CODE OF

PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES

A LAWYER SHALL

CANON
8

a. CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH

COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES,
AND
b. SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL.

Rule 8.01
A lawyer shall
not
a. in his
professional
dealings,
b. use
language which
is abusive,
offensive or
otherwise
improper.

A lawyers language should be forceful

but dignified, emphatic but respectful
as befitting an advocate and in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession.
The lawyers arguments whether
written or oral should be gracious to
both court and opposing counsel and
should be of such words as may be
properly addressed by one gentlemen
to another.

The lawyer can

Rule 8.02

A lawyer shall not

QUESTION:

a. directly or
indirectly, encroach
upon the
professional
employment of
another lawyer;
however

If a client
approaches a
lawyer seeking
relief from the
acts of his
neglectful
lawyer, what
should the
advise of the
lawyer be?

b. it is the right of
any lawyer, without
fear or favor, to give
proper advice and
assistance to those
seeking relief
against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel

a. advise her to
terminate the
services of the
neglectful lawyer
and/or
b. file an
administrative
case against the
latter.
It is the right of
any lawyer
without fear or
favor, to give
proper advice and
assistance to
those seeking
relief against
unfaithful or
neglectful counsel

Bugaring
vs
Espaol
349 SCRA 687
January 19, 2001
HELD

Facts: Bugaring vs Espaol, 349 SCRA

687,January 19, 2001
ATTY. EFREN A. BUGARING

is the counsel of Royal Becthel

Builders, Inc.
Royal Becthel seeks to annotate at the back of certain certificates of title a
notice of lis pendens. Lis Pendens - A notice filed in the office of public
records that the ownership of real property is the subject of a legal
controversy and that anyone who purchases it takes it subject to any
claims asserted in the action and thereby its value might be diminished.
Before the Register of Deeds could comply with the Order of the trial court
granting the motion of Royal Bechtel, a motion to cancel the lis
pendens was filed and subsequently granted by the court.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Contempt of Court against the Register
of Deeds.

THE DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS

argues:
That he was not informed by the receiving clerk of their office regarding
the case and that the subpoena for the case of contempt was served to
him just the morning of the hearing.
Counsel for the Register of Deeds requested that they be given a period of

(During the hearing of this case, Atty. Bugaring brought a fellow operating a
video camera who was taking pictures of the proceedings of the case while
Atty. Bugaring insists on presenting their evidence to the Court while adverse
party does not have their formal written opposition yet)
COURT: (Banging the gavel) Will you listen.
ATTY. BUGARING: I am listening your Honor.
COURT: And this Court declares that you are out of order.
ATTY. BUGARING:Well, if that is the contention of the Court your
Honor please, we are all officers of the Court, your Honor, please, we
have also ---- and we know also our procedure, your Honor.
COURT:If you know your procedure then you follow the procedure of the
Court first and then do whatever you want.
ATTY.BUGARING:Yes, your Honor please, because we could feel the
antagonistic approach of the Court to this representation ever since
I appeared your Honor please and I put on record that I will be filing
an inhibition to this Hon. Court.
COURT:Do that right away.(Banging the gavel)
ATTY. BUGARING:Because we could not find any sort of justice in town. We
are ready to present our witness and we are deprive to present our witness.
COURT:With respect to this, the procedure of the Court is for the respondent
to file his comment.

ATTY. BUGARING:Well your Honor please, at this point in time I dont

want to comment on anything but I reserve my right to inhibit this
Honorable Court before trying this case.
COURT:You can do whatever you want.
ATTY. BUGARING:Yes, your Honor, that is our prerogative your
Honor.
COURT:As far as this Court is concerned it is going to follow the rules.
ATTY. BUGARING:Yes, your Honor, we know all the rules.
COURT:Yes, you know your rules thats why you are putting the cart ahead
of the horse.
ATTY. BUGARING:No your Honor, Ive been challenged by this Court
that I know better than this Court.Modesty aside your Honor please,
Ive been winning in many certiorari cases, your Honor.
COURT:Okay, okay, do that, do that.I am going to cite you for contempt of
Court.(Banging the gavel)You call the police and I am going to send this
lawyer in jail.(Turning to the Sheriff)
ATTY. BUGARING:I am just manifesting and arguing in favor ofmy client
ATTY.Honor
BUGARING:I
your
please. am very sorry your Honor, if that is the appreciation of
the Court but this is one way I am protecting my client, your Honor.
COURT:You have been given enough time and you have been abusing the
COURT:That
is not
the way to protect your client that is an abuse of the
discretion
of this
Court.
discretion of this Court.(Turning to the Sheriff)Will you see to it that this guy
is put in jail.

 Thus, in open Court, Atty. Bugaring

was declared in direct contempt.

ISSUE
Whether or not
the
declaration of
contempt of
court was
proper?
Was the fine
proper?

Behaving without due regard or

deference to his fellow counsel who
at the time he was making
representations in behalf of the
other party, was rudely interrupted
by the petitioner and was not
allowed to further put a word in
edgewiseis violative of Canon 8

Atty. Bugaring served 3 days in

prison and paid a fine of P 3,000.00

1. Atty. Bugaring was in direct

contempt of the court.
Direct contempt is committed in the
presence of or so near a court or judge,
and can be punished summarily
without hearing.

HELD

2. Judge erred in imposing a fine of

P, 3000.00
The fine should be P 2,000.oo
However the imprisonment was
justified within the 10-day limit
prescribed in Sec. 1, Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court.

SC DECISION
The conduct of petitioner in persisting to have his documentary evidence
marked to the extent of interrupting the opposing counsel and the court
showed disrespect to said counsel and the court, was defiant of the courts
system for an orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration of
justice.

Jardeleza
vs
Sereno

The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to
the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of
judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due
administration of justice; Direct contempt is committed in the presence
of or so near a court or judge, and can be punished summarily
without hearing.
Hence, petitioner cannot claim that there was irregularity in the actuation of
733 SCRA 279
respondent Judge in issuing the contempt order inside her chamber without
August
19,petitioner
2014
giving
the
the opportunity to defend himself or make an immediate
reconsideration. The records show that petitioner was cited in contempt of
court during the hearing in the sala of respondent judge, and he even filed a
motion for reconsideration of the contempt order on the same day.
A lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his clients cause
he should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound to exert
every effort and placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and

Reyes
vs
Chiong Jr.
405 SCRA 212
July 01, 2003

FACTS: Reyes vs.Chiong Jr., 405 SCRA 212,

July 01, 2003
ATTY.
RAMON
P.
REYES
counsel
for
Zonggi
Xu

Xu went into a business venture with Chia Hsien Pan who was
supposed to set up a fishball, tempura and seafood products
factory in Cebu. Xu discovered that the latter had not
established the factory so he asked that his money be
returned
Xu filed a Complaint for estafa against Pan. Prosecutor Pedro
B. Salanga issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for
preliminary investigation. Pan did not appear nor
submitted his counter-affidavit

Filed an Urgent
Motion to
Quash filed
the Warrant
of Arrest
but
Prosecutor
Salanga
a Criminal
Complaint
for Estafa
ATTY.
also filed a Civil
Complaint
for the collection of a sum
before
RTC Manila
of money and damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu and VICTORIA
Prosecutor Salanga
NO T.
Prosecutor Salanga was impleaded as an additional
defendant because of the irregularities the latter had
committed in conducting the criminal investigation
Atty. Ramon P. Reyes was impleaded because he allegedly

CHIONG,
JR. counsel
for Chia
Hsien Pan

 IBP: Atty. Chiong to be

suspended for 2 years.

ISSUE
Whether or not
Atty. Chiong
should be
suspended?

The suit had been filed

purposely to obtain
leverage against the
estafa case
There was no need to
implead complainant and
Prosecutor Salanga

 1. SC agreed with IBP

As a lawyer, respondent should have
advised his client of the availability of
these remedies. Thus, the filing of the
civil case had no justification.

HELD

PROPER REMEDY: Procedural and

Administrative Remedies
a) Motion for Reconsideration with Justice
Secretary
b) Motion for Reinvestigation of
Prosecutor Salangas Decision
c) Motion to Dismiss with the trial court
d) Disbarment proceedings against Atty.
Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga

SC DECISION
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with
courtesy, dignity and civility; Any undue ill feeling between clients
should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward
each other. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the
bar, depends upon their relations with their professional brethren. Since they
deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust and
respect.
Law practitioners exhorted by the Lawyers Oath not to wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same.
While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients,
their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of
fraud or chicanery. Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in
impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and
unacceptable. Their rendition of improper service invites stern and just
condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession
and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice
that meets the strictest principles of moral law.

Jardeleza
vs
Sereno
733 SCRA 279
August 19, 2014

 Solicitor General of the

Philippines (February 20,
2012)
Spearheading the
arbitration case at The
Hague in the
Netherlands.

FRANCIS H.
JARDELEZA, petitioner

Nominated for the

position of Associate
Justice vacated by Justice
Roberto Abad (May 22,
2014)

 Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court of the
Philippines (August 25,
2011)
Chairs the Judicial Bar
Council (JBC) which vets
nominees to the judiciary
and the Ombudsman

MARIA LOURDES SERENO,

respondent

FACTS: Jardeleza vs. Sereno, 733 SCRA 279,

August 19, 2014
May 29, 2014 interviewed by the Judicial Bar Council
June 16 & 17, 2014 received telephone call from Justice
Lagman informing him that Chief Justice Sereno manifested
that she would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009
against him.
June 25, 2014 - asked that Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno be disallowed to vote on which candidates should be
shortlisted for the vacant SC post for conflict of interest.
June 30, 2014 - Chief Justice Sereno questioned
Jardelezas ability to discharge the duties of his office as
shown in a confidential legal memorandum over his
handling of an international arbitration case for the
government.
On the same day, apparently denying Jardelezas request
for deferment of the proceedings, the JBC continued its
deliberations and proceeded to vote for the nominees to
be included in the shortlist. Jardeleza excluded.

ISSUE
Does the
unanimity rule
apply in cases
where the main
point of contention
is the professional
judgment sans
charges or
implications of
immoral or corrupt
behavior?

SEC. 2.Votes required when

integrity of a qualified
applicant is challenged. - In
every case where the
integrity of an applicant who
is not otherwise disqualified
for nomination is raised or
challenged, the affirmative
vote of all the Members of the
Council must be obtained for
the favorable consideration of
his nomination.

1. Application of the rule is misplaced.

To fall under Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, there
must be a showing that the act complained of
is, at the least, linked to the moral character of
the person and not to his judgment as a
professional

HELD

2. SC granted Jardelezas plea for inclusion.

A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal
strategy to emplc boy in a case entrusted to
him provided that he lives up to his duty to
serve his client with competence and diligence,
and that he exert his best efforts to protect the
interests of his client within the bounds of law.
3. Jardeleza was not afforded due process.

SC DECISION
The basis for invocation of the rule was the "disagreement" in legal strategy
as expressed by a group of international lawyers. The approach taken by
Jardeleza in that case was opposed to that preferred by the legal team. For
said reason, criticism was hurled against his "integrity." The invocation of the
"unanimity rule" on integrity traces its roots to the exercise of his discretion
as a lawyer and nothing else. No connection was established linking his
choice of a legal strategy to a treacherous intent to trounce upon the
countrys interests or to betray the Constitution.

Jardeleza
vs
Verily, disagreement in legal opinion is but a normal, if not an essential
Sereno
form
of, interaction among members of the legal community. A lawyer has

complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to

himprovided that he lives up to his duty to serve his client with competence
and
and that he exert his best efforts to protect the interests of his
733diligence,
SCRA 279
client
within
the bounds of the law.
August
19, 2014
Consonantly, a lawyer is not an insurer of victory for clients he
represents. An infallible grasp of legal principles and technique by a lawyer
is a utopian ideal. Stripped of a clear showing of gross neglect, iniquity, or
immoral purpose, a strategy of a legal mind remains a legal tactic acceptable
to some and deplorable to others. It has no direct bearing on his moral
choices.