a
certificate from the university or school of law, shall
be filed as evidence of such facts, and further
evidence may be required by the court. (Sec.5, Rule
138, Rules of Court)
LEGAL ETHICS
PRE-LAW
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.6. No applicant for
admission to the bar examination shall be admitted
unless he presents a certificate that he has
satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he
began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for
admission thereto the completion of a four-year
high school course, the course of study prescribed
therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences
with any of the following subjects as major or field
of concentration: Political Science, Logic, English,
Spanish, History, and Economics
CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PRACTICE OF LAW
✓ Good and Regular Standing;
✓ Membership in the IBP;
✓ Payment of IBP Dues;
✓ Payment of Professional Tax;
✓ Compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE)
✓ Possession of Good Moral Character.
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their
possession of good moral character is a continuing
condition to preserve their membership in the Bar
in good standing. The continued possession of good
moral character is a requisite condition for remaining
in the practice of law. (Advincula v. Macabata, A.C.
No. 7204, March 7, 2007)
The possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the Legal Profession. Members of the
Bar are clearly duty-bound to observe the highest
degree of morality and integrity in order to safeguard
the reputation of the Bar. Any errant behavior on the
part of a lawyer that tends to expose a deficiency in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor,
be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities, is
sufficient to warrant the lawyer’s suspension or
disbarment. (De Leon v. Pedreña, 708 SCRA 13,
October 22, 2013)
5. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
A. LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
(RULE 138-A)
CONDITIONS FOR STUDENT PRACTICE
A LAW STUDENT WHO HAS:
(1) successfully completed his 3rd year of the
regular four-year prescribed law curriculum
and;
(2) is enrolled in a recognized law school's
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
4 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court,
tribunal, board or officer, to represent
indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic
of the law school. (Rules of Court, Rule 138-
A, Sec. 1)
The appearance of the law student authorized by this
rule shall be under the direct supervision and control
of a member of the IBP duly accredited by the law
school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs,
memoranda, or other papers to be filed, must be
signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of
the legal clinic. (Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 2)
The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no
less than the physical presence of the supervising
lawyer during the hearing.
The Rules safeguarding privileged communications
between attorney and client shall apply. (Rules of
Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 3)
The law student shall comply with the standards of
professional conduct governing members of the bar.
Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision
of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action (Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Sec. 4).
Sec. 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the
inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective
of whether or not he is a law student (Cruz v. Mina,
G.R. 154207, April 27, 2007). Thus, a law student may
appear under the circumstances of Sec. 38, as an
agent or a friend of a party litigant, without complying
with the requirements of Rule 138- A, e.g., supervision
of a lawyer.
This is in accordance with the threefold rationale
behind the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit:
(1) to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of
justice as a result of incompetence or
inexperience of law students, who, not having as
yet passed the test of professional competence,
are presumably not fully equipped to act as
counsels on their own;
(2) to provide a mechanism by which the accredited
law school clinic may be able to protect itself
from any potential vicarious liability arising from
some culpable action by their law students; and
(3) to ensure consistency with the fundamental
principle that no person is allowed to practice a
particular profession without possessing the
qualifications, particularly a license, as required
by law. (Bar Matter No. 730 [In Re: Need That
Law Student Practicing Under Rule 138-A Be
Actually Supervised During Trial], June 10, 1997)
Note: A law student appearing before the RTC under
Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a
LEGAL ETHICS
supervising lawyer. Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.
(Bar Matter No. 730, supra)
B. NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS
By whom litigation conducted:
In the MTC- a party may conduct his litigation in
person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed
by him for the purpose, or with the aid an attorney.
(Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 34)
Note: It may be inferred from Sec. 34, Rule 138 that a
law student may appear without his supervising
attorney as an agent or friend of a party-litigant in
inferior courts (i.e., MTC)
In any other court - a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authorized member of the bar.(Rules of Court, Rule
138, Sec. 34)
In a criminal case before the MTC – in a locality
where a duly licensed member of the Bar is not
available, the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is
a resident of that province, of good repute for probity
and ability to represent the accused in his defense.
(Rules of Court, Rule 116, Sec. 7)
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DE OFICIO.
A counsel de officio is a counsel, appointed or
assigned by the court, from among such members of
the bar in good standing who, by reason of their
experience and ability may adequately defend the
accused. The person need not be a member of the bar
if no lawyer is available in a given locality. (Rules of
Court, Rule 115, Sec. 7)
They are appointed to defend an indigent in a
criminal action (Rules of Court Rule 116, Sections 3, 4,
and 5; Rule 138, Sec. 32); or to represent a destitute
party in a case (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 31).
The court, considering the gravity of the offense and
the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall
appoint as counsel de oficio only such members of the
bar in good standing who, by reason of their
experience and ability, can competently defend the
accused.
But in localities where such members of the bar are
not available, the court may appoint any person,
resident of the province and of good repute for probity
and ability, to defend the accused.
SELF-REPRESENTATION
A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is bound by
the same rules in conducting the trial of his case. He
cannot, after judgment, claim that he was not
properly represented. When a person conducts his
litigation in person, he is not engaged in the practice
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
5 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
of law. (Agpalo)
A juridical person may also appear through its non-
lawyer agents or officers in the municipal trial court.
Sec. 34 does not distinguish between civil and criminal
cases. However, in criminal cases, the rule is
qualified:
(a) Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, the accused may
defend himself in person “when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect
his rights without the assistance of counsel.”
(b) Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, in determining whether a
counsel de oficio should be appointed, or, for that
matter, whether a counsel de parte should be
required (conversely, whether the accused should
be allowed to defend himself in person), the
gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the
questions that may arise should be considered.
While the right to be represented by counsel is
immutable, the option to secure the services of
counsel de parte is not absolute. The court may
restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel de
parte if:
(a) He insists on an attorney he cannot afford;
(b) He chose a person not a member of the bar;
(c) The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g.,
conflict of interest) (People v. Serzo, G.R. No.
118435 June 20, 1997).
AGENT OR FRIEND
When appointed or chosen, the agent or friend is not
engaged in the practice of law, since there is no
habituality in the activity and no attorney-client
relationship exists. He is only permitted to appear in
the municipal trial court.
In criminal cases, in localities where members of the
bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a resident of the
province and of good repute for probity and ability to
defend the accused, in lieu of a counsel de oficio
(Rules of Court, Rule 116, Sec. 7). In relation to Sec.
34, Rule 138, this is only allowed in the municipal trial
court.
C. NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS
Under the Labor Code, non-lawyers may appear before
the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:
(1) If they represent themselves; or
(2) If they represent their organization or members
thereof. (Labor Code, Art. 222(1))
Under the Cadastral Act, any person claiming any
interest in any part of the lands, whether named in
the notice or not, shall appear before the Court by
himself, or by some person in his behalf and shall file
an answer on or before the return day or within such
further time as may be allowed by the Court. (Sec. 9,
Act. No. 2259 (The Cadastral Act))
LEGAL ETHICS
The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure, promulgated
pursuant to Art 218(a), Labor Code, allows (a) non-
lawyers, who are not necessarily a party to the case,
to represent a union or members thereof, (b) non-
lawyers who are duly-accredited members of any legal
aid office recognized by the Department of Justice or
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and (c) non-lawyer
owners of establishments, to appear before it.
A non-lawyer may represent a party before the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB). (Pineda)
LIMITATIONS
In order that these laws will not infringe upon the
power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice
of law, the following limitations must be observed:
(a) The non-lawyer should confine his work to non-
adversary contentions and should not undertake
purely legal work (i.e., examination of witness,
presentation of evidence);
(b) The services should not be habitual;
(c) Attorney’s fees should not be charged. (Agpalo)
E. PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE
PROHIBITED FROM APPEARING AS
COUNSELS
1) In small claims cases, no attorney shall appear in
behalf of or represent a party at the hearing,
unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If
the court determines that a party cannot properly
present his/her claim or defense and needs
assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow
another individual who is not an attorney to assist
that party upon the latter's consent. (Rules of
Procedure in Small Claims Cases, Sec. 17)
2) In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings,
the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of the counsel or representative,
except for minors and incompetents who may be
assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.
(Local Government Code, Sec 415)
F. SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR
APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
LAWYERS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or
suspension.
Consequently, for respondents’ willful appearance as
counsels of KWD without authority to do so, there is a
valid ground to impose disciplinary action against
them. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
6 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Court … for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
so. (Vargas v. Ignes, A.C. No. 8096, July 5, 2010)
PERSONS NOT LAWYERS
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 71, Section
3(e). A person assuming to be an attorney or an
officer of a court, and acting as such without
authority, is liable for indirect contempt of court.
A respondent adjudged guilty of indirect contempt
committed against a RTC or a court of equivalent or
higher rank may be punished by a fine not exceeding
thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding
six (6) months, or both. If a respondent is adjudged
guilty of contempt committed against a lower court,
he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1)
month, or both. (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
71, Sec. 7)
The liability for the unauthorized practice of law
under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is in
the nature of criminal contempt. (Tan v. Balajadia,
G.R. No. 169517, March 14, 2006)
6. PRIVILEGES OF ATTORNEY
A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law
during good behavior before any judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative tribunal.
An attorney enjoys the presumption of regularity in
the discharge of his duty. His statements, if relevant
or material to the case, are absolutely privileged
regardless of their defamatory tenor. He can speak
freely and courageously in proceedings without the
risk of criminal prosecution.
The law makes his passing the bar is equivalent to first
grade Civil Service eligibility for any position in the
classified service of the government the duties of
which require knowledge of law, or a second grade
eligibility for any other government position which
does not prescribe proficiency in the law a
qualification. (Agpalo)
7. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW
General Rule: Government lawyers are not allowed to
engage in the private practice of their profession
during their incumbency.
Exception: A government lawyer can engage in the
practice of his or her profession under the following
conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by
the Constitution or by the law; and second, the
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or
her official functions.
LEGAL ETHICS
A. PROHIBITION OR
DISQUALIFICATION OF FORMER
GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
In case of lawyers separated from the government
service who are covered under subparagraph (b) (2) of
Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year prohibition is
imposed to practice law in connection with any matter
before the office he used to be with. Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this
restriction and prohibits lawyers, after leaving the
government service, to accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in the said service. (Olazo v.
Justice Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010)
ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED TO ENGAGE IN THE
PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW:
(1) Judges and other officials as employees of the
Supreme Court (Rules of Court, Rule 148, Sec. 35)
(2) Officials and employees of the OSG
(3) Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva,
G.R. No. L-19450, May 27, 1965, 14 SCRA 109)
(4) President, Vice-President, members of the
cabinet, their deputies and assistants (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII Sec. 15)
(5) Members of the Constitutional Commission (1987
Constitution, Art IX-A, Sec. 2)
(6) Ombudsman and his deputies (1987 Constitution,
Art. IX, Sec. 8(2))
(7) All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No.
7160, Sec. 90; Javellana v. DILG,G.R. No. 102549
August 10, 1992)
(8) Those prohibited by special law
WITH RESTRICTIONS TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE
OF LAW:
No Senator as member of the House of Representative
may personally appear as counsel before any court of
justice as before the Electoral Tribunals, as quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 14)
Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec. 91)
Sanggunian members may practice their professions
provided that if they are members of the Bar, they
shall not:
(1) appear as counsel before any court in any civil
case wherein a local government unit or any
office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
(2) appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an
officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office;
(3) collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official;
(4) use property and personnel of the government
except when the Sanggunian member concerned is
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
7 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
defending the interest of the government.
A retired justice or judge receiving pension from the
government, cannot act as counsel in any civil case in
which the Government, or any of its subdivision or
agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the Government is
accused of an offense in relation to his office. (RA
910, Sec. 1, as amended)
8. LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE
GOVERNMENT
(a) Members of the Office of the Solicitor General
(b) State prosecutors
(c) Members of the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel
(d) Officers who may be authorized by law.
(e) Private lawyers retained by government entities
with the approval of the OSG or GOCC and the
Commission on Audit. (Vargas v. Ignes, supra)
PERSON APPOINTED TO APPEAR FOR THE
GOVERNMENT
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 33. Any official or
other person appointed to appear for the
Government of the Philippines in accordance with
law shall have all the rights of a duly authorized
member of the bar in any case in which said
government has an interest.
Note: Those mentioned in numbers 4 and 5 are
allowed only to appear in certain cases. They do not
practice law. (Pineda) A non-lawyer who practices law
will be guilty of illegal practice of law. (Zeta v.
Malinao, A.M. No. P-220, December 20, 1978)
B. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER
In General
Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS. — IT IS THE DUTY OF AN
ATTORNEY:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, and to support the Constitution
and obey the laws of the Philippines;
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just,
and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law;
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as
are consistent with truth and honor, and never
seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
LEGAL ETHICS
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at
every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets
of his client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his client's business except
from him or with his knowledge and approval;
(f) 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;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement
or the continuance of an action or proceeding,
or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt
motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal
to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime,
by all fair and honorable means, regardless of
his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, to present every defense that the
law permits, to the end that no person may be
deprived of life or liberty, but by due process
of law.
FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A LAWYER
✓ To society
✓ To the legal profession
✓ To the court
✓ To the client
Promulgated on June 21, 1988.
1. TO THE SOCIETY (CANONS 1-6)
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.
An act constituting immoral or deceitful conduct is
one that involves moral turpitude. It includes any act
done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals. (Malcolm)
GROSSLY IMMORAL ACTS
(1) Wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage as
shown when the lawyer pursued a married woman
and thereafter cohabited with her. (Guevarra v.
Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007)
(2) Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes
serious moral depravity, even if his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal
prosecution for rape. (Calub v. Suller, A.C. No.
1474, January 8, 2000)
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
8 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
NOT GROSSLY IMMORAL
(1) Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both
of whom possess no impediment to marry,
voluntarily carried and devoid of deceit on the
part of the respondent, even if a child was born
out of wedlock of such relationship; it may
suggest a doubtful moral character but not grossly
immoral. (Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No.
519, July 31, 1997)
(2) Stealing a kiss from a client. (Advincula v.
Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007)
IMMORAL AND GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. Immoral
conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
community’s sense of decency. The Court makes these
distinctions, as the supreme penalty of disbarment
from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply
immoral, conduct. (Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816,
March 10, 2015)
Examples of crimes involving moral turpitude:
✓ estafa
✓ bribery
✓ murder
✓ seduction
✓ abduction
✓ smuggling
✓ falsification of public documents
✓ forgery
✓ bigamy
✓ concubinage
✓ murder, whether consummated or attempted
✓ illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker
✓ violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
✓ perjury
CASES:
In the case of Arciga v. Maniwang (A.M. No. 1608,
August 14, 1981) it was held that respondent’s refusal
to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.
In Zaguirre v. Castillo (A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003),
it was ruled that even though respondent repeatedly
engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife
and refused to support his child born from this
relationship, he shall not be disbarred. Although he
clearly violated the standards of morality required of
the legal profession, records show that from the time
he took his oath, he has severed ties with complainant
and now lives with his wife and children. Thus, merely
indefinite suspension from the practice of law was
ordered.
LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or
who connives in violating the law commits an act
which justifies disciplinary action. (Donton v.
Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006)
Rule 1.03. A laliwyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent
ambulance chasing, which refers to solicitation of
almost any kind of legal business by laymen employed
by an attorney for the purpose or by the attorney
himself. (Agpalo)
This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” (the
solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an
attorney, personally or through an agent in order to
gain employment) as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty. (Linsangan
v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance
The doctrine of maintenance was directed "against
wanton and in officious intermeddling in the disputes
of others in which the intermeddler has no interest
whatever, and where the assistance rendered is
without justification or excuse."
Champerty
Characterized by "the receipt of a share of the
proceeds of the litigation by the intermeddler."
(Cadavedo v. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15,
2014)
Ambulance Chasing
Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal business
by laymen employed by an attorney for the purpose or
by the attorney himself.
Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent persons
by judgments, upon manufactured causes of actions
and the defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court
procedure.
A lawyer may be disciplined in his professional and
private capacity. The filing of multiple complaints
reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal
profession. His conduct of vindictiveness a decidedly
undesirable trait especially when one resorts to using
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
9 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the court not to secure justice but merely to exact
revenge warrants his dismissal from the judiciary.
(Saburnido v. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497, September 26,
2001)
Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of
a fair settlement.
The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct
litigation but to avoid it where possible, by advising
settlement or withholding suit. (Agpalo)
Ratio: To save the client from additional expenses and
help prevent clogging of the docket.
That the counsels 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. (Campugan v.
Tolentino, Jr., 752 SCRA, 254, March 11, 2015)
CANON 2. A lawyer shall make his legal services
available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for
valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.
This rule stems from one of the obligations of a lawyer
which is to represent the poor and the oppressed in
the prosecution of their claims or the defense of their
rights. (Agpalo)
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It could be that for some lawyers,
especially the neophytes in the profession, being
appointed counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. For
those holding such belief, it may come as a surprise
that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such
an opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law
is indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of service
and not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a
high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so
designated. (Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815,
June 28, 1974)
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer does
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render
legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
LEGAL ETHICS
A lawyer may refuse to accept the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed for valid reasons, such as
when he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently. Nonetheless, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice such as the preliminary
steps to take, until the person concerned shall have
secured the services of counsel.
VALID REASONS FOR REFUSING TO
ACCEPT REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT
CLIENTS (CANON 14, RULE 14.03):
(1) The lawyer is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently
(2) There is a conflict of interest
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible
is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. The
publication or circulation of ordinary simple business
cards is not per se improper, but solicitation of
business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interview not warranted by
personal relations is unprofessional. (In Re: Tagorda,
G. R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929, 53 Phil 37)
A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust based on his character and conduct. For this
reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of
simple professional cards. The Court enumerated what
professional calling cards may contain: (a) lawyer’s
name; (b) law firm with which he is connected; (c)
address; (d) telephone and (e) special branch of law
practiced. (Linsangan v. Tolentino, supra)
A lawyer who agrees with a non-lawyer to divide
attorney’s fees paid by clients supplied or solicited by
the non-lawyer is guilty of malpractice, the same
being a form of solicitation of cases.
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
Charging lower rates than that customarily prescribed
can constitute unfair competition and as such can be
an indirect solicitation of business.
The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a
reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or to a
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
10 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
person who would have difficulty paying the fee
usually charged for such services, or if there is a
relationship of friendship between the attorney and
the client. (Aguirre)
CANON 3. A lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use
of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory, or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
General Rule: A lawyer cannot advertise his talent.
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Writing legal articles
(2) Reputable law lists
(3) Ordinary professional cards
(4) The offer of free legal services to the indigent
even when broadcasted over the radio
(5) Simple announcement of opening of a law firm
Not all types of advertising or solicitation are
prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate
exceptions to the rule against advertising or
solicitation and define the extent to which they may
be undertaken. The first of such exceptions is the
publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by
the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also
permitted. The card may contain only a statement of
his name, the name of the law firm which he is
connected with, address, telephone number and
special branch of law practiced. Taking into
consideration the nature and contents of the
advertisements for which respondent is being taken to
task, which even includes a quotation of the fees
charged by said Respondent Corporation for services
rendered, the same definitely do not and conclusively
cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned. (Ulep
v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378, June 17, 1993)
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading, or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in
all its communications that said partner is
deceased.
Use of a foreign firm’s name amounts to
misrepresentation because a foreign law firm is not
authorized to practice law in the Philippines (Dacanay
v. Baker & McKenzie, Adm. Case No. 2131, May 10,
LEGAL ETHICS
1985)
The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased.
(Agpalo)
Rule 3.03. Where a partner accepts public office,
he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall
be dropped from the firm name, unless the law
allows him to practice law concurrently.
Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using his name
to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of
undue influence.
A civil service officer or employee whose duty or
responsibility does not require his entire time to be at
the disposal of the government may not engage in the
private practice of law without the written permit
from the head of the department concerned. (Agpalo)
Note: Teaching is not a prohibited practice of
profession. (1986 Constitutional Commission opinion)
Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give anything
of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract
legal business.
Purpose: To prevent some lawyers from gaining an
unfair advantage over others through the use of
gimmickry, press agentry or other artificial means.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the
lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise
his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. The prescription against
advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the
practice of law is a profession. (Ulep v. The Legal
Clinic, Inc., supra)
CANON 4. A lawyer shall participate in the
development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.
CANON 5. A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve
high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the law and
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
11 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
jurisprudence.
The primary duty of lawyers to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes carries with it the obligation to be well-
informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with
legal developments, recent enactments, and
jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant
with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully
comply with such duty, they may not be able to
discharge competently and diligently their obligations
as members of the bar. (Dulalia, Jr. v. Cruz, A.C. No.
6854, April 25, 2007)
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION (MCLE)
Purpose: to ensure that throughout a lawyer’s career,
he keeps abreast with law and jurisprudence,
maintains the ethics of the profession, and enhances
the standards of the practice of law
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF MCLE:
Shall be completed every 3 years
At least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities to be divided as follows:
6 hours- legal ethics
4 hours- trial and pre-trial skills
5 hours- alternative dispute resolution
9 hours- updates on substantive and procedural laws
and jurisprudence
4 hours- writing and oral advocacy
2 hours- international law and international
conventions
6 hours- such other subjects prescribed by the
committee on MCLE
PARTIES EXEMPTED FROM MCLE:
(1) The President and the Vice President of the
Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(2) Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
(3) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members
of the judiciary, incumbent members of the
Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court
lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial
education;
(4) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor
and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
(5) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors
General;
(6) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(7) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
(8) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman,
the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special
LEGAL ETHICS
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(9) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions;
(10) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of
law who have teaching experience for at least ten
(10) years in accredited law schools;
(11) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers
of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(12) Governors and Mayors.
OTHER PARTIES EXEMPTED FROM THE MCLE:
(1) Those who are not in law practice, private or
public.
(2) Those who have retired from law practice with
the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
COMPOSITION OF MCLE BOARD
(1) A retired Justice of the Supreme Court as chair
(2) 4 members respectively nominated by the IBP,
the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center
designated by the Supreme Court and associations
of law schools and/or law professors.
CANON 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.
Rule 6.01. The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
A member of the bar who assumes public office does
not shed his professional obligation. Lawyers in
government are public servants who owe the utmost
fidelity to the public service. A lawyer in public
service is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with
a high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher
than her brethren in private practice. (Vitriolo v.
Dasig, A.C 4984, April 1, 2003)
Public prosecutor
The representative of the sovereignty whose interest
in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case
but that justice shall be done.
This restriction applies particularly to lawyers in
government service, who are allowed by law to engage
in private law practice and although prohibited from
engaging in the practice of law, have friends, former
associates and relatives, who are in the active
practice of law.
Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the government service shall
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
12 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
not use his public position to promote or advance
his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
In relation to Rule 3.03, Canon 3, if the law allows a
public official to practice law concurrently, he must
not use his public position to feather his law practice.
Moreover, he should not only avoid all impropriety.
Neither should he even inferentially create a public
image that he is utilizing his public position to advance
his professional success or personal interest at the
expense of the public. (Agpalo)
This restriction covers engagement or employment,
which means that he cannot accept any work or
employment from anyone that will involve or relate
the matter in which he intervened as a public official,
except on behalf of the body or authority which he
served during his public employment. (Comment of IBP
that drafted the Code, pp.32-33)
Government lawyers may leave government service
through retirement, resignation, expiration of term of
office, abandonment, and dismissal. (RREAD)
General Rule: Practice of profession is allowed
immediately after leaving public service.
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to matters
with which he had connection during his term. This
prohibition lasts:
(1) For one year, if he had not intervened;
(2) Permanently, if he had intervened.
The Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza
because his alleged intervention is an intervention on
a matter different from the matter involved in the
Civil case of sequestration. The applicable meaning as
the term “intervention” is an act of a person who has
the power to influence the subject proceedings. The
evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist
where the government lawyer does not act which can
be considered as innocuous such as “drafting,
enforcing, or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract
principles of law.”
The “matter” contemplated are those that are
adverse-interest conflicts (substantial relatedness and
adversity between the government matter and the
new client’s matter in interest) and congruent-interest
representation conflicts. “Intervention” should be
significant and substantial which can or have affected
the interest of others (PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
LEGAL ETHICS
Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005).
2. TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION
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 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing
a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
Lawyers must maintain high standards of legal
proficiency, as well as morality including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all times
subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and
community approbation.
When the Code or the Rules speaks of "conduct" or
"misconduct," the reference is not confined to one’s
behavior exhibited in connection with the
performance of the lawyer’s professional duties, but
also covers any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to
the actual practice of his profession, would show him
to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law invest him
with. To borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, "the grounds
expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of
Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover
any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a lawyer in
his professional or private capacity." (Garcia v.
Balauitan, A.C. No. 7280, November 16, 2006)
It must be remembered that a retained counsel is
expected to serve the client with competence and
diligence. This duty includes not merely reviewing the
cases entrusted to the counsels care and giving the
client sound legal advice, but also properly
representing the client in court, attending scheduled
hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting
for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
The lawyer should not be sitting idly by and leave the
rights of the client in a state of uncertainty. The
failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an
appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. This
default translates to a violation of the injunction of
Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. (Conlu v. Aredonia Jr.,
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
13 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.C. 4955, September 12, 2011)
A lawyer that is engaged in illicit relationships with
two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate
children with them— failing to give regular support to
complainant and his legitimate children is disbarred.
(Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004)
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act must not
only be immoral; it must be grossly immoral as well.
Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a
previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct.
(Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015)
Grossly immoral act
One that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
RULE 139-A (INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES)
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Composed of all persons whose names appear in the
Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
Purposes. — To elevate the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and
enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility
more effectively.
Membership. — Lawyers seeking positions in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines must respect the
rotational rule. The rotational rule is adopted to allow
equal opportunity for all lawyers in different regions
to have access to positions of leadership in the IBP. (In
Re: Brewing Controversies, dissent, Velasco, A.M. No.
09-5-2-SC, April 11, 2013)
Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated
Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the
Supreme Court.
Default in the payment of annual dues for six months
shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one
year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of
the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION
OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
JANUARY 9, 1973
INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR
The official unification of the entire lawyer population
of the Philippines. This requires membership and
financial support (in reasonable amount) of every
attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of
law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
LEGAL ETHICS
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is not already a member. He
became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. Bar integration does not compel the
lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend
or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he
chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected
is the payment of annual dues (In the Matter of the
IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A.
Edilion, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978)
REGULATORY FEE
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction
for regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue.
If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it
follows that as an incident to regulation, it may
impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would
not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar
program without means to defray the concomitant
expenses.
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.
An attorney may be removed, or otherwise disciplined,
not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the
profession, but also for gross misconduct not
connected with his professional duties, making him
unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges
which his license and the law confer upon him. Having
been tasked to sell such valuables, Casuga was duty-
bound to return them upon Nevada’s demand. His
failure to do so renders him subject to disciplinary
action. To be sure, he cannot use, as a defense, the
lack of a lawyer-client relationship as an exonerating
factor. (Nevada v. Casuga, A.C. No. 7591, March 20,
2012)
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only
issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to
be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The
only concern is the determination of respondent’s
administrative liability. Furthermore, disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers do not involve a trial of an
action, but rather investigations by the Court into the
conduct of one of its officers. The issuance of checks
which were later dishonored for having been drawn
against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness
for the trust and confidence reposed on her. (Heenan
v. Espejo, A.C. No. 10050, April 13, 2013)
CANON 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
14 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive,
or otherwise improper.
Rudely interrupting opposing counsel while the latter
is presenting evidence is a violation of Canon
8.(Bugaring v. Español, G.R. No. 133090, January 19,
2001)
The lady senator’s statements that she “spits on the
fact of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban..and would
rather be in another environment but not in the
Supreme Court of Idiots” were intemperate and highly
improper in substance. No lawyer who has taken an
oath to maintain the respect due to the courts should
be allowed to erode the people’s faith in the
judiciary. (Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399,
2009)
A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel and his
brethren in the law profession with courtesy, dignity,
and civility. They may do as adversaries do in law:
strive mightily but eat and drink as friends. (Valencia
v. Cabanting, A.M. 1302, April 26, 1991).
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified,
emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and
in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
(Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. L-
27072, January 9, 1970)
Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot
escape responsibility by claiming that his words did
not mean what any reader must have understood them
as meaning. (Rheem of the Philippines v Ferrer, G.R.
L-22979, June 26, 1967)
Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the
right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give
proper advice and assistance to those seeking
relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client, nor
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good results, or reduced fees for his
services. Respondent lawyer committed an unethical,
predatory overstep into another’s legal practice.
(Linsangan v. Tolentino, supra)
However, it is the right of a lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
LEGAL ETHICS
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel
(Canon 7).He may properly accept employment to
handle a matter which has been previously handled by
another lawyer, provided that the other lawyer has
been given notice by the client that his services have
been terminated.
CANON 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
Rule 9.01. A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.
Ratio: The practice of law is limited only to individuals
who have the necessary educational qualifications and
good moral character. Moreover, an attorney-client
relationship is a strictly personal one. Lawyers are
selected on account of their special fitness through
their learning or probity for the work at hand.
Exception: Labor union officers, in accordance with
Art. 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 3 of
PD No. 1691
The appearing and signing as counsel for and in behalf
of her husband, conducting or offering
stipulation/admission of facts, conducting direct and
cross-examination, all constitute practice of law.
Thus, it is clear that when Atty. Lozada appeared for
and in behalf of her husband in Civil Case No. 101-V-07
and actively participated in the proceedings therein in
June-July 2007, or within the two (2)-year suspension,
she, therefore, engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law. (Feliciano v Bautista-Lozada, A.C No. 7593,
March 11, 2015)
Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:
Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latter’s death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of
time to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished
legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing
arrangement.
Ratio: Allowing non-lawyers to get attorney’s fees
would confuse the public as to whom they should
consult. It would leave the bar in a chaotic condition
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
15 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
because nonlawyers are also not subject to disciplinary
action.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit
lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of
law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer
himself is subsumed under this provision, because at
the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to prevent
the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise
applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring
members of the Bar, they are bound to comport
themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of
the legal profession. (In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll
of Attorneys, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013)
A lawyer who obtained his law degree, passed the bar
and took the Attorney’s Oath, but failed to sign the
Attorney’s Roll was allowed to sign after 30 years of
practicing the profession but was imposed a penalty
similar to suspension by allowing him to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys 1 year after receipt of the Resolution
and was fined P32,000. (In Re: Medado, B.M. No. 2540,
September 24, 2013)
Canon 9 likewise prohibits lawyers from dividing or
sharing fees for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except in the following
instances:
1. Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latter's death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time
to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement;
2. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished
legal business of a deceased lawyer; or 3. Where a
lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or
in part, on a profit sharing agreement.
3. TO THE COURT
CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court.
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.
A lawyer’s primary duty is not to their clients but to
the courts.
Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the very
essence of honorable membership in the legal
profession. (Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. L35113, March
25, 1975)
Some cases of Falsehood Committed by Lawyers:
(1) Falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is
free from all liens and encumbrances. (Sevilla v.
LEGAL ETHICS
Zoleta, 96 Phil 979, 1955);
(2) Falsifying a power of attorney to use in collecting
the money due to the principal and appropriating
the money for his own benefit (In Re: Rusiana,
A.C. 270, March 29, 1974);
(3) Denying having received the notice to file brief
which is belied by the return card (Ragasajo v.
IAC, G.R. L-69129, August 31, 1987);
(4) Presenting falsified documents in court which he
knows to be false. (Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M.
1625, February 12, 1990);
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly
cite as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a
fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.
His duty as a lawyer obligates him not to conceal the
truth from the court, or to mislead the court in any
manner, no matter how demanding his duties to his
clients may be. In case of conflict, his duties to his
client yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court.
(Que v. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009)
CANON 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
If a lawyer dresses improperly, he may be cited for
contempt. (Agpalo)
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive, or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
16 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A judge may commit errors or mistakes in his
decisions; hence, a lawyer should not make hasty
accusations against the judge without any cogent
and valid ground extant in the record. The rule,
however, does not preclude a lawyer from criticizing
judicial conduct in a fair and respectful manner. The
rule allows such criticism so long as it is supported
by the record or is material to the case.
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
The duty of the bar to support the judge against
unjust criticism and clamor does not, however,
preclude a lawyer from filing administrative
complaints against erring judges or from acting as
counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances
against them. (Agpalo)
Grievances may be filed with the Supreme Court which
has administrative supervision over all courts and the
power to discipline judges of lower courts. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Secs. 6 and 11)
CANON 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial
unless he has adequately prepared himself on the
law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce, and the order of its preferences. He
should also be ready with the original documents
for comparison with the copies.
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in the
midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint
himself with all the antecedent processes and
proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to
his takeover. (Villasis v. CA, G.R. L-34369, September
30, 1974)
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause.
Ratio: There is an affirmative duty of a lawyer to
check against useless litigations. His signature in every
pleading constitutes a certificate by him that to the
best of his knowledge there is a good ground to
support it and that it is not to interpose for delay. The
willful violation of this rule may subject him to
appropriate disciplinary action or render him liable for
the costs of litigation. (Agpalo). This rule prohibits
LEGAL ETHICS
forum shopping.
FORUM SHOPPING
the improper practice of going from one court to
another in the hope of securing a favourable relief in
one court which another court has denied or
the filing of repetitious suits or proceedings in
different courts concerning substantially the same
subject matter, or whenever, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favourable
opinion in another forum, other than appeal or
certiorari.
REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(3) Identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other. (HSBC v.
Catalan, G.R. 159590, October 18, 2004)
RES JUDICATA REQUIRES THAT:
(1) There be a decision on the merits;
(2) It be decided by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
(3) The decision is final; and
(4) The two actions involved identical parties, subject
matter, and causes of action.
SANCTION FOR VIOLATION OF RULE ON FORUM
SHOPPING:
(1) Administrative sanctions
(2) Direct or indirect contempt of court
There is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files
numerous cases in different fora, as long as he does so
in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and
without any ill-motive or purpose other than to
achieve justice and fairness. The nature of the cases
filed by the respondent, the fact of re-filing them
after being dismissed, the timing of the filing of cases,
all indicate that the respondent was acting beyond the
desire for justice and fairness. Like the court itself,
he is an instrument to advance its ends – the speedy,
efficient, impartial, correct and inexpensive
adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of
final judgments. A lawyer should not only help attain
these objectives but should likewise avoid any
unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct
or prevent their realization. (Alcantara v. De Vera,
A.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010)
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
17 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
so.
Postponement is not a matter of right but a sound
judicial discretion. (Edrial v. Quilat-Quilat, G.R. No.
133625, September 6, 2000)
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgement, or misuse
Court processes.
Rule 12.05. A lawyer shall refrain from talking to
his witness during a break or recess in the trial,
while the witness is still under examination.
Purpose: To avoid any suspicion that he is coaching
the witness what to say during the resumption of the
examination.
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.
While he may interview witnesses in advance of trial,
the lawyer should avoid any such action as may be
misinterpreted as an attempt to influence the witness
what to say in court.
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who
knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned [or induced] does
testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury. (US v. Ballena, G.R. L-6294, February 10,
1911)
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or
harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client, except:
on formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument, and
the like, or
on substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony, entrust
the trial of the case to another counsel.
Ratio: The underlying reason for the impropriety of a
lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies in the
difference between the function of a witness and that
of an advocate. The function of a witness is to tell the
LEGAL ETHICS
facts as he recalls then in answer to questions. The
function of an advocate is that of a partisan.
A lawyer may not properly support his contention as
an advocate with his testimony as a witness.
CANON 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of
his cause and refrain from any impropriety which
tends to influence, or gives the appearance of
influencing the court.
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for
cultivating familiarity with Judges.
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer
approaching a judge––or a judge evincing a willingness–
–to discuss, in private, a matter related to a case
pending in that judge’s sala cannot be over-
emphasized. (Bildner v. Ilusorio, G.R. No. 157384,
June 5, 2009)
In order not to subject both the judge and the lawyer
to suspicion, the common practice of some lawyers of
making judges and prosecutors godfathers of their
children to enhance their influence and their law
practice should be avoided by judges and lawyers
alike. (Report of IBP Committee)
Rule 13.02. A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
FOR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS BY A LAWYER
CONCERNING A PENDING LITIGATION MAY:
(1) interfere with a fair trial in court and
(2) otherwise prejudice the impartial administration
of justice
(3) likely to create an adverse attitude in the public
mind respecting the alleged actions of the
defendants to the pending proceedings
Once a litigation is concluded, the judge who decided
it is subject to the same criticism as any other public
official because then, his ruling becomes public
property and is thrown open to public consumption. In
a concluded litigation, a lawyer enjoys a wider
latitude of comment or on criticism of the judge’s
decision or actuation. (In re Gomez, 43 Phil 376, May
16, 1922)
In the original decision of the Supreme Court in Re:
Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Former
President Joseph Estrada, September 13, 2001, it was
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
18 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
stated that the propriety of granting or denying the
petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional
guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to
public information, on the one hand, and the
fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand,
along with the constitutional power of a court to
control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial. It was held that when these rights race against
one another, the right of the accused must be
preferred to win, considering the possibility of losing
not only the precious liberty but also the very life of
an accused.
Rule 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
Ratio: It endangers the independence of the judiciary.
(Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code,
p. 71)
4. TO THE CLIENTS
NATURE OF RELATION:
Strictly personal
Highly confidential
Fiduciary
CANON 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to
the needy.
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent
a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex,
creed, or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
General Rule: A lawyer is not obliged to act as legal
counsel for any person who may wish to become his
client. He has the right to decline employment.
Exceptions:
(1) A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
(Canon 14);
(2) A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person
solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed
or status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person. (Rule 14.01)
(3) A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation
of an indigent client unless:
(a) He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
(b) He labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective
client. (Rule 14.02)
(4) A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation
of an indigent client unless: a. He is in no position
LEGAL ETHICS
to carry out the work effectively or competently;
b. He labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client or between a
present client and the prospective client. (Rule
14.03)
Ratio: It is a declared policy of the State to value the
dignity of every human person and guarantee the
rights of every individual, particularly those who
cannot afford the services of counsel. (RA 9999 or Free
Legal Assistance Act of 2010)
Indigent
(1) A person who has no visible means of income or
whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of
his family, to be determined by the fiscal or
judge, taking into account the members of his
family dependent upon him for subsistence. (Sec.
2, RA 6033)
(2) A person who has no visible means of support or
whose income does not exceed P300.00 per month
or whose income even in excess of P300.00 per
month is insufficient for the subsistence of his
family. (Sec. 2, RA 6035)
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as:
counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of
its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
he is in no position to carry out the work effectively
or competently;
he labors under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present
client and the prospective client;
Rule 14.04. A lawyer who accepts the cause of a
person unable to pay his professional fees shall
observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
A lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline employment subject however, to the
provision of Canon 14. Once he agrees to take up the
cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed to him. (Navarro v. Meneses III, CBD Adm.
Case No. 313, January 30, 1998)
Rule 14.01 of the CPR clearly directs lawyers not to
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
19 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of
the latter. It is ironic that it is the defense counsel
that actually branded his own clients as being the
culprits that "salvaged" the victims. Though he might
think of his clients as that, still it is unprofessional to
be labeling an event as such when even the
Sandiganbayan had not done so. (Francisco v.
Portugal, A.C. No. 6155, 14 March 2006)
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A
COUNSEL DE OFICIO MAY BE
APPOINTED
IF IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD OF THE CASE AS
TRANSMITTED THAT:
✓ the accused is confined in prison,
✓ is without counsel de parte on appeal, or
✓ has signed the notice of appeal himself, ask the
clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall
designate a counsel de officio. (Rules of Court,
Rule 124, Sec. 2)
VALID GROUNDS FOR REFUSING TO REPRESENT AN
INDIGENT:
(1) He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
(2) He labors under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present
client and the prospective client (Rule 14.03)
CANON 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients.
Rule 15.01. A 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
A lawyer should decline professional employment even
though how attractive the fee offered may be if its
acceptance will involve a violation of any of the rules
of the legal profession. (Ylaya v. Gacott, Adm. Case
No. 6475, January 30, 2013)
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
privileged communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
LEGAL ETHICS
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.
(Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. 5804, July 1, 2003)
Disclosure alone is not enough for the clients must give
their informed consent to such representation. The
lawyer must explain to his clients the nature and
extent of conflict and the possible adverse effect must
be thoroughly understood by his clients. (Nakpil v.
Valdes, A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998)
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.
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. (Samson v. Atty.
Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013)
REQUISITES
(1) There are conflicting duties;
(2) The acceptance of the new relations invites or
actually leads to unfaithfulness or double-dealing
to another client; or
(3) The attorney will be called upon to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired in the
previous employment.
General rule: A lawyer may not represent two
opposing parties at any point in time. A lawyer need
not be the counsel-of-record of either party. It is
enough that the counsel had a hand in the preparation
of the pleading of one party.
Exception: When the parties agree, and for amicable
settlement. (Agpalo)
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written consent
of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or
arbitrator in settling disputes.
An attorney’s knowledge of the law and his reputation
for fidelity may make it easy for the disputants to
settle their differences amicably. However, he shall
not act as counsel for any of them. (Agpalo)
Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his client,
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the client’s case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects
of the case.
Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply that
he is able to influence any public official, tribunal
or legislative body.
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
20 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ratio: To protect against influence peddling. (Agpalo)
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and principles of
fairness.
Rule 15.08. A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
Ratio: Certain ethical considerations may be operative
in one profession and not in the other. (Agpalo)
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but a
lawyer must make it clear when he is acting as a
lawyer or when he is acting in another capacity,
especially in occupations related to the practice of
law. (In re: Rothman, 12 N.J. 528, June 8, 1953)
CONFIDENTIALITY RULE
It is settled that the mere relation of attorney and
client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality.
The client must intend the communication to be
confidential. (Palm v. Iledan, A.C. No. 8242, October
2, 2009)
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
It refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence
and by means which so far as the client is aware
discloses the information to no third person other than
one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the
information or the accomplishment of the purpose for
which it was given
An attorney is to keep inviolate his client’s secrets or
confidence and not to abuse them. Thus, the duty of a
lawyer to preserve his client’s secrets and confidence
outlasts the termination of the attorney-client
relationship, and continues even after the client’s
death.
Ratio: It is the glory of the legal profession that its
fidelity to its client can be depended on, and that a
man may safely go to a lawyer and converse with him
upon his rights or supposed rights in any litigation with
absolute assurance that the lawyer’s tongue is tied
from ever disclosing it. With full disclosure of the facts
of the case by the client to his attorney, adequate
legal representation will result in the ascertainment
and enforcement of rights or the prosecution or
defense of the client’s cause. (Mercado v. Vitriolo,
A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005)
Note: The privilege continues to exist even after the
termination of the attorney-client relationship.
LEGAL ETHICS
FACTORS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH A PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a
prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is
by reason of this relationship that the client made
the communication.
(2) Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a
lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged
communication even if the prospective client does
not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter
declines the employment.
(3) The client made the communication in
confidence.
(4) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney
in his professional capacity.
(5) The communication made by a client to his
attorney must not be intended for mere
information, but for the purpose of seeking legal
advice from his attorney as to his rights or
obligations. (Mercado v. Vitriolo, supra)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There is conflict of interest when, on behalf of one
client, it is the attorney’s duty to contend for that
which his duty to another client requires him to
oppose.
Three tests to determine conflict of interest for
practicing lawyers (2009 Bar Question)
(1) Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an
issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the
same time, to oppose that claim for the other
client.
(2) Whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty.
(3) Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the
new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment. (Quiambao v.
Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25, 2005)
Note: The test to determine whether there is a
conflict of interest in the representation is probability,
not certainty of conflict.
LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE AGAINST REPRESENTATION
OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS:
(1) When no conflict of interest exists
(2) A lawyer may properly represent a subsequent
client against a former client in a matter which is
not, in any way, related to the previous
controversy in which he appeared for the former
client. The lawyer represents no conflicting
interests in that situation.
(3) Where clients knowingly consent
This may only apply when one client is a former client,
and not where both clients are current clients in the
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
21 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
case, where each asserts an interest adverse to that of
the other. Hence, a lawyer cannot represent both
clients at the same time, even if they give their
written consent.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress
upon his client compliance with the law and principles
of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It
is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and
lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from
doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. (Rural
Bank of Calape, Inc., Bohol v. Florido, A.C. No. 5736,
June 18, 2010)
CONCURRENT PRACTICE OF ANOTHER
PROFESSION
A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or
occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall
make clear to his client whether he is acting as a
lawyer or in another capacity (Rule 15.08, Canon 15,
CPR). As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing
with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith.
Business transactions between an attorney and his
client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of
the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a
lawyer over his client. (Nakpil v. Valdes, supra)
CANON 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the
client.
Ratio: The lawyer merely holds said money or property
in trust.
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees,
registration fees, transportation and office expenses),
he should promptly account to the client how the
money was spent. If he does not use the money for its
intended purpose, he must immediately return it to
the client. (Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815, July 23,
2009)
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in
his hands would not relieve him from the duty of
promptly accounting for the funds received. (Daroy v.
Legaspi, A.C. No. 936, 1975)
The fact that a lawyer allowed the use of the Nissan
Sentra car by persons who had no business using it, did
LEGAL ETHICS
not inform the court or the sheriff of the destruction
of the car, and did not inform the court that he took
custody of the same constituted infidelity in the
custody of the attached cars and grave misconduct.
(Salomon v. Frial, A.C. No. 7820, September 12, 2008)
Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each
client separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him.
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
judgements and executions he has secured for his
client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
The relation between an attorney and his client is
highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential in character, requiring a
high degree of fidelity and good faith (Licuanan v.
Melo, citing 7 Am. Jur. 2d 105, A.M. No. 2361,
February 9, 1989).
COMMINGLING OF FUNDS
Under paragraph 11 of the Canons of Legal Ethics, a
lawyer is obligated to report promptly the money of
client that has come to his possession and should not
commingle it with his private property or use it for his
personal purpose without his client's consent.
(Licuanan v. Melo, supra)
DELIVERY OF FUNDS
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees,
registration fees, transportation and office expenses),
he should promptly account to the client how the
money was spent. If he does not use the money for its
intended purpose, he must immediately return it to
the client. Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver
his client’s funds or properties as they fall due or upon
demand. His failure to return the client’s money upon
demand gives rise to the presumption that he has
misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of
and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the
client. (Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815, July 23,
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
22 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
2009)
BORROWING OR LENDING
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client – to
prevent him from taking advantage of his influence
over the client. While the lawyer may borrow money
from his client, he should not abuse the client’s
confidence by delaying payment.
A lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only
exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees,
stenographer’s fees for transcript of stenographic
notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for
a matter that he is handling for the client. If the
lawyer lends money to the client in connection with
the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an
additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own
recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a
settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his
duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.
(Linsangan v. Tolentino, supra)
Lawyers are bound to promptly account for money
received by them on behalf of their clients and failure
to do so constitutes professional misconduct
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in
his hands collected for his clients does not relieve him
from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds
received. However, delivery of funds is subject to
lawyer’s lien.
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.
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence, and his duty of entire devotion to his
client’s cause not only requires, but entitles him to
employ every honorable means to secure for the client
what is justly due him or to present every defense
provided by law to enable the latter’s cause to
succeed. (Gamalinda v. Alcantara, A.C. No. 3695, 24
February 1992)
CANON 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service 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
LEGAL ETHICS
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.
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to client’s request for information.
The fiduciary duty of every lawyer towards his
client requires him to conscientiously act in
advancing and safeguarding the latter's interest. His
failure or neglect to do so constitutes a serious
breach of his Lawyer's Oath and the canons of
professional ethics, and renders him liable for gross
misconduct that may warrant his suspension from
the practice of law.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 reasonable time to the client's request for
information. (Ramiscal v. Orro, 784 SCRA 421,
February 23, 2016)
ADEQUATE PREPARATION
While it is true that respondent was not complainant’s
lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this
fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently
study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did
not have enough time to study the pertinent matters
involved, as he was approached by complainant’s
husband only two days before the expiration of the
period for filing the Appellant’s Brief, respondent
should have filed a motion for extension of time to file
the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he
could come up with, just to “beat the deadline set by
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
23 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the Court of Appeals.” (Hernandez v. Padilla, A.C. No.
9387, June 20, 2012)
DILIGENCE
It is the attention and care required of a person in a
given in a situation and is the opposite of negligence.
(Edquibal v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 5687, February 3, 2005)
NEGLIGENCE
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
prejudicial to the client’s 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. (Seares, Jr. v. Gonzales-Alzate, Adm. Case
No. 9058, November 14, 2012)
A counsel de oficio is expected to render effective
service and to exert his best efforts on behalf of an
indigent accused. He has as high a duty to a poor
litigant as to a paying client.
COLLABORATING COUNSEL
A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service 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 18.01, Canon 18, CPR)
DUTY TO APPRISE CLIENT
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of
confidence, it is the lawyer’s duty to keep the client
regularly and fully updated on the developments of
the client’s case. The Code provides that “[a] lawyer
shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.” (Meneses v.
Macalino, A.C. No. 6651, February 27, 2006)
FAILURE TO PERFECT APPEAL
A lawyer has no right to waive his client’s right to
appeal. His failure to perfect an appeal within the
prescribed period constitutes negligence and
malpractice. (Reontoy v. Ibadlit, A.C. CBD No. 190,
January 28, 1998)
Mere volume of the work of an attorney has never
excused an omission to comply with the period to
LEGAL ETHICS
appeal. Clearly, the neglect of counsel in not filing the
appeal on time was not something that ordinary
diligence and prudence could not have guarded
against. A client is generally bound by the mistakes of
his lawyer.(NTA v Castillo, G.R. No. 154124, Aug. 4,
2010)
CANON 19. A lawyer shall represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in
presenting, or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received information
that his client has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to
rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure on handling the case.
USE OF FAIR AND HONEST MEANS
Rule 19.01 commands that a “lawyer shall employ only
fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting, or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case
or proceeding.” Under this Rule, a lawyer should not
file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless
criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his
client designed to secure leverage to compel the
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases
against the lawyer’s client. (Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No.
7298, June 25, 2007)
CLIENT’S FRAUD
A lawyer who has received information that his clients
has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a
fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call
upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which
he shall terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court. (Rule 19.02,
Canon 19, CPR) As a lawyer, respondent should
confront complainant and ask her to rectify her
fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses,
then he should terminate his relationship with her.
(Dalisay v. Mauricio, A.C. No. 5655, January 23, 2006)
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
24 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
PROCEDURE IN HANDLING THE CASE
While a lawyer owes utmost zeal and devotion to the
interest of his client, he also has the responsibility of
employing only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and he should not allow
the latter to dictate the procedure in handling the
case. (Fernandez v. Novero, Jr., A.C. No.
5394, December 2, 2002)
AUTHORITY TO COMPROMISE
General Rule: A lawyer has no authority to
compromise his client’s case (Revised Rules of Court,
Rule 138, Sec. 23)
Exception: Where the lawyer is confronted with an
emergency and prompt, urgent action is necessary to
protect the interest of his client, and there is no
opportunity for consultation with him
NEGLIGENCE OF LAWYER BINDING UPON
CLIENT
General Rule: Client is bound by attorney’s conduct,
negligence, and mistake in handling case, or in
management of litigation and in procedural technique
(Vivero v. Santos, G.R. No. L-8105, February 28, 1956)
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Where adherence thereto results in outright
deprivation of client’s liberty or property or
where interest of justice so requires.
(2) Where the error by counsel is purely technical
which does not substantially affect the client’s
cause
(3) Ignorance, incompetence, or inexperience of a
lawyer is so great and error so serious that client
who has good cause is prejudiced and denied a
day in court
(4) Gross negligence of a lawyer
(5) Lack of acquaintance with technical part of
procedure
CANON 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees:
• The time spent and the extent of the services
rendered or required;
• The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
• The importance of the subject matter;
• The skill demanded;
• The probability of losing other employment as
a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
• The customary charges for similar services and
the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to
LEGAL ETHICS
which he belongs;
• The amount involved in the controversy and
the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
• The contingency or certainty of compensation;
• The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
• The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with
the consent of the client, be entitled to a division
of fees in proportion to work performed and
responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any
fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or
forwarding allowance or other compensation
whatsoever related to his professional employment
from anyone other than the client.
Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall resort
to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice, or fraud.
ACCEPTANCE FEE AND CONTINGENCY
FEE
Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the
lawyer for merely accepting the case. Since the
acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer
for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the
nature and extent of the legal services rendered
(Dalupan v. Gacott, A.C. No. 5067, June 29, 2015)
In a contingent fee contract, the lawyer gets
reimbursed for the advances made for the client in the
course of representation, whether he wins the suit or
not; only the amount of the professional fee is
contingent upon winning.
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT
A lawyer assumes all expenses for litigation and
reimbursement is contingent on the outcome of the
case. This is strictly prohibited under Rule 16.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
BARRATRY
the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up
quarrels in suits. It is frowned upon as it is against
public policy
An approved compromise agreement between the
petitioner and the respondent without the former
informing her counsel, unreasonably reducing the
stipulated fees of the counsel, the payment of the
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
25 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
counsel’s reasonable compensation could not be
annulled by the settlement of the litigation without
the counsel’s participation and conformity. (Malvar v.
Kraft, G.R. No. 183952, September 9, 2013)
CONTINGENCY FEE ARRANGEMENTS
CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENT FEES
An agreement in writing by which the fees, usually a
fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the
action, are made to depend upon the success in the
effort to enforce or defend a supposed right.
Contingent fees depend upon an express contract,
without which the attorney can only recover on the
basis of quantum meruit.
QUANTUM MERUIT (AS MUCH AS HE DESERVES)
used as basis for determining an attorney’s
professional fees in the absence of an express
agreement. The recovery of attorney’s fees on the
basis of quantum meruit is a device that prevents an
unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits
of the legal services of counsel without paying for it
and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the
attorney himself. An attorney must show that he is
entitled to reasonable compensation for the effort in
pursuing the client’s cause, taking into account
certain factors in fixing the amount of legal fees.
VALIDITY OF CONTINGENCY FEE
ARRANGEMENTS
A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this
jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid and
binding but must be laid down in an express
contract. The amount of 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 if the suit
fails. (Rayos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, February
12, 2007)
Ratio: Contracts of this nature are permitted because
they redound to the benefit of the poor client and the
lawyer "especially in cases where the client has
meritorious cause of action, but no means with which
to pay for legal services unless he can, with the
sanction of law, make a contract for a contingent fee
to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation.
Oftentimes, the contingent fee arrangement is the
only means by which the poor and helpless can seek
redress for injuries sustained and have their rights
vindicated." (Rayos v. Hernandez, supra)
ATTORNEY’S LIENS
An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client, which have
lawfully come into his possession and may retain the
same until his lawful fees and disbursements have
been paid, and may apply such funds to the
LEGAL ETHICS
satisfaction thereof.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the
time when he shall have caused a statement of his
claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of
the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such
execution, and shall have caused written notice
thereof to be delivered to his client and to the
adverse party; and he shall have the same right and
power over such judgments and executions as his
client would have to enforce his lien and secure the
payment of his just fees and disbursements. (Rules of
Court, Rule 138, Section 37)
KINDS OF LIENS
RETAINING LIEN
the right of an attorney to retain possession of a
client’s documents, money, or other property which
comes into the hands of the attorney professionally,
until a general balance due him for professional
services is paid. (7 C.J.S., 1141)
REQUISITES:
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
(2) Lawful possession by lawyer of the client’s funds,
documents and papers in his professional
capacity;
(3) Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or
disbursements
CHARGING LIEN
the equitable right of an attorney to have fees and
costs due him for services in a particular suit secured
by the judgment or recovery in such suit. (7 C.J.S.,
1142) (Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics by
Ernani Cruz Paňo, pg. 54)
REQUISITES:
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
(2) The attorney has rendered services;
(3) A money judgment favorable to the client has
been secured in the action;
(4) The attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees or
advances statement of his claim has been
recorded in the case with notice served upon the
client and adverse party
FEES AND CONTROVERSIES WITH
CLIENTS
Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the CPR mandates that "[a]
lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud." Likewise, Canon 14 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics states that "[c]ontroversies with
clients concerning compensation are to be avoided by
the lawyer so far as shall be compatible with his self-
respect and with his right to receive reasonable
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
26 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
recompense for his service; and lawsuits with the
clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice,
imposition, or fraud." (Cueto v. Jimenez, Jr., A.C. No.
5798, January 20, 2005)
REQUISITES FOR THE RIGHT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES TO
ACCRUE:
✓ Existence of attorney-client relationship
✓ Rendition by the lawyer or services to the client
Factors in Determining Attorney’s Fees:
(1) Time spent and the extent of the services
rendered
(2) Importance of the subject matter
(3) Novelty and the difficulty of the questions
involved
(4) Skill demanded
(5) Amount involved in the controversy and the
benefit resulting from the service
(6) Probability of losing other employment as a result
of the acceptance of the proffered case
(7) Professional standing of the lawyer
(8) Customary charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he
belongs
(9) Contingency or certainty of compensation
(10) Character of the employment whether occasional
or established.
CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES
TWO ACCEPTED CONCEPTS OF ATTORNEY'S FEES:
ORDINARY CONCEPT
An attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid
to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has
rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation
is the fact of his employment by and his agreement
with the client.
EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPT
an attorney's fee is an indemnity for damages ordered
by the court to be paid by the losing party in a
litigation. The basis of this is any of the cases provided
by law where such award can be made, such as those
authorized in Article 2208, Civil Code, and is payable
not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have
agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as
additional compensation or as part thereof. (Traders
Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 120592, March 14, 1997)
KINDS OF RETAINER FEES
GENERAL RETAINER
The fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services
as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that
may arise in the routinary business of the client and
referred to him for legal action. The future services of
the lawyer are secured and committed to the retaining
client. For this, the client pays the lawyer a fixed
retainer fee which could be monthly or otherwise,
depending upon their arrangement. The fees are paid
LEGAL ETHICS
whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer.
The reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is
deprived of the opportunity of rendering services for a
fee to the opposing party or other parties. In fine, it is
a compensation for lost opportunities.
SPECIAL RETAINER
A fee for a specific case handled or special service
rendered by the lawyer for a client. A client may have
several cases demanding special or individual
attention. If for every case there is a separate and
independent contract for attorney’s fees, each fee is
considered a special retainer.
CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF
A CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES:
(1) the amount and character of the service
rendered;
(2) labor, time, and trouble involved;
(3) the nature and importance of the litigation or
business in which the services were rendered;
(4) the responsibility imposed;
(5) the amount of money or the value of the property
affected by the controversy or involved in the
employment;
(6) the skill and experience called for in the
performance of the services;
(7) the professional character and social standing of
the attorney;
(8) the results secured;
(9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being
recognized that an attorney may properly charge
a much larger fee when it is contingent than when
it is not; and
(10) the financial capacity and economic status of the
client have to be taken into account in fixing the
reasonableness of the fee.
In the absence of a law allowing compensation, the
lawyer designated as counsel de oficio cannot charge
the government nor the indigent litigant for his
professional services. (Agpalo)
Under Article 111 of the Labor Code, in cases of
unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party
may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to ten
percent of the amount of wages recovered. It shall be
unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any
judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery
of wages, attorney’s fees which exceed ten percent of
the amount of wages recovered.
CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence
and secrets of his client even after the attorney-
client relation is terminated.
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
27 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
AT WHAT POINT AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP IS ESTABLISHED:
It is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised, or charged; neither is it material that the
attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case
for which his service had been sought.
If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of
any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the
consultation, then the professional employment is
established (Burbe v. Magulta, supra)
FACTORS ESTABLISHING ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATION (DEAN WIGMORE’S LIST)
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought
(2) From a professional legal adviser in his capacity as
such:
✓ The communications relating to that purpose
✓ Made in confidence
✓ By the client
✓ Are at his instance permanently protected
✓ From disclosure by himself or by the legal
advisor
✓ Except the protection be waived. (Hadjula v
Madianda, A.C. No. 6711, July 3, 2007)
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
When authorized by the client after acquainting
him of the consequences of the disclosure;
When required by law;
When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action
Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage
of his client, use information acquired in the course
of employment, nor shall he use the same to his
own advantage or that of a third person, unless the
client with full knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written
consent of his client, give information from his files
to an outside agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose.
Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a
client of the firm to partners or associates thereof
unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as
may be required to prevent those whose services
LEGAL ETHICS
are utilized by him, from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the client.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
PROHIBITED DISCLOSURES AND USE
A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client,
use information acquired in the course of
employment, nor shall he use the same to his own
advantage or that of a third person, unless the client
with full knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto.
A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his
client, give information from his files to an outside
agency seeking such information for auditing,
statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing,
or any similar purpose. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted
about a particular case except to avoid possible
conflict of interest.
INSTANCES WHEN A LAWYER MAY DISCLOSE THE
CONFIDENCES OR SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT:
(1) When authorized by the client after acquainting
him of the consequences of the disclosure;
(2) When required by law;
(3) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
(4) A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the
firm to partners or associates thereof unless
prohibited by the client.
CANON 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in
the circumstances.
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in
any of the following cases:
(1) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the
matter he is handling;
(2) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules;
(3) When his inability to work with co-counsel will
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
28 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
not promote the best interest of the client;
(4) When the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out
the employment effectively;
(5) When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
(6) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
(7) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the
proper handling of the matter.
TERMINATION OF ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP
The act of the client;
the act of the attorney;
the death of the client;
the death of the attorney; or
the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was
created. Ordinarily, the attorney-client relation is
ended by the completion of the specific task for which
the attorney was employed.
General rule: The withdrawal in writing, with the
client’s conformity, does not require the approval of
the court to be effective.
Exception: If no new counsel has entered his
appearance, the court may, in order to prevent a
denial of a party’s right to the assistance of counsel
require that the lawyer’s withdrawal be held in
abeyance until another lawyer shall have appeared for
the party. (Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369,
September 30, 1974)
Although a lawyer may withdraw his services when the
client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
services, withdrawal is unjustified if client did not
deliberately fail to pay. (Montano v. IBP, A.C. No.
4215, May 21, 2001)
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND
DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS (RULE 139-
B)
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS AGAINST LAWYERS
Sui generis (a class of their own)
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 is
rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct
LEGAL ETHICS
of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court
motu proprio.
Public interest is its 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
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the
office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus
be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a
prosecutor. (Ylaya v. Gacott, supra; Que v. Revilla Jr.,
A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009)
Private and Confidential
Disbarment proceedings against attorneys shall be
private and confidential except that the final order of
the court shall be made public as in other cases
coming before the court. (Sec. 10, Rule 139, Rules of
Court)
No Res Judicata in disbarment cases
The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of
the [Court’s] administrative powers. (Dinsay v. Cioco,
A.C. No. 2995, 27 November 1996)
Prescription
An administrative complaint against a member of the
bar does not prescribe. If the rule were otherwise,
members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard
the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from
the fact that as long as no private complainant would
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of
being completely exonerated from whatever
administrative liability they ought to answer for. No
matter how much time has elapsed from the time of
the commission of the act complained of and the time
of the institution of the complaint, erring members of
the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm
of the Court. (Heck v. Santos, A.M. No.RTJ-01-1657.
February 23, 2004)
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
29 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Monetary claims cannot be granted in disbarment
cases except restitution and return of monies and
properties of the client given in the course of the
lawyer-client relations.
A lawyer who leaked the bar questions in Mercantile
Law prepared by a founding partner in his law firm
was reinstated upon proof of good moral character
during his period of suspension. (2003 Bar Question)
A proceeding for disbarment or suspension is not in
any sense a civil action; it is undertaken and
prosecuted for public welfare. It does not involve
private interest and affords no redress for private
grievance. (Bellosillo v. Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R. No. 126980,
March 31, 2006)
No private interest is involved in disbarment cases.
Hence, a real party-in-interest is not required. The
procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil
proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must
initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In
fact, the person who called the attention of the court
to a lawyer’s misconduct is in no sense a party, and
generally has no interest in the outcome except as all
good citizens may have in the proper administration of
justice.(Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, January
28, 1998)
In Heck v. Santos, the Court held that “any interested
person or the court motu proprio may initiate
disciplinary proceedings.” The right to institute
disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor
is it necessary that the person complaining suffered
injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the
only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of
proof of the charges. (Sebastian v. Bajar, A.C.
No. 3731, September 7, 2007)
No Prejudicial Questions in Disbarment Proceedings
It is not sound judicial policy to await the final
resolution of a criminal case before a complaint
against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this
Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on
admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal
profession during the whole period that the criminal
case is pending final disposition, when the objectives
of the two proceedings are vastly
disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely
for the public welfare and for preserving courts of
justice from the official ministration of persons unfit
to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to
the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.
(Yu v. Palaña, A.C. No. 7747, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA
21)
LEGAL ETHICS
In pari delicto is not a defense
In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the
complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a
proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one
to purge the law profession of unworthy members to
protect the public and the courts. (Mortel v. Aspiras,
G.R. No. L-9152, December 28, 1956,100 Phil. 586,
592)
POWER TO DISCIPLINE
The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted in thereon. (1987 Constitution,
Art. VIII, Sec. 11). The power of the Court to discipline
is an inherent and exclusive power.
Referral of complaints to the IBP is not mandatory as
it is not an exclusive procedure under Rule 139-B.
Under this rule, the Supreme Court may conduct
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers without the
intervention of the IBP by referring the complaint to
the Solicitor General, or to any officer of the Supreme
Court, or to a judge of a lower court. (Bautista v.
Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990)
HOW INSTITUTED:
Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys
(1) may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio,
or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
(2) Filing of a verified complaint of any person.
The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the
facts complained of and shall be supported by
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the
facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as
may substantiate said facts.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon
referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board
of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate
and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys
including those in the government service; Provided,
however, that all charges against Justices of the Court
of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of
the Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if
lawyers are jointly charged with them, shall be filed
with the Supreme Court; Provided, further, that
charges filed against Justices and Judges before the
IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment in
the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
30 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed
with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any
of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same
to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an
investigator.” (Rule 139-B as amended by B.M No.
1960, Sec. 1)
SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEY BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OR REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may
suspend an attorney from practice for any of the
causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further
action of the Supreme Court in the case.(Rules Of
Court, Rule 139-B, Sec. 16)
GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION
UNDER SECTION 27, RULE 138 OF THE REVISED RULES
OF COURT, A MEMBER OF THE BAR MAY BE DISBARRED
OR SUSPENDED ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
(1) deceit;
(2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office;
(3) grossly immoral conduct;
(4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(5) violation of the lawyer’s oath;
(6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court; and
(7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
without authority.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Art. 1491(5), NCC. Justices, judges, prosecuting
attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and
other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice cannot acquire by
assignment or by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another, property and rights which
may be the object of any litigation.
Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 prohibits the lawyer’s
acquisition by assignment of the client’s property
which is the subject of the litigation handled by the
lawyer. Under Article 1492, the prohibition extends to
sales in legal redemption. The prohibition ordained in
paragraph 5 of Article 1491 and Article 1492 is
founded on public policy because, by virtue of his
office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the
credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich
himself at the expense of his client. (Re: Atty. Leon G.
Maquera, Bar Matter No. 793, July 30, 2004)
Art. 208, RPC. Prosecution of offenses; negligence
and tolerance. — The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and suspension
shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer
LEGAL ETHICS 31 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his

office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting
prosecution for the punishment of violators of the THE POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PUNISH
law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses. FOR CONTEMPT VS. THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE
LAWYERS

Art. 209, RPC Betrayal of trust by an attorney or Contempt Disciplinary Proceeding

solicitor. — Revelation of secrets. — In addition to Proceeding
the proper administrative action, the penalty of deals with the fitness of
prision correccional in its minimum period, or a the court’s officer to
fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall continue in that office,
be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor to vindicate to preserve and protect
(procurador judicial) who, by any malicious breach Object the authority the court and the public
of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or of the court from the official
ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any ministrations of persons
of the secrets of the latter learned by him in his unfit or unworthy to
professional capacity. hold such office
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an to assure respect for
attorney-at-law or solicitor (procurador judicial) orders of such court by
who, having undertaken the defense of a client or to safeguard attorneys who, as much
having received confidential information from said Purpose the functions as judges, are
client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the of the court responsible for the
opposing party in the same case, without the orderly administration of
consent of his first client. justice.
governed by
the
QUANTUM OF PROOF procedures governed by Rules 138
Governing
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension laid down and 139 of the Rules of
Law
against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is under Rule 71 Court
clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof of the Rules of
rests upon the complainant. (Cruz v. Centron, Adm. Court
Matter No. P-02-1644, November 11, 2004)
READMISSION TO THE BAR
May a lawyer be disbarred for causes other than those LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED
mentioned in the statute? When? (1977 Bar Question) LIFTING OF THE SUSPENSION NOT AUTOMATIC
The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automatic
HELD: YES. It is already a settled rule that the upon the end of the period stated in the Court’s
statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment decision, and an order from the Court lifting the
or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in
general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. order to enable [him] to resume the practice of his
The inherent powers of the court over its officers profession. Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended
cannot be restricted. (Quingwa v. Puno, A.C. No. 389, lawyer must first present proof(s) of his compliance by
February 28, 1967) submitting certifications from the IBP and from the
Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from the
May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred practice of law during the period of suspension.
or suspended from the practice of law in a foreign Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon a
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a
attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of resolution lifting the order of suspension and thus
the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed allow him to resume the practice of law. (Maniago v.
in the foreign jurisdiction? De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010)

HELD: Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138, the disbarment
or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a
foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted
as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or
suspension in this realm, provided the foreign court’s
action is by reason of an act or omission constituting
deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyer’s oath.
(Re: Atty. Leon G. Maquera, supra)
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISBARRED
CRITERIA FOR REINSTATEMENT OF A DISBARRED
LAWYER
(1) Appreciation of the significance of his dereliction
(2) Assurance to the court that he now possesses the
requisite probity and integrity necessary to
guarantee his worthiness to be restored to the
practice of law.
(3) The time elapsed between disbarment and

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS

LEGAL ETHICS 32 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

application for reinstatement. REQUIREMENTS

(4) Good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent
DURATION FOR THE COMPLIANCE OF THE MCLE
to his disbarment.
Every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of
(5) Active involvement in civic, educational and
continuing legal education activities approved by the
religious organizations.
MCLE Committee (Rule 2, Sec. 2). (2012 Bar Exam
(6) Favorable indorsement of IBP as well as local
MCQ no. 4)
government officials and citizens of his
community.
36 HOURS OF CONTINUING LEGAL
Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll EDUCATION ALLOCATION
of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound Subject Hours Credit
discretion of the Court. The applicant must, like a Units (CU)
candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court Legal Ethics 6 6
that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and
Trial and Pretrial Skills 4 4
proper person to practice law. The Court will take into
Alternative Dispute Resolution 5 5
consideration the applicant’s character and standing
Substantive and Procedural Law 9 9
prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of
the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct and Jurisprudence
subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has Legal Writing and Advocacy 4 4
elapsed between the disbarment and the application International Law and 2 2
for reinstatement. (Que v. Revilla, Jr., supra) International Conventions
Total Number of Hours 30 -
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN REPATRIATED
CONDITIONS BEFORE A LAWYER WHO REACQUIRES Note: The remaining 6 from 36 hours, the subject shall
FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP PURSUANT TO RA 9225 be prescribed by the MCLE Committee is upon the
CAN RESUME LAW PRACTICE discretion of the MCLE Committee. (Rule 2, Sec. 2)
He must first secure from this Court the authority to
do so, conditioned on: COMPLIANCE
(1) the updating and payment in full of the annual The compliance groups enumerated by Bar Matter 850
membership dues in the IBP;
Group Scope
(2) the payment of professional tax;
Compliance Group 1 Members in the NCR
(3) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of
Compliance Group 2 Members in Luzon outside NCR
mandatory continuing legal education; this is
especially significant to refresh the Compliance Group 3 Members in Visayas and
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine Mindanao
laws and update him of legal developments and
Initial compliance period. - The initial compliance
(4) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not
period shall begin not later than three (3) months from
only remind him of his duties and responsibilities the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial
as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but compliance period for members admitted or
also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to readmitted after the establishment of the program, all
the Republic of the Philippines. (Petition for compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months
Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. and shall begin the day after the end of the previous
Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007) compliance period.

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

PURPOSE
(1) To keep abreast with law and jurisprudence,
(2012 Bar Exam, MCQ no. 7)
(2) To maintain the ethics of the profession, and
(3) To enhance the standards of the practice of law
(Rule 1, Sec.1)

PERSONS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH

THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION:
General Rule: All members of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines
Exception: Rule 7, Section 1 provides for the parties
exempt from MCLE.

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS

LEGAL ETHICS
EXEMPTIONS
PARTIES EXEMPTED FROM THE MCLE
(1) The President and the Vice President of the
Philippines
(2) The Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive
Departments
(3) Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives
(4) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members
of the judiciary
(5) incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar
Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by
the Philippine Judicial Academy program of
continuing judicial education
(6) 6.The Chief State Counsel
(7) Chief State Prosecutor
(8) Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice
(9) The Solicitor General
(10) The Assistant Solicitors General
(11) The Government Corporate Counsel
(12) Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate
Counsel
(13) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions
(14) The Ombudsman
(15) The Overall Deputy Ombudsman
(16) The Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman
(17) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions
(18) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of
law who have teaching experience for at least ten
(10) years in accredited law schools;
(19) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of
the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers
of the Philippine Judicial Academy
(20) Governors and Mayors.
(21) Those who are not in law practice, private or
public who are members of the bar
(22) Those who have retired from law practice with
the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
SANCTIONS
SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE
IN THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
(1) Payment of Non-compliance fee.
(2) Listing as Delinquent member of the IBP
(3) Accrual of Membership fee.
REQUIREMENT AMONG PRACTICING
LAWYERS IN THEIR PLEADINGS
IMPOSED UNDER BAR MATTER NO. 1922
Practicing members of the bar are required to
INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or
quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of
their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately
preceding compliance period.
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
33 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Failure to disclose the required information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
the pleadings from the records.(Re. Number and date
of MCLE certificate of completion/exemption required
in all pleadings/motions, B.M. No. 1922, June 3, 2008)
MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
Bar Matter 2012, Proposed Rule on Mandatory Legal
Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, February 10, 2009
FREE LEGAL AID SERVICES
appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in
behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the
preparation of pleadings or motions. It shall also cover
assistance by a practicing lawyer to indigent or poor
litigants in court-annexed mediation and in other
modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Services rendered when a practicing lawyer is
appointed counsel de oficio shall also be considered as
free legal aid services and credited as compliance
under this Rule.
PRACTICING LAWYERS
Members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in
behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial
agencies, including but not limited to the National
Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and
Mediation Board, Department of Labor and
Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission
for Indigenous Peoples.
The term "practicing lawyers" shall exclude:
(1) Government employees and incumbent elective
officials not allowed by law to practice;
(2) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in
court;
(3) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law
student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of
law schools and lawyers of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and peoples’ organizations
(POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by
the nature of their work already render free legal
aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
(4) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to
(iii) including those who are employed in the
private sector but do not appear for and in behalf
of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial
agencies.
PURPOSE
to enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of
social change and to the courts as officers thereof by
helping improve access to justice by the less privileged
members of society and expedite the resolution of
cases involving them.
Mandatory free legal service by members of the bar
and their active support thereof will aid the efficient
and effective administration of justice, especially in
LEGAL ETHICS
cases involving indigent and pauper litigants.
SCOPE
This Rule shall govern the mandatory requirement for
practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in
all cases (whether civil, criminal, or administrative)
involving indigent and pauper litigants where the
assistance of a lawyer is needed.
It shall also govern the duty of other members of the
legal profession to support the legal aid program of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
REQUIREMENTS
Every practicing lawyer is required to render a
minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services
to indigent litigants in a year.
A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and
obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting
to the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid
services in a case.
PENALTIES
At the end of every calendar year, any practicing
lawyer who fails to meet the minimum prescribed 60
hours of legal aid service each year:
shall be required by the IBP, through the National
Committee on Legal Aid, to explain why he was unable
to render the minimum prescribed number of hours.
If no explanation has been given or if the NCLA finds
the explanation unsatisfactory, the erring lawyer be
declared a member of the IBP who is not in good
standing.
Notice thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and
the notice to the lawyer shall include a directive to
pay Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) as penalty which
shall accrue to the special fund for the legal aid
program of the IBP.
The "not in good standing" declaration shall be
effective for a period of three (3) months from the
receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP
Board of Governors. During the said period, the lawyer
cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as
counsel. PROVIDED, however, that the "not in good
standing" status shall subsist even after the lapse of
the three-month period until and unless the penalty
shall have been paid.
Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under
this Rule for at least three (3) consecutive years shall
be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be
instituted motu proprio by the Commission on Bar
Discipline. If found administratively liable, the penalty
of suspension in the practice of law for one (1) year
shall be imposed upon him.
Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form
required to be submitted under this Rule or any
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
34 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
contents thereof shall be administratively charged
with falsification and dishonesty and shall be subject
to disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without
prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against the
lawyer.
The falsification of a certificate or any contents
thereof by any Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of
the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP local chapter
where the case is pending or by the Director of a legal
clinic or responsible officer of an NGO or PO shall be a
ground for an administrative case against the said
Clerk of Court or Chairperson. This is without
prejudice to the filing of the criminal and
administrative charges against the malfeasor.
NOTARIAL PRACTICE (A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC, AS
AMENDED)
DEFINITIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
An act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(1) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an integrally complete instrument or
document;
(2) is attested to be personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by
these Rules; and
(3) represents to the notary public that the signature
on the instrument or document was voluntarily
affixed by him for the purposes stated in the
instrument or document, declares that he has
executed the instrument or document as his free
and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a
particular representative capacity, that he has
the authority to sign in that capacity.
AFFIRMATION OR OATH
An act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(1) appears in person before the notary public;
(2) is personally known to the notary public or 3.
identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
and
(3) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of
the contents of the instrument or document.
COMMISSION
The grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to
the written evidence of the authority.
COPY CERTIFICATION
A notarial act in which a notary public:
LEGAL ETHICS
(1) is presented with an instrument or document that
is neither a vital record, a public record, nor
publicly recordable;
(2) copies or supervises the copying of the instrument
or document;
(3) compares the instrument or document with the
copy;
(4) determines that the copy is accurate and
complete.
JURAT
An act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(1) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an instrument or document;
(2) is personally known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(3) signs the instrument or document in the presence
of the notary; and
(4) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary
public as to such instrument or document.
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. (Bides-Ulaso v. Noe-
Lacsamana, Adm. Case No. 7297, September 29, 2009)
NOTARIAL ACT AND NOTARIZATION
Any act that a notary public is empowered to perform
under these Rules.
NOTARY PUBLIC AND NOTARY
Any person commissioned to perform official acts
under these Rules.
QUALIFICATIONS OF A NOTARY PUBLIC
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least
one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work
or business in the city or province where the
commission is to be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing with clearances from the Office of the
Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance
of any crime involving moral turpitude. (A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC, as amended, Rule III, Section 1)
TERM OF OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
A person commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of
two (2) years commencing the first day of January of
the year in which the commissioning is made, unless
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
35 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
earlier revoked, or the notary public has resigned
under these Rules and the Rules of Court. (A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC, as amended, Rule III, Section 11)
DUTIES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
(1) Explain fully the legal intricacies and
consequences of the subject transaction as would
aid the parties in making an informed decision
(Nadayag v. Grageda, Adm. Case No. 3232,
September 27, 1994).
(2) Observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties (Nunga v.
Viray, A.M. No. 4758, April 30, 1999).
(3) Guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements
(Villarin v. Sabate, A.C. No. 3324, February 9,
2000).
A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary
public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before
said notary public to attest to the contents and truth
of what are stated therein. The acts of affiants cannot
be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein
are facts they have personal knowledge of and swore
to the same personally and not through any
representative. Otherwise, their representative's
names should appear in the said documents as the
ones who executed the same and that is only the time
they can affix their signatures and personally appear
before the notary public for notarization of said
document. (Villarin v. Sabate, A.C. No. 3324,
February 9, 2000; De la Cruz v. Dimaano Jr, A.C.No.
7781, September 12, 2008)
Section 1, Public Act No. 2103. The
acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or
an officer duly authorized by law of the country to
take acknowledgments of instruments or documents
in the place where the act is done. The notary
public or the officer taking the acknowledgment
shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that
he is the same person who executed it,
acknowledged that the same is his free act and
deed. The certificate shall be made under the
official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal,
and if not, his certificate shall so state.
REQUIREMENT OF AFFIANT’S PERSONAL
APPEARANCE
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person
involved as signatory to the instrument or document:
(1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the
time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by
LEGAL ETHICS
these Rules. (Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial
Practice of 2004, Section 2b)
The purpose of the requirement of personal
appearance by the acknowledging party before the
notary public is to enable the latter to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the former. It may be
added, too, that only by such personal appearance
may the notary public be able to ascertain from the
acknowledging party himself that the instrument or
document is his own free act and deed. Needless to
state, the personal appearances and acknowledgment
by the party to the document are the core of the
ritual that effectively convert a private document into
a public document, making it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity. (Flores v.
Chua, Adm. Case No. 4500, April 30, 1999)
NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF A NOTARY
PUBLIC
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and
routinary act. It converts a private document to a
public document, making it admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face; for this reason, notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of their duties. (Gaddi v. Atty.
Velasco, A.C. No. 8637, September 15, 2014)
The duties of a notary public is dictated by public
policy and impressed with public interest. It is not a
meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging
documents executed by parties who are willing to pay
the fees for notarization. (Isenhardt v. Real, Adm.
Case No. 8254, February 15, 2012)
It is of no moment that the subject SPA was not
utilized by the grantee for the purpose it was intended
because the property was allegedly transferred from
complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale
consummated between them. What is being penalized
is respondent’s act of notarizing a document despite
the absence of one of the parties. By notarizing the
questioned document, he engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A notarized
document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must
observe the basic requirements in notarizing
documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public
in notarized documents will be undermined. (Isenhardt
v. Real, supra)
POWERS AND LIMITATION
Powers
A notary public is empowered to perform the following
notarial acts:
✓ acknowledgments;
✓ oaths and affirmations;
✓ jurats;
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
36 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
✓ signature witnessings;
✓ copy certifications; and
✓ any other act authorized by these Rules.
A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of
a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument
or document presented for notarization if
(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the
presence of the notary public and of two (2)
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the
instrument or document;
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to
the thumb or other mark;
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other
mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of
signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and
addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary
public"; and
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by
thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment,
jurat, or signature witnessing.
A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a
person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark
on an instrument or document if
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable
to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the
presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names;
the notary public writes below his signature:
“Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names
and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses)”; and
the notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat.
PROHIBITIONS
A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside
his regular place of work or business; provided,
however, that on certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be performed at the
request of the parties in the following sites located
within his territorial jurisdiction:
(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places
where oaths of office may be administered;
(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places
for the signing of instruments or documents
requiring notarization; hospitals and other
medical institutions where a party to an
instrument or document is confined for
treatment; and
(3) any place where a party to an instrument or
document requiring notarization is under
detention.
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person
involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
is not in the notary's presence personally at the time
of the notarization; and is not personally known to the
LEGAL ETHICS
notary public or otherwise identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as
defined by these Rules.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
A notary public is disqualified from performing a
notarial act if he:
(1) is a party to the instrument or document that is to
be notarized;
(2) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any
commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,
cash, property, or other consideration, except as
provided by these Rules and by law; or
(3) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth
civil degree.
REFUSAL TO NOTARIZE
A notary public shall not perform any notarial act
described in these Rules for any person requesting
such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee
specified by these Rules if:
(1) the notary knows or has good reason to believe
that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral;
(2) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders
in the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt
as to the former's knowledge of the consequences
of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and
(3) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not
acting of his or her own free will.
FALSE OR INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATE
A notary public shall not:
(1) execute a certificate containing information
known or believed by the notary to be false.
(2) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial
certificate that is incomplete.
IMPROPER INSTRUMENTS FOR DOCUMENTS
A notary public shall not notarize:
a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or
an instrument or document without appropriate
notarial certification.
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
IMPOSITION AND WAIVER OF FEES
For performing a notarial act, a notary public may
charge the maximum fee as prescribed by the Supreme
Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part.
TRAVEL FEES AND EXPENSES
A notary public may charge travel fees and expenses
separate and apart from the notarial fees prescribed
in the preceding section when traveling to perform a
notarial act if the notary public and the person
requesting the notarial act agree prior to the travel.
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
37 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
PROHIBITED FEES
No fee or compensation of any kind, except those
expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be
collected or received for any notarial service.
PAYMENT OR REFUND OF FEES
A notary public shall not require payment of any fees
specified herein prior to the performance of a notarial
act unless otherwise agreed upon. Any travel fees and
expenses paid to a notary public prior to the
performance of a notarial act are not subject to
refund if the notary public had already traveled but
failed to complete in whole or in part the notarial act
for reasons beyond his control and without negligence
on his part.
NOTICE OF FEES
A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services
shall issue a receipt registered with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees.
He shall enter in the journal all fees charged for
services rendered.
A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his
office a complete schedule of chargeable notarial
fees.
NOTARIAL REGISTER
A notarial register refers to a permanently bound book
with numbered pages containing a chronological
record of notarial acts performed by a notary public.
(Sec. 5, Rule II, Notarial Rules)
FORM OF NOTARIAL REGISTER
A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect, and
provide for lawful inspection as provided in these
Rules, a chronological official notarial register of
notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book
with numbered pages.
The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by
the Solicitor General to any notary public upon request
and upon payment of the cost thereof. The register
shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the
Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of
which the book consists.
A notary public shall keep only one active notarial
register at any given time.
ENTRIES IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER
For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the
notarial register at the time of notarization the
following:
(1) the entry number and page number;
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3) the type of notarial act;
(4) the title or description of the instrument,
document or proceeding;
(5) the name and address of each principal;
(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by
LEGAL ETHICS
these Rules if the signatory is not personally
known to the notary;
(7) the name and address of each credible witness
swearing to or affirming the person's identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was performed
if not in the notary's regular place of work or
business;
(10) any other circumstance the notary public may
deem of significance or relevance.
A notary public shall record in the notarial register the
reasons and circumstances for not completing a
notarial act.
A notary public shall record in the notarial register the
circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an
entry in the notarial register, including the requester's
name, address, signature, thumbmark or other
recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The
reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a
journal entry shall also be recorded.
When the instrument or document is a contract, the
notary public shall keep an original copy thereof as
part of his records and enter in said records a brief
description of the substance thereof and shall give to
each entry a consecutive number, beginning with
number one in each calendar year. He shall also retain
a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.
The notary public shall give to each instrument or
document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged
before him a number corresponding to the one in his
register, and shall also state on the instrument or
document the page/s of his register on which the same
is recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries.
In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange, or
promissory note, the notary public shall make a full
and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto
and shall note therein whether the demand for the
sum of money was made, by whom, when, and where;
whether he presented such draft, bill, or note;
whether notices were given, to whom and in what
manner; where the same was made, when and to
whom and where directed; and of every other fact
touching the same.
At the end of each week, the notary public shall
certify in his notarial register the number of
instruments or documents executed, sworn to,
acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none,
this certificate shall show this fact.
A certified copy of each month's entries and a
duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall, within
the first ten (10) days of the month following, be
forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the
responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
38 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
certify for the month, the notary shall forward a
statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies
herein required.
Respondents allowed their secretaries to notarize
documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 245
and 246 of the Notarial Law. It is held that the notary
public is personally accountable for all the entries in
his notarial register. They cannot be relieved of
responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid
sections by passing the blame to their secretaries.
(Lingan v. Atty. Calubaquib, A.C. No. 5377, June 15,
2006)
SIGNATURES AND THUMBMARKS
At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial
register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark
affixed by each:
(1) principal;
(2) credible witness swearing or affirming to the
identity of a principal; and
(3) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or
(4) to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a
person physically unable to sign.
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES
The notary public shall supply a certified true copy of
the notarial record, or any part thereof, to any person
applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees.
JURISDICTION OF NOTARY PUBLIC AND
TERM OF NOTARIZATION
A person commissioned as notary public may perform
notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of
two (2) years commencing the first day of January of
the year in which the commissioning is made, unless
earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned
under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION
REVOCATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an application for
a commission may be denied.
In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the
commission of, or impose appropriate administrative
sanctions upon, any notary public who:
(1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register concerning his notarial acts;
(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the
Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of
the month following;
(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration of his commission;
(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled,
to the Executive Judge;
LEGAL ETHICS 39 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time,
to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be required by
the judge;
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the
time of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge or competent evidence;
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under
Section 5, Rule IV;
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other
act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and
(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the
judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good
cause for revocation of commission or imposition
of administrative sanction.
Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or
aggrieved person, the notary public shall be required
to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the
answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the
Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If
the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the
complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly
established, the Executive Judge shall impose the
appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case,
the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the
Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an
order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be
immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by
the Supreme Court.
The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate
administrative proceedings against a notary public,
subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c)
above and impose the appropriate administrative
sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs (a) and (b).
transaction who is personally known to the notary
public and who personally knows the individual, or
of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy
to the instrument, document or transaction who
each personally knows the individual and shows to
the notary public documentary identification. (De
la Cruz v. Dimaano, supra)
NOTE: Will a cedula/community tax certificate suffice
as competent proof of identity?
HELD: It depends. A document notarized before the
effectivity of the 2004 Notarial Rules will be governed
by the relevant provisions of the Revised
Administrative Code, wherein the cedula will suffice
as proof of identity. Otherwise, the requirements of
the 2004 Notarial Rules will apply.
NOTE: What is the liability of a lawyer for notarizing a
document when the affiant is already dead?
HELD: A notary public who notarized a Deed of
Donation of another lawyer one day after his death to
the detriment of the interests of the surviving lawyer-
spouse was suspended by the S.C. (Linco v. Lacebal,
A.C. 7241, October 17, 2011)
Respondent’s act of affixing his signature above the
printed name Edwin T. Nevada, without any
qualification, veritably made him a party to the
contract of lease in question. Thus, his act of
notarizing a deed to which he is a party is a plain
violation of Rule IV, Sec. 3(a) of the Notarial Rules, for
which he can be disciplinarily sanctioned. Aside from
being a violation of the Notarial Rules, Casuga’s
aforementioned act partakes of malpractice of law
and misconduct. (Nevada v Casuga, supra)

COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY

Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provide
that the following shall be competent proof of
identity:
(1) at least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual, such
as but not limited to: passport, driver’s license,
Professional Regulations Commission ID, National
Bureau of Investigation clearance, police
clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay
certification, Government Service and Insurance
System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card,
Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA)
ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certification from the
National Council for the Welfare of Disabled
Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD) certification; and
(2) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness
not privy to the instrument, document or

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS

 JUDICIAL ETHICS
II. JUDICIAL ETHICS
TERMS:
JUDICIAL ETHICS
The branch of moral science which treats of the right
and proper conduct to be observed by all judges and
magistrates in trying and deciding controversies
brought to them for adjudication which conduct must
be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity,
competence, independence, and freedom from
improprieties.
JUDGE
A public officer who, by virtue of his office, is clothed
with judicial authority; a public officer lawfully
appointed to decide litigated questions in accordance
with law.
DE JURE JUDGE
One who is exercising the office of judge as a matter
of right; an officer of a court who has been duly and
legally appointed, qualified and whose term has not
expired.
DE FACTO JUDGE
an officer who is not fully invested with all the powers
and duties conceded to judges, but is exercising the
office of a judge under some color of right.
QUALIFICATIONS:
✓ natural-born citizen of PH
Supreme ✓ at least 40 years of age
Court ✓ must have been, for 15 yrs. or
and more, a judge of a lower court
Court of engaged in the practice of law
Appeals ✓ must be a person of proven
Justices competence, probity and
independence
✓ natural-born citizen of PH
✓ at least 35 years of age
✓ for at least 10 yrs. has been
engaged in the practice of law in
RTC Judges
the PH or has held a public
office in the PH requiring
admission to the practice of law
as an indispensable requisite.
✓ natural-born citizen of PH
✓ at least 30 years of age
✓ for at least 5 yrs. has been
engaged in the practice of law in
MTC Judges
the PH or has held a public
office in the PH requiring
admission to the practice of law
as an indispensable requisite
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
40 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
SOURCES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)
(1) Promulgated April 27, 2004; effective June 1,
2004.
(2) Based on the Bangalore Draft adopted by the
Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity,
intended to be the Universal Declaration of
Judicial Standards, as revised by the Round Table
Conference of Chief Justices held at The Hague on
November 25-26, 2002.
PRINCIPLES OF BANGALORE DRAFT
(1) A universal recognition that a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary is essential if
the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding
constitutionalism and the rule of law.
(2) Public confidence in the judicial system and in the
moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of
utmost importance in a modern democratic
society
(3) It is essential that judges, individually and
collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a
public trust and strive to enhance and maintain
confidence in the judicial system. (New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
2004)
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines
on September, 1989; effective October 20, 1989.
QUALITIES
Independence
Integrity
Impartiality
Propriety
Equality
Competence and Diligence
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code
of Judicial Conduct heretofore applied in the
Philippines to the extent that the provisions or
concepts therein are embodied in this Code: Provided,
however, that in case of deficiency or absence of
specific provisions in this New Code, the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall
be applicable in a suppletory character.
Promulgated this 27th day of April 2004. The Code
took effect on June 1, 2004.
CANON 1. INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule
of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A
judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and institutional
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
aspects.
SEC. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function
independently on the basis of their assessment of
the facts and in accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any extraneous
influence, inducement, pressure, threat or
interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason.
SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be
independent from judicial colleagues in respect of
decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.
SEC. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any
manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending
before another court or administrative agency.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not
be used or lent to advance the private interests of
others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.
SEC. 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with, and influence by,
the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.
SEC. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to
society in general and in relation to the particular
parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
SEC. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold
safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in
order to maintain and enhance the institutional and
operational independence of the judiciary.
SEC.8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high
standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce
public confidence in the judiciary, which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence.
TWO CONCEPTS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE:
INDIVIDUAL JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
focuses on each particular case and seeks to insure his
or her ability to decide cases with autonomy within
the constraints of the law (In the Matter of the
Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P.
Macasaet Published in Malaya Dated Sept. 18-21,
2007, A.M. No. 07-09-13, August 8, 2008)
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
41 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
INSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENCE
focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a
branch of government and protects judges as a class
(In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the
Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet Published in
Malaya Dated Sept. 18-21, 2007, supra)
The new Canon 1 deals solely with the matter of
judicial independence as a “pre-requisite to the rule
of law” and a “fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.”
(New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, Annotated by Philippine Judicial Academy,
the ABA – Rule of Law Initiative and the U.P. Law
Center-Institute of Judicial Administration, February
27, 2007)
An independent judiciary has been described as “one
free of inappropriate outside influences.” Judges
frequently experience pressure in the exercise of their
judicial functions. Common sources of pressure upon a
judge include political patrons, family members,
friends and associates, colleagues on the bench,
media, civil society, militant groups, criminals and
criminal syndicates, and rebel groups. Canon 1
requires that judges reject pressure from any source
by maintaining independence in the pursuit of their
duties. (New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, Annotated)
Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed
intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in
the future may be asked from respondent judge,
which he may find hard to resist. The actuation of
respondent judge of eating and drinking in public
places with a lawyer who has pending cases in his sala
may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus
tending to erode the trust of the litigants in the
impartiality of the judge. (Padilla v. Zantua, A.M. No.
MTJ-93-888, October 24, 1994)
Judges working in the same building or justices of
collegiate courts develop what is often referred to as
compañerismo, a kind of camaraderie bound by
respect and personal friendship resulting from sharing
a common profession. This camaraderie often leads
judges to seek accommodations from fellow judges
ranging from the allowance of provisional remedies to
the issuance of favourable decisions. This is especially
true in the Philippines where “utang na loob” is a
sacrosanct cultural value. It must be emphasized,
therefore, that this behavior is unethical and
anathema to the independent dispensation of judicial
functions. Hence, Sections 2 and 3 are intended to
address unethical practices among judges, the most
commonplace and pervasive of which is the situation
described above. (New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary, Annotated)
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
CANON 2. INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper
discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
SEC. 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
reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the
judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.
SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the
judge may have become aware.
Canon 2 enjoins judges to avoid not just impropriety in
their conduct but even the mere appearance of
impropriety. This requires of a judge to always show in
the discharge of his judicial functions, the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge, which is a
requirement of due process. (Agpalo)
Integrity of a judiciary rests not only upon the fact
that it is able to administer justice, but also upon the
perception and confidence of the community that
people who run the system have done justice
(Panaligan v. Judge Ibay, A.M. No. TJ-06-1972, June
21, 2006)
It cannot be overemphasized that every employee of
the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness, and honesty. Like any public servant, he
must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity
not only in the performance of his official duties, but
in his personal and private dealings with other people,
to preserve the Court’s good name and standing. This
is because the image of a court of justice is
necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or
otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat,
from the judge to the least and lowest of its
personnel. Thus, it becomes the imperative sacred
duty of each and every one in the court to maintain its
good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
(Marquez v. Clores-Ramos, AM No. P-96-1182, July 19,
2000)
Judicial identity does not terminate at the end of the
day when he takes off his judicial robes. Even when
garbed in casual wear outside of the halls of justice, a
judge retains the air of authority and moral
ascendancy that he or she wields inside the sala. As
the Court once held: Being the subject of constant
public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly
accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen. A judge should
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
42 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest
public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both
in the performance of official duties and in private life
should be above suspicion. (Decena v Malanyaon, 695
SCRA 264, April 8, 2013)
Gross Misconduct
“Misconduct” means a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, willful in
character, improper or wrong behavior. “Gross” has
been defined as “out of all measure, beyond
allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not
to be excused.” (Tobias v. Judge Limsiaco, Jr., A.M.
No. MTJ-09-1734, January 19, 2011)
CANON 3. IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of
the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which the
decision is made.
SEC. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias, or prejudice.
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct,
both in and out of court, maintains and enhances
the confidence of the public, the legal profession
and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of
the judiciary.
SEC. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so
conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on
which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before or could come before them,
make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding
or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor
shall judges make any comment in public or
otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any
person or issue.
SEC. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartially or in which
it may appear to a reasonable observer that they
are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such
proceedings include, but are not limited to,
instances where:
The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
The judge previously served as a lawyer or was
a material witness in the matter in controversy;
The judge, or a member of his or her family,
has an economic interest in the outcome of the
matter in controversy;
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
The judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate of
the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein;
The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity
to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree
or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or
The judge knows that his or her spouse or child
has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceedings.
SEC. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may,
instead of withdrawing from the proceeding,
disclose on the records the basis of disqualification.
If, based on such disclosure, the parties and
lawyers, independently of the judge’s participation,
all agree in writing that the reason for the
inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge
may then participate in the proceeding. The
agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall
be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION
The process by which a judge who is disqualified to sit
on a case on any of the grounds enumerated in Section
5, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary, may purge himself of such a
disqualification so that he may act upon the case. It is
effected under Section 6 of the same Canon.
SUB JUDICE RULE
It restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to
judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue,
influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice
rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under
Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. (Romero v.
Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009)
Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is
before or could come before them, make any
comment that might reasonably be expected to affect
the outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process; nor shall judges make
any comment in public or otherwise that might affect
the fair trial of any person or issue. (Tormis v.
Paredes, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366, February 4, 2015)
EXTRA-JUDICIAL SOURCE RULE
Bias and prejudice must be shown to have resulted in
an opinion on the merits on the basis of an
extrajudicial source, not on what the judge learned
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
43 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
from participating in the case. As long as opinions
formed in the course of judicial proceedings are based
on the evidence presented and the conduct observed
by the magistrate, such opinion – even if later found to
be erroneous – will not prove personal bias or
prejudice on the part of the judge. While palpable
error may be inferred from the decision or the order
itself, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias,
bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. (Gochan v.
Gochan, G.R. No. 146089, February 27, 2003)
A judge’s conduct must be clearly indicative of
arbitrariness and prejudice before it can be
stigmatized as biased and partial. (Cruz v. Iturralde,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1775, April 30, 2003)
In disposing of a criminal case, a judge should avoid
appearing like an advocate of either party. It is also
improper for a judge to push actively for amicable
settlement against the wishes of the complainant. A
judge’s unwelcome persistence makes the judge
vulnerable to suspicions of favoritism. (New Code of
Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary,
Annotated)
Judges should not only be impartial but should also
appear impartial. For “impartiality is not a technical
conception. It is a state of mind,” and, consequently
the “appearance of impartiality is an essential
manifestation of its reality. It must be obvious,
therefore, that while judges should possess proficiency
in law in order that they can competently construe
and enforce the law, it is now important that they
should act and behave in such a manner that the
parties before them should have confidence in their
impartiality. (Tan v. Gallardo, G.R. No. 41213-14,
October 5, 1976)
The rule of impartiality is applied more strictly to
municipal, metropolitan and regional trial court
judges. (OCA v. Liangco, A.C. No. 5355, December 13,
2011)
Note: “Judge’s family” includes a judge’s spouse, son,
daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any other
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth
civil degree, or person who is a companion or
employee of the judge and who lives in the judge’s
household. (New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, A.M. No. 03-05-1-SC)
GROUNDS FOR COMPULSORY INHIBITION
OF A JUDGE
(1) Actual bias or prejudice
(2) Economic interest of judge or his family
(3) Reviewing own cases
(4) Previously served as counsel
(5) Judge has been previously associated with a party
as counsel (Austria v Masaquel, 20 SCRA 1247,
August 31, 1967)
(6) Judge notarized the affidavit of a person to be
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
presented as a witness (Mateo v. Villaluz, G.R.
No. 34756-59, March 31, 1973)
(7) Judge is a material witness to a case (Lewis v.
State, 565 S.E.2d 437, November 26, 2002)
(8) Utang na loob
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of
a judge.
SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny,
judges must accept personal restrictions that might
be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
and should do so freely and willingly. In particular,
judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
SEC. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations
with individual members of the legal profession
who practice regularly in their court, avoid
situations which might reasonably give rise to the
suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of
their family represents a litigant or is associated in
any manner with the case.
SEC. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their
residence by a member of the legal profession to
receive clients of the latter or of other members of
the legal profession.
SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled
to freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall
always conduct themselves in such a manner as to
preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their
personal fiduciary and financial interests and shall
make reasonable efforts to be informed about the
financial interests of members of their family.
SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of
the judicial office to advance their private
interests, or those of a member of their family or
of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit
others to convey the impression that anyone is in a
special position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.
SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by
judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
44 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
disclosed for any other purpose related to their
judicial duties.
SEC. 10. Subject to the proper performance of
judicial duties, judges may:
Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities
concerning the law, the legal system, the
administration of justice or related matters;
Appear at a public hearing before an official body
concerned with matters relating to the law, the
legal system, the administration of justice or
related matters;
Engage in other activities if such activities do not
detract from the dignity of the judicial office or
otherwise interfere with the performance of
judicial duties.
SEC. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the
holder of judicial office.
SEC. 12. Judges may form or join associations of
judges or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
SEC. 13. Judges and members of their families
shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest,
loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done by him or her in
connection with the performance of judicial duties.
SEC. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff or others subject to their influence, direction
or authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift,
bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done
or to be done or omitted to be done in connection
with their duties or functions.
SEC. 15. Subject to law and to any legal
requirements of public disclosure, judges may
receive a token gift, award, or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made,
provided that such gift, award, or benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of judicial
duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of
partiality.
Canon 4 stresses the importance of propriety and the
appearance of propriety to the performance of all the
activities of a judge. Respondent judge should bear in
mind that judges should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
Furthermore, judges and members of their families
are prohibited from asking for or accepting any gift,
bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done or
to be done or omitted to be done by him in connection
with the performance of judicial duties. (Conquilla v.
Bernardo, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737, February 9, 2011)
Judges are prohibited from acquiring property and
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before
the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they
exercise their jurisdiction. (New Civil Code, Article
1491, para. 5)
The New Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a
judge from joining or maintaining an account in a
social networking site such as Friendster. Section 6,
Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
recognizes that judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression. It, however,
imposes a restriction on judges: in the exercise of
their freedom of expression, they should always
conduct themselves in a manner that preserves the
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the Judiciary. Respondent judge
disregarded the appearance of propriety required of
her when she posted Friendster photos of herself
wearing an “off-shouldered” suggestive dress and
made this available for public viewing. (Lorenzana v.
Judge Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014)
Judge Laron's conduct of carrying on an affair with a
married woman is highly improper. Such charge of
immorality is serious one covered by Section 8, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court that includes a penalty of
dismissal. (Tuvillo v. Laron, A.M. MTJ-10-1756,
October 18, 2016)
While judges are only human, their acceptance of the
judicial position means that more is expected from
them than from ordinary citizens, as their acts, both
public and private, color the public’s perception of
the judiciary as a whole. (New Code of Judicial
Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary, Annotated)
While judges are not expected to live a hermit-like
existence or cease functioning as citizens of the
Republic, they should remember that they do not
disrobe themselves of their judicial office upon leaving
their salas. (New Code of Judicial Conduct of the
Philippine Judiciary, Annotated)
A judge should not practice law. He should also not
permit a law firm, of which he was formerly an active
member, to continue to carry his name in the firm
name because that might create the impression that
the firm possesses an improper influence with the
judge.
NOTARIAL WORK
General rule: Municipal judges may not engage in
notarial work.
Exception: They may do so as notaries public ex-
officio, in which case, they may only notarize
documents connected with the exercise of their
official functions. As such, they may not undertake the
preparation and acknowledgment of private
documents, contracts and other acts of conveyance,
which bear no relation to the performance of their
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
45 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
functions as judges.
Exception to the exception: In far-flung
municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries
public, municipal judges assigned to those
municipalities or circuits may, in their capacity as
notaries public ex-officio, perform any act within the
competence of a regular notary public, provided:
1. All notarial fees charged be for the account of the
Government and turned over to the municipal
treasurer; and
2. A certification be made in the notarized documents
attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in
such municipality or circuit. (Tabao v. Asis, RTJ-95-
1330, January 30, 1996)
PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITING
GIFTS
A judge should not accept any presents or favors from
litigants or from lawyers practicing before him. (Canon
29, Code of Judicial Ethics), but Subject to legal
requirements like public disclosure, they may accept
gifts provided that it might not reasonably be
perceived as intended to influence judge.
CANON 5. EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
SEC. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand,
diversity in society and differences arising from
various sources, including but not limited to race,
color, sex, religion, national origin, caste,
disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation,
social and economic status and other like causes.
SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of
judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias
or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
SEC. 3. Judges shall 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.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff
or others subject to his or her influence, direction,
or control to differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any
irrelevant ground.
SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings
before the court to refrain from manifesting, by
words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on
irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally
relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
subject of legitimate advocacy.
Conducting judicial proceedings in a manner and with
an attitude that affirms the dignity of such
proceedings is crucial to maintaining public confidence
in the judiciary. Judges should not yield to first
impression, reach hasty conclusions, or prejudge
matters. They have a duty to ensure that the minority
status of the accused plays no part in their decisions.
Neither should judges insult witnesses in the hallway
or in pleadings filed before the Supreme Court.
Likewise, judges may not use derogatory or
condescending language in their judgment when
dealing with a rape complaint. Due process cannot be
satisfied in the absence of objectivity on the part of a
judge sufficient to reassure litigants that the judicial
system is fair and just. (New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, Annotated)
Rule 137, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court states that no
judge shall sit in any case which he has been a counsel
(for a party) without the consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them, and entered upon the
record. The prohibition is not limited to cases in which
a judge hears the evidence but includes as well cases
where he acts by resolving motions, issuing orders,
and the like. (In Re: Inhibition of Judge Rojas, A.M.
No. 98-6-185-RTC, October 30, 1998)
Judges have the duty to prevent lawyers from abusing
witnesses with unfair treatment.
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF WITNESSES
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions and from a harsh or insulting
demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except as to matters
pertinent to the issues before the court;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
the witness’ reputation, but a witness must
answer the fact of any previous final conviction
for a criminal offense. (Revised Rules of Court,
Rule 132, Sec. 3)
CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the
due performance of judicial office.
SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only
the performance of judicial functions and
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
46 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the
judicial office or the court’s operations.
SEC.3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills, and
personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage
for this purpose of the training and other facilities
which should be made available, under judicial
control, to judges.
SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed
about relevant developments of international law,
including international conventions and other
instruments establishing human rights norms.
SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
duties.
DUTY TO EXHIBIT COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE
The Supreme Court said that as a matter of public
policy, a judge cannot be subjected to liability for any
of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long
as he acts in good faith. To hold otherwise would be to
render judicial office untenable, for no one called
upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the
process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment. The Court held that unfavorable rulings are
not necessarily erroneous. Should any of the parties
disagree with the court’s ruling, there are judicial
remedies available under the Rules of Court. Bad faith
on the part of the trial judge should never be imputed
unless the same can be supported by evidence.
(Dulalia v. Judge Cajigal, A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-
3492-RTJ, December 4, 2013.)
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject
decision, order, or actuation of the judge in the
performance of his official duties must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most
importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty or corruption (De la Cruz v. Concepcion,
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994).
Every judge is required to observe the law. When the
law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office
to simply apply it; and anything less than that would
be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short,
when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. (Office of the
Court Administrator v. Hon. Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-12-
1817, March 12, 2013)
When a law or a rule is basic, a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply the law. "Anything less is gross
ignorance of the law.” Competence and diligence are
prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office
and every judge is required to observe the law. There
is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed
by the judge was gross or patent, deliberate or
malicious, or when a judge ignores, contradicts, or
fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of
bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. No less
than the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a
judge shall be faithful to the laws and maintain
professional competence. Indeed, competence is a
mark of a good judge. A judge must be acquainted
with legal norms and precepts as well as with
procedural rules. When a judge displays an utter lack
of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's
confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is
gross ignorance of the law. One who accepts the
exalted position of a judge owes the public and the
court the duty to be proficient in the law.
Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of
incompetence. Basic rules of procedure must be at the
palm of a judge's hands. (OCA v. Judge Flores, A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2325, April 14, 2015)
To warrant a finding of gross ignorance of the law, as
a ground for disciplinary action, the error must be so
gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad
faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust
decision. The error must be so grave and so
fundamental to a point as to warrant condemnation of
the judge as patently ignorant or negligent.
Otherwise, to hold a judge administratively
accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he
renders, assuming that the judge erred, would be
nothing short of harassment and that would be
intolerable (Hon. Barillo v. Hon. Lantion, G. R. No.
159117, March 10, 2010)
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT
An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be
pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies
accorded to parties aggrieved by an erroneous
judgment. For until complainant’s appeal is resolved
and the case is finally terminated, the Court will have
no basis to conclude whether or not respondent judge
is indeed guilty of the charges of gross ignorance of
the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
(Del Rosario v. Cedillo, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1557, Oct 21,
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
47 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
2004)
The hearing of the application for bail in capital
offenses is absolutely indispensable before a judge can
properly determine whether the prosecution’s
evidence is weak or strong. The Supreme Court held
that not only did Judge Bitas deviate from the
requirement of a hearing where there is an application
for bail, he also granted bail to Miralles without
neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for
application for bail. Judge Bitas’ acts are not mere
deficiency in prudence, discretion, and judgment on
his part, but a patent disregard of well-known rules.
When an error is so gross and patent, such error
produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge
liable for gross ignorance of the law. (Jorda v. Bitas,
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376, March 5, 2014)
While a judge may not be held liable for gross
ignorance of the law for every erroneous order that he
renders, it is also axiomatic that when the legal
principle involved is sufficiently basic, lack of
conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law. Indeed, even though a judge may not always be
subjected to disciplinary action for every erroneous
order or decision he renders, that relative immunity is
not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary
in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives. It does
not mean that a judge need not observe propriety,
discreetness, and due care in the performance of his
official functions. This is because if judges wantonly
misuse the powers vested on them by the law, there
will not only be confusion in the administration of
justice but also oppressive disregard of the basic
requirements of due process. (Dipatuan v. Judge
Mangotara, AM RTJ-09-2190, April 23, 2010)
KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT
An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law or
is not supported by the evidence, or both. The source
of an unjust judgment may be error or ill-will. There is
no liability at all for mere error. (De la Cruz v.
Concepcion, supra)
FAILURE TO OBEY EXISTING LAW; INEXCUSABLE
NEGLIGENCE
Being the trier of facts, judges are presumed to be
well-informed of the existing laws, recent
enactments, and jurisprudence, in keeping with their
sworn duty as members of the bar (and bench) to keep
abreast of legal developments… The Court is fully
aware that not every error or mistake of a judge in the
performance of his duties is subject to censure.
(People v. Gacott, Jr., G.R. No. 116049, March 20,
1995)
PROMPT DISPOSITION OF CASES
Respondent Judge’s habitual tardiness amounted to
serious misconduct and inefficiency (Yu-Asensi v.
Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245, Jan 19, 2000)
Delay does not only constitute a serious violation of
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
the parties constitutional right to speedy disposition of
cases, it also erodes the faith and confidence of the
people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and
brings it into disrepute. (OCA v. Quilatan, A.M. No.
MTJ-09-1745, September 27, 2010)
Judges should remain, at all times, in full control of
the proceedings in his sala and to adopt a firm policy
against postponements. (Naguiat v. Capellan, A.M. No.
MTJ-11-1782, March 23, 2011)
The Supreme Court held that pursuant to Rule 3.05,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, prompt
disposition of cases is attained basically through the
efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. In this
case, the civil case was already submitted for
resolution. Being an ejectment case, it is governed by
the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a
period of 30 days from the submission of the last
affidavit or position paper within which a decision
must be issued. In violation of this rule, Judge
Regencia rendered judgment only more than two years
later, and failed to proffer any acceptable reason in
delaying the disposition of the ejectment case, thus,
making her administratively liable for undue delay in
rendering a decision (Dulang v. Judge Regencia, A.M.
No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2, 2014
Respondent should be aware of the basic rule that
once a case is submitted for decision, no further
pleadings are required to be filed. Moreover, there is
no need to issue an order declaring a case submitted
for decision in order that the 90-day period in deciding
the same shall begin to run. Failure to promptly
decide cases in accordance with the Constitution or
the Rules of Court constitutes gross inefficiency.
(Espanol, etc. v. Toledo-Mupas, AM No. MTJ-03-1462,
February 11, 2011)
MANDATORY 90-DAY PERIOD FOR
DECIDING CASES IN LOWER COURTS
[1987 CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII,
SEC.15(1)]:
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
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.
It is not the date of signing the decision but the date
of receipt by the Clerk of Court that must be reckoned
from the date of submission of the case for decision in
order to comply with the 90-day period under Sec. 5 of
Judiciary Act (Moya v. Tensuan, A.M. No. 2507-CFI,
August 10, 1981)
A judge is responsible, not only for the dispensation of
justice but also for managing his court efficiently to
ensure the prompt delivery of court services. Since he
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
48 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge
of his official functions, he should know the cases
submitted to him for decision or resolution, especially
those pending for more than 90 days. Failure to
observe said rule constitutes a ground for
administrative sanction against the defaulting judge,
absent sufficient justification for his non-compliance
therewith. (OCA v. Bustamante, A.M. No. MTJ-12-
1806, April 7, 2014)
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
A judge cannot simply take refuge behind the
inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel.
Proper and efficient court management is definitely
his responsibility. He is directly responsible for the
proper discharge of their official functions. (Tan v.
Madayag, A.M. No.RTJ-93-995, March 11, 1994)
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
1. MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT:
(1) culpable violation of the Constitution,
(2) treason
(3) bribery
(4) graft and corruption
(5) other high crimes, or
(6) betrayal of public trust. (1987 Constitution,
Article XI, Section 2)
2. LOWER COURT JUDGES AND
JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND SANDIGANBAYAN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUDGES;
HOW INSTITUTED
TENURE
The members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall hold office during a good behavior
until they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.
DISCIPLINING BODY
The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon. (1987 Constitution,
Article VIII, Section 11)
Section 1, Rule 140 provides three ways by which
administrative proceedings against judges may be
instituted:
(1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court;
(2) upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons
having personal knowledge of the facts alleged
therein or by documents which may substantiate
said allegations; or
(3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public
records of indubitable integrity. An unverified
complaint against a judge, where the facts
 JUDICIAL ETHICS 49 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

alleged are disputed or are not easily verifiable AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF

from public records, will generally be dismissible
for being unsubstantiated. (Re: Letter-complaint
of Atty. Ariel Samson C. Cayetuna, A.M. OCA IPI
No. 08-127-CA-J. January 11, 2011.)
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.
INITIATION OF COMPLAINT
INVESTIGATION
Upon the filing of the comment of the respondent or
upon the expiration of the period for such filing, which
is ten days from the date of service to him of the copy
of the complaint [Sec. 2, Rule 140], the SC shall:
(1) Refer the matter to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and
recommendation; or
(2) Assign the case for investigation, report, and
recommendation to:
(a) A retired member of the Supreme Court, if
the respondent is a justice of the Court of
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
(b) A justice of the Court of Appeals, if the
respondent is a judge of a Regional Trial
Court or of a special court of equivalent rank;
(c) A judge of the Regional Trial Court, if the
respondent is a judge of an inferior court
[Sec. 3, Rule 140].
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES TO
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, administrative cases
against justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, judges of regular and special courts,
and court officials who are lawyers, shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against them, if they
are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for
the disciplinary action of members of the bar for:
(1) Violation of the Lawyer's Oath;
(2) Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
(3) Violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics; or
(4) Such other forms of breaches of conduct that have
been traditionally recognized as grounds for the
discipline of lawyers.
The respondent is required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not also be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily
sanctioned as a member of the bar. Judgment in both
respects may be incorporated in one decision or
resolution.

HEARING AND TERMINATION

The investigating justice of judge shall set a day for
the hearing and send notice to the parties. If the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte. The investigating justice or judge
shall terminate the proceedings:
(1) Within 90 days from the date of its
commencement; or
(2) Within such extension as the Supreme Court may
grant. (Sec. 4, Rule 140)

REPORT AND ACTION

Within 30 days from termination, the investigating
justice or judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a
report containing his findings of fact and
recommendation, accompanied by the evidence and
pleadings filed by the parties. Such report shall be
confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the
Supreme Court. A copy of the decision or resolution of
the court shall be attached to the record of the
respondent in the OCA [Secs. 5 and 12, Rule 140] The
Supreme Court shall take action on the report as the
facts and the law may warrant.

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS

 JUDICIAL ETHICS 50 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Burden of proof in administrative proceedings: the

EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR
DESISTANCE
The actuations of a judge seriously affect the public
interest inasmuch as they involve the administration of
justice. It is for this reason that a motion to withdraw
a complaint will not justify the dismissal of the
administrative case against the judge. To condition
administrative actions upon the will of every
complainant, who may, for one reason or another,
condone a detestable act, is to strip the Supreme
Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring
members of the judiciary. (Anguluan v. Taguba, A.M.
No. 1402-MJ, September 14, 1979)
Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle to the
taking of disciplinary action against a judge if the
record reveals that he had not performed his duties
properly. (Espayos v. Lee, A.M. No. 1574, April 30,
1979; Quiachon v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9317, 2014)
Two General Categories of the grounds for suspension
or dismissal:
(1) Those related to the discharge of the functions of
the office concerned
(2) The act or omission may be the object of
administrative action even if the same does not
amount to a crime
Ex. Neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other
forms of maladministration
Those NOT related to, or connected with, the
functions of the office
The act or omission should amount to a crime and
conviction by final judgment of the crime involving
moral turpitude or disqualification to hold office, is a
pre-requisite for disciplinary action
Ex. Commission of a crime
burden of proof that respondent committed the acts
complained of rests on the complainant. (Re: Letter-
complaint of Atty. Ariel Samson C. Cayetuna, supra)
Evidence Required: In order to hold the judge liable
for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must
be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment
was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do
an injustice (Judge De Guzman v. Dy, A.M. No. RTJ-03-
1755, July 3, 2003)
The Rules of Court require that if a judge should be
disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense,
as in this case, the evidence against him should be
competent and derived from direct knowledge. The
Judiciary to which respondent belongs a demand no
less. Before any of its members could be faulted,
competent evidence should be presented, since the
charge is penal in character. Thus, the ground for the
removal of a judicial officer should be established
beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the
charge on which removal is sought is misconduct in
office, willful neglect, corruption, or incompetence.
The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence
in criminal trials apply. (Tan v. Judge Usman, A.M. No.
RTJ-14-2390, 13 August 2014)
APPLICATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR
PRINCIPLE
The Court may impose its authority upon erring judges
whose actuations, on their face, would show gross
incompetence, ignorance of the law or misconduct.
Note: According to Sec. 11, Proceedings shall be
private and confidential but a copy of the decision or
resolution of the Court shall be attached to the record
of the judge in the Office of the Court Administrator.

Hence, where the crime committed is not essentially

connected with the performance of the official duties,
the officer may not be proceeded administratively
based thereon until after a final judgment of
conviction shall have been rendered by the court of
justice and said judgment has become final and
executory. (Provincial Board of Zamboanga del Norte
v. Guzman, G.R. No. L-23523, November 18, 1967, 21
SCRA 957.

PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLINE OF

JUDGES (RULE 140)
Quantum of proof: The quantum of proof required is
only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, January
18, 2011.)

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS

 JUDICIAL ETHICS
GROUNDS FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
(1) Under Sec. 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 –
Serious misconduct and inefficiency.
(2) Under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of Rule 140: serious,
less serious and light charges.
✓ Bribery, direct or indirect
✓ Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-
Graft Law (RA 3019)
✓ Gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
✓ Knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment or order.
✓ Conviction of a crime involving moral
Serious
turpitude
Charges
✓ Willful failure to pay a just debt
✓ Borrowing from lawyers and litigants
in a case pending before the
court
✓ Immorality
✓ Gross ignorance of the law or
procedure
✓ Partisan political activities
✓ Alcoholism and/or vicious habits
✓ Undue delay in rendering a decision
or order. Or in transmitting the
records of the court
✓ Frequent and unjustified absences
without leave or habitual tardiness
Less
✓ Unauthorized practice of law
Serious
✓ Violation of Supreme Court rules,
Charges
directives, and circulars
✓ Receiving additional or double
compensation unless
✓ specifically authorized by law.
✓ Untruthful statements in the
certificate of service, and
✓ Simple misconduct
✓ Vulgar and unbecoming conduct
✓ Gambling in public
Light ✓ Fraternizing with lawyers and
Charges litigants with pending cases in court
✓ Undue delay in the submission of
monthly reports.
SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME
COURT ON ERRING MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY
If the guilty Dismissal from the service, forfeiture
of serious of all or part of the benefits as the
charge Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement/
appointment to any public office,
including GOCCs. Provided, however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in
no case include accrued leave credits
Suspension without salary and other
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
51 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
benefits for more than 3 but not
exceeding 6 mos.
Fine – more than P20,000 but not
exceeding P40,000
If the guilty Suspension without salary and other
of less benefits for not less than 1 month nor
serious more than 3 mos.
charge fine – more than P10,000 but not
exceeding P20,000
If the guilty fine – not less than P1000 but not
of light exceeding P10,000; and/or
charge censure
reprimand
admonition with warning
GROSS MISCONDUCT; PENALTY
Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies
gross misconduct constituting a violation of the Code
of Judicial Conduct as a serious charge.
Under Section 11 of the same Rule, the respondent
found guilty of a serious charge may be meted any of
the following sanctions:
Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of
the benefits as the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or reappointment
to any public office;
(1) Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three months but not
exceeding six months; or
(2) A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00. (Sy v. Judge Dinopol, A.M.
No. RTJ-09-2189, January 18, 2011)
Making of untruthful statements in the Personal Data
Sheet amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an
official document which is considered a grave offense.
It carries the maximum penalty of dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except
accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification
from reemployment in the government service. (In the
Matter of: Anonymous Complaint for Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and Perjury Committed by Judge
Jaime E. Contreras, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 9,
2016; Samson v. Caballero, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138,
August 5, 2009)
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; PENALTY
Gross ignorance of the law is classified as serious
charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules
of Court.
It is penalized under Section 11 (a), Rule 140 of the
same Rules by:
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
(1) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part
of the benefits as the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits
shall, in no case, include accrued leave credits;
(2) Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three (3), but not
exceeding six (6) months; or
(3) a fine of more than P20,000.00, but not exceeding
P40,000.00.
A judge’s act of ignoring a rule as elementary as the
20-day life span of a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) amounts to gross ignorance of law and
procedure, and his violation is seemingly made worse
by the fact that he thereby usurped the authority of
the Supreme Court as the only court with the power to
issue a TRO effective until further orders. (Pahila-
Garrido v. Tortogo, 655 SCRA 541, August 17, 2011)
GROSS INEFFICIENCY; PENALTY
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated September 11, 2001,
violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and
circulars, and gross inefficiency are categorized as less
serious charges.
The sanctions:
(1) suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for not less than one nor more than three
months; or
(2) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.
A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the
period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by
law. If additional court assignments or designations
unduly prevented the judge from deciding a case, he
could have easily sought additional time by requesting
an extension from the Court, through the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA). Without an order of
extension granted by the Court, the failure to decide
within the required period constitutes gross
inefficiency. (Olaguer v Ampuan, A.M. MTJ-10-1769,
October 6, 2010)
UNDUE DELAY IN DECIDING CASES; PENALTY
An inexcusable failure to decide a case within the
prescribed 90-day period constitutes gross
inefficiency.
Heavy workload, lack of sufficient time, poor health,
and physical impossibility were not justifications for
the delay or nonperformance, given that a judge could
have easily requested the Court for the extension of
his time to resolve the cases. That he did not so seek
additional time reflected his indifference to the
prescription to decide within the time limits of the
law. (Re: Cases Submitted for Decision Before Judge
Damaso A. Herrera, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24,
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
52 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Laguna, AM No. RTJ-05-1924, October 13, 2010)
This warrants the imposition of administrative
sanctions such as :
(1) suspension from office without pay or
(2) fine on the defaulting judge, depending on the
following factors:
✓ the number of cases not decided within the
reglementary period;
✓ the presence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstances;
✓ the damage suffered by the parties as a result
of the delay;
✓ the health and age of the judge; and
✓ other analogous circumstances. (Office of the
Court Administrator v. Judge Fuentes, A.M.
No. RTJ-13-2342, March 6, 2013)
WARNING
"an act or fact of putting one on his guard against an
impending danger, evil consequences or penalties”
ADMONITION
"refers to a gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke,
warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or
oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or
warning"
REPRIMAND
a public and formal censure or severe reproof,
administered to a person in fault by his superior
officer or a body to which he belongs
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE
DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES AND
JUDGES (RULE 137)
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of
malicious delay in the administration of justice. (RPC,
Art. 207)
Note: The meaning of “duty to sit” is that a judge
must ensure that he will not be unnecessarily
disqualified from a case. A decision to inhibit must be
based on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just
and valid reasons.
MANDATORY OR COMPULSORY
DISQUALIFICATION
(1) When he or his wife or child is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor, or
otherwise;
(2) When he is related to either party within the 6th
degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel
within 4 civil degree;
(3) When he has been executor, guardian,
administrator, trustee, or counsel;
(4) When he has presided in an inferior court where is
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
ruling or is decision.
In the case of compulsory disqualification, the law
conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively
or impartially sit in a case and, for that reason,
prohibits him and strikes at his authority to hear and
decide it, in the absence of written consent of all
parties concerned. (Bilbao v. People, G.R. No. 175999,
July 1, 2015)
Ratio: The rule on compulsory disqualification of a
judge to hear a case rests on the salutary principle
that no judge should preside in a case in which he is
not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent. A judge has both the duty of rendering a
just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as
to his integrity.
VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION
Ratio: A judge must maintain and preserve the trust
and faith of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself
above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of
lack of faith and trust to his actions, whether well-
grounded or not, the judge has no other alternative
but inhibit himself from the case.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself for just and valid reasons.
Whether or not to inhibit is left to the sound
discretion and conscience of the trial judge based on
his rational and logical assessment of the
circumstances prevailing in the case brought before
him (Gutang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124760,
July 8, 1998, 292 SCRA 76)
The decision to disqualify himself is not conclusive and
his competency may be determined on application for
mandamus to compel him to act. The judge’s decision
to continue hearing a case in which he is not legally
prohibited from trying, notwithstanding challenge to
his objectivity, may not constitute reversible error.
Filing of an administrative case against a judge does
not disqualify him from hearing a case – the court has
to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of
arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them
with the stigma of bias or partiality. (Pagoda
Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No.
160966, October 11, 2005)
Complainant charged Justice Hernando with manifest
bias because he voluntarily inhibited himself in CA-
G.R. CEB SP. No. 06676 only after the promulgation of
the March 28, 2012 and April 13, 2012 resolutions.
Complainant alleged that she should have been
informed of the voluntary inhibition. The Court,
however, said that under the internal rules of the
C.A., the same was not necessary. In the spirit of
transparency, the Court held that henceforth all the
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
53 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
parties in any action or proceedings should be
immediately notified of any mandatory disqualification
or voluntary inhibition of the Justice who has
participated in any action of the court, stating the
reason for the mandatory disqualification or voluntary
inhibition. The requirement of notice is a measure to
ensure that the disqualification or inhibition has not
been resorted to in order to cause injustice to or to
prejudice any party or cause. (Re: Complaint filed by
Lucena B. Rallos against Justices Gabriel T. Ingles,
Pamela Ann Maxino, and Carmelita S. Manahan, IPI No.
12-203-CA-J/A.M. No. 12-9-08-CA, December 10, 2013)
As to the issue of disqualification [based on the second
paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court], this Court has ruled that to disqualify or not to
disqualify is a matter of conscience and is addressed
primarily to the sense of fairness and justice of the
judge concerned. Thus, the mere filing of an
administrative case against respondent judge is not a
ground for disqualifying him from hearing the case, for
if on every occasion the party apparently aggrieved
would be allowed to either stop the proceedings in
order to await the final decision on the desired
disqualification, or demand the immediate inhibition
of the judge on the basis alone of his being so
charged, many cases would have to be kept pending or
perhaps there would not be enough judges to handle
all the cases pending in all the courts. This Court has
to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly
indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the
latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or
partial (Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning,
Inc, supra)
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 5, RULE 136
OF RULES OF COURT
Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating
in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide
the matter impartially, or in which it may appear to a
reasonable observer that they are unable to decide
the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but
are not limited to, instances where:
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
(1) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning
a party or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
(2) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a
material witness in the matter in controversy;
(3) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has
an economic interest in the outcome of the
matter in controversy;
(4) The judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter
in controversy, or a former associate of the judge
served as counsel during their association, or the
judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;
(5) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject
of review
(6) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity
to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or
to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or
(7) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child
has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject
matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceedings
AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE
The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision in all courts and the personnel thereof.
(1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OVER
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
According to the Supreme Court, for it to acquire
jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the
complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the
respondent public official or employee. This is because
the filing of an administrative case is predicated on
the holding of a position or office in the government
service. However, once jurisdiction has attached, the
same is not lost by the mere fact that the public
official or employee was no longer in office during the
pendency of the case.
Retirement effectively bars the Court from pursuing
the instant administrative proceeding that was
instituted after the tenure in office, and divested the
Court, much less the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), of any jurisdiction to still subject him to the
rules and regulations of the judiciary and/or to
penalize him for the infractions committed while the
respondent was still in the service. (Office of the
Court Administrator v. Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-10-
2235. March 11, 2013)
POWERS AND DUTIES OF COURTS AND JUDICIAL
OFFICERS (RULE 135)
Every court shall have power:
(1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate
presence;
LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS
54 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
(2) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or
before a person or persons empowered to conduct
a judicial investigation under its authority;
(3) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out
of court, in a case pending therein;
(4) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct
of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons
in any manner connected with a case before it, in
every manner appertaining thereto;
(5) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in
a case pending therein;
(6) To administer or cause to be administered oaths
in a case pending therein, and in all other cases
where it may be necessary in the exercise of its
powers;
(7) To amend and control its process and orders so as
to make them conformable to law and justice;
(8) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed
pleading or other paper to be filed and used
instead of the original, and to restore, and supply
deficiencies in its records and proceedings. (Rules
of Court, Rule 135, Section 5)
PUBLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS
General rule: The sitting of every court of justice
shall be public.
Exception: Any court may, in its discretion, exclude
the public when the evidence to be adduced is of such
nature as to require their exclusion in the interest of
morality or decency. (Rules of Court, Rule 135,
Section 2)
COURT RECORDS AND GENERAL DUTIES OF
CLERKS AND STENOGRAPHER (RULE 136)
DUTIES OF A CLERK
(1) Issue under the seal of the court all ordinary writs
and process incident to pending cases. (Rules of
Court, Rule 136, Section 4)
(2) In the absence of the judge:
✓ receive applications, petitions, inventories,
reports
✓ issue all orders and notices that follows as a
matter of course under these rules,
(3) When directed by the judge:
✓ receive the accounts of executors,
administrators, guardians, trustees, and
receivers, and all evidence relating to them,
or to the settlement of the estates of
deceased persons, or to guardianship,
trusteeships, or receiverships
✓ transmit such reports, accounts, and evidence
to the judge, together with his findings in
relation to the same, if the judge shall direct
him to make findings and include the same in
his report. (Rules of Court, Rule 136, Sec 5)
(4) receive and file all pleadings and other papers
properly presented, endorsing on each such paper
the time when it was filed, and shall attend all of
 JUDICIAL ETHICS 55 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

the sessions of the court enter its proceedings for during the hearing of such case, shall be made of
each day in a minute book to be kept by him. record in the stenographic notes. (Rules of Court, Rule
(Rules of Court, Rule 136, Section 6) 136, Section 17)
(5) shall safely keep all records, papers, files,
exhibits and public property committed to his
charge, including the library of the court, and the
seals and furniture belonging to his office. (Rules
of Court, Rule 136, Section 7)
(6) shall keep a general docket, each page of which
shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all
the entries in a single case, and shall enter all
cases, numbered consecutively in the order in
which they were received, and, under the heading
of each case and complete title thereof, the date
of each paper filed or issued, of each order or
judgment entered, and of each other step taken
in the case so that by reference to a single page
the history of the case may be seen. (Rules of
Court, Rule 136, Section 8)
(7) shall keep a judgment book containing a copy of
each judgment rendered by the court in order of
its date, and a book of entries of judgments
containing at length in chronological order entries
of all final judgments or orders of the court.
(Rules of Court, Rule 136, Section 9)
(8) shall keep an execution book in which he or his
deputy shall record at length in chronological
order each execution, and the officer's return
thereon, by virtue of which real property has been
sold.(Rules of Court, Rule 136, Section 10)
(9) shall prepare, for any person demanding the
same, a copy certified under the seal of the court
of any paper, record, order, judgment, or entry in
his office, proper to be certified, for the fees
prescribed by these rules.(Rules of Court, Rule
136, Section 11)
(10) shall keep such other books and perform such
other duties as the court may direct.(Rules of
Court, Rule 136, Section 12)

DUTY OF A STENOGRAPHER
It shall be the duty of the stenographer who has
attended a session of a court either in the morning or
in the afternoon, to deliver to the clerk of court,
immediately at the close of such morning or afternoon
session, all the notes he has taken, to be attached to
the record of the case.

It shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to demand

that the stenographer comply with said duty. The
clerk of court shall stamp the date on which notes are
received by him.

When such notes are transcribed, the transcript shall

be delivered to the clerk, duly initialed on each page
thereof, to be attached to the record of the case.

Whenever requested by a party, any statement made

by a judge of first instance, or by a commissioner,
with reference to a case being tried by him, or to any
of the parties thereto, or to any witness or attorney,

LA SALLIAN COMMISION ON BAR OPERATIONS