2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS

Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

Lawyers Must Abdicate All Personal Advantage that Conflicts, Directly or Indirectly, with
the Interest of their Client

A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients. The profession, therefore, demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every
personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. In
this case, Atty. Pasagui failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him. Camino
vs. Pasagui, 803 SCRA 404, A.C. No. 11095 September 20, 2016

Penalties to be Applied on an Errant Lawyer Requires Sound Judicial Discretion Based on

the Surrounding Facts

The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer requires sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts. Considering the totality of the circumstances in the present case, we find a
three-year suspension from the practice of law appropriate as penalty for Atty. Maravilla-Ona’s
misconduct. We emphasize, to the point of repetition, that her failure to discharge her duty
properly constitutes an infringement of ethical standards and of her oath. Such failure makes her
answerable not just to her client, but also to this Court, to the legal profession, and to the general
public. Gutierrez vs. Maravilla-Ona, 796 SCRA 367, A.C. No. 10944 July 12, 2016

Complainant has the Burden to Prove, by Preponderance of Evidence, a Violation of the

CPR

In an administrative case against a lawyer, the complainant has the burden of proof to show by
preponderance of evidence that the respondent lawyer was remiss of his or her duties and has
violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Here, it is established that
respondent was engaged as counsel for complainant to represent her in various collection cases
and that he received P61,500.00 from her as attorney’s fees. Respondent also admitted
withdrawing from the cases allegedly due to complainant’s uncooperative demeanor. However,
there is no showing that complainant agreed to the withdrawal, or that respondent filed the proper
motion before the courts where the cases were pending. Chang vs. Hidalgo, 788 SCRA 474,
A.C. No. 6934 April 6, 2016

Client’s Offensive Attitude is not a Ground to Justify a Lawyer’s Withdrawal from a Case
without Notice to the Court and Client

Respondent admittedly withdrew from the cases but he failed to provide any evidence to show
that complainant, his client, agreed to the withdrawal or, at the very least, knew about it. The
offensive attitude of a client is not an excuse to just disappear and withdraw from a case without
notice to the court and to the client, especially when attorney’s fees have already been paid.
Chang vs. Hidalgo, 788 SCRA 474, A.C. No. 6934 April 6, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

A Lawyer Shall Not Wittingly or Willingly Promote or File any Baseless Suit or Consent to
the Same

The Court notes, in addition, that the Investigating Commissioner failed to consider Respondent’s
act of filing two (2) baseless complaints for libel against Complainant in two (2) different venues
(Manila and San Fernando City, La Union) for the same alleged act. The fact that the handling
prosecutors in both cases are in agreement that there was nothing in the demand letter subject
of the said cases that could be considered libelous, and that the City Prosecutor of Manila made
mention of the aforementioned criminal complaint filed with, and previously dismissed by, the
Provincial Prosecutor of La Union, make the aforementioned filing of criminal complaints by
Respondent a clear violation of the Lawyer’s Oath ­— which states that a lawyer shall “not wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the
same.” Aguilar-Dyquiangco vs. Arellano, 796 SCRA 346, A.C. No. 10541 July 12, 2016

Personal Appearance of the Signatory(ies) of a Document is/are Necessary

Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would
be undermined. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him
to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is
to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party
and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed. Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant’s personal appearance
before the notary public. Fabay vs. Resuena, 782 SCRA 1, January 26, 2016

Bad faith Cannot be Presumed

Hence, while it may be inferred under the circumstances that respondent was careless and did
not exercise diligence in ensuring that the records of the Migano case were immediately
transmitted to the pairing judge of RTC-Alaminos City for proper disposition, records are bereft of
evidence to show that the resulting delay was deliberately or maliciously caused as to amount to
bad faith. Instead, what is evident in this case is that the delay was caused by inadvertence and
negligence. As such, while it may be considered an unfortunate error on respondent’s part to hold
in abeyance the proceedings in the Migano case and to fail to promptly transmit the records
thereof to the pairing judge in RTC-Alaminos City, such error does not appear to have been tainted
with or impelled by bad faith. Bad faith cannot be presumed and the Court cannot conclude that
bad faith attended respondent’s acts when none has been shown in this case. Consequently,
respondent need not be subjected to administrative sanction in this respect. Miano vs. Aguilar,
785 SCRA 338, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 March 2, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

Only Members of the Philippine Bar in Good Standing are Eligible to be Commissioned as
Notaries Public

Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing
are eligible to be commissioned as notaries public. Thus, performing the functions of a notary
public constitutes the practice of law. In this case, Atty. Palay no longer disputed the findings of
the IBP, which is tantamount to an admission that he notarized a document without the presence
of the person who allegedly placed his thumbmark therein. This constitutes a direct violation of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b). By acknowledging the
Deed of Sale, he made it appear that Villaos personally appeared before him when this was not
in fact the case. Worse, in his answer to the complaint, he lied about being called into a car by
Villaos’ driver. These actions evince dishonesty on the part of Atty. Palay — in direct violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These adversely reflect on his fitness to be
a member of the legal profession. This warrants a suspension from the practice of law for a period
of six (6) months, in addition to his disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years. Endaya vs. Palay, 803 SCRA 565, A.C. No. 10150 September 21, 2016

It is a Lawyer’s Duty to Give Adequate Attention and Time to Every Case Entrusted to Him

It must be stressed that a lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature. The Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his client and to serve them with competence and diligence. It
is the duty of every lawyer to give adequate attention and time to every case entrusted to him and
to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense thereof and to exercise reasonable and
ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case. Cagayan Economic Zone
Authority vs. Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation, 782 SCRA 345, G.R. No. 194962 January
27, 2016

Lawyers are prohibited from Acquiring Properties or Rights which are the Subject of any
Litigation Entrusted to Them

Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code expressly prohibits lawyers from acquiring property or rights that
may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession, thus:
Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another: x x x x (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting
attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with
the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before
the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to
the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by
virtue of their profession. x x x x A complementary prohibition is also provided in Rule 10 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics which states: 10. Acquiring interest in litigation. The lawyer should
not purchase any interest in the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting. Peña vs.
Delos Santos, 785 SCRA 440, G.R. No. 202223 March 2, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

A Contract with a Contingent Fee, when Sanctioned by the Law, is Valid as it Redounds to
the Benefit of a Poor Client

Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states that “a contract for a contingent fee, when
sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the
risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of a
court, as to its reasonableness.” A contract of this nature is permitted because it redounds to the
benefit of the poor client and the lawyer especially in cases where the client has a meritorious
cause of action but has no means with which to pay for the legal services unless he can, with the
sanction of law, make a contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation.
Oftentimes, such arrangement is the only means by which the poor and helpless can seek redress
for injuries sustained and have their rights vindicated. Jacinto vs. Bangot, Jr., 804 SCRA 509,
A.C. No. 8494 October 5, 2016

A Lawyer’s Use of Intemperate Language in a Letter to an Opposing Party is a Violation of

the CPR

After a careful perusal of the records of the case, the Court agrees with the findings of the Board
of Governors that the respondent violated the CPR when he used intemperate language in his
letter to the complainant. Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the CPR provides: Rule 8.01 – A
lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper. In the present case, the respondent’s actions failed to measure up to this
Canon. Records show that he imputed to the complainant the use of his influence as a former
public prosecutor to harass his clients during the inquest proceedings without sufficient proof or
evidence to support the same. BP-CBD and the Aseron vs. Diño, Jr., 802 SCRA 563, A.C. No.
10782 September 14, 2016

Lawyers shall Not Use Offensive and Abusive Language when Presenting Their Case

The Court has consistently reminded lawyers that though they are entitled to present their case
with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. Aseron vs. Diño, Jr., 802 SCRA
563, A.C. No. 10782 September 14, 2016

A Mere Threat to File a Baseless Criminal Complaint is a Violation of the CPR

The filing of baseless criminal complaints, even merely threatening to do so, also violates Canon
19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR, as explained in Peña v. Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444 (2007), thus:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall represent his client

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

with zeal within the bounds of the law,” reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer’s duty is not to
his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate;
and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. In
particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a “lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.”
Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal
case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer’s client. Aguilar-Dyquiangco
vs. Arellano, 796 SCRA 346, A.C. No. 10541 July 12, 2016

Lawyers shall not, in His Professional Dealings, Use Abusive, Offensive or Improper
Language

A lawyer is indeed expected to champion the cause of his client with utmost zeal and competence.
Such exuberance, however, must be tempered to meet the standards of civility and decorum.
Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “[a] lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.” In Noble
III v. Atty. Ailes, 761 SCRA 1 (2015), the Court cautioned lawyers to be careful in their choice of
words as not to unduly malign the other party, to wit: Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful
and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity
of the judicial forum. In Buatis, Jr. v. People, the Court treated a lawyer’s use of the words “lousy,”
“inutile,” “carabao English,” “stupidity,” and “satan” in a letter addressed to another colleague as
defamatory and injurious which effectively maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting
language to describe the opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal
profession. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Asalus Corporation, 818 SCRA 543, G.R.
No. 221590 February 22, 2017

A Lawyer shall be Presumed Innocent of Administrative Charges Filed Against Him until
the Contrary is Proved

The Court has consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he or she is
innocent of the administrative charges filed against him or her until the contrary is proved. As an
officer of the court, a lawyer is presumed to have performed his or her duties pursuant to the
lawyer’s oath. Accordingly, the fact that other cases have also been filed against Atty. Maravilla-
Ona and are pending resolution before the IBP or this Court should not be taken against her. Until
these cases are resolved, such should not influence this Court’s determination of the proper
penalty to impose upon her in this instance. Notably, only the Court’s September 15, 2014
resolution in Administrative Case No. 10107 (where we suspended Atty. Maravilla-Ona from the
practice of law for one year) has attained finality at the time the board issued Resolution No. XXI-
2014-798. Gutierrez vs. Maravilla-Ona, 796 SCRA 367, A.C. No. 10944 July 12, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

Receiving Money from a Client Through False Pretense is a Transgression of the Lawyer’s
Oath

The respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer’s Oath by receiving money from the
complainants after having made them believe that she could assist them in ensuring the
redemption in their mother’s behalf. She was convincing about her ability to work on the
redemption because she had worked in the NHFMC. She did not inform them soon enough,
however, that she had meanwhile ceased to be connected with the agency. It was her duty to
have so informed them. She further misled them about her ability to realize the redemption by
falsely informing them about having started the redemption process. She concealed from them
the real story that she had not even initiated the redemption proceedings that she had assured
them she would do. Everything she did was dishonest and deceitful in order to have them part
with the substantial sum of P350,000.00. She took advantage of the complainants who had
reposed their full trust and confidence in her ability to perform the task by virtue of her being a
lawyer. Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably eroded public trust in the Legal Profession.
Mercullo vs. Ramon, 797 SCRA 123, A.C. No. 11078 July 19, 2016

The Test to Determine Conflict of Interest is the Existence of Inconsistent Interests of Two
or More Opposing Parties

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This rule covers
not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which
no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
Vasco-Tamaray vs. Daquis, 782 SCRA 44, A.C. No. 10868 January 26, 2016

Lawyers may be Disciplined for Misconduct in their Professional or Private Capacity

Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that “[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” It is well established that a lawyer’s
conduct is “not confined to the performance of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined
for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.” Camino vs. Pasagui,
803 SCRA 404, A.C. No. 11095 September 20, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

A Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and/or Breach of the CPR may Result in Suspension or
Disbarment

A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an
attorney, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. For the practice of law is “a profession,
a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who
possess good moral character.” The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the
exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. Camino vs. Pasagui, 803
SCRA 404, A.C. No. 11095 September 20, 2016

Disciplinary Proceedings are Limited to Administrative Liability and shall Not include Civil
Liability, unless the Amount Involved is Entrusted by Reason of Lawyer’s Legal Expertise

True, in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court
is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. In such cases, the Court’s only concern
is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability; it should not involve his civil liability
for moneys received from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked
to his professional engagement. However, in this case, it appeared that the Caminos entrusted
the task of facilitating the transfer of the title by virtue of respondent’s legal expertise. The receipt
of the moneys was not by virtue of a personal transaction between the complainant and
respondent. After all, if a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a
lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily
permits or acquiesces with the consultation, as in this case, then the professional employment is
established. Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Camino vs. Pasagui,
803 SCRA 404, A.C. No. 11095 September 20, 2016

The Lifting of Suspension from the Practice of Law is Not Automatic Upon the End of the
Period Stated in the Decision but upon an Order from the Supreme Court

We have held that the lifting of suspension from the practice of law is not automatic upon the end
of the period stated in the decision; an order from the Court lifting the suspension is necessary to
enable the suspended lawyer to resume his or her legal practice. Re: Complaint of Atty. Mariano
R. Pefianco Against Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, and
Carmelita Salandann-Manahan, of the Court of Appeals Cebu, 784 SCRA 470, I.P.I. No. 14-
222-CA-J February 23, 2016

A Property is in “Litigation" if it is Subject of a Judicial Action

A property is in litigation if there is a contest or litigation over it in court or when it is subject of a

judicial action. Records show that the judicial action over the subject lots was still in the appellate

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

proceedings stage when they were conveyed to Jesus and Rosita’s counsel, Atty. Robiso. The
Deed of Transfer or Conveyance and the Deed of Absolute Sale both dated May 4, 2005 as well
as the Confirmation of Sale and Transfer dated December 5, 2006 were all executed long before
the termination of the appellate proceedings before this Court in G.R. Nos. 141810 and 141812
on February 2, 2007. Peña vs. Delos Santos, 785 SCRA 440, G.R. No. 202223 March 2, 2016

The Prohibition in Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code is Based on the View of Fiduciary
Relationship Between Lawyer and Client

The rationale advanced for the prohibition in Article 1491(5) is that public policy disallows the
transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence
and the peculiar control exercised by these persons. It is founded on public policy because, by
virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his
client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. The principle of estoppel runs counter
to this policy and to apply it in this case will be tantamount to sanctioning a prohibited and void
transaction. Peña vs. Delos Santos, 785 SCRA 440, G.R. No. 202223 March 2, 2016.

If a Lawyer did not Perform any Act in Furtherance of a Case, Restitution of Acceptance
Fees is Proper

Restitution of acceptance fees to complainant is proper. Respondent failed to present any

evidence to show his alleged efforts for the cases. He failed to attend any of the hearings before
the Commission on Bar Discipline. There is no reason for respondent to retain the professional
fees paid by complainant for her collection cases when there was no showing that respondent
performed any act in furtherance of these cases. Chang vs. Hidalgo, 788 SCRA 474, A.C. No.
6934 April 6, 2016

A Lawyer’s Failure to File a Complaint Despite Receiving the Necessary Fees, is a Violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

Respondent violated Canon 18 when she failed to file the collection case in court. In this regard,
Canon 18 of the CPR mandates, thus: A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Rule 18.03 thereof emphasizes that: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In Reyes v. Vitan, 456
SCRA 87 (2005), this Court held that the failure of a lawyer to file a complaint with the court in
behalf of his client, despite receiving the necessary fees from the latter, is a violation of the said
canon and rule. Aguilar-Dyquiangco vs. Arellano, 796 SCRA 346, A.C. No. 10541 July 12,
2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

The Supreme Court will Impose the Penalty of Disbarment when the Guilty Party has
Become a Repeat Offender

Despite her two (2) prior suspensions, still, Atty. Limos is once again demonstrating to this Court
that not only is she unfit to stay in the legal profession for her deceitful conduct but is also remiss
in following the dictates of the Court, which has supervision over her. Atty. Limos’ unwarranted
obstinacy is a great insolence to the Court which cannot be tolerated. The present case comes
clearly under the grounds given in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court,
however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become
a repeat offender. Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of Atty. Limos’
prior misconduct which grossly degrades the legal profession, the imposition of the ultimate
penalty of disbarment is warranted. Pacao vs. Limos, 793 SCRA 258, A.C. No. 11246 June 14,
2016

Contingent Fee Must Be Reasonable and Laid Down in an Express Contract

In Rayos v. Hernandez, 515 SCRA 517 (2007), we held that a contingent fee arrangement is valid
in this jurisdiction. It is generally recognized as valid and binding, but must be laid down in an
express contract. In the same case, we have identified the circumstances to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorney’s fees as follows: (1) the amount and
character of the service rendered; (2) labor, time, and trouble involved; (3) the nature and
importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility
imposed; (5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy or
involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the
services; (7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney; (8) the results
secured; (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being recognized that an attorney may
properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not; and (10) the financial
capacity and economic status of the client have to be take into account in fixing the
reasonableness of the fee. Agdao Landless Residents Association, Inc. vs. Maramion, 806
SCRA 74, G.R. Nos. 188642 & 189425, G.R. Nos. 188888-89 October 17, 2016

Obtaining Loan from Clients, During the Existence of a Lawyer-Client Relationship, is

Unethical

In the instant case, there is no dispute that Respondent obtained several loans from Complainant
beginning in 2008 or two (2) years after they established a lawyer-client relationship in 2006, and
before they terminated the same in 2009, in violation of Rule 16.04 of the CPR. We have
previously emphasized that it is unethical for a lawyer to obtain loans from Complainant during
the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them. Aguilar-Dyquiangco vs. Arellano,
796 SCRA 346, A.C. No. 10541 July 12, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

Any Conduct Unbecoming of a Lawyer Constitutes a Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath

The Lawyer’s Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer. Any violation of the
oath may be punished with either disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law, or other
commensurate disciplinary action. Every lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral
fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his admission to the Bar, but are also essential
for his continued membership in the Law Profession. Any conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
constitutes a violation of his oath. Mercullo vs. Ramon, 797 SCRA 123, A.C. No. 11078 July
19, 2016

Gross Ignorance of the Law Requires the Existence of Bad Faith or a Deliberate Intent to
Do an Injustice

To constitute gross ignorance of the law and for administrative liability to attach, it is not enough
that the decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary
to existing law and jurisprudence. It must also be proven that he was moved by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty, or corruption or had committed an error so egregious that it amounted to bad faith.
Miano vs. Aguilar, 785 SCRA 338, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 March 2, 2016

The Personal Use of a Client’s Money, Without the Client’s Consent, shall fall under Deceit,
Malpractice and Gross Misconduct

A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound
to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to report promptly the money
of his client that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private
property or use it for his personal purposes without his client’s consent. When a lawyer collects
or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees,
transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was
spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the
client. Respondent, by converting the money of his client to his own personal use without her
consent, was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. Not only did he degrade himself
but as an unfaithful lawyer he besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession. Camino vs.
Pasagui, 803 SCRA 404, A.C. No. 11095 September 20, 2016

Lawyers may be Disciplined for a Misconduct Even in Their Private Capacity, if the
Misconduct Reflects a Want of Probity, Good Demeanor, or Good Character

“Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long as
their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being an
essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such
privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 11
 2019 BAR REVIEW LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
Handout No. 1
LEGAL ETHICS

or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one’s behavior exhibited in connection with the
performance of lawyers’ professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which — albeit
unrelated to the actual practice of their profession — would show them to be unfit for the office
and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them. Belo-Henares vs.
Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

[email protected]
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 11