Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for

SESSION 2
it consists in frequent or customary actions, a
succession of acts of the same kind.
CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of
FACTS: That appointment of Monsod as statute has been interpreted as customarily or
COMELEC Chairman be declared null and void habitually holding one's self out to the public, as
because the latter fails to meet the constitutional customarily and demanding payment for such
requirement of having been engaged in the services. The appearance as counsel on one
practice of law for at least 10 years. occasion is not conclusive as determinative of
engagement in the private practice of law.
HELD: PRACTICE OF LAW defined
The practice of law means any activity, in or out IN RE: ALMACEN
of court, which requires the application of law, In Atty. Almacen’s “Petition to Surrender
legal procedure, knowledge, training and Lawyer’s Certificate of Title,” covers a statement
experience. that states ". . . our own Supreme Court is
composed of men who are calloused to our pleas
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, it of [sic] justice, who ignore their own applicable
was stated: “The practice of law is not limited decisions and commit culpable violations of the
to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; Constitution with impunity,"
it embraces the preparation of pleadings and
other papers incident to actions and special HELD:
proceedings, the management of such Membership in the bar imposes upon a person
actions and proceedings on behalf of clients obligations and duties which are not mere flux
before judges and courts, and in addition, and ferment. " It avows solemnly to conduct
conveying. himself with all good fidelity.. to the Court and
the Rules of Court constantly remind him to
In general, all advice to clients, and all action observe and maintain respect due to courts of
taken for them in matters connected with the law justice and judicial officers. The first canon of
incorporation services, assessment and legal ethics enjoins him to maintain toward the
condemnation services contemplating an Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of
appearance before a judicial body, the temporary incumbent of judicial office but for the
foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a maintenance of its supreme importance. The
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency lawyer’s duty to render respectful subordination
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in to Courts is essential to orderly administration of
attachment, and in matters of estate and justice." Hence, in assertion of their client’s
guardianship have been held to constitute law rights, lawyers, even those gifted with superior
practice, as do the preparation and drafting of intellect, are enjoined to rein up their tempers.
legal instruments, where the work done involves
the determination by the trained legal mind of - Suspended from practice
the legal effect of facts and conditions”
IN RE: LANUEVO
Atty. Monsod has been a member of the
Philippine Bar Based on a confident letter of a bar flunked, the
since 1960, and has been a member of the Supreme Court checked the records of the 1991
Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its bar examinations. Upon investigation, Bar
inception in 1972. He has also been paying his Confidant Victorino Lanuevo admitted having
professional fees as a lawyer for more than ten brought back the five examination notebooks for
years. re-evaluation. Ramon Galang, bar candidate and
Atty. Monsod’s past work as a lawyer-economist, who owns the examination notebooks under
lawyer manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, lawyer- investigation, denied having any knowledge of
negotiator of contracts, and lawyer-legislator of the actuations of the Bar Confidant.
both the rich and the poor more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been HELD: With the facts fully established that
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam
years. answers of Galang without the authority of the
Court, he has breached the trust and confidence
PEOPLE VS. VILLANUEVA given to him by the court and was disbarred
Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the with his name stricken out from the rolls of
Justice of the Peace Court as an agent or friend attorneys.
of the offended party. It does not appear that he
was being paid for his services or that his In line with the character requirement of
appearance was in a professional capacity. candidates for admission to the Bar, provides
that "every applicant for admission as a member talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
of the Bar must be of good moral character ... ethics of his profession. Advertise his talents or
and must produce before the Supreme Court skill as in a manner similar to a merchant
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, advertising his goods. The prescription against
and that no charges against him involving moral advertising of legal services or solicitation of
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any legal business rests on the fundamental
court in the Philippines." --Galang is likewise postulate that the practice of law is a profession.
disbarred for fraudulently concealing the
criminal charges against him in his application SESSION 4
for the bar exam while under oath constituting
perjury.
OMICO MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. VS.
VALLEJO
SESSION 3
Judge Vallejo entered into a contract of personal
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR and professional services with him under the
AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF FIRM NAME terms of which he was to head defendant
OZEATA, ROMULO corporation's legal department with the condition
that he should render such services only after his
Petitions were filed before this Court by the office hours – he know prays for his unpaid
surviving partners of Atty. Sycip, and Atty. commission
Ozaeta, praying that they be allowed to continue
using, in the names of their firms, the names of HELD: The contract of professional services
partners who had passed away. entered into between private respondent and the
petitioners, while the former was still a judge of
HELD: A partnership for the practice of law the Court of First Instance, constituted private
cannot be likened to partnerships formed by practice of law and in contravention of the
other professionals or for business. A partnership express provision of Section 35 of Rule 138 of
for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a the Revised Rules of Court. The cited Rule was
mere relationship or association for a particular promulgated by this Court, pursuant to its
purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the constitutional power to regulate the practice of
purpose of carrying on trade or business or of law.
holding property. Thus, it has been stated that
the use of a nom de plume, assumed or trade This inhibitory rule makes it obligatory upon the
name in law practice is improper. judicial officers concerned to give their full time
and attention to their judicial duties, prevent
ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. them from extending special favors to their own
private interests and assure the public of their
Ulep, seeks to prevent The Legal Clinic, Inc. from impartiality in the performance of their functions.
publishing any more of its advertisements for These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral
legal services (for obtaining secret marriages, decency and the desire to promote the public
Guam divorce, annulment, etc). interest.
Legal Clinic on the other hand claims that it is His right to practice law as an attorney was
not engaged in the practice of law but in the suspended and continued to be suspended as
rendering of “legal support services” through long as he occupied the judicial position.
paralegals with the use of modern computers
and electronic machines and should not CATU VS. RELLOSA
therefore be banned from advertising its
services. On demands to vacate a certain land—
Respondent (as punong brgy) entered his
HELD: Lawyers cannot advertise in the manner a appearance as counsel for the defendants in the
merchant advertises his goods (subsequent ejectment) case. Complainant filed
the instant administrative complaint, claiming
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that respondent committed an act of impropriety
that a lawyer in making known his legal services as a lawyer and as a public officer when he stood
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and as counsel for the defendants despite the fact
objective information or statement of facts. He is that he presided over the conciliation
not supposed to use or permit the use of any proceedings between the litigants as punong
false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, barangay.
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal HELD: Respondent is suspended for six (6)
services. The standards of the legal profession months.
condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his
 NATANAUAN VS. TOLENTINO (related
RATIO: canons: 1, 7, 10)

[R]espondent was found guilty of professional Dolores discovered that the TCT No. 107593
misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and under Alejo’s name was issued not on the basis
Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of of the January 3, 1978 contract but on a Deed of
Professional Responsibility. Sale dated August 3, 1979, purportedly executed
by their father Jose Natanauan. She further
A civil service officer or employee whose discovered a Joint Affidavit dated August 6,
responsibilities do not require his time to be fully 1979, purportedly executed by Jose, et al.
at the disposal of the government can engage in attesting to the absence of tenants or lessees in
the private practice of law only with the written the property and another Deed of Sale dated
permission of the head of the department March 9, 1979, executed between Dolores, et al.
concerned in accordance with Section 12, Rule as vendors and Atty. Tolentino as vendee
XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. covering purportedly the same property.

Respondent was strongly advised to look up and Dolores claims that the documents were forged
take to heart the meaning of the word and falsified as their father died in Batangas on
delicadeza. June 12, 1977 almost 2 years before the
documents were allegedly ‘signed’ by him. The
UI VS. BONIFACIO documents were also not duly notarized by a
commissioned Notary Public in Manila. June 1,
Disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for 1994 - Dolores filed the present disbarment
allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship complaint against Atty. Tolentino and Perfecto
with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie for their alleged acts of falsification.
Ui
In her complaint, Dolores attached an Affidavit
It is respondent’s contention that her dated December 2, 1980, where Alejo and
relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because Filomena attested that the subject property
they were married abroad and that after June never belonged to them in truth or in fact, the
1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true and absolute owner of the same being
true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him. Alejo’s brother, Atty. Tolentino
Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived
with her. ISSUE: WON Atty. Tolentino violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility
HELD: The complaint for disbarment against
respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged The right to practice law is a privilege
immorality, was dismissed. accorded only to those worthy of it.

All the facts taken together leads to the Th totality of evidence (consisting of the falsified
inescapable conclusion that respondent was documents, Dolores’ testimony detailing the
imprudent in managing her personal affairs. transactions surrounding the land, and the
However, the fact remains that her relationship investigation conducted by this Court) leaves no
with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what doubt as to Atty. Tolentino’s involvement in, or
respondent believed was a valid marriage, at the very least, benefit from the acts of
cannot be considered immoral. For immorality falsification imputed against him.
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the
moral norms of society and the opinion of good SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS
and respectable members of the community.
Moreover, for such conduct to warrant DE LEON VS. PEDRENA
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly
immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false Jocelyn de Leon filed with the Integrated Bar of
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for disbarment
as to be reprehensible to a high degree. or suspension from the practice of law against
Atty. Tyrone Pedreña, a Public Attorney. She
averred in her complaint-affidavit that Atty.
Pedreña had sexually harassed her.

HELD: The possession of good moral character is

both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and
to retain membership in the Legal Profession.
Members of the Bar are clearly duty- bound to
observe the highest degree of morality and divided into 7 hectares each between the
integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of Northcotts and the Association.
the Bar. Any errant behavior on the part of a
lawyer that tends to expose a deficiency in moral On August 30, Atty. San Jose filed a
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, manifestation stating that the Northcotts
be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities, is retained him on a contingent fee of 60% of all
sufficient to warrant the lawyer’s suspension or land and properties the former might recover for
disbarment. them and that an attorney’s lien was also
charged on the subject land in favour of a certain
Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was aggravated by Atty. Tolentino. Both have not been paid in any
the fact that he was then a Public Attorney amount. In his comment, Robert Northcott
mandated to provide free legal service to stated that the 60% is only collectible if any
indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon property is recovered or received.
was then such a client. He also disregarded his
oath as a public officer to serve others and to be ISSUE: WON Northcotts contention is correct
accountable at all times, because he thereby
took advantage of her vulnerability as a client HELD: No. Since it is not disputed that Atty.
then in desperate need of his legal assistance. Manuel V. San Jose had rendered legal services
(although short of recovery by the Northcotts of
SUSPENDED FOR 2 YEARS any property) as stipulated in the retainer
contract, and the non-recovery may in the very
ORONCE VS. CA least be partially attributable to the Northcotts'
entering into the compromise agreement, it is
During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally but fair and just that the said lawyer be
took possession of the property in litigation using compensated for his services on a quantum
abusive methods. She was aided by her meruit basis and, to assure the payment thereof,
husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took place that a lien be constituted in favor of Atty. San
while the case was pending in the CA & while a Jose on the 7 hectares retained by the Northcotts
writ of preliminary injunction was in force. under the deed of donation, without prejudice to
the immediate effectivity of the compromise
HELD: Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the agreement.
property without the consent of its occupants &
in contravention of the existing writ or
preliminary injunction & making utterances
showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are
unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although
he says that they “peacefully” took over the
property, such “peaceful” take-over cannot
justify defiance of the writ of preliminary
injunction that he knew was still in force.
Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a
member of the legal profession. Under the Code
of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited
from counseling or abetting “activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.”

GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND FINED 20,000

CABILDO VS. NAVARRO

Private respondents Northcotts were owners of a

parcel of land which was sold at public auction
by Cabildo, the provincial treasurer, to the Ilocos
Norte Coconut Producers Association. The
Northcotts sought redemption of the land and
hence, trial ensued between both parties. On
August 8, 1973, both parties mutually agreed to
dismiss the case and acceded to a Compromise
Agreement wherein the subject land shall be
donated to the Provincial Government of Ilocos
Norte except for 14 hectares to be equally
 to pursue the appeal that does not necessarily
SESSION 5 conclude his connection with the case. It has
been a commendable practice of some members
DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS VS. of the bar under such circumstances, to be
BAYOT designated as counsel de oficio.

Respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is That way the interest of justice is best served.
charged with malpractice for having published an Appellants will then continue to receive the
advertisement (marriage license and legal benefits of advocacy from one who is familiar
assistance services) in the Sunday Tribune. with the facts of the case. What is more, there is
no undue delay in the administration of justice.
HELD: It is undeniable that the advertisement in Lawyers of such category are entitled to
question was a flagrant violation by the commendation. They manifest fidelity to the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it concept that law is a profession and not a mere
being a brazen solicitation of business from the trade with those engaged in it being motivated
public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides solely by the desire to make money.
among other things that "the practice of Respondent's conduct yields a different
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, impression. What has earned a reproof however
either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, is his irresponsibility. He should be aware that in
constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well
an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a as to a client; he cannot be too casual and
merchant advertises his wares. unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is
not enough that he prepares them; he must see
Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention
degrades himself and his profession who stoops as shown in this case is inexcusable. At any rate,
to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by the suspension meted on him under the
advertising his services or offering them to the circumstances is more than justified. It seems,
public. however, that well-nigh five months had
elapsed. That would suffice to atone for his
REPRIMANDED misdeed.

PEOPLE VS. ROSQUETA WHEREFORE, the suspension of Atty. Gregorio B.

Estacio is lifted.
Rosqueta et al have been charged in Criminal
Case No. L-36138 pending on appeal before the DE ROY VS. CA
Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Supreme
Court ordered their counsel de parte, respondent The petitioners owned a firewall that had
Atty. Gregorio Estacio to show cause why he weakened and collapsed on the tailoring shop
should not be suspended from practicing law owned by the private respondents, causing
after he failed to file the appellants’ brief on time. injuries and death to Marissa Bernal, a daughter.
Atty. Estacio failed to show cause as required so
the SC issued a resolution suspending him from On September 9, 1987, the last day of the
practicing fifteen-day period to file an appeal, the
law. petitioners asked the CA to extend the time to
file a motion for reconsideration.
He then filed a motion for reconsideration
claiming that he actually prepared an HELD: In the instant case, however, petitioners'
explanation which he left with his father but it motion for extension of time was filed on
was not submitted because his father’s house September 9, 1987, more than a year after the
burned down. He only found out about it when expiration of the grace period on June 30, 1986.
he was preparing this motion for reconsideration. Hence, it is no longer within the coverage of the
grace period.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Estacio’s
suspension should be lifted Considering the length of time from the
expiration of the grace period to the
HELD: YES promulgation of the decision of the Court of
Appeals on August 25, 1987, petitioners cannot
Respondent's liability is thus mitigated but he seek refuge in the ignorance of their counsel
cannot be absolved from the irresponsible regarding said rule for their failure to file a
conduct of which he is guilty. Respondent should motion for reconsideration within the
be aware that even in those cases where counsel reglementary period.
de parte is unable to secure from appellants or
from their near relatives the amount necessary
IN RE: MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for
EDUCATION the initial compliance period for members admitted or
readmitted after the establishment of the program, all
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months
LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE and shall begin the day after the end of the previous
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES compliance period.

Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing SEC. 2. Compliance Groups. -- Members of the IBP not
Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated exempt from the MCLE requirement shall be divided
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP, into three (3) compliance groups, namely:
endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and
reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court (a) Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National
Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila are assigned to
resolves to approve, as it hereby approves, the Compliance Group 1.
following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
(b) Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside
Rule 1. PURPOSE NCR are assigned to Compliance Group 2.

SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. - Continuing legal (c) Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and
education is required of members of the Integrated Mindanao are assigned to Compliance Group 3.
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout
their career, they keep abreast with law and Nevertheless, members may participate in any legal
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession education activity wherever it may be available to earn
and enhance the standards of the practice of law. credit unit toward compliance with the MCLE
requirement.
Rule 2. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
SEC. 3. Compliance period of members admitted or
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. - Within two readmitted after establishment of the program. -
(2) months from the approval of these Rules by the Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the
Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be establishment of the program shall be assigned to the
constituted and shall commence the implementation appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter
of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) membership on the date of admission or readmission.
program in accordance with these Rules.
The initial compliance period after admission or
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. - readmission shall begin on the first day of the month
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall of admission or readmission and shall end on the same
complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) day as that of all other members in the same
hours of continuing legal education activities approved Compliance Group.
by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal compliance period after admission or readmission, the
ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units. member is not required to comply with the program
requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and
pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units. (b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the
initial compliance period after admission or
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to readmission, the member shall be required to
alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) complete a number of hours of approved continuing
credit units. legal education activities equal to the number of
months remaining in the compliance period in which
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member
on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence shall be required to complete a number of hours of
equivalent to nine (9) credit units. education in legal ethics in proportion to the number
of months remaining in the compliance period.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next
writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit whole number.
units.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU)
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to
international law and international conventions SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE
equivalent to two (2) credit units. EQUIVALENT TO CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS
measure compliance with the MCLE requirement
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to under the Rules, based on the category of the lawyer's
such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE participation in the MCLE activity. The following are
Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units. the guidelines for computing credit units and the
supporting documents required therefor:
Rule 3. COMPLIANCE PERIOD
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial DOCUMENTS
compliance period shall begin not later than three (3)
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES,
SYMPOSIA, IN-HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR
WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, ROUND TABLE
DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW
RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
DIRECTOR
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE
OF Rule 5. CATEGORIES OF CREDIT UNITS

ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are
either participatory or non-participatory.
NUMBER OF HOURS
SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. --
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF Participatory credit units may be claimed for:

RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR (a) Attending approved education activities like
seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSOR'S house education programs, workshops, dialogues or
round table discussion.
CERTIFICATION
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker,
CERTIFICATION moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved
education activities.
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING class.
COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION
SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. - Non-
FACILITATOR participatory credit units may be claimed per
compliance period for:
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED materials published or accepted for publication, e.g.,
BOOK in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review
which contribute to the legal education of the author
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER member, which were not prepared in the ordinary
course of the member's practice or employment.
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED
BOOK Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)

AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit

hours are computed based on actual time spent in an
EDITOR education activity in hours to the nearest one-quarter
hour reported in decimals.
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED following members of the Bar are exempt from the
MCLE requirement:
TECHNICAL
(a) The President and the Vice President of the
REPORT/PAPER Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries
of Executive Departments;
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE
PUBLISHED ARTICLE (b) Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
COMPLIANCE PERIOD Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of
the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by
the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL judicial education;

2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE

CERTIFICATION OF
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider
and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing
Justice; legal education.

(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors SEC. 2. Standards for all education activities. - All
General; continuing legal education activities must meet the
following standards:
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel; (a) The activity shall have significant current
intellectual or practical content.
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
Commissions; (b) The activity shall constitute an organized program
of learning related to legal subjects and the legal
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy profession, including cross profession activities (e.g.,
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman; skills or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects
in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions; (c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with
adequate professional experience.
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of
law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) (d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in
years in accredited law schools; length, substantive written materials must be
distributed to all participants. Such materials must be
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.
the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of
the Philippine Judicial Academy; and (e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at
a time and location so as to be free from interruption
(l) Governors and Mayors. like telephone calls and other distractions.

SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. - The Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS
following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. --
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE
public. Committee.

(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. -
approval of the IBP Board of Governors. Any person or group may be accredited as a provider
for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed,
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or upon written application. All providers of continuing
modification of requirement -A member may file a legal education activities, including in-house
verified request setting forth good cause for providers, are eligible to be accredited providers.
exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post Application for accreditation shall:
graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.)
from compliance with or modification of any of the (a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE
requirements, including an extension of time for Committee;
compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be
established by the MCLE Committee. (b) Contain all information requested in the form;

SEC. 4. Change of status. - The compliance period (c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee.
shall begin on the first day of the month in which a
member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved
3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that accredited providers shall agree to the following:
of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. - Applications for activity shall be maintained by the provider for at least
exemption from or modification of the MCLE four (4) years after the completion date. The provider
requirement shall be under oath and supported by shall include the member on the official record of
documents. attendance only if the member's signature was
obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The
Rule 8. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF official record of attendance shall contain the
member's name and number in the Roll of Attorneys
EDUCATION ACTIVITIES and shall identify the time, date, location, subject
matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of
SECTION 1. Approval of MCLE program. - Subject to such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
the implementing regulations that may be adopted by
the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education (b) The provider shall certify that:
program may be granted approval in either of two (2)
ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited (1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE
provider and certifies that the activity meets the COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours of
which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee.
as appropriate to the content of the activity; The record required to be provided to the members by
the provider pursuant to Section 3© of Rule 9
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for should be a sufficient record of attendance at a
approved education activities prescribed by these participatory activity. A record of non-participatory
Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by activity shall also be maintained by the member, as
the MCLE COMMITTEE. referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.

(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
all participants identifying the time, date, location,
subject matter and length of the activity. SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. - The
following shall constitute non-compliance:
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of
all approved continuing legal education activity by THE (a) Failure to complete the education requirement
MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of within the compliance period;
Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP
staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with (b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or
these Rules. exemption;

(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional (c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of
materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted compliance (including evidence of exempt status)
to each topic and identity of the instructors. The within the prescribed period;
provider shall make available to each participant a
copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education (d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and
Activity Evaluation Form. furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60)
days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed
Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not (e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the
less than one (1) year after the activity, copy prescribed period;
furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the
(g) Any person or group who conducts an foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade
unauthorized activity under this program or issues a compliance with the MCLE requirements.
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be
subject to appropriate sanctions. SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to
attain compliance. -Members failing to comply will
SEC. 4. Renewal of provider accreditation. - The receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific
accreditation of a provider may be renewed every two deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the
(2) years. It may be denied if the provider fails to date of notification to file a response clarifying the
comply with any of the requirements of these Rules or deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the
fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following
preceding period. language near the beginning of the notice in capital
letters:
SEC. 5. Revocation of provider accreditation. -- the
accreditation of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF
be revoked by a majority vote of the MCLE Committee, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY
after notice and hearing and for good cause. (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU
SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND
Rule 10. FEE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL
ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDER SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS
RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
SECTION 1. Payment of fees. - Application for
approval of an education activity or accreditation as a Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-
provider requires payment of the appropriate fee as Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the
provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees. adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit
units earned during this period may only be counted
Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES toward compliance with the prior compliance period
requirement unless units in excess of the requirement
SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall are earned, in which case the excess may be counted
secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card toward meeting the current compliance period
before the end of his compliance period. He shall requirement.
complete the card by attesting under oath that he has
complied with the education requirement or that he is Rule 13. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such
Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who,
not later than the day after the end of the member's for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end
compliance period. of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance
fee.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each
member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance
SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- A member approval, an annual budget [for a subsidy] to
who fails to comply with the requirements after the establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.
sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall
be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth of
recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The September 2000, following its publication in two (2)
investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
conducted by the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline
as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee. Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000, as amended
on 02 October 2001.
SEC. 3. Accrual of membership fee. -- Membership
fees shall continue to accrue at the active rate against
a member during the period he/she is listed as a
delinquent member.

Rule 14. REINSTATEMENT

SECTION 1. Process. -- The involuntary listing as a

delinquent member shall be terminated when the
member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE
requirement, including payment of non-compliance
fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units
to meet the requirement for the period of non-
compliance during the period the member is on
inactive status. These credit units may not be counted
toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement. Credit units earned during the period of
non-compliance in excess of the number needed to
satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may
be counted toward meeting the current compliance
period requirement.

SEC. 2. Termination of delinquent listing is an

administrative process. - The termination of listing as
a delinquent member is administrative in nature AND
it shall be made by the MCLE Committee.

Rule. 15. COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY CONTINUING

LEGAL EDUCATION

SECTION 1. Composition. - The MCLE Committee shall

be composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired
Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4)
members respectively nominated by the IBP, the
Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated
by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools
and/or law professors.

The members of the Committee shall be of proven

probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by the
Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall
receive such compensation as may be determined by
the Court.

SEC. 2. Duty of committee. - The MCLE Committee

shall administer and adopt such implementing rules as
may be necessary subject to the approval of the
Supreme Court. It shall, in consultation with the IBP
Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE fees
with the approval of the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. Staff of the MCLE Committee. - Subject to

approval by the Supreme Court, the MCLE Committee
shall employ such staff as may be necessary to
perform the record-keeping, auditing, reporting,
approval and other necessary functions.

SEC. 4. Submission of annual budget. - The MCLE

Committee shall submit to the Supreme Court for
SPS BUFFE VS. GONZALES government lawyers who are charged with
administrative offenses involving their official
Arroyo appointed Karen M. Silverio-Buffe duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall
(Silverio-Buffe) as Prosecutor I/Assistant under the disciplinary authority of either their
Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon province. superior[21] or the Ombudsman.[22] Moreover,
an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP
On 19 August 2008, Silverio-Buffe informed the asserts jurisdiction and decides against a
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon government lawyer, while the disciplinary
that she was officially reporting for work authority finds in favor of the government
beginning that day. lawyer.

In a letter dated 26 August 2008, Romblon PGCC VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

Provincial Prosecutor Arsenio R.M. Almadin
asked former Secretary of Justice Raul M. In 1991, PCGG filed a motion to disqualify
Gonzalez (Gonzalez) to confirm the appointment Mendoza, because of his participation in
of Silverio-Buffe since the Provincial Prosecution the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied
Office did not receive any official communication Bank) is one of the properties that PCGG is
regarding Silverio-Buffe's appointment. seeking to be sequestered from the Lucio Tan
group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of
In a Memorandum Order dated 19 December Professional Responsibility.
2008, Gonzalez ordered Silverio-Buffe "to cease
and desist from acting as prosecutor in the Office Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon, or in any Responsibility applies to Estelito Mendoza
Prosecutor's Office for that matter, considering
that [she has] no appointment to act as such, Held: NO. It does not apply to Mendoza.
otherwise [she] will be charged of usurpation of Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. The matter,
public office." or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is
advising the Central Bank on how to
On 11 February 2009, Silverio-Buffe, together proceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This
with her husband Edwin B. Buffe, filed with the is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Joint the CPR. The matter involved in the liquidation
Complaint-Affidavit[3] alleging that former of Genbank is entirely different from the matter
Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona invoked in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan
(Madrona), acting out of spite or revenge, group. The intervention contemplated in Rule
persuaded and influenced Gonzalez and 6.03 should be substantial and important. The
Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. (Exconde) role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is
into refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe's oath considered insubstantial.
of office and into withholding the transmittal of
her appointment papers to the DOJ Regional SESSION 6 & 7
Office. Madrona allegedly acted out of spite or
revenge against Silverio-Buffe because she was
one of the plaintiffs in a civil case for DUCAT, JR. VS. VILLALON, JR.
enforcement of a Radio Broadcast Contract,
which was cancelled by the radio station due to Ducat, Jr., the registered owner of the subject
adverse commentaries against Madrona and his property, filed an ejectment case against
allies in Romblon. respondent, their family counsel, who hired
workers to construct a piggery in the subject
ISSUE: Whether Gonzalez, Exconde, and property of complainant. Respondent, however,
Madrona should be administratively disciplined claimed that the subject property had been sold
based on the allegations in the complaint. to him orally. Subsequently, he alleged that
subject property was given to him by the father
HELD: We dismiss the administrative case of complainant (Jose Ducat, Sr.), for past legal
against Exconde and Madrona for lack of services.
jurisdiction.
HELD: Upholding the decision on appeal, the
Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are Court held that the acts of respondent lawyer
public constitute gross misconduct, because:
officers being charged for actions, which are respondent is presumed to know that transfer of
allegedly unfair and discriminatory, involving any titled real property must be in writing; when
their official functions during their tenure, the the transfer was first reduced in writing in
present case should be resolved by the Office of October, 1991, respondent knew it was Jose
the Ombudsman as the appropriate government Ducat, Sr. who signed said document of sale
agency. Indeed, the IBP has no jurisdiction over without any special power of attorney from the
registered owner thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and as repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon the
regards the subsequent Deed of Sale dated threat of respondent that if she would not give in
December 5, 1991 covering the same property, to his lustful desires, she would flunk in all her
respondent admitted that there was in fact no subjects and she would never become a medical
consideration for the conveyance. intern. After due investigation, the Solicitor
General found the respondent guilty of gross
The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Villalon, Jr. immoral conduct and recommends that since the
from the practice of law for one year because the complainant is partly to blame for having gone
record did not show that he had any direct with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that
participation in the notarization of the respondent is a married man ,with children, a
questionable deed of sale. The Court enjoins rich man and is not practicing his profession
lawyers to act with the highest standards of before the court, he should merely be suspended
truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course from the practice of law for not less than three
of their practice of law. (3) years.

CORDOVA VS. CORDOVA ISSUE: Whether or not the imposition of the

penalty is proper.
Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to
Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left his HELD: NO. The fact that he is a rich man and
wife and children to cohabit with another married does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does
woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a not render respondent a person of good moral
reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave character. Evidence of good moral character
his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still precedes admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138,
continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not
Cordova again lived with another woman and dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good
worse, he took one of his children with him and moral character is a continuing qualification
hid the child away from Salvacion. In 1988, necessary to entitle one to continue in the
Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment practice of law.
against Cordova.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
Cordova is merely reprimanded for failure of enumerates the grounds for disbarment or
Salvacion to file her evidence ex parte. suspension from his office as attorney, among
others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral
ISSUE: WON Cordova should be merely conduct has been defined as that which is willful,
reprimanded flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely respectable members of the community.
until he presents evidence that he has been
morally reformed and that there was true In the present case, it was highly immoral of
reconciliation between him and his wife. Before respondent to have taken advantage of his
a person can be admitted to the bar, one position in asking complainant to go with him
requirement is that he possesses good moral under the threat that she would flunk in all her
character. That requirement is not exhausted subjects in case she refused.
and dispensed with upon admission to
membership of the bar. Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.

On the contrary, that requirement persists as a ARCIGA VS. MANIWANG

continuing condition for membership in the Bar
in good standing. The moral delinquency that In 1970, Arciga was a medical technology
affects the fitness of a member of the bar to student and Maniwang was a law student. The
continue as such includes conduct that outrages two acquainted and had a sexual relationship. In
the generally accepted moral standards of the 1973, Arciga got pregnant.
community, conduct for instance, which makes
“a mockery of the inviolable social institution or In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar exams. After
marriage” such was the case in the case at bar. which, he stopped communicating with Arciga.
Arciga then found out that Maniwang married
DELOS REYES VS. AZNAR another woman. She confronted the wife and this
irked Maniwang to inflict physical injuries upon
Complainant is a second year medical student of Arciga.
the Southwestern University in which respondent
Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of the College Arciga filed a disbarment case against Maniwang
of Medicine. Complainant was compelled to go to grounded on gross immoral conduct.
Manila with respondent for three days where he
Maniwang admitted that he is the father of INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry CORP VS. ROXAS
Arciga many times; that he broke those promises
because of Arciga’s shady past because Respondent lawyer, while he was still petitioner's
apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even Administrative and Legal Officer, allegedly
before her son with Maniwang was born. "misappropriated or appropriated for his own use
and benefit certain sums of money or checks
ISSUE: W/N Maniwang should be disbarred and which he received in trust.
be held liable for gross immoral conduct.
In addition, according to petitioner, respondent
HELD: Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga was issued bouncing checks to pay for personal
not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant obligations.
disbarment. But the Supreme Court did say that
it is difficult to state with precision and to fix an Petition for disbarment or suspension was filed
inflexible standard as to what is “grossly immoral against him.
conduct” or to specify the moral delinquency and
obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of HELD: Respondent clearly had no intention to
continuing as a member of the bar. The rule squarely face the charges against him. By
implies that what appears to be unconventional repeatedly changing his address without
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the informing the investigating officials or the Court
immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. he somehow managed to evade the
administrative investigation for, after years of
Immoral conduct has been defined as “that delay, no longer could complainant corporation
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, be reached to substantiate its charges. The Court
and which shows a moral indifference to the cannot take the matter lightly.
opinion of the good and respectable members of
the community”. The complaint for disbarment A lawyer must constantly conduct himself with
against the respondent is hereby dismissed. great propriety. He is also an officer of the court,
and he owes to it, as well as to his peers, utmost
SABOYLE VS. TANDAYOG respect and fidelity. His relationship with others
should no less be characterized than by the
The Court disbarred Atty. Tandayog, one of the highest degree of good faith, fairness and
respondent lawyers and ordered his name candor. When he took the oath as a member of
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on the the legal profession, he made a solemn promise
grounds of serious dishonesty and professional to so stand by those pledges. In this covenant,
misconduct. The respondent lawyer knowingly respondent lawyer has miserably failed.
participated in a false and simulated transaction
not only by notarizing a spurious Deed of Sale, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
but also – and even worse – sharing in the profits of SIX MONTHS.
of the specious transaction by acquiring half of
the property subject of the Deed of Sale.

A lawyer who knowingly takes part in a false and

simulated transaction not only by notarizing a
simulated Deed of Sale but also by sharing in the
profits flowing from defrauding of the victim
through such transaction by acquiring half of the
property sought to be transferred by the false
transaction, is guilty of serious dishonesty and
professional misconduct. There is a strong public
interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as
officers of the courts, participate in the
dispensation of justice to behave at all times in
a manner consistent with truth and honor.

“The practice of the law is not an absolute right

to be granted everyone who demands it, but is a
privilege to be extended or withheld in the
exercise of a sound discretion. The standards of
the legal profession are not satisfied by”
 pleading entitled "PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO
SESSION 8 DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION DATED MARCH 9th"
dated March 11, 1980 filed in Civil Case No. R-
18181 entitled "HEIRS OF ROBERTO CENIZA, ET
NARIDO VS. LINSANGAN AL. V. DANIELA CENIZA UROT".
This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. HELD: Lawyers owe respect not only to the
Risma represented Narido, an indigent client courts and their clients, but also to other
against her employer De Dios, the client of Atty. members of the Bar.
Jaime Linsangan. Atty. Risma vehemently
opposed the submission of a certain affidavit In keeping with the dignity of the legal
executed by De Dios because, he believed it is profession, a lawyer's language should likewise
(1) perjured. When submitted, a disbarment be dignified. Choice of language is an important
case was filed. requirement in the preparation of pleadings.
Appropriately, in the assertion of their client's
Linsangan accused Risma of (2) instigating his rights, lawyers - even those gifted with superior
client to file an administrative case against him intellect - are enjoined to rein up their tempers.
and that it was only filed to spite him and is just Greater care and circumspection must be
a mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure exercised in the preparation of their pleadings
that they has an edge over the labor case. and to refrain from using abrasive and offensive
language.
ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases
should prosper. Atty. Raul Sesbreno is reprimanded and
admonished to refrain from employing language
HELD: No. There was no sufficient evidence for unbecoming of a member of the Bar and to
perjury and for the instigation. However, Risma extend courtesy and respect to his brothers in
is admonished because he was found to collect the profession with a warning that any future
15% fees instead of allowed maximum of 10%. infraction of a nature similar to that found in this
Mutual bickering and unjustifiable case shall be dealt with more severely.
recriminations, between brother attorneys
detract from the dignity of the legal profession PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
and will not receive any sympathy from this UNION VS. BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR
court. CO.

The complaint in Administrative Case No. 944 The herein petitioner Enrique Entila and
against respondent Jaime S, Linsangan is Victoriano Tenazas are complainant in the case
dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent Rufino no. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, “PAFLU et al. vs.
B. Risma in Administrative Case No. 1025 is Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al.” which the
exculpated from the charge of having instigated Court of Industrial Relation rendered a decision
the filing of an unfounded suit. He is, however, in favor of the complainant, ordering
admonished (reprimanded) to exercise greater reinstatement and back wages. Cipriano Cid and
care in ascertaining how much under our law he Associates and Atty. Atanacio Pacis filed a notice
could recover by way of attorney’s fees. The of attorney’s lien equivalent to 30% of the total
contract entered into between him and his client backtags. Complainants Entila and Tenazas filed
as to his being entitled to fifteen per cent of the a manifestation indicating their non-objection to
award granted in a workmen’s compensation suit an award of attorney’s fees for 25% of their back
is declared to be of no force and effect, the wages, and on the same day, Quentin Muning
penalty imposed being that of admonition merely filed a Petition for the Award of Services
only because he had made no effort to collect on Rendered equivalent to 20% of the back wages.
the same and had even advanced expenses for a Muning petition was opposed by the herein
poor client. petitioner on the ground that the former is not a
lawyer. The award of 10% to Quintin Muning,
PEOPLE VS. SESBRENO who is not a lawyer according to the order, is
sought to be voided in the present petition.
This appeal from an order quashing an
information furnishes occasion to reiterate the ISSUE: Whether or not Quentin Muning, a non-
ambits of the well-established doctrine of lawyer, can recover attorney’s fees
privileged communications.
HELD: Applicable to the issue at hand is the
In an Information filed on March 4, 1981, the principle enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers'
City Fiscal's Office of Cebu City accused Atty. Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial
Raul H. Sesbreno of the crime of libel based on Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 March 1968, that
alleged defamatory statements found in a an agreement providing for the division of
attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union
president is allowed to share in said fees with Atty. Pineda joined the law firm of Atty. Espinas
lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal in 1965 when these cases were pending
Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. – resolution. He always held office in the firm's
Rule 9.02 place at Puyat Building, except in 1966 to 1967
when he transferred to the Lakas ng
An award by a court of attorney's fees is no less Manggagawa Offices. During this one-year stint
immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the at the latter office, Atty. Pineda continued
present case. The reasons are that the ethics of handling the case with the arrangement that he
the legal profession should not be violated; that would report the developments to the Espinas
acting as an attorney without authority firm. When he rejoined the law firm in 1968, he
constitutes contempt of court, which is continued working on these cases and using the
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and Puyat Building office as his address in the
the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits pleadings.
or benefit of an unlawful act or an act done in
violation of law; and that if fees were to be When Atty. Pineda rejoined the Espinas firm in
allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public 1968, he did not reveal to his partners (he was
in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in made the most senior partner) that he had a
case of necessity and also leave the bar in a retainer's contract. He stayed with the law firm
chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non- until 1974 and still did not divulge the 1967
lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary retainer's contract. Only the officers of the Union
measures. The weight of the reasons heretofore knew of the contract.
stated why a non-lawyer may not be awarded
attorney's fees should suffice to refute the The alleged retainer's contract between Atty.
possible argument that appearances by non- Pineda and the Union appears anomalous and
lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations even illegal as well as unethical considering that-
should be excepted on the ground that said court
is a court of special jurisdiction; such special 1. The contract was executed only between Atty.
jurisdiction does not outweigh the aforesaid Pineda and the officers of the Union chosen by
reasons and cannot justify an exception. about 125 members only. It was not a contract
with the general membership.
HALILI VS. CIR
2. The contingent fee of 30% for those who were
The cases involve disputes regarding claims for still working with Halili Transit and the 45% fee
overtime of more than five hundred bus drivers for those who were no longer working worked to
and conductors of Halili Transit. Litigation initially the prejudice of the latter group who should and
commenced with the filing of a complaint for were entitled to more benefits. Thus, too, when
overtime with the CIR. The disputes were the alleged retainer's contract was executed in
eventually settled when the contending parties 1967, the Halili Transit had already stopped
reached an Agreement where the Administratrix operations in Metro Manila. By then, Atty. Pineda
would transfer to the employees the title to a knew that all the workers would be out of work
tract of land in Caloocan, Rizal. The parcel of land which would mean that the 45% contingent fee
was eventually registered in the name of the would apply to all.
Union. 3. The contract which retroactively took effect on
January 1, 1966, was executed when Atty.
The Union, through Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda, Espinas was still handling the appeal of Halili
filed an urgent motion with the Ministry of Labor Transit in the main case before the Supreme
and Employment (MOLE) requesting for Court.
authority to sell and dispose of the property. 4. When Atty. Pineda filed his motion for
Union President Amado Lopez, in a letter, approval of his attorney's lien with Arbiter
informed J.C. Espinas and Associates that the Valenzuela on February 8, 1983, he did not
general membership of the said Union had attach the retainer's contract.
authorized a 20% contingent fee for the law firm 5. The retainer's contract was not even
based on whatever amount would be awarded notarized.
the Union.
A prospective buyer, the Manila Memorial Park
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, (the original counsel) Cemetery, Inc. objected in view of PD 1529
established the award of 897 workers' claim. which requires no less than an order from a court
When Atty. Pineda appeared for the Union in of competent jurisdiction as authority to sell
these cases, still an associate of the law firm, his property in trust.
appearance carried the firm name B.C. Pineda
and Associates," giving the impression that he Atty. Pineda, without authority from the
was the principal lawyer in these cases. Supreme Court but relying on the earlier
authority given him by the Ministry of Labor, filed The 45% attorney's lien on the award of those
another urgent motion, praying that the Union union members who were no longer working and
be authorized to sell the lot. The sale was finally the 30% lien on the benefits of those who were
consummated, resulting in the execution of an still working as provided for in the alleged
escrow agreement. retainer's contract are also very exorbitant and
unconscionable.
When Atty. Jose C. Espinas (herein movant and
alleged original counsel for the Union) learned of *Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for
which he is sentenced to imprisonment and directed to show
the sale and apportionment of the proceeds from
cause why he should not be disbarred.
past Union president Amado Lopez, he requested
Labor Arbiter Raymundo Valenzuela to allow him TAN TEK BENG VS. DAVID
to look into the records of the case. The latter,
however, told him that the records of the case In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-
were missing. Thereupon, Atty. Espinas lawyer, entered into an agreement whereby Tan
requested Director Pascual Reyes of the NLRC to Tek Beng will supply clients to Atty. David and in
locate the records. exchange thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek
Beng 50% of the attorney’s fees collected as the
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pineda should be latter’s commission. Atty. David also agreed not
disbarred. to deal with clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng
directly without the latter’s consent. The
HELD: YES. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
agreement went sour due to allegations of
Revised Rules of Court which provides: double-cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng
denounced Atty. David before the Supreme
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by
Court but did not seek the enforcement of their
Supreme Court on what grounds.—A member of agreement.
the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in Malpractice.
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving HELD: Yes. The agreement between Atty. David
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath and Tan Tek Beng is void because it was
which he is required to take before admission to
tantamount to malpractice which is “the practice
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
lawful order of a superior court, or for corrupt or either personally or through paid agents or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
brokers” Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
a case without authority so to do. The practice of Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer.
either personally or through paid agents or Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning
brokers, constitutes malpractice. to the term “malpractice”. That meaning is in
consonance with the elementary notion that the
The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for practice of law is a profession, not a business.
any conduct on his part showing his unfitness for “The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment
the confidence and trust which characterize the
by himself or through others for to do so would
attorney and client relations, and the practice of be unprofessional”. On the agreement to divide
law before the courts, or showing such a lack of the attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court noted:
personal honesty or of good moral character as
No division of fees for legal services is proper,
to render him unworthy of public confidence. except with another lawyer, based upon a
division of service or responsibility.
In the case, the expeditious manner by which
Arbiter Valenzuela granted Atty. Pineda's motion On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal
for such authority to sell the property make the with clients supplied by Beng directly: The
entire transaction dubious and irregular. professional services of a lawyer should not be
controlled or exploited by any law agency,
Significantly Atty. Pineda's act of filing a motion personal or corporate, which intervenes between
praying for authority to sell was by itself an client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities and
admission on his part that he did not possess the qualifications are individual. He should avoid all
authority to sell the property. He could not and relations which direct the performance of his
did not even wait for valid authority but instead duties by or in the interest of such intermediary.
previously obtained the same from the labor A lawyer’s relation to his client should be
arbiter whom he knew was not empowered to so personal, and the responsibility should be direct
authorize. to the client. . . .”
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY anything of value to representatives of the mass
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND to attract legal business.
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES. CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
lessening confidence in the legal system. CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS,
motive or interest, encourage any suit or SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
proceeding or delay any man's cause. STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will JURISPRUDENCE.
admit of a fair settlement.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE
SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION. engaged in public prosecution is not to convict
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for but to see that justice is done. The suppression
valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable
oppressed. of establishing the innocence of the accused is
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render action.
legal advice to the person concerned if only to Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service
the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's shall not use his public position to promote or
rights. advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving
business. government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower which he had intervened while in said service.
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS PROFESSION
LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS. UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or
legal services. Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, knowingly making a false statement or
misleading or assumed name shall be used. The suppressing a material fact in connection with his
continued use of the name of a deceased partner application for admission to the bar.
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the
all its communications that said partner is application for admission to the bar of any
deceased. person known by him to be unqualified in respect
to character, education, or other relevant
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, attribute.
he shall withdrawal from the firm and his name
shall be dropped from the firm name unless the Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
law allows him to practice law currently. that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, LAWYER’S OATH
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession. I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF
Philippines, I will support the
WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR Constitution and obey the laws as well as
TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, the legal orders of the duly constituted
AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS authorities therein; I will do no
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; I will not wittingly or
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional willingly promote or sue any groundless,
dealings, use language which is abusive, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
offensive or otherwise improper. consent to the same; I will delay no man
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or for money or malice, and will conduct
indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer, however, it is the myself as a lawyer according to the best
right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give of my knowledge and discretion, with all
proper advice and assistance to those seeking good fidelity as well to the courts as to
relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. my clients; and I impose upon myself
these voluntary obligations without any
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
mental reservation or purpose of
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED evasion. So help me God.
PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any

unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in good standing.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate

to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with
a partner or associate that, upon the latter's
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to persons
specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer;
or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-
lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit
sharing agreement.