Legal Ethics

A. Revised Lawyer’s Oath (April 13, 2023)

I, (name) do solemnly swear (affirm) that I accept the honor, privilege, duty, and
responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an office of the Court in the
interest of our people.

I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

In doing so, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law and regime of truth,
justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.

I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the
rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall
ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I
pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge
these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost
civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of
evasion.

[For oaths] So help me, God. (Omit for Affirmations)

B. Basic Concepts
a. Legal Ethics
b. Definition of the Practice of Law (Section 1, Canon III of CPRA)
The practice of law is the rendition of legal service or performance of acts or
the application of law, legal principles, and judgment, in or out of court, with
regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person or a cause, and pursuant
to a lawyer-client relationship or other engagement governed by the CPRA. It
includes employment in the public service or private sector and requires
membership in the Philippine bar as qualification.

i. Cayetano vs. Monsod (G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991)

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."

ii. Phil. Lawyer’s Association vs. Agrava (G.R. L-12426, February 16,
1959)
 The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such
actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments,
where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.

c. Power to Regulate the Practice of Law (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution)
“The Supreme Court has the following powers:
xxx

(5)Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.”

d. Practice of Law as a Privilege, Not a Right

i. In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.
Marcial A. Edillon (A.C. No. 1928, August 3, 1978)
ii. In Re Argosino, Bar Matter 712 (March 19, 1997)
e. Law as a Profession, Not a Business or Trade
i. Khan vs. Simbillo (A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003)
ii. Sesbreno vs. CA (G.R. No. 161390, April 16, 2008)
Cases:
Disqualification of Haron S. Meiling, In the 2002 BAR, June 8, 2004
Burbe vs. Atty. Magulta (A.C. No. 99-634, June 10, 2002)
Resureccion vs. Atty. Sayson (A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998)
Falcis vs. Civil Registrar General (G.R. No. 217910, September 3, 2019)
Endaya vs. Atty. Oca (A.C. No. 3967, September 3, 2003)
Anonymous Complaint vs. Atty. Co-Untian, Jr. (A.C. No. 5900, April 10, 2019)
C. Requirements for Admission to the Bar (BAR Matter No. 1153)
i. Sec. 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
“Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of
the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character,
and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in
any court in the Philippines.”
a. Continuing Requirements for the Practice of Law
a. Payment of Professional Tax
b. Membership in the IBP
c. Payment of IBP dues
d. Good and regular standing
e. Compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
f. Possession of Good Moral Character
g. Compliance with the Citizenship Requirement

b. Good Moral Character (In Re Argosino, Bar Matter 712, July 13, 1995)
a. Good moral character – Good moral character is not just the absence
of bad character but the character that expresses the will to do the
unpleasant thing if it is right, and the resolve not to do the pleasant
thing if it is wrong.
b. Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from
good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the
estimate in which he is held by public in the place where he is known.
Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to
objective reality. Good moral character includes at least common
honesty.

c. Crimes involving Moral Turpitude (Egdar Y. Teves vs. COMELEC G.R. No.
180363, April 28, 2009)
a. Moral Turpitude - defined as everything which is done contrary to
justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general
b. What are the crimes involving moral turpitude?
i. Abduction with consent
ii. Bigamy
iii. Concubinage
iv. Smuggling
v. Rape
vi. Estafa through falsification of a document
 vii. Attempted Bribery
viii. Profiteering
ix. Robbery
x. Murder, whether consummated or attempted
xi. Estafa
xii. Theft
xiii. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker
xiv. Violation of BP Bldg. 22
xv. Falsification of Document
xvi. Intriguing against Honor
xvii. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
xviii. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)
xix. Perjury
xx. Forgery
xxi. Direct Bribery
xxii. Frustrated Homicide

Cases:
DECS vs. San Diego (G.R. No. 86572, December 21, 1989)

Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board (G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019 and G.R.
No. 242954, November 9, 2021)

Petition of Atty. Dacanay (B.M. No. 1678, December 7, 2007)

As a general rule, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.

A lawyer who lost his Filipino citizenship may continue to practice law in the
Philippines when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of
another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to R.A. No. 9225. This is
because “all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of R.A. No.
9225.” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership
in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA

9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from the Supreme Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
a. The updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP:
b. The payment of professional tax;
 c. The completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is especially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and
d. The retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will no only remind him/her of his/her
duties and responsibility as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also
renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his/her good standing as a member of
the Philippine Bar.

Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorney by Michael Medado (September 24, 2013)

While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot
be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law
and its consequences. Ignorantia factiexcusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first operated
under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the
PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the
moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record, he
could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point,
Medado should have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine
Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act of signing
therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to
continue practicing law without taking the necessary steps to complete all the
requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.

Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be
an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without authority, may
constitute indirect contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both. Such a finding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt and must be
reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case, while it
appears quite clearly that petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by
knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from making any
finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has
been filed against him.

D. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

a. MCLE Bar Matter No. 850 (October 2, 2001)
Purpose of MCLE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
 jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of
the practice of law.

Persons exempt from the MCLE requirement

(Please see Rule 7 of Bar Matter 850)

b. Bar Matter No. 1922 (June 3, 2008)

Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the
case and expunction of the pleadings from records.
c. Bar Matter No. 1922 (January 14, 2014)
*AMEND the June 3, 2008 resolution by repealing the phrase “Failure to
disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and
expunction of the pleadings from records” and replacing it with “Failure to
disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate
penalty and disciplinary action” and
PRESCRIBE
a. The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first offense,
P3,000.00 for the second offense and P4,000.00 for the third offense;
b. In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of
the Bar pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of the Bar Matter No. 850 and its
implementing rules and regulations; and
c. The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the
client/s shall be allowed to secure the services of a new counsel with the
concomitant right to demand the return of fees already paid to the non-
compliant lawyer.
Cases:
Atty. Gustilo vs. Atty. Dela Cruz (A.C. No. 12318, October 15, 2019)
Mapalad vs. Echanez (A.C. No. 10911, June 6, 2017)
Turla vs. Caringal (A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019)
Arnado vs. Adaza (A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015)

E. Appearance of Non-Lawyers in Courts

a. Rule 138, Sec. 1
b. Exceptions
i. Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A, as amended by A.M. No.
19-03-24-SC)
1. Clinical Legal Education Program
1. Proceedings Where Lawyers are Prohibited to Appear as Counsels
a. Small Claims (AM No. 08-8-7-SC)
b. Barangay Mediation (Section 415, Local Government Code of 1991)
c. Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (Rule IV, Sec. 10(c), Administrative
Circular No. 1 Series of 2003)
2. Public Officials and the Practice of Law
a. Prohibitions and Disqualifications of Former Government Attorneys
i. Section 29, Canon II of the CPRA
A lawyer who has left government service shall not engage in
private practice pertaining to any matter before the office where
he or she used to be connected within a period of one (1) year from
his or her separation from such office. Justices, judges, clerks of
court, city provincial, and regional prosecutors shall not appear
before any court within the territorial jurisdiction where they
previously served within the same period.

b. Lawyers in Government Service; conflict of interest

i. Section 21, Canon III of the CPRA
A lawyer currently serving the government shall not practice law
privately, unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution, the law
or applicable Civil Service rules and regulations. If allowed, private
practice shall be upon the express authority of the lawyer’s
superior, for a stated specified purpose or engagement, and only
during an approved leave of absence. However, the lawyer shall
not represent an interest adverse to the government.

c. Who are public officials that are PROHIBITED from engaging in the
practice of law?
1. Judges and other officials or employees of the superior
court
2. Members of the Judicial Bar Council
3. Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions
4. Thos who, by special Law, are prohibited from engaging in
the practice of their profession, but if authorized by the
department head, he may, in an isolated case, act as
counsel for a relative or close family friend
5. Ombudsman and his deputies
6. Governors, city and municipal mayors
7. Official and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General
8. Government Prosecutors
9. President, Vice President, members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants
10. Civil Service officers or employees whose duties require
them to devote their entire time at the disposal of the
government.

d. Who are public officials who have RESTRICTED right to practice law?
1. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
2. Members of the Sangguian
3. Retired Justices or Judges
 Case:
Wilfredo Catu vs. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa (A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008)
The punong barangay and the members of the sangguiang barangay are not
prohibited to practice law by expression unius est exclusion alterius. Since they
are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to
practice their profession. And this stands to reason because they are not
mandated to serve full time. Nevertheless, they must procure prior permission or
authorization form the head of his/her Department, as required by civil service
regulations.

3. Lawyers Authorized to Represent the Government

a. Solicitor General
b. Assistant Solicitor General
c. Solicitor and Trial Attorney
d. State Prosecutor or special counsel in the Department of Justice
e. Provincial and City prosecutors and their assistants and other attorneys in
other legal offices of the government
f. Any official or other person appointed or designated in accordance with
law to appear for the Government of the Philippines who shall have all
the righgs of duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in
which said government has an interest direct or indirect.

F. Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended)

1. Qualifications of a Notary Public
2. Term of Office of a Notary Public
3. Powers and Limitations
4. Notarial Register
5. Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place of Notarization
6. Competent Evidence of Identity (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)
"Sec. 12. Component Evidence of Identity. The phrase "competent evidence of
identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing
the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport,
driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of
Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification,
Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant
certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National
Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD) certification; or
(b) xxxx."
 7. Sanctions
Cases:
Flores vs. Chua (A.M. No. 4500, April 30, 1999)
Judge Laquindanum vs. Quintana (A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009)
Agbulos vs. Viray (A.C. No. 7350, February 18, 2013)
Eddie E. Dizon and Bryan R. Dizon vs. Yolanda Vida P. Beltran (G.R. No. 221071,
January 18, 2017)
Celia Mendoza vs. Atty. Cesar R. Santiago (A.C. No. 13548, June 14, 2023)

Horca vs. People (G.R. No. 224316, November 21, 2021)

First, the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the

petition is defective. Having signed and prepared the instant petition, petitioner's
counsel, Atty. Ajay Noreen D.S. Reyes, is disqualified from notarizing the Verification
portion of the petition. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that a
notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a party to the
instrument or document that is to be notarized. Given that the petition lacks a proper
verification, it ought to be treated as an unsigned pleading.

Tabuzo vs. Gomos (A.C. No. 12005, July 23, 2018)

The IBP is a sui generis public institution deliberately organized, by both the
legislative and judicial branches of government and recognized by the present and
past Constitutions, for the advancement of the legal profession.

G. Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability AM No. 22-09-01-SC

(PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CPRA)

Preamble

An ethical lawyer is a lawyer possessed of integrity. Integrity is the sum total of all
ethical values that every lawyer must embody and exhibit. A lawyer with integrity,
therefore, acts with independence, propriety, fidelity, competence, diligence,
equality and accountability.

Failure to abide by the Code results in sanctions.

Canon 1 – Independence – 5 Sections

Section 1. Independent, accessible, efficient, and effective, legal service. – A lawyer

shall make legal services accessible in an efficient and effective manner. In
performing this duty, a lawyer shall maintain independence, act with integrity, and at
all times ensure the efficient and effective delivery of justice.

Section 2. Merit-based practice. – A lawyer shall rely solely on the merits of a cause
and not exert, or give the appearance of, any influence on, nor undermine the
authority of, the court, tribunal or other government agency, or its proceedings.

Section 3. Freedom from improper considerations and external influences. – A

lawyer shall not, in advocating a client’s cause, be influenced by dishonest or immoral
considerations, external, influences, or pressure.

Section 4. Non-interference by a lawyer. – Unless authorized by law or a court, a

lawyer shall not assist or cause a branch, agency, office or officer of the government
to interfere in any matter before any court, tribunal, or other government agency.

Section 5. Lawyer’s duty and discretion in procedure. – A lawyer shall not allow the
client to dictate or determine the procedure in handling the case.

Nevertheless, a lawyer shall respect the client’s decision to settle or compromise the
case after explaining its consequences to the client.

Canon 2 – Propriety (46 Sections)

Section 1. Proper conduct – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

Section 2. Dignified conduct – A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals,
and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act
with courtesy, civility, fairness and candor towards fellow members of the bar.

Amalia R. Ceniza vs. Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr. (A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019)
Any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or disbarred even if the
misconduct relates to his or her personal life for as long as the misconduct relates
to his or her lack of moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Every
lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at all times, for a person who cannot
abide by the laws in his private life cannot be expected to do so in his professional
dealings.

Section 3. Safe environment; avoid all forms of abuse or harassment. – a lawyer

shall not create or promote an unsafe or hostile environment, both in private and
public settings, whether online, in workplaces, educational or training institutions, or
in recreational areas.
To this end, a lawyer shall not commit any form of physical, sexual, psychological, or
economic abuse or violence against another person. A lawyer is also prohibited from
engaging in any gender-based harassment or discrimination.

Section 4. Use of dignified, gender-fair, and child- and culturally-sensitive language.

– A lawyer shall use only dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive
language in all personal and professional dealings.

To this end, a lawyer shall not use language which is abusive, intemperate, offensive
or otherwise improper, oral or written, and whether made through traditional or
electronic means, including all forms or types of mass or social media.

In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon’s viral video against Raissa Robles (A.C. No. 13521,
June 27, 2023)
Lawyer disbarred for “misogynistic, sexist, abusive and repeated intemperate
language” involving a viral video clip where he repeatedly cursed and uttered profane
remarks against a journalist.

Section 19. Sub-judice rule. – A lawyer shall not use any forum or medium to
comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding before any court,
tribunal, or any other government agency that may:

a.) cause a pre-judgment, or

b.) sway public perception so as to impede, obstruct, or influence the decision of such
court, tribunal, or other government agency, or which tends to tarnish the court’s or
tribunal’s integrity, or

c.) impute improper motives against any of its members, or

d.) create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a final decision.

Solicitor General Calida vs. Chief Justice Sereno (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17,
2018)

Besides, as We have stated in the quo warranto case decision, the Court takes judicial
notice of the undeniably manifest detrimental effect of this open and blatant
disregard of the sub judice rule, which is a clear manifestation of the evil sought to be
prevented by the said rule, i.e., "to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court,
or obstructing the administration of justice."30 In the said decision, We cited the May
2, 2018 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, wherein certain individuals from
different sectors of the society, lawyers included, not only pre-judged the case but
worse, accused certain Members of the Court of being unable to act with justice, and
threatening that the people will not accept any decision of such Members of the
Court as the same is tainted by gross injustice. To be sure, these statements do not
only "tend to" but categorically force and attempt to influence the deliberative and
decision-making process of this Court.

Responsible use of social media

Section 36-44

Belo vs. Guevarra (A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016)

By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI,
respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he
must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm,
and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming
of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults
and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.

That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public

personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful
language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's
remarks against complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former
must be administratively sanctioned.

“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 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.”

Jackiya A. Lao vs. Atty. Berteni C. Causing (A.C. No. 13453, October 4, 2022)
Here, Atty. Causing had clearly violated Section 1221 of Republic Act No. 8369, or the
Family Courts Act of 1997, which prohibits the publication or disclosure, in any
manner, of the records of Family Court cases. This is, in itself, a breach of his duties
under Canon 1 as well as Canon 13 and Rule 13.02 of the CPR as the subject post not
only disclosed confidential information regarding the nullity case, but also included
his own, strongly-worded opinion regarding complainant's character and the
circumstances surrounding the case.

In addition, Atty. Causing likewise violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he used the
words "polygamous," "criminal," "dishonest," "arrogance, "disgusting," and
"cheater" in the subject post and in his pleadings in direct reference to complainant.
Indeed, a lawyer's language, though forceful and emphatic, must 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 judicial forum.
Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive."

Though it is true that Atty. Causing is, by all means, given the liberty to defend his
client's cause with utmost zeal, this is not without reasonable limitations. In this case,
it appears that Atty. Causing's post in Facebook was so designed to elicit, at the very
least, a negative public opinion against complainant. Such act, however, is proscribed
under Rule 19.01 of the CPR which, among others, mandates lawyers to "employ only
fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client."

Re: Disturbing Social Media Posts of Lawyers/Law Professors (A.M. No. 21-06-20-
SC)
Lawyers’ right to privacy vis-à-vis online activities, not absolute

The lawyer’s right to privacy, especially when it come to their social media account, is
limited. They cannot use this right as a shield against any liability. At best, the right to
privacy has limited application to online activities of lawyers.

The Lawyers’ duty to use respectfully language and duty to observe due respect for
the courts and its officers; consequences of breach

Canon 3 – Fidelity (56 Sections)

Section 1. Practice of Law. – The practice of law is the rendition of legal service or
performance of acts or the application of law, legal principles, and judgment, in or
out of court, with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a personal or a cause,
and pursuant to a lawyer-client relation or other engagement governed by the CPRA.
It includes employment in the public service or private sector and requires
membership in the Philippine Bar as qualification.

Section 3. Lawyer-client relationship. – A lawyer-client relationship is of the highest

fiduciary character. As a trust relation, it is essential that the engagement is founded
on the confidence reposed by the client on the lawyer. Therefore, a lawyer-client
relationship shall arise when the client consciously, voluntarily and in good faith vests
a lawyer with the client’s confidence for the purpose of rendering legal service such
as providing legal advice or representation, and the lawyer, whether expressly or
impliedly agrees to render such services.
Section 13. Conflict of interest. – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written informed consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.

There is conflicting interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing

interest of tow or more persons. The test is whether in behalf of one client it is the
lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but which is his or her duty to oppose for
the other client.

Hornilla vs. Salunat (2003)

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.

Ariel Palacios vs. Atty. Amora (2017)

This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy, good taste and, more
importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client's case, including its weak and strong
points. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No
opportunity must be given to him to take advantage of his client; for if the
confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice. It is for these reasons that we have described the attorney-
client relationship as one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

Section 16. Prohibition against dating, romantic, or sexual relations with a client. –
A lawyer shall not have dating, romantic, or sexual relations with a client during the
engagement, unless the consensual relationship existed between them before the
lawyer-client relationship commenced.
Section 21. Lawyers in government service; conflict of interest. – A lawyer currently
serving in the government shall not practice law privately, unless otherwise
authorized by the Constitution, the law or applicable Civil Service rules and
regulations. If allowed, private practice shall be upon the express authority of the
lawyer’s superior, for a stated specified purpose or engagement, and only during an
approved leave of absence. However, the lawyer shall not represent an interest
adverse to the government.

Section 24. Active involvement in legal education. – A lawyer shall keep abreast of
legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, and support
efforts to achieve standards of excellence in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students.

In addition, a lawyer shall assist the Integrated Bard of the Philippines (IBP), law
schools, law alumni associations, law associations, or civic organizations, in
educating the public on the law and jurisprudence.

The IBP Chapters shall provide supervising lawyers to the legal aid clinics in their
jurisdiction.

Section 26. Prompt payment of membership dues. – A lawyer shall promptly pay the
annual membership dues in the IBP, unless expressly exempt from such payment by
law or rules.

Section 33. Foreign Lawyers. – Foreign lawyers cannot directly or indirectly, practice
law in the Philippines.

Section 35. Limited Legal Services. – Limited Legal Services refer to services for a
specific legal incident, with expectation by the lawyer and the client that the lawyer
will not provide continuing legal services in the matter. This includes being appointed
as counsel de official only for the arraignment purposes or special appearances to
make any court submission, to give advice, to draft legal documents, to provide legal
assistance before courts or administrative bodies, and the like.

In all instances, the lawyer shall state that the service being rendered is in the nature
of Limited Legal Services.

A lawyer who renders Limited Legal Services shall be entitled to compensation as my

be agreed upon or provided by the Rules of Court.

Section 36. Pro bono Limited Legal Services. – A lawyer appointed by the court as
counsel de officio shall not refuse to render Limited Legal Services pro bono on the
ground of conflict of interest. Instead, the lawyer shall disclose to all affected parties
such conflict of interest.

In any case, the lawyer may not refuse to render such pro bono legal services to the
person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s
fundamental rights and not to deprive such person of remedies available under the
law or rules.

A lawyer currently serving the government shall not be exempt from pro bono service
and may be appointed by any court, tribunal, or other government agency as counsel
de officio, unless prohibited by law, or the applicable Civil Service rules and
regulations, or when there is a conflict of interest with the government.

Section 37. Duty of confidentiality in Limited Legal Services. – A lawyer who

provides Limited Legal Services must protect the client’s private confidences to the
same extent as if engaged under regular terms.

Section 38. Termination of Limited Legal Services. – Unless governed by Canon III,
Section 36, a lawyer must cease to provide Limited Legal Services to a client when the
lawyer becomes aware that there may be an actual or potential conflict of interest,
except with the written informed consent of the client.

In all cases, the Limited Legal Services terminates upon completion of such services.

Canon 4 – Competence and Diligence (10 Sections)

Section 9. Practice of law concurrent with another profession. – A lawyer who is

engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law
shall expressly provide in the pertinent contract the nature of the services the lawyer
is engaged to perform.

The practice of another profession or occupation shall not jeopardize such lawyer’s
competence, integrity, probity, and independence in rendering legal services.

Section 10. Non-legal activities. – A Lawtey who is engaged in business or other non-
legal profession shall likewise observe the ethical duties and responsibilities of a
lawyer under the CPRA.

Felix E. Edquibal A.C. No. 5867 (February 03, 2005)

The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia)
or that "extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence
and circumspection use for securing and preserving their rights." All that is required
is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus
pater familias.
 Canon 5 – Equality – 4 Sections

Section 1. Non-discrimination. – A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person

solely on account of the latter’s nationality or ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender
identity, religion, disability, age, martial status, social or economic status, political
beliefs, or such lawyer’s or the public’s opinion regarding the guilt of said person,
except for justifiable reasons.

Section 2. Treatment of vulnerable persons. – In dealing with a client who belongs to

a vulnerable sector, a lawyer shall be mindful and sensitive of, and consider the
client’s special circumstances, as well as the applicable laws and rules.

The lawyer shall observe a higher standard of service suited to the particular needs of
the vulnerable person and shall assert such person’s right to meaningful access to
justice.

A vulnerable person is a person who is at a higher risk of harm than others, and shall
include children, the elderly, the homeless, persons with disability, persons deprived
of liberty, human rights victims, victims of domestic violence, victims of armed
conflict, those who are socio-economically disadvantaged, those who belong to racial
or ethnic minorities, or those with debilitating physical or mental conditions.

Section 3. Indigent person. – A lawyer shall not refuse the representation of an

indigent person, except if:

a.) the lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently due
to justifiable cause;
b.) the lawyer will be placed in a conflict-of-interest situation; or
c.) the lawyer is related to the potential adverse party, within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to the adverse counsel, within the fourth degree.

An indigent is any person who has no money or property sufficient for food, shelter
and other basic necessities for oneself and one’s family.

Section 4. Standard of service. – A lawyer shall observe the same standard of service
for all clients, regardless of remuneration, except for the higher standard required for
representation of vulnerable persons.

Canon 6 – Accountability (53 Sections)

Section 1. Nature of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. – Disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers shall be confidential in character and summary in
nature.

Nonetheless, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions
in other cases.

Section 2. How instituted. – Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline

of lawyers may be commenced by the Supreme Court on its own initiative, or upon
filing of a verified complaint by the Board of Governors of the IBP, or by any person,
before the Supreme Court or the IBP. However, a verified complaint against a
government lawyer which seeks to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar
shall only be filed in the Supreme Court.

A verified complaint filed with the Supreme Court may be referred to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation, except when filed directly by the IBP, in
which case, the verified complaint shall be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant
or such fact-finding body as may be designated.

Complaint for disbarment, suspension and discipline filed against incumbent Justices
of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower
courts, or against lawyers in the judicial service, whether they are charged singly or
jointly with other respondents, and whether such complaint deals with acts unrelated
to the discharge of their official functions, shall be forwarded by the IBP to the
Supreme Court for appropriate disposition under Rule 140, as amended.

Section 12. Effect of death of lawyer on administrative disciplinary cases. –

Disciplinary proceedings may not be instituted against a lawyer who has died. If such
proceedings have been instituted notwithstanding the lawyer’s death, the
administrative case against said lawyer shall be dismissed.

The death of the lawyer during the pendency of the case shall cause its dismissal.

Section 13. Issuance of summons. – Within fifteen (15) calendar days from
assignment by raffle, the Investigating Commissioner shall issue the requirement
summons, attaching thereto a copy of the verified complaint and support documents,
if any. The summons shall require the respondent to file a verified answer.

Section 14. Verified answer. – The answer shall be verified and filed within thirty (30)
calendar days from receipt of the summons. The verified answer shall be
accompanied by judicial affidavits of the witnesses and such other documents in
support thereof.
The respondent may, upon motion, for good cause, be given one extension of fifteen
(15) calendar days to file the verified answer.

Two (2) copies of the verified answer shall be filed with the Investigating Commission,
with proof of service on the complainant or the latter’s counsel.

Section 46. Resumption of practice of law. – the Sworn Statement shall be

considered as proof of the suspended lawyer’s compliance with the order of
suspension. Such lawyer shall be allowed to resume the practice of law upon the
filing of the Sworn Statement before the Supreme Court.

However, any false statement in the Sworn Statement shall be a ground for a
complaint for disbarment.

Within five (5) days from the filing of the Sworn Statement and the Office of the Bar
Confidant determines that there is a false statement stated therein, it shall refer the
same to the Court for its immediate action.

Uniform guidelines governing the lifting of the penalty of a lawyer’s suspension.

A.C. 11032 (January 10, 2023)

The uniform guidelines governing the lifting of the penalty of a lawyer’s suspension
are as follows:

1. After finding that a lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court
shall render a decision/resolution imposing the appropriate penalty;

2. The order of suspension shall be immediately executory upon receipt by the lawyer;

3. Every order of suspension shall be furnished to the: (1) OBC to be appended to the
lawyer’s personal record as an attorney; (2) IBP for its information and guidance; and
(3) OCA for circulation to all courts in the country;

4. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, the lawyer shall file a Sworn
Statement with the Court, through the OBC, stating that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law, has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her
suspension, and has complied with all other directives of the Court relative to the
order of suspension;

5. Copies of such Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP,
the Executive Judge of the courts, or any quasi-judicial agencies where the lawyer has
pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as
counsel;
6. The order of suspension shall be automatically lifted upon submission by the
lawyer of such Sworn Statement that he or she has completed the service of
suspension;

7. While lawyers are neither prohibited nor discouraged to attach supporting

certifications from their local IBP chapters, and from courts and quasi-judicial
agencies where they practice, their requests to resume the practice of law will not be
held in abeyance on account of their non-submission; and,

8. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath
shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or even
disbarment, as may be warranted.

REINSTATEMENT
Section 47-51

Florence Macarubbo vs. Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo A.C. No. 6148 (January 22,
2013)
Petition for Judicial Clemency
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations
and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar
misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure
a period of reform.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance
to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or

legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the
legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for
public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency

Nunez vs. Atty. Ricafort (March 2, 2021)

At any rate, it is discerned that petitioner committed multiple serious breaches of
his fiduciary duties to different clients, demonstrating his great propensity in this
respect. This resulted into the imposition of the most drastic penalties of indefinite
suspension in A.C. No. 5054, disbarment in A.C. No. 8253, and another disbarment in
A.C. No. 6484. In fact, despite having been indefinitely suspended in A.C. No. 5054 on
May 29, 2002, he continued practicing law from the years 2002 to 2003. Worse, aside
from his unauthorized practice of law, he concealed the fact of his indefinite
suspension from his client in A.C. 6484 and furthermore, failed to file the action for
recovery as agreed upon resulting into the said client's prejudice. To note, as found in
the Decision of A.C. No. 6484, it was only three (3) years later from the time of
petitioner's engagement that the complainant in said case learned that no such
action was ever filed by him. Thus, in view of petitioner's numerous infractions, the
Court does not believe that "[sufficient time [has] lapsed from the imposition of the
penalty to ensure a period of reformation,"56 as already required in Re: Diaz.

All told, since the subject petitions fail to show prima facie merit based on the
foregoing observations, and likewise, considering the multiplicity of petitioner's
infractions which all constitute serious breaches of his fiduciary duties to his past
clients, the Court denies the subject petitions filed in A.C. Nos. 5054 and 6484. This is
consistent with the Court's earlier denial of the same subject petitions in A.C. No.
8253.

Cases:
Judge Alpajora vs. Atty. Calayan (A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018)
Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino (A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)
Valencia vs. Atty. Cabanting (A.C. No. 1302, April 26, 1991)
Freeman vs. Reyes (A.C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011)
Ventura vs. Atty. Danilo S. Samson (A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012)
Saludo vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 121404, May 3, 2006)
Atty. Galicinao vs. Atty. Castro (A.C. No. 6396, October 25, 2005)
Jimenez vs. Francisco (A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014)
De Jesus-Paras vs. Vailoces (G.R. No. 439, April 12, 1961)
So vs. Lee (Bar Matter No. 3288, April 10, 2019)
Foster vs. Atty. Agtang (A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014)
In Re Almacen (G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970)
Paras vs. Paras (March 13, 2017)
Bengco vs. Atty. Bernardo (A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012)
Palad vs. Patajo-Kapunan (A.C. No. 9923, October 9, 2019)
 Judicial Ethics
Legal and Judicial Ethics (2020 Edition) Ruben E. Agpalo pp. 578 to 733

A. New Code of Judicial Conduct

a. Upholding the Integrity and Independence of Judiciary
b. Avoiding Impropriety or Appearance thereof
c. Performance of Duties
d. Activities Other Than Discharge of Judicial Functions
B. Liabilities of Judges
a. In general
b. Civil Liability
c. Criminal Liability under the Revised Penal Code
d. Criminal Liability under the Anti-Graft Act
e. Other Crimes of Public Officers
f. Administrative Liability
g. Administrative Procedure
C. Appointments to the Judiciary
1. Composition of the Judicial and Bar Council - Article VIII, Section 8, 1987
Constitution
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of
the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a
term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the
Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for
four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years,
and the representative of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council
and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual
budget the appropriations for the Council.
 (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to
the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme
Court may assign to it.

2. How appointed - Article VIII, Section 9, 1987 Constitution

Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts
shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments
need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety
days from the submission of the list.

D. Qualifications
1. Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 7, 1987 Constitution)
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any
lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have
been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines

(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but
no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines
and a member of the Philippine Bar.

Section 2 Rule 2 of JBC No. 2020-01

Members of the Supreme Court must be at least forty (40) years of age and must
have been, for fifteen (15) years or more, judges of a lower court or engaged in
the practice of law in the Philippines.

2. Court of Appeals/ Shari’a Appellate Court

Members of the Court of Appeals must possess the same qualifications as those
prescribed for Members of the Supreme Court.

3. Sandiganbayan Justices
Members of the Sandiganbayan must be at least forty (40) years of age and for at
least ten (10) years have been judges of a court of record or have been engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines or have held office requiring admission to
the bar as a pre-requisite for a like period.
4. Court of Tax Appeals
Members of the Court of Tax Appeals shall have the same qualifications as the
Members of the Court of Appeals.
5. RTC Judges/ Shari’a District Court
 Regional Trial Court Judges, Regional Trial Court Judges-at-Large, and Family
Court Judges must be at least thirty-five (35) years of age and, for at least ten
(10) years, have been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or have
held a public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as
an indispensable requisite.
6. MTC Judges
Judges of courts of the first level (Metropolitan Trial Court [METC], Municipal Trial
Court in Cities [MTCC], Municipal Trial Court [MTC], Municipal Circuit Trial Court
[MCTC]) and Municipal Trial Court Judges-at-Large must be at least thirty years
(30) of age and, for at least five (5) years, have been engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines or have held a public office in the Philippines requiring
admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite.
E. Disqualification of Judicial Officers
1. Compulsory
2. Voluntary
F. Qualities - Art VIII, sec. 7(3), 1987 Constitution
Section 7. (1) x x x

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity,

probity, and independence.

G. Discipline and Administrative Jurisdiction Over Members of the Judiciary

a. Members of the Supreme Court
i. Art. XI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for,
and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public
trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
b. Lower Court Judges and Justices
i. Article VIII, Section 11 of the Constitution
Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower
courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age
of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
ii. Rules of Court 140, Section 1