Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |1
THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR
I. What is integration?
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the
entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership
and financial support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as a
condition precedent to the practice of law and the retention of his name
in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court
The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names
appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An integrated Bar must perforce include
all of them. Indeed, if anyone were excluded, then to that extent the Bar
would be divided instead of integrated.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with
power to do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore, signifies the setting
up by governmental authority of an organization of the legal prof ession
based on the recognition of the lawyer as an off icer of the courts.
To be effective, the integrated Bar should have the power to exact
financial support in reasonable amount from its members. Indeed,
refusal to support the integrated Bar or to become a member thereof
places a lawyer outside the operation of the system established by the
State for the regulation of legal profession, and, logically, he should be
barred from the practice of law and his name should be removed from
the Roll of Attorneys.
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of
justice and the Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers
and ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the
promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the basic
principle of maximum Bar autonomy, under the supervision of and
subject to regulation by the Supreme Court.
II. Objectives
Generally speaking, the purposes of an integrated Bar are:
(1) To aid the courts in carrying on and improving the administration of
justice;
(2) To foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of
integrity, learning, competence and public service and high standards of
conduct;
(3) To safeguard the proper professional interests of its members;
(4) To cultivate among them a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) To provide a forum for the discussion of subjects pertaining to the
law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and
the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and to publish
information relating thereto;
(6) To encourage and foster legal education;
(7) To carry on a continuing program of legal research in the technical
fields of substantive law, practice and procedure, and make reports and
recommendations thereon; and
(8) In general to do such other acts as may be necessary, proper or
convenient to the end that the public responsibility of the Bar may be
more effectively discharged.
Rep. Act No. 6397, approved and effective September, 17, 1971,
postulates the following objectives:
(1) To raise the standards of the legal profession;
(2) To improve the administration of justice; and
(3) To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively.
III. Activities.
The integration of the Bar will make it possible for the legal profession
to:

(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;
(2) Protect lawyers and litigants from the abuses of tyrannical judges;
(3) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except
within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and self-interest may
level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity, impartiality and
independence;
(4) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law and break up any monopoly
of local practice maintained through influence or position;
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges;
(6) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased
lawyers;
(7) Provide placement services, establish legal aid offices throughout the
country, and set up lawyer reference services so that the poor may not
lack competent legal service;
(8) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to
obtain in many of our provinces;
(9) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for
practising attorneys in order to raise the standards of the profession
throughout the country;
(10) Enforce rigid ethical standards and promulgate minimum fees
schedules;
'(11) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research;
(12) Conduct campaigns to educate the public on their legal rights and
obligations, on the importance of preventive legal advice, and on the
true functions of the Filipino lawyer; and
(13) Promote greater involvement of the lawyers population in the
solution of the problems that affect the nation.
IV. Methods of Integration.
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |2
In some states, Bar integration has been effected by legislative
enactment under the police power; in others, it has been accomplished
by rule of court pursuant to the court's inherent power to regulate and
control the practice of law; and in a third group of states, it has been by
a combination of both, with the legislature passing a short act creating
the organization or directing the court to do so, and the court filling in
the details of the structure and government by rule of court.
In the Philippines, the following are the pertinent legal provisions:
A. Constitution.
Art. VIII, Sec. 13 of the Philippine Constitution provides, inter alia, that:
The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate the rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the
admission to the practice of law. x x x The Congress shall have the
power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines.
B. Stationary Enactment.
Rep. Act No. 6397, approved and effective September 17, 1971, reads,
in its entirety, thus:
SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme
Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine
Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice,
and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated,
out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to
carry out the purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be
necessary for the same purpose shall be included in the annual
appropriations for the Supreme Court.
 Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |3

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Alaska1955Statute

V. History. Arizona1933Statute

A. England. The concept of the integrated Bar is derived from England, Arkansas 1939 Court Rule1
where for centuries the Bar has been integrated under the authority and
California1927Statute
government of the Inns of Court. No person may be a member of the
Bar without becoming a member of one of the four Inns, namely: Florida1949Court Rule
Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. Education
and discipline of the barrister are entirely in the hands of the Inns Georgia1964Court Rule
subject to review by the Supreme Court.
Idaho1923Statute
B.United States. In 1914 Herbert Harley, the founder of the American
Kentucky1934Statute and Court Rule
Judicature Society, visited the city of Toronto to study the administration
of justice there. The Canadians had an integrated Bar, having brought Louisiana1940Statute and Court Rule
most of their laws and legal institutions over from England. It was in
Toronto that Harley had his first glimpse of an integrated Bar in action. Michigan1935Statute and Court Rule
Impressed, he returned to the U.S. Mississippi1930Statute
convinced that Bar integration was what his country needed to bring Missouri1944Court Rule
about judicial reforms, He also saw possibilities in it for the benefit of the
lawyers themselves. In his historic address before the Lancaster County Nebraska1937Court Rule
Bar Association in Lincoln, Nebraska, on December 28, 1914, he urged
Nevada1929Statute
the lawyers to integrate in order to help themselves to do better in their
profession and to improve the administration of justice and better serve New Hampshire1969Court Rule
the public. Harley carried on his campaign for Bar integration on the
pages of the Journal of the American Judicature Society. In 1918 a New Mexico1925Statute
Model Bar Act was published in said Journal, and in 1921, after seven North Carolina1933Statute
years of promotion, the first integrated Bar in the United States was set
up in North Dakota. A majority of the States have since then integrated North Dakota1921Statute
their Bars, as shown thus:
Oklahoma1939Court Rule
BAR INTEGRATION DATA(United States)
Oregon1935Statute

Puerto Rico1932Statute
Jurisdiction Year of Unification Means of Unification
South Carolina1967Court Rule
Alabama1923Statute

South Dakota1931Statute
Texas1939Statute and Court Rule
Utah1931Statute
Virgin Islands1956Court Rule
Virginia1938Statute and Court Rule
Washington1933Statute
West Virginia1945Statute and Court Rule
Wisconsin1956Statute and Court Rule
Wyoming1939Statute and Court Rule
So satisfactory have been the results of Bar integration in the United
States that in none of the above-mentioned States is there any plan to
revert to the voluntary Bar system. Moreover, there are strong moves in
the other States of the Union toward Bar integration.
C.Philippines. The idea of Bar integration is not new in the Philippines.
In 1928 Dean George Malcolm of the Unversity of the Philippines
suggested it, even as he called attention to the existence of integrated
Bars in other countries, including France, Italy, Germany, Spain,
England, and the United States.
Jose Abad Santos and Claro M. Recto were on the vanguard of the
movement for Bar integration. It was Abad Santos who, before World
War II, prodded the Philippine Bar Association into drafting a charter for
an integrated Bar.
In 1934 a bill to integrate the Philippine Bar was filed in the House of
Representatives. It did not, however, get beyond that stage.
In 1947 representatives of forty-one local Bar associations and
prominent lawyers met at a national convention and agreed to petition
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |4
the Supreme Court to integrate the Philippine Bar. The petition was filed
on January 27, 1948 but the same has remained unresolved.
On March 2, 1950, Senator Lorenzo Sumulong and the late Senator
Emiliano Tria Tirona filed Senate Bill No. 83 for the creation of a
corporation to be known as "The Philippine Integrated Bar." Although
backed by the Senate Committee on Justice, the measure remained
pending until adjournment of Congress, and was not thereafter revived.
On May 7, 1958, former Senator Vicente J. Francisco, speaking for the
Lawyer's League of the Philippines at a conference of judges and
lawyers, urged integration of the Philippine Bar.
On June 23, 1962, representatives of fifty-three Bar associations in the
Philippines met in conference at the Far Eastern University and agreed to
file in the Supreme Court a petition for Bar integration. For this purpose,
a national committee was created composed of Jose W. Diokno as
chairman, and, as members, Roman Ozaeta, Jose P. Carag, Eugenio
Villanueva, Jr., and Leo A. Panuncialman. Subsequently, or on July 11,
1962, the committee filed the corresponding petition (Adm. Case No.
526) in the Supreme Court. No final action has been taken thereon.
In 1970 Senator Jose W. Diokno authored Senate Bill No. 79 seeking to
empower the Supreme Court to integrate the Philippine Bar.
VI. Recent Developments.
On October 5, 1970, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief
Justice Roberto Concepcion, created by resolution a Commission on Bar
Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of integration
of the Bar in this jurisdiction, and directed it to submit its final report to
the Court on or before December 31, 1972. Appointed chairman of the
Commission was Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, and, as members, Senator
Jose J. Roy, retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado V. Sanchez,
Presiding Justice Salvador V. Esguerra of the Court of Appeals, Director
Crisolito Pascual of the U.P. Law Center, former Senator Tecla San
Andres Ziga, and San Beda Law Dean Feliciano Jover Ledesma, with
Atty. Romeo Vicente as recorder-secretary. 'The Court appointed ranking

members of the Bench and the Bar as consultants of the Commission.
Subsequently, all Bar associations (represented by their respective
presidents) were also made consultants.
Surveys thereafter conducted by the Commission indicated widespread
enthusiastic support for Bar integration. Accordingly, the enactment of a
Bar Integration Law was urged by the Commission. The result was the
passage by Congress, in a special session in September, 1971, of House
Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act Providing for the Integration of the
Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor." This measure was
signed by the President on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the
same day as Rep. Act No. 6397, the full text of which is quoted supra.
The legislation started as a bill sponsored by Congressman Ramon D.
Bagatsing in the lower chamber of Congress. The House Judiciary
Committee voted unanimously to endorse it. Indeed, the measure
passed the House in record time.
It was then forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by
Senator Salvador H. Laurel, who enthuslastically hailed the concept of an
integrated Bar. It was he who smoothly steered the measure through the
complicated process of legislation in the upper chamber.
Although unanimously endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the
bill was nevertheless referred for comment to Senator Jose W. Diokno,
who introduced three important modifications, First, he saw to it that the
bill contained a direct appropriation clause giving the Supreme Court the
needed funds. Second, he persuaded the Senate to delimit to two years
(from the approval of the law) the period within which the Supreme
Court may effect integration of the Bar. Third, he put into final shape the
purpose clause of the Bill.
Early in December, 1971, the Commission on Bar Integration announced
the opening of the Bar Integration Center at 955 Quezon Boulevard
Extension, Quezon City (beside Tres Hermanas Restaurant), with Tel.
No. 97-55-16. Manned by a select staff of lawyers and technical
assistants, and headed by Atty. Cecilio L. Pe (Executive Officer), the
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |5
Center immediately proceeded to achieve, as soon as possible, a
consensus among lawyers on the issues posed by the matter of Bar
integration. It is part of the work of the Center to conduct a nationwide
information drive on Bar integration, and to collate and evaluate the
reactions of all sectors, especially the lawyer population. Accordingly,
almost simultaneously with its opening, the Center immediately issued
"An Appeal to All Lawyers," the full text of which is quoted hereunder, to
wit:
The Bar Integration Center (of the Commission on Bar Integration of the
Supreme Court) is earnestly calling upon all lawyers and other interested
parties throughout the Philippines to participate actively in the current
dialogue and exchange of views on the matter of the integration of the
Philippine Bar.
Whether in active law practice or not—in the government service or in
some private calling—all lawyers are hereby requested, in this
connection, to visit or otherwise contact the Center.
A nationwide poll will soon be taken to ascertain the reactions of all
sectors of the community, especially the lawyers, to the idea of Bar
integration, or the official unification of the entire lawyer population of
the Philippines into an Integrated Bar, bona fide membership in which
shall be a condition precedent to the practice of law and the retention of
one's name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. Presently, the
Bar Integration Center is updating a LAW LIST essential to the
establishment and maintenance of lines of communication with the
members of the Bar.
We hereby appeal for the unstinted support and cooperation of each and
every lawyer in our country. We ask him to send to the Center, among
other pertinent data, (a) his full name, (b) year of admission to the Bar,
(c) present occupation, (d) official, business and residence addresses,
and (e) telephone number(s), aside from (f) an optional statement, in
capsule form, of his initial thinking on the matter of Bar integration.

On February 4, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration decided to
recommend to the Supreme Court the promulgation of a Court order or
rule to effect Bar integration pursuant to the provisions of Rep. Act No.
6397, and, in connection therewith, the resolution of the pending
petitions of 1948 and 1962. The Commission also achieved a tentative
consensus regarding certain basic features of an integrated Philippine
Bar. Reporting this trend of thought in his Sunday Times column of
February 6, 1972, Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, Chairman of the Commission,
wrote as follows:
Non-political
The integrated Bar will be absolutely and completely nonpolitical. No
lawyer occupying an elective position in the government (from the
Presidency down to the position of barrio councilor) shall be eligible for
any position in the integrated Bar. Any lawyer who, during his
incumbency as delegate governor or officer of the integrated Bar, files
his certificate of candidacy for any elective government position, will
forthwith automatically be considered resigned from his position in the
integrated Bar. Political activity of any kind or degree within the
integrated Bar itself will be completely proscribed and heavily penalized.
Positions honorary
All positions in the integrated Bar will be honorary. No delegate of the
House of Delegates, no member of the Board of Governors, no officer of
the integrated Bar, will be reimbursed for any expense incurred by him in
the discharge of his duties. In simple language, any lawyer who accepts
and assumes any official position in the integrated Bar will have to spend
his own money for his transportation, hotel, food, and all other
requirements.
The presidency
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |6
Any lawyer who is elected president of the integrated Bar cannot serve
as such for more than one year; thereafter he shall be forever barred
from seeking re-election to the presidency.
Rotation of the presidency
The Philippines will be divided into seven (7) regional areas: Northern
Luzon, Greater Manila Area, Southern Luzon, Eastern Visayas, Western
Visayas, Eastern Mindanao, and Western Mindanao. The delegates
elected from all the areas will form the House of Delegates which will
elect fifteen Governors. Each of the seven areas will be represented by a
minimum of one member in the Board of Governors. The Board of
Governors will thereafter elect the officers of the integrated Bar.
The presidency of the unified Bar shall rotate among the seven regional
areas. To illustrate: if for the first year of the existence of the integrated
Bar, the president elected comes from the Greater Manila Area, no
lawyer from this area can be elected president for the succeeding six
years. The president for the second year will have to come from one of
the other six areas. And so on.
National conventions
The rotation principle shall also apply to the annual national conventions
of the unified Bar. Each regional area is entitled, within a period of seven
consecutive years, to host an annual national convention.
Voluntary bar associations
All voluntary bar associations now existing or which will be formed in the
future may continue to co-exist with the integrated Bar, but there will be
only one official national Bar association.
Fears allayed
Adoption of all of the above basic features will, hopefully, completely
free the integrated Bar from the bane of politics, and dissipate all fears
that the unified Bar will be dominated by lawyers from the Greater
Manila Area, the lawyer population of which is the largest.

VIII. Arguments for Unification.
A. Improved Discipline.
Unification provides a system whereby members will be disciplined only
by a body where they hold membership, where they can participate in
policy-making, and where administrative expenses are borne by all.
Unification is the best way to create machinery to handle the Bar's great
disciplinary needs, The collection of dues from all members of the Bar
would permit adequate financing of existing grievance committees and
investigative staffs. The creation of esprit de corps in the profession, by
reason of all lawyers belonging, would prevent many disciplinary
problems from arising as all lawyers would be regularly exposed by
receipt of Integrated Bar literature to the high standards of the
profession. In addition, nonlawyers could be much more easily identified.
At the present time there is no accurate list or record of Philippine
lawyers.
B. Greater Influence.
The improving of discipline through unification results in an increase in
the Bar's influence to the greater benefit of the public.
Improving the quality of the legal profession by disciplinary
improvements increases the public prestige of lawyers and ensures a
respectful hearing for the Bar's recommendations.
C. Greater Democracy.
All lawyers practising in the Philippines belong to the Bar. They pay no
dues and they have no vote. Their regulation comes by rule of the
Supreme Court.
To provide a registration system without providing a forum is taxation
without representation. To provide a forum is to invite participation.
Unification provides this forum, all lawyers have a vote, and the opinion
of every lawyers can quickly be canvassed. Experience has shown that
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |7
unification results in better participation in the activities of the Integrated
Bar.
D. Greater Facilities and Services.
A motivating factor for unification is the increased budget resulting from
the larger number of dues-paying members. The increase in budget
makes possible a larger headquarters staff and better financing of Bar
programs in the investigation of grievances, prevention of unauthorized
practice, public relations, legislative reform, continuing education, and
other programs.
E. Prevention of Unauthorized Practice,
Unification enlarges the machinery to fight the unauthorized practice of
law. The Integrated Bar would have sufficient funds to support existing
active committees, investigators, prosecutors and a public relations
program condemning unauthorized practice.
The Integrated Bar would represent all the lawyers and, thus, would be
powerful enough to resist legislation and regulation designed to
encourage unauthorized practice. This strength would also resist
encroachment on the legal profession by those seeking to deny the
public independent legal advice.
The Integrated Bar's roster of active members would be a simple device
for identifying who is and is not an unauthorized practitioner. Since
unification would improve the public image of the legal profession,
laymen would be willing to avoid unauthorized practitioners.
F. Recruiting of Members is Simplified.
All lawyers are required to belong to an Integrated Bar. Consequently,
the headquarters staff and members of the Bar can concentrate on
duties other than the continuous membership solicitation which absorbs
so much of the time and money in the headquarters of voluntary Bar
associations.

G. Official Status.
A unified Bar is part of the government or an arm of the court and, thus,
can perf orm more public services than a non-governmental voluntary
association. It may be asked to perform investigations, special studies,
and other important assignments.
H. More Cohesive Profession.
Members of a voluntary Bar association often complain they are
improving the profession, but only members are paying dues. Unification
is a way of sharing costs among all who enjoy the benefits.
A unified Bar would have special advantages for younger lawyers.
Voluntary Bar associations often are stereotyped as organizations of
established practitioners, and young lawyers hesitate to join. Unification
would produce automatic membership for all, and the younger lawyer
would come into contact with his older colleagues during his important
formative stage.
I. Registration Unnecessary.
The inevitable alternative to unification is a form of registration and
licensing either by the court or the state, with the possibility of the
moneys going into the public treasury. The day of the voluntary social
club idea of a state Bar is gone, and only the unified Bar can effectively
function to fulfill the obligations of the profession to its members, to the
courts, and to the public.
IX. Arguments Against Unification
A. Government regulation is undesirable.
The most frequent and most effective argument against unification is the
philosophical objection to the intrusion of more governmental regulation
into the life of the profession without any apparent need, and without
any substantial benefit. It is readily admitted that as officers of the
judicial system lawyers of necessity are subjected to regu-lation for
many reasons, paramount among them the maintenance and elevation
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |8
of professional standards and the impartial administration of justice.
These objectives, it is argued, are being achieved with the present
regulation which includes the disciplinary proceedings employed by
voluntary Bar associations.
The argument is that a self-imposed discipline is more likely to produce
beneficial results and that the legal profession is today the last refuge of
independent self-reliant individuals in our society and that the lawyer will
serve the cause of the law better as a free agent than as a reluctant
member of a coerced democracy of lawyers.
Reply: Surveys made by the Commission on Bar Integration indicate that
there exists, among the lawyers in the Philippines, a widespread demand
for integration. They are obviously dissatisfied with conditions as they
are, both within their own ranks and throughout the nation as a whole.
The present system of voluntary Bar organization, to put it mildly, leaves
much to be desired. Left alone, the bulk of the Philippine lawyer
population do not care to affiliate themselves with voluntary Bar
associations. Integration is necessary as a means of organizing all
attorneys into a cohesive group that will apply itself to the solution of the
problems that plague the administration of justice and afflict the
Philippines in many other fields.
B. Local Bar associations will be weakened.
The unified Bar will encroach upon or extinguish local Bar associations by
diminishing or usurping their function. A unified Bar would assume
exclusive authority over grievances, unauthorized practice, continuing
legal education, and other areas, leaving the local Bar association only
social or fraternal functions as opposed to substantive professional
functions.
Reply: Integration will not necessarily weaken local Bar associations. So
much depends on the provisions of the corresponding Court Rule. The
one drafted by the Commission would allow local Bar associations to co-
exist with the Integrated Bar. Indeed, it would assign to them a
prominent role, as their assistance in the matter of integration would be

earnestly solicited. Moreover, it is envisioned that the Integrated Bar
would have local Chapters which would conceivably serve local needs in
collaboration with voluntary Bar associations.
C. Government by clique is the likely result.
Nepotism or paternalism is likely to occur among officers who are
concerned primarily with perpetuating themselves and their ideas in
office. Undesirable factions will arise and rule for a while, only to be
replaced by competing, but equally undesirable factions.
Reply: Nepotism, paternalism, factionalism, perpetuation in power, and
other evils are not inevitable. Rules can be formulated and enforced
effectively (especially under the supervision of the Supreme Court) to
curb such pernicious practices. For instance, under the Court Rule
drafted by the Commission, there is a prohibition against being elected
as Delegate or Governor for more than two consecutive terms. Also, it is
therein provided that no person who shall have been President of the
Integrated Bar shall be eligible for any subsequent election to the
Presidency; that the Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all
the several regions in such order of rotation as the Board of Governors
shall prescribe; and that the annual conventions of the House of
Delegates shall be held in all the several Regions in such order of
rotation as shall be determined by the Board of Governors.
D. Government authority will dominate the Bar.
The Integrated Bar will be subject to the capricious conduct of those
occupying public office from time to time to which it must be subservient
or else risk the loss of their membership and the right of members to
practice law.
Reply: This criticism betrays a lack of confidence in the Filipino lawyer. It
considers him as one who can be easily cowed. Besides, the Court Rule
on integration can have provisions designed to safeguard the integrity
and independence of the Integrated Bar, the due enforcement of which
can be assured by the supervisory authority of the Supreme Court. Thus,
pursuant to the Rule drafted by the Commission on Bar Integration,
Legal Ethics Report Batch 1 Page |9
"Every activity tending to impair the independence and non-political
character of the Integrated Bar shall be strictly prohibited and severely
penalized."
E. Effective lobbying will be prohibited.
A quasi-governmental agency such as the unified Bar will be debarred
from lobbying for or against legislation, from engaging in public
relations, from attempting to influence the general public on matters of
importance and from the free exercise of the rights and privileges
possessed and enjoyed by a voluntary association.
Reply: On the contrary, as borne by the experience of American states
which have unified their Bars, integration brings about such a solid and
powerful group of lawyers that the legislature and the government as a
whole, no less than the general public, cannot afford to ignore their
views or demands or deny them adequate hearing. Indeed, integrated
Bars are not only listened to. They are, moreover, consulted by all
sectors on vital issues, especially those relating to the law and the
administration of justice.
F. Excise tax may not be levied by a court.
A license fee is an excise tax which may be levied only by a legislature
and not by a court or unified Bar association.
Reply: If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows
that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for
that purpose, either by itself or through the instrumentality of an
Integrated Bar.
G. The right to practice is not subject to regulation.
The right to practice law is personal freedom and property right, not a
privilege to be granted by a court and subject to judicial regulation.
Reply: Well-settled is the rule that the practice of law is not a vested
right but a privilege clothed with public interest connected with the
administration of justice and hence subject to judicial regulation.

H. A unified Bar is an impersonal Bar.
The impersonality resulting from a unified Bar will rob it of the elements
of comradeship, esprit de corps and good fellowship.
Reply: Impersonality is not a necessary consequence of integration.
Activities may, in fact, be better planned and implemented by a unified
Bar for the promotion of camaraderie, esprit de corps and good f
ellowship. So ,much depends on the members themselves.
I. Politics will intrude.
Opponents point to the natural tendency of lawyers to introduce politics
into the profession. They fear that some lawyers may use the integrated
Bar only for purposes of personal aggrandizement or glory.
Reply: An integrated Bar need not be a political weapon. Traditionally,
lawyers have always resisted attempts to regiment their political
inclinations. It is next to impossible to lead them politically by the nose
like docile lambs—it would be more accurate to say that lawyers are
political tigers. Besides, provisions should be incorporated in the
integration Court Rule that would prevent the unified Bar from becoming
a political or personal tool of any man or group of men. Thus, in the
draft prepared by the Commission on Bar Integration, there is a
perpetual prohibition against the re-election of the President. Then, too,
it is provided that: "The Integrated Bar shall be independent and strictly
non-political. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision thereof
shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the
Integrated Bar or any Region or Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor,
or Officer of the Integrated Bar or of any Region of Chapter thereof who
files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or who
accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office
in the Government or any political subdivision thereof shall be considered
ipso facto resigned from his position in the Integrated Bar from the
moment of such filing or acceptance. Every activity tending to impair the
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 10
independence and non-political character of the Integrated Bar shall be
strictly prohibited and severely penalized."
X. Constitutionality of Bar Integration.
In every case where the validity of Bar integration measures has been
put in issue, the Courts have upheld their validity. The decisions support
this reasoning:
—that Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice
of law;2
—that the practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege,
moreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not
only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the
Courts, and to the nation; and takes part in one of the most important
functions of the State, the administration of justice, as an officer of the
Courts;3
—that as the practice of law is a privilege clothed with public interest, it
is just and fair that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure
compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities;4
—that these public responsibilities can best be met through collective
action; but there can be no collective action without an organized body;
no organized body can operate effectively without incurring expenses;
therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to
the support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions,
the most efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a
rule of Court that requires all attorneys to pay annual dues to the
integrated Bar.5
1. Freedom of Association
To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not violative
of his constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to
associate).6

Compulsory enrollment in the State Bar imposes only the duty to pay
dues in reasonable amount. The issue, therefore, is a question of
compelled financial support of group activities, not involuntary
membership in any other aspect.7
The Rules and By-laws of the State Bar do not compel the lawyer to
associate with anyone. He is free to attend its meetings or vote in its
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected by
the integration of the Bar is the payment of annual dues. He is as free as
he was before to voice his views on any subject in any manner he
wishes, even though such views be opposed to a position taken by the
State Bar.8
The bulk of State Bar activities serve the functions of elevating the
educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of improving the
quality of the legal service available to the people of the State, without
any reference to the political process. The Supreme Court, in order to
further the State's legitimate interests in raising the quality of
professional services, may require that the costs of improving the
profession in this fashion should be shared by the subjects and
beneficiaries of the regulatory program, the lawyers, even though the
organization created to attain the objective also engages in some
legislative activity.9
Integration does not make any lawyer a member of any group of which
he was not already a member. He was already a member of the Bar
when he applied for, took and passed the Bar examinations.10 All that
integration actually does is to provide an organization for the well-
defined but unorganized group of which every lawyer is already a
member.11
Assuming Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a member of the
integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police
power of the State.12 The legal profession has long been regarded as a
proper subject of legislative regulation and control.13 Moreover, the
inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the
authority to integrate the state Bar.14
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 11
For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not
mean that the Court is attempting to levy a tax.
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation,
while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the judiciary 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
put on an integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses.
The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to
impose such an exaction.15
The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the privilege of
the practice of law is that the regulation does not impose an
unconstitutional burden. The public interest promoted by the integration
of the Bar f ar outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member resulting
from his required payment of the annual dues.16
3. Freedom of Speech
For the integrated Bar to use a member's dues money to promote
measures to which said member is opposed would not nullify his
freedom of speech.17
Since it is settled that a State may constitutionally condition the right to
practice law upon membership in an integrated Bar, it is difficult to
understand why it should become unconstitutional for the Bar to use the
member's dues to fulfill some of the very purposes for which it was
established.18
The objection would make every governmental exaction the material of a
"free speech" issue. Even the income tax would be suspect.19 The
objection would carry us to lengths that have never been dreamed of.
The conscientious objector, if his liberties were to be thus extended,
might refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of any other
end condemned by his conscience as irreligious or immoral. The right of
private judgment has never yet been exalted above the powers and the
compulsion of the agencies of government.20
 L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 12

4. Fair to All Lawyers can always order its dissolution. In all other jurisdictions, however,
including European and American states, the Integrated Bar has been
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising, because,
enthusiastically adjudged as an unqualified success.23
although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will
give the members of the Bar a new system which they have hitherto not
had and through which, by proper work, they may receive benef its they
have not heretofore enjoyed and discharge their public responsibilities in
a more effective manner than they have been able to do in the past.
Since the requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of the police power
by the Court, since it will apply equally to all who are practising lawyers
at the time Bar integration takes effect, young lawyer and old, and since
it is a new regulation in exchange for new benefits, it is not retroactive,
it is not unequal, it is not unfair.21

XI. Conclusion.

The evils feared to arise under an integrated Bar have failed to

materialize in over fifty years of integration in the United States. It is
shown that in States where the integrated Bar has been tried, it has
revealed none of the abuses lodged against it, but on the other hand, it
has restored public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional
consciousness, energized the Bar's responsibility to the public, improved
the administration of justice, and is the only means presented whereby
every member of the Bar can share in its public and professional
responsibility. It is noteworthy that the English Bar was integrated early
in its history and has never abandoned integration. Since the integrated
Bar movement was initiated in the United States in 1914, a majority of
the States have adopted it, and none has returned to the old regime of
voluntary organization. States having integrated Bars recommend the
system as a vast improvement over the voluntary organization, and
proclaim that they would under no circumstances return to the old setup.
22

The Commission on Bar Integration, on the basis of an in-depth study, is

fully convinced of the constitutionality of integration. Titans of the
Philippine Bar have advocated integration since 1928. If, for any reason,
the Integrated Bar will later prove to be undesirable, the Supreme Court

ANNOTATION
THE USE OF ABUSIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT A GROUND FOR
DISQUALIFICATION FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR
By
Prof. LOHEL A. MARTIREZ
§ 1.The Petition; ground, p. 522.
§ 2.Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, p. 524.
§ 3.Additional Notes on Contempt, p. 530.
The case presents a rather odd situation where a full-fledged lawyer
crossed swords with a would-be lawyer, the former petitioning for the
disqualification of the latter from membership in the bar quite
unsuccessfully but enough to implant some lasting lessons that there is
no place for abusive, vituperative, uncouth and vile languages in the
Legal profession, and the Court finding the Respondent guilty of
contempt.
This is entitled, EMILIA E. ANDRES, Petitioner, versus STANLEY H.
CABRERA, Respondent, SBC-585, Promulgated on December 14, 1979.
§ 1. The Petition; ground
The petition to disqualify respondent from admission to the Bar was filed
by Atty. Emilia E. Andres, Legal Officer II in the Office of the Ministry of
Labor on the ground of “lack of good moral character as shown by his
propensity in using vile, uncouth, and incivil language to the extent of
being reprehensively malicious and criminally libelous and likewise, for
his proclivity in filing baseless, malicious and unfounded criminal cases.”
The use of Abusive Language is not a Ground for Disqualification from
Membership in the Bar
“Vile” means sinful, impure, unclean, wicked or highly objectionable;
“uncouth” means awkward, outlandish, rude, unrefined, or boorish.
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 13
A few samplings of the words used by Respondent would clearly show
the truthfulness of the accusation. Such as: “moronic statements,”
“moronic excuse,” “unparalleled stupidity,” “moronically failed”
“moronically received” “criminal conspiracy by the idiotic,” “avalance of
the sadistic resolution en banc,” “vomiting injustice,” “wanton
dishonesty,” etc.
And just for the reader, a “Moron” according to Webster, is a
“Moderately feeble-minded person” and that “most morons can be happy
with tasks too simple and monotonous to satisfy an intelligent person.”
To impute upon the lady lawyer such uncalled for conducts smacks at
unchivalries of a gentleman respondent; such insulting words and
phrases hurt even the Supreme Court. The statements as it were lacked
the polish and the superior refinements in speech and manner expected
of a future barrister.
Whether in or out of court, man should watch out his speech since they
are a reflection of one’s inner personality. Even King Solomon prayed
that the words of his mouth and the meditations of his heart if ever be
acceptable in the sight of God, with more reason for ordinary mortals
especially those engaged or about to engage in the Law Profession but
to find inspiration with the works of the immortal lawgiver, Moses. A fine
speech, respectful decorum, chivalry and magnanimity in purpose toward
opposing parties are marks of good breeding that law students and
lawyers should stand foursquare.
To call somebody’s act or acts “moronic” or “idiotic” especially when that
somebody is a lawyer is an insult of the first degree to the one alluded
to; likewise an indirect attack upon the integrity of the Supreme Court
for having accepted to the Bar people with “moronic” or “idiotic”
tendencies. This is most unfair and CONTEMPT was in order.
§ 2. Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
Power of the Court.—The power to punish contempt is inherent in all
courts, and is essential to their right of self-preservation. (Slade Perkins
vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271) This power applies in administrative

proceedings as well as in suits at law. (In re Lozano and Quevedo, 54
Phil. 801) The reason for this is that respect of the courts guarantees the
stability of their institution. Without such guaranty said institution would
be resting on a very shaky foundation. (Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil.
724) And if the courts rest on shaky foundations, the entire democratic
processes of this land would be adversely affected in unthinkable
proportions. The “last bulwark” of our democracy would be in crisis and
the people’s faith in the administration of justice would be gravely
undermined that could lead to frustrations or even bloodshed. That is
why, it is of utmost importance that the Courts must be strengthened at
all times, it must be protected from insults and its authority always held
supreme. The courts are not swayed by politics, by religion, or any creed
except those of highest tenets of JUSTICE to every man, woman and
child.
Civil and Criminal Contempt distinguished.—A distinction is made
between a civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is the failure to do
something ordered by a court to be done for the benefit of a party. (Phil.
Ry Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, SC-G.R. No. 44983) A criminal
contempt is any conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the
court. (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271) Where the
punishment imposed, whether against a party to a suit or a stranger, is
wholly or primarily to protect or vindicate the dignity and power of the
court, either by fine payable to the Government or by imprisonment, or
both, it is deemed a judgement in a criminal case. It has been held,
however, that the line of demarcation between a criminal and a civil
contempt, is, in many instances, very indistinct, for there are contempts
in which both elements are present. (17 C.J.S. p. 7)
Classification of Contempt.—Under the present rule, contempt is divided
into two kinds: (1) direct contempt, that is, one committed in the
presence of, or so near, the judge as to obstruct him in the
administration of justice; and (2) constructive contempt, or that which is
committed out of the presence of the court, as in refusing to obey its
order or lawful process. (Narcisa vs. Bowen, 22 Phil. 365) The disrespect
toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, and
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 14
refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribed an
affidavit or deposition when lawfully required so to do, are considered as
direct contempt. The refusal to take an oath or to testify before an
administrative officer legally authorized to take testimony, may be
summarily punished as a direct contempt. (People vs. Abaya, 43 Phil.
247)
The use of disrespectful language in courts is a direct contempt. An
attorney who charges the court with having proceeded in utter disregard
of the laws, the rights of the parties, and of untoward consequences, or
with having abused its power and mocked and flouted his client,
commits contempt. An attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his
clients, may rightly act with all the fervor and energy of which he is
capable, but he cannot resort to intimidation or in any way proceed
without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts require
(Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724). Where a party alleges in his
pleading addressed to the court that he considers it highly oppressive for
the court to interfere with him in the details of his administration from
which it had detached its jurisdiction, and that this is not the first
incident in which he was “bullied into submission of his prerogatives” by
said court, the language used is clearly insolent, disrespectful, and
contemptuous. A mere disclaimer of any intentional disrespect is no
ground for exoneration. His intent must be determined by a fair
interpretation of the language by him employed. He cannot escape
responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader
must have understood them as meaning. (Intestate Estate of Rosario
Olba, in re Contempt Proc. vs. Antonio Franco, 37 O.G. p. 2516)
(Citations from Moran, Vol. 11, 2nd Ed.)
Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily.—A person guilty of
misbehavior in the presense of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct
or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect
toward the court or judge, offensive personalities toward others, or
refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an
affidavit or deposition when lawfully required so to do, may be
summarily adjudged in contempt by such court or judge and punished by

fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding
ten (10) days, or both, if it be a superior court, or a judge thereof, or by
fine not exceeding ten pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1)
day, or both, if it be an interior court.
In Calo, Jr. vs. Tapucar, 88 SCRA 78, No. L-47244, January 16, 1979, the
Supreme Court held:—The facts are undisputed. It does appear that
while petitioner Calo, Jr. could have been provoked by what he
considered an unjust and unfair order, there was no justification for him
to resort to intemperate and highly derogatory language. Accordingly, it
cannot be considered an excess of jurisdiction on the part of respondent
Judge to find him in direct contempt of court. It continued:—1. There is,
in the recent case of Yangson vs. Salandanan, (Adm. Case No. 1347,
November 12, 1975, 68 SCRA 42) the opinion being penned by Justice
Aquino, a reiteration of the authoritative doctrine that “offensive and
disrespectful observation (is) an act of direct contempt or contempt in
facie curiae” and could, therefore, be summarily punished without
hearing.
In a 1932 decision, Lualhati vs. Albert, 57 Phil. 86, the opinion coming
from Justice Malcolm, this Court held that an urgent motion filed by
counsel, where he sought to disqualify a judge to conduct a new trial of
a criminal case where he had previously found the accused guilty on the
ground that “a completely impartial trial to which her constitutional right
entitled her” and to protect her “against the prejudice necessarily formed
by the judge who had presided at the original trial (having thus) formed
in his mind a firm and irrevocable conviction as to her guilt” could be
punished as direct contempt.
2. There is relevance to this excerpt from People vs. Estenzo, (64 SCRA
211) “It cannot be denied either that unless exercised with restraint and
judiciousness, this power lends itself to manifestations of whim, caprice,
and arbitrariness. There is a compelling and exigent need therefore for
judges to take the utmost care lest prejudice, innate or covert hostility to
personality of counsel, or previous incidents lead them to characterize
conduct susceptible of innocent explanation as slights on the dignity of
the court. It is ever timely to remember how easy it is to overstep the
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 15
dividing line that should separate the prosecutor from the judge, when
both roles are merged in the same person. The infusion of personal
element may go unnoticed. Even if such were not the case, objectively
viewed, such an impression may be difficult to avoid by laymen. That is a
consideration that cannot be overlooked. . . It is important that public
confidence in judicial impartiality and fairness be not impaired. * * * *
‘The power to punish for contempt,’ as was pointed out by Justice
Malcolm in Villavicencio vs. Lukban, ‘should be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Only occasionally should
the court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect
without which the administration of justice must falter or fail.’
Section 3. Indirect contempts to be punished after charge and hearing.—
After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official
duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
judgement, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or
judge, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or
ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court
of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter
into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given
to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or
proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1
of this rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as
such without authority;

(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the
custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by
him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court
from issuing process to bring the accused party into court, or from
holding him in custody pending such proceedings. (Rule 71)
Per Moran: Misbehaviour—Misbehavior of an officer of a court constitutes
contempt. Misbehavior is an improper or unlawful conduct. It embraces a
wilful refusal or negligent failure, without just cause, of an officer of the
court to comply with an order of the court (People vs. Covacha, 52 Phil.
704). An officer who is found to be negligent in the performance of his
official duties may be rightfully declared guilty of contempt (United
States vs. Manalo, 16 Phil. 654). The clerk of court is subject to the
control of the court in the matter of appointments of employees in his
office, and his refusal to comply with an order of the judge to submit
names and recommendations for appointment, is contempt (In re Jones,
9 Phil. 347). A sheriff or his deputy who through neglect fails to serve
summons in accordance with an order of the court, is guilty of contempt.
Disobedience.—Disobedience of a lawful order of the court constitutes
contempt under subdivision (b) of the above section. It has been held
however, that a person cannot be punished for contempt unless the act
which is forbidden or required to be done is precisely defined (Lee Yick
Hon. vs. Collector of Customs, 41 Phil. 548).
The writ or order of the court must be lawful in order that resistance
thereto may be punished as contempt. Courts have no power to demand
compliance with an order issued without authority (United States vs.
Gabriel, 31 Phil. 632). In other words, the disobedience of, or resistance
to, an order or mandate which is void, because issued by a court without
jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties litigant cannot be
considered a contempt. (Weigall vs. Shuster, 11 Phil. 340) But if the
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 16
order or mandate is valid, it cannot be disobeyed no matter how
erroneous it may be.
Obstruction of administration of justice.—Any act of a person tending
directly or indirectly to prevent, obstruct, degrade, or embarass the
administration of justice constitutes contempt. Any publication during the
pendency of a suit, reflecting upon the court, the parties, or witnesses,
and tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is contempt (In
re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944). The criticism that the Supreme Court has no
“intellectual leadership,” but merely “sentimental leadership,” was held
to be contemptuous (See Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, In re
contempt proceedings, Quirino, respondent, G.R.L. 278).
A criticism should be distinguished from insult. A criticism after a case
has been disposed of, can no longer influence the court, and on that
ground it does not constitute contempt. On the other hand, an insult
hurled to the court, even after a case is decided, can under no
circumstance be justified (People vs. Alarcon, G.R. No. 46551).
In Surea vs. Juntereal, 84 SCRA 5, No. L-38695, July 1, 1978, the
Supreme Court said:—The Rules of Court cannot be any clearer. The
appropriate section is quite explicit: “After charge in writing has been
filed, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself or
counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for
contempt: * * * (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
process, order, judgment, or command of a court, * * *” Clearly, the
contemptuous conduct imputed to him, disobedience, called for his being
given the opportunity to meet such a charge. Failure to accord such
hearing amounts to a denial of due process. In cases of indirect
contempt, as was pointed out in Gardones vs. Delgado, 58 SCRA 58, the
party proceeded against “could not be adjudged guilty without hearing
him or without due process of law.” Such a doctrine goes back to Finnick
vs. Peterson, 6 Phil. 172, a 1906 decision where this Court considered a
failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum as constituting an

indirect contempt and therefore one sought to be held liable is entitled to
the hearing or trial.
§ 3. Additional Notes on Contempt
(1) The violation of a right declared in a judgment does not constitute
contempt of court in the absence of any express command or
prohibition. Thus the mere failure of the petitioner to vacate the lot in
question could not be a basis of a contempt proceeding against said
petitioner in the absence of an express court order to that effect (Olego
vs. Rebueno, 66 SCRA 446).
(2) The action of a party of causing repairs to the property involved in
the litigation pending appeal does not constitute contempt of court
(Lodovica vs. Court of Appeals, 65 SCRA 154).
(3) A trial judge may be held in contempt of court for disregarding a writ
of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals (Reliance
Procoma, Inc. vs. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corporation, 57 SCRA 370).
(4) A conviction for contempt is unjustified when the person convicted of
contempt acted in good faith (Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163).
(5) The failure to obey a subpoena constitutes an indirect contempt. A
trial judge, therefore who immediately orders the arrest of the person
disobeying the court’s subpoena without giving him his day in court
commits a grave error (Gardones vs. Delgado, 58 SCRA 58).
(6) A person may not be held in contempt of court for failure to obey a
court order where the terms of the same are ambiguous.
(7) A false allegation made by counsel in his pleading constitutes direct
contempt (Occena vs. Marquez, 60 SCRA 38).
(8) Contempt of Court may be either direct or constructive. It is direct
when committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
obstruct or interrupt proceedings before same and constructive or
indirect contempt is one committed out or not in the presence of court
and justice. It is tantamount to a misbehaviour in the presence of or so
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 17
near a court as to interrupt the admission of Justice (Delima vs. Gallardo,
77 SCRA 286).
(9) A contempt charge in the Supreme Court raising issues involving
questions of fact may be referred to the lower court for rehearing and
recommendation (Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, 6 SCRA 12).
(10) Threats and disrespectful language in a pleading filed in court
constitutes direct contempt (Paragas vs. Cruz, 14 SCRA 809).
(11) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
judgment or command of a court or manifest disobedience thereof
constitutes contempt of court (Francisco vs. Ramos, 69 SCRA 379).
(12) The power to punish persons for contempt is inherent in all courts
and essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to
the enforcement of their orders and decisions (Montalban vs. Canonoy,
38 SCRA 273).
(13) Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey, should said
power be exercised (Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163).
(14) Defiance to a restraining order of the Supreme Court constitutes
contempt (Kibad vs. Commission of Elections, 25 SCRA 711).
(15) The refusal to honor an injunctive order of the Supreme Court
constitutes contempt (Ysasi vs. Fernandez, 26 SCRA 393).
(16) The requirement that a person charged with contempt be given an
opportunity to be heard and be informed of the charges against him are
adequately fulfilled by the court either by reading the complaint to
respondent or furnishing him with a copy of the contempt charges
(Aguador vs. Enerio, 37 SCRA 140).

FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW PRACTICE IN MORE THAN ONE
JURISDICTION By SEVERIANO S. TABIOS*
§ I.Introduction, p. 352
§ II.Requirements of Admission to the Practice of Law, p. 354
A.Requirements in the Philippines, p. 354
1.Admission Upon Examination, p. 354
2.Admission Without Examination, p. 355
B. Requirements of Admission in a Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 356
1. General Requirements for Admission in New York State, p. 356
2. Admission Upon Examination, p. 357
3. Admission Without Examination, p. 361
§ III.Practice of Law in Association with Foreign Lawyers, p. 362
§ IV.Conclusion, p. 363
§ I. Introduction
It has been observed that because of accelerated growth in foreign
investments generating international movements of goods across
national boundaries and the transnational transfers of technologies,
multinational companies have grown in numbers by necessity to oversee
the investments in the host country. While these multinational
companies generally employ local manpower, they normally maintain,
however, a small core of selected specialists to handle sensitive matters
that only head office people could be entrusted with. As a very different
type of lawyering is called for in a relationship as complex and fluid as
that between the multinational, the host and the home governments,1 it
is normally expected that a multinational should be consulting its own
head office lawyers on legal problems encountered in the host country,
although it already retains the services of the best legal minds the host
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 18
country could offer. It is for this reason that practice of law in more than
one jurisdiction has become a necessity.
The practice of law in any jurisdiction is a privilege granted only to those
who have qualified for the standard of admission in the State. As the
power to admit is a judicial function that involves the exercise of
discretion after a thorough evaluation of applicant’s qualification, a
license to practice becomes a guarantee by the State to its constituents
that the licensee is fit and proper to assume the responsibilities of a
lawyer, to enjoy and keep their confidence and to aid and assist them in
their causes and in the management of their legal businesses and
affairs.2
Under the Philippine Legal System, the practice of law entails the
exercise of a public function for the administration of justice.3 For this
reason, the practice of law should be limited to citizens and excluded
from foreigners.4 In this regard, the filing of a brief by a Japanese
lawyer as an appendix to a brief presented by a Filipino attorney on
record was considered as an unauthorized practice of law by one not
admitted to the bar.5 Furthermore, the use of a stationery of a foreign
law firm not authorized to practice law in this country by a Filipino
member of the firm was considered unethical, because the use of the
stationery was viewed as a representation that being associated with the
firm respondents could “render legal services of the highest quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade
and investment.”6
§ II. Requirements of Admission to the Practice of Law
A. Requirements in the Philippines
1. Admission Upon Examination
According to the Revised Rules of Court, any person heretofore duly
admitted as a member of the bar or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good
 L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 19

and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.7 Additionally, it is also that he hurdled the bar examinations is immaterial because passing such
required as a condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the examination is not the only qualification required to become an attorney,
retention of a lawyer’s name in the Roll of Attorneys with the Supreme considering that taking the prescribed course of study in the regular
Court that the lawyer pay his annual dues with the Integrated Bar of the manner is equally essential.12
Philippines.8
2. Admission Without Examination
For the purposes of admission to the practice of law, the candidate must
Under the Revised Rules of Court, the Supreme Court may in its
be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
discretion admit to the bar without examination those applicants, who,
moral character and a resident of the Philippines, and must produce
being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character,
Supreme Court for the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or
and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or territory of
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.9 Additionally, a
the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that
candidate shall undergo a bar examinations on required subjects. The
they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such
subjects include Civil Law, Labor and Social Legislation, Mercantile Law,
practice began before July 4, 1946 and that they have never been
Criminal Law (including the general principles of Penal Science and
suspended or disbarred.13 Moreover, lawyers who are citizens of the
Criminology), Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporation and
United States who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed member of
Public Offleers), International Law (Public and Private), Taxation,
Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Evidence), Legal the Philippine bar, in actual practice in the courts of the Philippines and
in good and regular standing as such, may, upon satisfactory proof of
Ethics and Practical Exercises (in pleadings and conveyancing).10 In this
these facts, be allowed by the Supreme Court to continue such practice
regard, no applicant shall be admitted to the bar examination unless he
after taking the prescribed oath.14
has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or
university recognized by the government, to wit: Civil Law, Commercial It is significant to note that the above-mentioned requirements for
Law, Remedial Law, Criminal Law, Public and Private Inter-, national admission without examination appears to be intended as a transition to
Law, Political Law, Labor and Social Legislations, Medical Jurisprudence, accommodate lawyers who had been in actual practice before July 4,
Taxation and Legal Ethics.11 1946 who wanted to practice law in the Philippines. But, as the
provisions of the Revised Rules of Court require, these lawyers should be
It is significant to note that strict compliance with the requirements is
Filipino citizens who had practiced law for at least five years before the
needed, For this purpose, the passing of the bar examination is only a
cut-off date in the United States or American lawyers who were duly
partial compliance and would not guarantee admission unless the other
licensed member of the Philippine bar before July 4, 1946. Necessarily,
requirements are strictly complied with. Thus, an applicant who swore
those lawyers who started their law practice after July 4, 1946 would
that previous to his study of law he had completed the required pre-legal
never qualify for admission without examination, because even if they
education as prescribed by the Department of Education, when in fact he
are Filipino citizens who had been admitted to practice law in the United
never graduated from high school and that while he was taking his first
States they would lack the requirement of having practiced law for at
year law, he was at the same time taking his preparatory course, may be
least five years before July 4, 1946
ousted because his admission to the bar which was obtained under false
pretenses has to be revoked. According to the Supreme Court, the fact B. Requirements for Admission in a Foreign Jurisdiction

1. General Requirements for Admission in New York State
In other foreign jurisdictions such as in the State of New York,
citizenship is not a requirement for admission to the practice of law in
the State. Even foreigners who are not residents of the State of New
York are eligible for admission provided they qualify and satisfy the
specific requirements for admission. In this regard, Title 22 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York
(cited as 22 NYCRR) provides that a person shall be admitted to practice
law in the courts of the State of New York only by an order of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court upon compliance with the
rules.15
According to the Rules of the Court: of Appeals for the Admission of
Attorneys and Counselors at Law, a candidate for admission may seek
admission upon examination or admission without examination
depending on the qualification and eligibility of the candidate. Each of
these type of admissions are governed by separate rules and regulations
requiring strict adherence thereto. However, the Court of Appeals, upon
application, may in its discretion vary the application of or waive any
provision of the Rules of Admission where strict compliance will cause
undue hardship to the applicant; but such application shall be in the
form of a verified petition setting forth the applicant’s name, age and
residence address, the facts relied upon and a prayer for relief.16
2. Admission Upon Examination
An applicant for admission upon examination shall furnish the New York
State Board of Law Examiners with satisfactory proof that applicant is
over 21 years of age, specifying the date and place of his birth, and that
applicant has complied with the educational requirements for
admission.17 For this purpose, the applicant may qualify to take the New
York State bar examination by submitting to the New York State Board of
Law Examiners satisfactory proof that applicant commenced the study of
law after applicant’s 18th birthday and that applicant attended and was
graduated with a first degree in law from a law school or law schools
which at all times during the period of applicant’s attendance was or
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 20
were approved. In this regard, an approved law school is one whose
program and course of study meet the requirements of the rules for
admission as shown by the law school’s bulletin or catalogue or which is
approved by the American Bar Association or which is a member of the
Association of American Law Schools, or which is registered and
approved by the New York State Education Department. An approved
law school shall require for its first degree in law the successful
completion of either a full-time or a part-time program which consists of
a minimum of 80 semester hours of credit, or the equivalent, in
professional law subjects; and at least 1,200 classroom periods of 50
minutes each, including examinations.18
As an alternative to law school studies, an applicant may study law in a
law office and qualify to take the New York State bar examination. For
this purpose, the applicant shall submit to the New York State Board of
Law Examiners satisfactory proof that applicant commenced the study of
law after its 18th birthday, that applicant successfully completed at least
one academic year as a matriculated student in a full-time program or
the equivalent in a part-time program at an approved law school and at
the conclusion thereof was eligible to continue in that school’s degree
program, and that applicant thereafter studied law in a law office or
offices located within New York State under the supervision of one or
more attorneys admitted to practice law in New York State, for such a
period of time as, together with the credit allowed pursuant to the rules
for attendance in an approved law school, shall aggregate four years. In
this regard, an applicant studying law in a law office or offices within
New York State must be actually and continuously employed during the
required period as a regular law clerk and student in a law office, under
the direction and subject to the supervision of one or more attorneys
admitted to practice law in New York State, and must be actually
engaged in the practical work of such law office during normal business
hours. In addition, the applicant must receive instruction from the
attorney or attorneys of the law office in those subjects which are
customarily taught in approved law schools.19

An applicant who studied law in a foreign country may qualify to take the
New York State bar examination by submitting to the New York State
Board of Law Examiners satisfactory proof of successful completion of a
period of law study in the foreign country whose jurisprudence is based
upon principles of English Common law which is substantially equivalent
to that required for admission to the New York State bar examination or
that applicant has successfully completed a full time or part-time
program consisting of a minimum of 24 semester hours of credit, or the
equivalent, in professional law subjects in an approved law school in the
United States or that applicant meets the educational requirements for
admission to an approved law school in the United States for an LL.M or
S.J.D. degree in law. Applicant must also show that the legal education
he completed in the foreign country fulfills the educational requirements
for admission to the practice of law in that country.20
Applicants for admission upon examination are required to pass the New
York State Bar examination, consisting of problems in both adjective and
substantive law, being conducted twice each year by the New York State
Board of Law Examiners21 and the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination being administered by the National Conference of Bar
Examiners.22 The Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination may
be taken within a period of no more than two years prior or subsequent
to passing the New York State bar examination. After applicant passed
both examinations, the New York State Board of Law Examiners shall
certify the results to the Appellate Division of the appropriate Judicial
Department of the New York State Supreme Court.23
Every applicant for admission must file with a committee on character
and fitness appointed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
affidavits of reputable persons that applicant possesses the good moral
character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor at
law. The number of such affidavits and the qualifications of persons
acceptable as affiants shall be determined by the Appellate Division to
which the applicant has been certified.24 With respect to an applicant
who does not reside and is not employed full-time in the State of New
York, it is required as a condition of admission that said applicant
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 21
execute and file with the Appellate Division of the department in which
applicant is being admitted a duly acknowledged instrument in writing
setting forth the applicant’s residence or mailing address and designating
the clerk of such Appellate Division as the applicant’s agent upon whom
process may be served, with like effect as if served personally upon the
applicant, in any action or proceeding thereafter brought against the
applicant and arising out of or based upon any legal services rendered or
offered to be rendered by the applicant within the State.25
Applications for admission are processed in any one of the four
departments of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme
Court. For residents of New York State or applicants whose full-time
employments are located within New York State, applications are
processed in any of the following departments having jurisdiction over
the area, namely: First Judicial Department at New York, New York;
Second Judicial Department at Brooklyn, New York; Third Judicial
Department at Albany, New York and Fourth Judicial Department at
Rochester, New York. However, applications of candidates who are not
residents nor employed in New York, inciudmg foreign applicants, are
processed only in the Third Judicial Department at Justice Building,
Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York.
Appropriately, upon certification by the New York State Board of Law
Examiners that an applicant has passed the required examinations, the
appellate division of the Supreme Court in the department to which such
applicant shall have been certified, if it shall be satisfied that the
applicant possesses the character and general fitness requisite for an
attorney and counselor at law, shall admit him to practice as such
attorney and counselor at law in all the courts of New York State,
provided that applicant has in all respects complied with the rules of the
court of appeals and the rules of the appellate divisions relating to the
admission of attorneys.26
3. Admission Without Examination
Under the Rules for Admission of Attorneys in the State of New York,
practitioners in other jurisdictions with practice experience of at least five

years may in the discretion of the Appellate Division of the New York
State Supreme Court be admitted to practice without examination upon
compliance with other requirements. For this purpose the rules require
that applicant should be over 26 years old, has had the substantial
equivalent of the legal education required for admission to the bar
examinations and while admitted to practice law in a jurisdiction whose
jurisprudence is based upon the principles of the English Common Law
has actually practiced for a period of at least five years.27
The first step that an applicant will have to do is to apply for a certificate
of equivalent legal education from the State Board of Law Examiners by
attaching to his application a summary of his legal experience, a
transcript of his law school record and a certified check for $100.00 as
processing fee. As soon as the New York State Board of Law Examiners
has issued a certificate of equivalent legal education, the appropriate
depart ment of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme
Court will send a form entitled Applicant’s Affidavit as to Legal Practice
which applicant shall accomplish and return to the New York State
Supreme Court. If the New York State Supreme Court finds applicant
qualified, two sets of forms will be forwarded with instruction for
applicant to accomplish one set immediately and forward that set to the
National Conference of Bar Examiners at Chicago, Illinois. As soon as
notified by the National Conference of Bar Examiners that it has already
rendered its report, applicant will subsequently submit the second set to
the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. If applicant
is found qualified, an interview will be scheduled with a member of the
Committee on Character and Fitness who will certify to the New York
State Supreme Court his observations on applicant. An oath taking will
subsequently take place if applicant is admitted to the practice of law.
§ III. Practice of Law in Association with Foreign Lawyers
With the expansion of foreign trade and the attendant complexities of
foreign investment laws and regulations, the need for lawyers to be
knowledgeable with laws and regulations in other jurisdictions where
transnational clients conduct business has been felt. For this purpose,
practitioners in one jurisdiction often maintain correspondent relationship
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 22
with others in another jurisdiction. In some instances, partnership among
lawyers admitted to practice in different jurisdictions have been formed.
In the Philippines, where foreigners are not allowed to practice law,
partnership by Filipino lawyers with foreign lawyers may not be possible
for the practice of law in the Philippines. As declared by the Supreme
Court in the recent case of Dacanay vs. Baker and McKenzie, et. al.,28
the use of a stationery of a foreign law firm not authorized to practice
law in the Philippines by a Filipino member of the firm is unethical
Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the practice of law is
limited to Filipino citizens.29
On the other hand, in the State of New York, big law firms maintain the
services of lawyers admitted to practice in different jurisdictions. While
the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the New
York State Bar Association considers it improper for a lawyer to engage
in practice where he is not permitted by law or by court order to do
so,30 however, it allows the formation of a partnership between or
among lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions, provided all
enumerations of the members and associates of the firm on its
letterhead and in other permissible listings make clear the jurisdictional
limitations on those members and associates of the firm not licensed to
practice in all listed jurisdictions.31 Moreover, the same firm name may
be used in each jurisdiction.32
It may be interesting to note that, under its ethical considerations, the
New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility recommends that
the legal profession, in furtherance of the public interest, should
discourage regulation that unreasonably imposes territorial limitations
upon the right of a lawyer to handle the legal affairs of his client or upon
the opportunity of a client to obtain the services of a lawyer of his choice
in all matters including the presentation of a contested matter in a
tribunal before which the lawyer is not permanently admitted to practice.
This is because the demands of business and the mobility of our society
 L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 23

pose distinct problems in the regulation of the practice of law by the

states.33

§ IV. Conclusion

Regulation of the practice of law is accomplished principally by the State.

Authority to engage in the practice of law is a privilege conferred by the
highest tribunal of the State only to those who are qualified and morally
fit to assume the responsibilities of an attorney and counselor at law. For
this reason, it is improper for a lawyer to engage in practice where he is
not permitted by law or by court order to do so. Correspondingly, a
lawyer who needs to protect the rights of his clients doing business in
another jurisdiction should seek admission to the practice of law in that
jurisdiction, if that is possible, or arrange a relationship with a lawyer in
that jurisdiction on an “Of Counsel” basis.

——o0o——

Fundamentals of Law Practice in More Than One Jurisdiction, 136 SCRA

352, May 10, 1985

ANNOTATION
LAWYERS ARE NO ANGELS By Prof. LOHEL A. MARTIREZ
§ 1. Attorney at-law; authority; principal duties, p. 744.
§ 2. Grounds for disbarment or suspension, p. 746.
§ 3. Adultery, Concubinage, Abduction, and few unprofessional acts, p.
747.
A. Adultery, p. 747.
B. Concubinage, p. 747.
C. Forcible Abduction, p. 747,
D. Consented Abduction, p. 747.
§ 4. Lawyer’s chance to defend from accusations, p. 748.
§ 5. Reinstatement; Substitution, p. 750.
————
Filing an administrative case against a lawyer is quite simple. Probing the
same to the satisfaction of the court is another, and is often difficult. If
the cause of action calls for disbarment, the complainant must clearly
establish that the respondent is guilty of the charge.
“Malpractice” is a serious offense; and “Disbarment”, a real shocker! A
lawyer disbarred is an embittered soul and the stigma of defeat and
shame that follow can break the heart of the colossus. The proceedings
are in itself very trying, since upon its resolution in favor of the
respondent can he be assured of complete atonement of his reputation
cast over by clouds of suspicions during the pendency of the case.
Lawyers are no angels such that they can be expected to know what is
within the mental faculties of the client. Neither are they endowed with
supernatural powers that they can exactly anticipate the rulings of the
courts. Yet, their acts are guided by the rules laid down by the Supreme
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 24
Court and their speech or conducts are tied up to the highest standards
of excellence being officers of the courts and professors of the laws in
the administration of justice. Lawyers are mortals with clay feet and also
need understanding and cooperation from clients. Lawyers are standard
bearers of truth and honesty and are shining pillars of the people’s faith
in our democratic institutions that our forefathers have fought and died
for. They are a blessing to our growing society and in every turn of
events and in every breath we take, lawyers and their glorious
handiworks form part and parcel of national, or even international
relations in this world of multiple interests.
The case under annotation entitled, CESARIO ADARNE vs. ATTY.
DAMIAN V. ALDABA, is one such case where the lawyer, after acting with
creditable showing for and in behalf of the complainant, even if short-
lived, thought that nothing more had to be done since he was not the
attorney of record, became the innocent target of an irate litigant,
Adarne.
The triple accusations may be summed up as follows:
(a) Gross negligence and misconduct;
(b) Failure to give entire devotion, warm zeal and utmost learning; and,
(c) Failure to protect client’s interests from adverse decision.
These are grave and serious charges that cannot be taken
lightly by a lawyer in good standing.
Viewed from the standpoint of the complainant, Atty. Aldaba, the herein
respondent, is irresponsible, and, perhaps, a no-good lawyer. And not
only that, the complaint was loaded with threats, thereby insulting the
integrity of the great mass of the Filipino people.
Here is a sampling of the complainant’s wild imaginings in the prayer:—
“. . . sapagkat kung hindi po susugpu-in ang masasamang gawa naito ng
mga ibang abogado na nabibili,—lala’la’ ang sakit naito sa profession ng

mga abogado, at lilikha ng maraming api, lalaganap ang kriminalidad ng
walang tigil, at walang katahimikan ang ating Demukrasya at kung
magkakagayon ang mga mamamayan ay—sapilitan sakumunista
sasamba.” (italics supplied)
Talking about Communism in an administrative case like this, is off-
bound. Communism has nothing to do with the case in issue. The false
prophecy of Filipinos worshipping or embracing communism as a way of
life, is at best a daylight fantasy. The Complainant, perhaps, out of
desperation for a lost cause, tried to inject politics into his charges but
thrown out by the Court as out of question and contrary to the facts of
the case.
§ 1. Attorney-at-law; authority; principal duties.
What is an Attorney-at-law? An attorney-at-law, is an officer in a court of
justice who is employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for
him. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) And the courts have ruled several times
over, that a lawyer is above all an officer of the court. To become an
officer of a court of justice is no easy task. In other words, he (the
lawyer) is a defender of the oppressed, his talents in law constitute
active forces aimed at the administration of justice regardless of political,
social, economic, or religious stations in life of parties litigants. A lawyer,
although employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for him, is
not a part of the cause. He voluntarily dissociates himself from the facts
of the case and keeps himself beyond the influences of the litigants
simply because his primary purpose is to stand by the truth.
Managing the cause of a party litigant does not imply resort to foul
tactics or outright falsehoods to mislead the court and the public. His
business is to carry on the practical and formal parts of the suit, (1 Kent
307) to the best of his ability, to help clarify matters, and proclaim what
is right.
But first of all, there should be an authority. And the authority of an
attorney commences with his retainer. After he has been retained in a
case, he has certain implied powers therein. (Stone vs. Bank, 174 U.S.
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 25
413, 19 Sup. Ct. 743, 43 L. Ed. 1028). As a matter of fact, the
presumption is that an attorney has authority to appear; if the person he
appears for does not disclaim his authority, he is bound. (Bacon vs.
Mitchell, 14 N.D. 454, 106 N. W. 129, 4 L.R.A. [N.S.] 244).
As mentioned earlier, the first duty of a lawyer is the administration of
justice, and his duty to his client is subordinate to that. So that, as far as
his relations with his client are concerned, he is duty bound to—be true
to the court and to his client; to manage the business of his client with
care, skill, and integrity; to keep this client informed as to the state of
his business; to keep his secrets confided to him as such. However, an
attorney is not an insurer of the result in a case in which he is employed,
and only ordinary care and diligence can be required of him. (Bouvier’s
Law Dictionary)
Membership in the bar is an exacting responsibility. It is, to quote from
Justice Cardoso, “a privilege burdened with conditions.” (Cited in Albano
vs. Coloma, Adm, Case No. 528, October 11, 1967, 21 SCRA 411) It
imposes, at the very least, the obligation of attending with due zeal and
diligence to a client’s cause. (Maria Luz Atienza vs. Vicente Evangelista,
Adm. Case No. 1517, November 29, 1977 (Second Division), 80 SCRA
338). Perhaps, it is worthy to note that, an attorney at law is not
expected to know all the law; he is not liable to disbarment for an honest
mistake or error. (In re Filart, 40 Phil. 205). Based on the foregoing, it
can be safely advanced, that, a lawyer must do his best to help in the
administration of justice. As was pointed out in the past, the legal
profession is a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere
money-making trade. (Jayme vs. Bualan, 58 Phil. 422)
An Attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a
reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of
the business he undertakes to do. Prone to err like any other human
being, he is not answerable for every error or mistake, and will be
protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of his
skill and knowledge. Atty. Aldaba, did a “creditable showing” at a “special
appearance” even as he exercised a “reasonable degree of care and skill”
in temporarily handling the case for the herein complainant. In fact, the

respondent deserves praises as one lawyer true to his profession as the
records of the case reveal.
§ 2. Grounds for disbarment or suspension
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or
for a wilful disobedience take any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitute
malpractice. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the
charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved, and as an
officer of the court, that he has performed his duty in accordance with
his oath. (In re De Guzman, 55 SCRA 139) The rule of inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius does not apply to the grounds for disbarment
enumerated in Section 27. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865)
The statutory enumeration is not to be taken as a limitation of the
general power of the courts in this respect. A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as a lawyer for grounds other than
those enumerated by these rules, (as stated above) the power of the
courts to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is
inherent; it is a necessary incident to the proper administration of
justice; and it may be exercised without any special statutory authority;
and in all proper cases, unless positively prohibited by statute.
Accordingly, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
his office as lawyer for grounds other than those enumerated by this
provision. (Moran, p. 237, citing Balinon vs. De Leon, et al., 50 O.G. 583
and In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567)
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 26
On several occasions, the Supreme Court have ruled on very critical
points where a lawyer deserved condemnation for acts unworthy of the
legal profession. The Court ruled thus:
The crime of abduction is a violation of the criminal law that cannot be
lightly passed over, and the inherent nature of the act is such that it is
against good morals and the accepted rules of right conduct. (In re Basa,
41 Phil. 274) The crime of concubinage likewise involves moral turpitude.
(In re Isada, 60 Phil. 915)
§ 3. Adultery, Concubinage, Abduction, and few unprofessional acts
A. Adultery
Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal
knowledge of her, knowing her to be married even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void. (Art. 333, R.P.C.)
B. Concubinage
Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall
have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman
who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, . . . .
(Art. 334, R.P.C.)
C. Forcible Abduction
The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall
be punished by reclusion temporal. The same penalty shall be imposed
in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age. (Art.
342, R.P.C.)
D. Consented Abduction
The abduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age,
carried out with lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods. (Art. 343, R.P.C.)

“Moral Turpitude” as used in Sec. 27 of Rule 138, includes any act done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. (In re Basa, 41
Ohil. 275)
A client whose rights have been prejudiced by the failure or by the delay
of an attorney in preparing or filing pleadings necessary in the proper
conduct of a cause, and in taking such steps as may be required in the
progress of the case, and who has suffered damages as the result of his
attorney’s negligence or misconduct, may recover and is entitled to
damages. (Moran, citing In re Filart, 40 Phil. 205)
Where an attorney, in deliberately and maliciously withholding from the
court certain facts of which he had full knowedge in an attempt to
unjustly and unlawfully deprive others of their legitimate rights, has
acted with betrayal to the court of which he is an officer and sought
thereby to prevent the administration of justice, and gross violation of
his oath of office. (Moran, citing De los Santos vs. Sagalongos, 69 Phil.
406)
It is highly unprofessional for an attorney who has appeared for the
defense in a criminal case to act later for the prosecution, or vice versa.
The reason for this prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and
client, which is one of confidence and trust in the very highest degree.
(U.S. vs. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500)
§ 4. Lawyer’s chance to defend from accusations.
But, following the principles of fair-play, any respondent-lawyer, is given
a fair chance to defend himself from accusations. Not all accusations are
true. So it is likewise mandated that, no attorney shall be removed or
suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him,
to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or
counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the
accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
(Section 30 Rule 138, R.P.C.)
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 27
The notice to an attorney to appear and show cause why he should not
be punished for contempt, can not be considered as a notice to show
cause why he should not be suspended from practice. A lawyer has the
right, after due notice, to be heard and defend himself in suspension
proceedings. (In Re Jesus Cuenco, 41 Phil. 32) Disbarment proceedings
against a lawyer duly notified but failed to appear may be held ex parte.
(In re Adriatico, 17 Phil. 173)
In disbarment proceedings, defendant should be allowed a reasonable
time to make his defense. In ordinary trials the inability to procure
witnesses after the exercise of due diligence, is ground for
postponement, and such cases are no greater importance than a
disbarment proceeding to an attorney. (In re MacDougall, 3 Phil. 70)
A citizen has sufficient interest to institute a proceeding and bring the
unprofessional conduct of an attrorney to the attention of the proper
authorities. (Hernandez vs. Villanueva, 40 Phil. 775) Carelessness and
neglect of professional duty, and fraud and misconduct towards his
clients, are grounds for suspension of a member of the bar. (In re
Carmen, 41 Phil. 43)
An attorney who, in proceedings to remove him as notary public,
produces in his own defense a false affidavit of a third person, is guilty
of malpractice. (In re De lara, 27 Phil. 176) It is unprofessional and
worthy of the highest form or rebuke for a lawyer to attribute to a judge
a statement which he did not make in his decision. (Ferrer vs. De
Inchausti, 38 Phil. 905)
Where an attorney illegally appropriated the sum of P2,000 because
although the act was done not in his capacity as attorney, the same is a
violation of the lawyer’s oath not to commit any act of falsehood and
further shows his lack of good moral character. (Villegas vs. De Mesa, 70
Phil. 97) The disbarment of an attorney is not intended as a punishment
but is rather intended to protect the administration of justice by requiring
that those who exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable, and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence. (Guzman vs. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554)
 L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 28

Stated in a varying phraseology, disbarment leads us to two leading of confusions by changing lawyers oftener without first observing the
objectives, namely: (1) to compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly formalities required.
with his client; and (2) to remove from the profession a person whose
It has been settled that no substitution of attorneys will be allowed
misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
unless there are filed: (1) a written application for such substitution; (2)
responsiblities belonging to the office of an attorney. (Moran, citing
the written consent of the client; (3) the written consent of the attorney
Strong vs. Munday, 52 N.J. Eq. 833, 1 A. 611 and 6 C.J., p. 581)
substituted; and (4) in case such written consent can not be secured,
§ 5. Reinstatement; Substitution. there must be filed with the application, proof of service of notice of such
motion upon the attorney to be substituted, in the manner prescribed by
The Supreme Court may reinstate an attorney at law who has been
the rules. Unless the foregoing formalities are complied with,
disbarred for reasons and upon assurances satisfactory to the court. (In
substitutions will not be permitted and the attorney who appeared last in
re Adriatico, 17 Phil. 324)
the case before such application will be regarded as the attorney of
Time and again, it has been finely held, that, a member of the bar record and will be held responsible for the proper conduct of the case.
cannot be subjected to the peril of disbarment simply because of (U.S. vs. Borromeo, 20 Phil. 189; Ulanday vs. Manila Railroad Co., 45
decision adverse to his client. The serious consequence of disbarment or Phil. 540)
suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of
As a timely reminder from the Highest Tribunal, it said: It is well settled
evidence showing the basis thereof. The Court is in agreement. It would
that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
be to place an intolerable burden on a member of the bar if just because
complainant and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the
a client failed to obtain what is sought by her after due exertion of the
case against the respondent attorney must be established by convincing
required effort on his part, he would be held accountable. Success in a
proof. In the instant case, there is no sufficient proof to warrant the
litigation is certainly not the test of whether or not a lawyer had lived up
disbarment of the respondent attorney. Neither is there culpable
to his duties to a client. It is enough that with the thorough preparation
malpractice to justify his suspension.
of the case handled by him, he had taken all the steps to prosecute his
suit. If thereafter the result would be the frustration of his client’s hopes, In the future, lawyers will likewise be placed in the same predicament as
that is a cause for disappointment, no doubt for him no less than for his Atty. Aldaba, or, even worse than that as a result of distorted frames of
client, but not for disciplinary action. He is more to be sympathized with thought of unsuccessful litigants. Lawyers being made scapegoats of
than condemned—on the assumption of course that he did what was their own unrighteousness, but, the Supreme Court will always be there
expected of him. (Atienza vs. Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338) with watchful eyes—ever ready to render justice unto those who
rightfully deserve it.
In every case of disbarment the burden of proof lies with the
complainant to show that the respondent is guilty of the acts charged.
“Burden of Proof” means the general duty of a party to ultimately
establish the issues or the truth of his claim by the amount of evidence
required by law. (Elliot on Evidence) This, the complainant Cesario
Adarne failed to do in the instant case. He entangled himself in a mass

ANNOTATION
THE ATTORNEY IN COURT PRACTICE By RODOLFO POMPEYO J.
CABRILLAS
§ 1.Introduction, p. 197.
§ 2.The Attorney’s Mission, p. 199.
§ 3.The Attorney’s Proper Habits, p. 199.
A.Punctuality and Expedition, p. 200.
B.Systematic, p. 200.
C.Cheerfulness, p. 200.
D.Honesty, p. 201.
E.Simple, Clear, Direct and Dignified Language, p. 201.
§ 4.The Attorney’s Duties to the Courts, p. 202.
A.Respectful Attitude Towards the Court, p. 202.
B.Obedience to the Lawful Orders of the Court, p. 203.
C.Loyalty to the Courts, p. 203.
D.Fairness, Truth and Candor, p. 204.
§ 5.Conclusion, p. 205.
§ 1. Introduction
Statistics lend wind to the observation that most of the leading members
of a community are lawyers. That the lawyer represents the most
superior product of civilization, a master of logic, truth and wisdom is not
by any means a flattery. However, this conception was a fiction of sorts
during the riotous pre-Martial law days. Then, lawyers were “liars”,
“boleros” or “opportunistas”. Faith in equality and justice had so weaned,
that it nearly earned itself a peso denomination, were it not for the last
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 29
bastion of the RULE OF LAW, the Supreme Court Under the new
dispensation, lawyers have become highly regarded by the public, not
only because they are now considered additionally honest -but also
because of the realization that abuse and all its evil cousins cannot now
thrive. This is not to say, however, that the Supreme Court and the
Philippine Bar have been adamant. For it is a fact, especially among
lawyers that the Supreme Court had continuously adopted stringent
measures to discipline its members, under its power and prerogative “to
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, x x
x.”1 The framers of the Constitution, most of them lawyers, realizing that
the practice of lawyers would involve to no mean degree the frequent
contact with the public, resolved that since “practice” caters to the public
interest, a body in the stature of the Highest Tribunal of the land had to
supervise with sanctions this legal practice. And so it was thus decreed.
The practice of law treats of four relations: the lawyer and the public;
the lawyer and the courts; the lawyer with his client; and, the lawyer
with his brothers in the profession. By necessity, a lawyer in practice
relates himself with either or all of the four at any one time. Generally, to
practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves
legal knowledge or skill.2 From this definition it could be gleaned that
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It may
include the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
or special proceedings,3 the drawing of deeds and other instruments of
conveyances,4 incorporation service,5 foreclosure of mortgage service,6
insolvency proceedings,7 proceedings in attachment,8 matters of estates
and guardianships,9 advertising oneself as a lawyer and participates in
trial10 or giving advice for compensation.11
It is the purpose of this paper to the subject matter relevant to the
annotated case to treat only on the relation of the lawyer to the courts.
§ 2. The Attorney’s Mission
All facets of the lawyer’s career are aimed at the administration of
justice. Indispensably, lawyers constitute the only other partners of
courts. While the latter are the ultimate dispensers of justice, these are

impotent sans the practitioners’ aid without going at war with the
requisites of due process.
The lawyer’s mission, therefore, is not stifled by the objective of
asserting and defending merely a cause or a right. Aiding succor to the
client is incidental and must yield to the requirements of justice.
It is in this fashion that it has been observed that one of the primary
duties of lawyers is to help the courts in the solution of the multifarious
legal questions that arise from diverse human affairs.12 By necessity, he
is therefore an officer of the Court13 and as such is subject to its control
and supervision.14
§ 3. The Attorney’s Proper Habits
Regulation of legal practice may arise from jurisprudence, the Rules of
Court, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Some qualities which
lawyers must endeavor to maintain in their relations with the public, their
clients and other lawyers apply in equal tension to their attachment to
the courts.
A. Punctuality and Expedition
It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client but also to the courts
and to the public to be punctual in attendance, and to be concise and
direct in the trial and disposition of cases.15 Punctuality or its lack could
spell the difference between contempt and default, on one hand and
legal success on the other. Frequent tardiness could lead to loss of
clients’ confidence and court embarrassment.
Case backlog will be minimized if punctuality and expedition were not
disregarded. Postponements could be avoided by timely preparations
and religious observance of a clean schedule. Part of delays suffered by
litigants is caused by counsel.16 It has been said that procrastination is
our occupational disease, and we sometimes forget that courts operate
for the dispatch of the public business and not for the convenience,
whim and caprice of judges and lawyers.17
B. Systematic
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 30
A well prepared case, coordinated handling of cases, a properly
scheduled time allocation and ultimate success in practice depends
immeasurably to a systematic approach to a case.18 There is no
substitute for a systematic procedure in pursuance of the requirements
of punctuality and expedition.19
C. Cheerfulness
A lawyer should be cheerful, but not boisterous. He should inspire
confidence, be careful in all things he does, analytical and thorough.20
D. Honesty
A lawyer will find his highest honor in a deserved reputation for fidelity
to private trust and to public duty as an honest man.21 A well-deserved
reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust and public duty is the
best advertisement a lawyer can have.22
E. Simple, Clear, Direct, Dignified Language
The language of a lawyer oral or written must be simple, clear and direct
to the point. This will give strength to his argument. Trifles or pomposity
has no place in a court of justice because a case will be decided on its
merits according to law and not on f flowery eloquence.23
It must not be excessive. Instead of strengthening arguments, excessive
language weakens the persuasive force of legal reasoning and disturbs
the orderly and proper administration of justice.24
Moreover, the language of a lawyer especially in the trial of a cause must
scrupulously avoid personalities between counsel. It is indecent to allude
to the personal history or the personal peculiarities and idiosyncracies of
counsel or the other side. Personal colloquies between counsel which
cause delay and promote unseemly wranglings should also be carefully
avoided.25
Lastly, a lawyer’s language must be dignified. Shouting in court,
unnecessary gesture, and unwarranted display of passion should be
avoided.26 Casting insult on a defendant in a criminal case because of

his lowly station in life even if to show that he deserves a greater penalty
had been held to be a disgrace to the bar and an offense to the Court.27
§ 4. Attorney’s Duties to the Courts
The public duties of the attorney takes precedence over his private
duties; his first duty is to the courts. Thus, where duties to the court
conflict with duties to a client, the latter must yield to the former.28
A. Respectful Attitude Towards the Court
Expectedly, the foremost duty of a lawyer is to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.29 It has been
held that as an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity
and authority of the court, to which he owes fidelity.30 Respect to the
courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institution; which
without such respect would be resting on a very shaky foundation.31
By the use of disrespectful and offensive language a lawyer was cited for
contempt32 because such contumacious attitude, a flouting or arrogant
belligerence was a defiance of the court.33
What is disrespect to the court however, unless patently a breach of the
ordinary and the common must depend on the circumstances obtaining
in a particular case. Thus, in one case, it was ruled that lawyers should
be allowed a great latitude of pertinent comment in the furtherance of
the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients they may be
pardoned some infelicities of language.34 Due regard is to be taken
however of the fact that as observed by the Supreme Court,35 “(t)he
language which does not run short of expressions, emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.”
B. Obedience to Lawful Orders of Court
Obedience to the lawful orders of the Court is heat to the fire.
Otherwise, there is no point in going to court. However, erroneous these
orders might be, compliance must be followed meekly. If the order be
not lawful, initial compliance is expected as the remedy is elsewhere.36
Afterall, there is need for another tribunal to rule on its legality. Counsel
L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 31
cannot decide upon it as whatever appraisal he has on a questioned
order would be a matter of opinion.
Thus, it has been observed37 that the lawyer may consider himself more
learned than the judge and may not agree with his rulings or orders
which he regards as incorrect; yet he should receive these orders and
rulings with proper decorum and self-restraint. The decisions of the
judge must be obeyed because it is within his office to decide, and the
bar should be submitting to them with respect.
C. Loyalty to the Courts
Judges not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly
entitled to receive the support of the Bar against unjust criticism and
clamor.38 Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a
judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his
grievances to the proper authorities.39
Clear is the mandate of the canons on the desired attitude of loyalty of
lawyers to the courts and his demeanor and remedy in instances where
the end of fairness, and equity had been frustrated.
Very much related to the requirements of respect to the courts, the duty
of loyalty includes the duty to act with care and circumspection to avoid
undue embarrassment to the court or unnecessary interference with its
proceedings,40 and the duty to assist in the administration of justice.41
D. Fairness, Truth and Candor
Under the Canons,42 candor and fairness are basic characteristics of the
conduct of lawyers with respect to the Courts and other lawyers. Details
have not been omitted in the Canons. Thus, it declares that “(i)t is not
candid nor fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote the contents of a
paper; the testimony of a witness, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the language of a decision43 or a textbook; or with
knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority a decision that has been
overruled, or a statute that has been repealed; or in argument to assert
as a fact that which has not been proved, or x x x to mislead his
 L e g a l E t h i c s R e p o r t B a t c h 1 P a g e | 32

opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his argument upon

which his side intends to rely.”

Also, it is the duty of lawyers to avoid the concealment of the truth

especially from the Court, despite the demands of clients,44 because no
client, however powerful, and no cause, however important, is entitled to
receive from the lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts.45

§ 5. Conclusion

Tomes have been written of lawyers, their conduct and relations. Much
more had been said. These cannot be said of the other callings, for the
legal profession by necessity invades the province of the others. This is
not to say that the legal profession is the most superior because there is
no need to mention the obvious.

Thus scrutinized, the lawyer must always strive to pursue the very
elusive desirable standards of conduct of the profession. Justice
Frankfurter had been cited46 to have said that, “(t)he legal profession
beyond any other calling is the one that is concerned with those
establishments, those processes, those criteria, those appeals to reason
and right, which have had a dominant share in begetting a civilized
society.”

Stronger is this observation applicable in the relation of lawyers to the

courts, of which he is an officer.47 Envisioned as a machinery of justice,
counsel and court are indispensable parts complementing each other.
Impairment of either breaks the machine; the wheels become erratic;
realignment is required. Justice is frustrated. The law is breached. Chaos
reigns.