PART I

The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided but also those in which no confidence has
1. Lawyers Oath been bestowed or will be used.[33]
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood,
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself
performance thereof, and also whether he will be called upon in his
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all
new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquire in
good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself
the previous employment. The first part of the rule refers to cases in
these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of
which the opposing parties are present clients either in the same
evasion. So help me God.
action or in a totally unrelated case; the second part pertains to
those in which the adverse party against whom the attorney appears
2. Canon 15, Rule on Conflict of Interest is his former client in a matter which is related, directly or
indirectly, to the present controversy.[34] (emphasis ours)
CANON 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his client.
Rule 15.01 A lawyer in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties
client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective in the same action or in totally unrelated cases. The cases here directly or
client. indirectly involved the parties connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor
Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named as party-litigant in some of the
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by cases mentioned.
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being

Jalandoni vs Villarosa: retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for his
of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with
representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible.[31] Conflict of interest that of his client in the same general matter. The prohibition
may be determined in this manner: stands even if the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it
material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have
There is representation of conflicting interests if the been honest.[35] (emphasis ours)
acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the
any matter in which he represents him and also whether he written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary
client any knowledge acquired through their action.[36]
connection.[32] (emphasis ours)
Gonzales vs Cabucana:
The proscription against representation of conflicting
interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are
present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is
of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend
for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other
client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as
the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the
opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are
present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers
respective retainers with each of them would affect the
performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.[29]
3. Rule on Privileged Communication
Rule 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.
Hadjula vs Madianda:
As we said in Burbe v. Magulta,[6] -
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first
moment complainant asked respondent for legal advise regarding the
formers business. To constitute professional employment, it is not
essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on any
previous occasion.
It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged;
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
handle the case for which his service had been sought.
It 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, then the professional employments is established.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the
close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or
the non-payment of the formers fees.
Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of the
attorney-client privilege communication, viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in
confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by
the legal advisor, (8) except the protection be waived.[7]
The purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from
possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.
4. Canon 16, Rule on No Borrowing, No Lending
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent
advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in the legal matter he
is handling for the client.
Barnachea vs Quiocho:
A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may
come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to
keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others
kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the
registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for
the transfer of title over real property under the name of his client if not
utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. The
lawyers failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a
presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust
reposed on him. The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his
client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession.
5. In Re: Atty Maquera
It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment ordering Maqueras
suspension from the practice of law in Guam does not automatically result in
his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Under Section 27,[34] Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in
Guam are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at
that only if the basis of the foreign courts action includes any of the grounds
for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
6. Canon 18, Rule on Adequate Preparation
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.02 A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Fernandez vs Novero:
A counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, even
malfeasance or nonfeasance, would be binding on his client. Verily, a lawyer
owes to the client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that
representation. Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of
law and legal procedure, and anyone who deals with them has the right to
expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but
also a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause.
7. Rule on Informing Client on Status of Case
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for
information.
Somosot vs Lara:
As the court held in Luisito Balatbat v. Atty. Edgardo Arias,[16] a client must
never be left in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and
confidence reposed in the retained lawyer in particular and the legal profession
in general.
8. Canon 21
CANON 21 A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
9 and 10. Canon 22, Circumstances where the lawyer may withdraw his
services
CANON 22 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 22.01 A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
cases:
a. When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling;
b. When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules;
c. When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
d. When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
e. When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or
fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
f. When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g. Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall subject to a
retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the
client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer
of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of
the matter.
11. Rule 21.01
Rule 21.01 A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except:
a. When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure:
b. When required by law;
 c. When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his
employees or associates or by judicial action.
12. Rule 20.01
Rule 20.01 A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining
his fees:
a. The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required.
b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c. The importance of the subject matter;
d. The skill demanded;
e. The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance
of the proffered case;
f. The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees
of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g. The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to
the client from the services;
h. The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i. The character of the employment, whether occasional or established;
and
j. The professional standing of the lawyer.
13. Rule 9.02
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 latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to the 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 of a
profit sharing arrangements.
14. Rules on Suspension and Disbarment
A. Nature of Bar Discipline Proceedings:
1. Private and confidential
2. Sui generis
3. Summary in nature
4. Imprescriptible
B. Jurisdiction of the CBD in Bar Discipline
Pursuant to Rule 139-B, the IBP BoG was empowered to police its own ranks,
investigate and penalize erring members of the Bar either in government
and/or private service except judges and justices.
But note that the Supreme Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
practice of law. It exercises such disciplinary functions through the IBP, but it
does not relinquish its duty to form its own judgment. Disbarment proceedings
are exercised under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the IBP's
recommendations imposing the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
or disbarment are always subject to this Court's review and approval. (Ylaya v.
Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, 30 January 2013)
C. Rule on Quantum Proof
In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove
his or her allegations by preponderant evidence. In the absence of
preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer continues
and the complaint against him must be dismissed. (Rodica v. Lazaro, et al.,
A.C. No. 9259, 23 August 2012)
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as
a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto (Id.).
D. Kinds of Sanctions
1. Disbarment
2. Suspension
 3. Interim Suspension 2. Failure to preserve the clients confidence
4. Reprimand 3. Failure to avoid conflicts of interest
5. Admonition 4. Lack of diligence
6. Probation 5. Lack of competence
7. Other sanctions and remedies- other sanctions and remedies which 6. Lack of candor
may be imposed include:
B. Violations of duties owed to the public
a. Restitution
1. Failure to maintain personal integrity
b. Assessment of costs
2. Failure to maintain the public trust
c. Limitation upon practice
C. Violations of duties owed to the legal system
d. Warning
1. False statements, fraud and misrepresentation
e. Taking of professional responsibility examinations or MCLEs
2. Abuse of legal process
8. Readmission and Reinstatement
3. Improper communications with individuals in the legal system
D. Violations owed to the profession
E. Rule on Prescription and
1. Prior discipline orders
F. Rule that even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase
the administrative culpability of lawyer.. 16. Rule on SCs exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law
Imprescriptible Prescription does not lie in administrative cases against Ylaya vs Gacott:
lawyers. (Williams, et al. v. Icao, A.C. No. 6882, 24 Dec. 2008) The Supreme Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the law.102 It exercises such disciplinary functions through the IBP, but it does
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase not relinquish its duty to form its own judgment. Disbarment proceedings are
the administrative culpability of a lawyer. . . . (Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. exercised under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the IBPs
RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 329) recommendations imposing the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
or disbarment are always subject to this Courts review and approval.
Note that the CBD Rules of Procedure used to contain a provision (Rule VIII,
Section 1) for a prescriptive period for the filing of administrative complaints
which was within two years from discovery. The Supreme Court in Frias v. 17. Special Rule for Judges and Justices; Government Lawyers
Bautista-Lozada (A.C. No. 6656, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 345), struck down
the provision as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires. Pursuant to Bar Matter 1645 (Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B) dated 13
October 2015, all complaints for disbarment, suspension and discipline filed
against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of
15. Grounds: (memorize the list?) Tax Appeals, judges of lower courts, and lawyers in government service,
whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other respondents, and
A. Violations of duties owed to the clients
whether or not such complaint deals with acts unrelated to the discharge of
1. Failure to preserve the clients property their official functions, shall be forwarded by the IBP to the Supreme Court for
appropriate action.

18. Virtusio vs Virtusio
Lawyers, as officers of the court and instruments for the administration of
justice, are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high
standard of morality, honesty, and fair dealing. Since good moral character is
an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law, maintaining
such trait is a condition for keeping the privilege. (Virtusio v. Virtusio, A.C.
No. 6753, 5 September 2012)
19. Garrido vs Garrido
Note that a lawyer can even be disciplined or disbarred for immoral conduct
made prior to his or her admission to the Bar.
In Garrido v. Garrido (A.C. No. 6593, 4 February 2010) involving a
disbarment case on the ground of immorality, the defense of the lawyer was
that the alleged immoral conduct of entering into sexual relations with a man
whom she knew was married was committed while she was NOT YET a
lawyer. The Supreme Court held that this defense will not exempt the
respondent from sanctions since good moral character is required as a
condition precedent to admission to the Bar. The Supreme Court held that
[m]embership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a
privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar
can be withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer's lack of
the essential qualifications required of lawyers.
20. Macarubbo vs Macarubbo
n Macarubbo v. Macarubbo (A.C. No. 6148, 22 January 2013), the respondent
was disbarred for contracting a second and even a third marriage while his first
marriage was subsisting. Eight years from the time of his disbarment, he
petitioned the Supreme Court for Extraordinary Mercy which the Supreme
Court granted and he was thereafter reinstated. The Supreme Court
mentioned the guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
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.
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must,
like any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral character.
PART II
1. Atty L was appointed counsel de oficio for B, who was accused of
raping his own daughter. B pleaded not guilty but thereafter privately
admitted to Lie that he did commit the crime charged.
a. A. In light of Rod's admission, what should Lie do? Explain citing
Canon 19, Rule 19.02 of the CPR.
Atty L should still represent his client in the given circumstance.
Under the Code of professional responsibility Canon 19 A lawyer
shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law Atty L should
represent his client in the best way he can despite of his knowledge of the fact
that he did commit the crime, but should use remedies which are legal and
should not resort to illegal means. Also, as provided for in Canon 19.02 should
Atty L be informed that his client committed fraud upon a person or tribunal,
he should tell his client to correct the same otherwise, Atty L will be entitled to
terminate the relationship.
b. Can Lie disclose the admission of Rod to the court? Why or why not?
Cite Canon 21, Rule 21.02 of the CPR.
In the circumstance given, Atty L cannot disclose the admission of B
to the court because under the CPR Canon 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the
disadvantage of his client use information acquired in the course of
employment, nor shall use the same to his advantage or that of a third, unless
the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto. He may
only disclose such information if his client himself agrees.
2. A asked Atty. B to handle his claim to a sizeable parcel of land in
Baguio City against a well-known property developer on a contingent fee
basis. B asked for 15% of the land that may be recovered or 15% of
whatever monetary settlement that may be received from the property
developer as her only fee contingent upon securing a favorable. final
judgment or compromise settlement. A signed the contingent fee
agreement.
a. Assume the property developer settled the case after the case was
decided by the Regional Trial Court in favor of A for P1 Billion. A
refused to pay B P150 Million on the ground that it is excessive. Is the
refusal justified? Explain citing Canon 20 of the CPR. b. Assume
there was no settlement and the case eventually reached the Supreme
Court which promulgated a decision in favor of A. This time A
refused to convey to B 15% of the litigated land as stipulated on the
ground that the agreement violates Art 1491 of the Civil Code which
prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase properties and rights
which are the object of litigation which they take part by reason of
their profession. Is the refusal justified? Explain.
Yes, the refusal is justified. Canon 20 of the CPR states that a lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. Although under a contingent fee
agreement lawyers are entitled to greater remuneration because of the
possibility of receiving nothing at all, the fee charged must still be fair,
reasonable and conscionable. In this case, the 150 million fee is excessive and
unconscionable.
b. Assume there was no settlement and the case eventually reached the
Supreme Court which promulgated a decision in favor of Chester.
This time Chester refused to convey to Laarni 15% of the litigated
land as stipulated on the ground that the agreement violates Article
1491 of the Civil Code which prohibits lawyers from acquiring by
purchase properties and rights which are the object of litigation in
which they take part by reason of their profession. Is the refusal
justified? Explain. (4%)
The refusal is not justified. The transfer of the land to Laarni would
not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code because said article does not cover
contingent fee agreements. This is because in a contingent fee agreement a
transfer would only occur in case a favorable judgment is obtained. Further,
the case reached the Supreme Court which means that Laarni spent so much
time on the case and much of her skills were demanded hence the 150 million
is a fair and reasonable fee.
3. Atty. Abigail filed administrative cases before the Supreme Court
against Judge Luis. Thereafter, Atty. Abigail filed a Motion for Inhibition
praying that Judge Luis inhibit himself from trying, hearing or in any
manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which Atty. Abigail is
involved and handling.
Should Judge Luis inhibit himself as prayed for by Atty. Abigail? Explain
fully. (6%)
No. Being the subject of an administrative case is not one of the
grounds for disqualification of a judge from handling case provided by the
Code of Judicial Responsibility in Canon 3 Rule 3.12. Rule 3.12 of the Code
of Judicial Responsibility provides that A judge should take no part in a
proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
These cases include among others, proceedings where:
(a) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in
the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as
counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness
therein;
(c) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
(d) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within
the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;
(e) The judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir,
legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy
or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
4. In need of legal services, Niko secured an appointment to meet with
Atty. Henry of Henry & Meyer Law Offices. During the meeting, Niko
divulged highly private information to Atty. Henry, believing that the
lawyer would keep the confidentiality of the information. Subsequently,
Niko was shocked when he learned that Atty. Henry had shared the
confidential information with his law partner, Atty. Meyer, and their
common friend, private practitioner Atty. Canonigo. When confronted,
Atty. Henry replied that Niko never signed any confidentiality agreement,
and that he shared the information with the two lawyers to secure
affirmance of his legal opinion on Nikos problem. Did Atty. Henry violate
any rule of ethics? Explain fully. (7%)
Yes, Atty. G partly violated Canon 21 of the CPR.
Canon 21 provides that an attorney shall preserve the confidence of his
client and further articulates this point in Rule 21.03-.04 by clarifying that he
may not disclose such information to outside agencies without the consent of
his client and that he may disclose such information to firm partners unless
prohibited by his client.
In the case of Atty. J, he was a firm partner and as such is covered by
Rule 21.04 and not being explicitly prohibited by B, Atty. G committed no
wrong in giving information to him. However in the case of Atty. M who was
not in any way connected to the firm Atty. G. committed a gross violation of
Rule 21.03. In either case the mere entry into the attorney-client relationship
obviates the need for a confidentiality agreement.
Therefore, Atty. G violated the Code of Professional Responsibility only
in the case of Atty. M.
5. State, with a brief explanation, whether the lawyer concerned may be
sanctioned for the conduct stated below.
a. Filing a complaint that fails to state a cause of action, thereby
resulting in the defendant succeeding in his motion to dismiss. (3%)
Yes, he may be sanctioned.
Canon 18, Rule 18.02 provides that A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer should have exercised diligence and made adequate preparations
to ascertain that the complaint stated a cause of action to prevent the dismissal
of the complaint.
b. A suspended lawyer working as an independent legal assistant to
gather information and secure documents for other lawyers during
the period of his suspension. (3%)
Yes, he may be sanctioned.
Under the law, only lawyers in good standing can perform or engage in
the practice of law. In the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, the Court held that the
practice of law involves rendering service to the general public that calls for
the professional judgment of a lawyer, the essence of which is his educated
ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specified legal
problem. Clearly, the act of working as a legal assistant in gathering
information and securing documents for other lawyers is within the scope of
practicing law. A suspended lawyer is temporarily prohibited to practice the
legal profession therefor he cannot engage in the mentioned acts.
c. A suspended lawyer allowing his non-lawyer staff to actively operate
his law office and conduct business on behalf of clients during the
period of suspension. (3%)
Yes, he may be sanctioned.
Canon 9, Rule 9.01 states that 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.

6. State, with a brief explanation, whether the judge concerned may be
sanctioned for the conduct stated below.
a. Refusing to inhibit himself although one of the lawyers in the case is
his second cousin. (3%)
No. Under Canon 3, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, A judge
should take no part in a proceeding where the judges impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings
where the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within
the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree.
A second cousin who is one of the counsels is a relative within the 6th
degree, hence it is not covered by the prohibition.
b. Deciding a case in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling but
adding that he does not agree with the ruling. (3%)
No. There is no law or rule prohibiting such conduct. Regardless of his
opinion, the judge still followed the Supreme Courts ruling thus, there is
really nothing wrong with such act. Further, his opinion will not have any
bearing as it is not part of the decision.
c. Dictating his decision in open court immediately after trial. (3%)
Yes. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary. He must not hastily issue decisions.
Under Section 1, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Judges
shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding
of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducement, pressure, threat or
interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
7. Cite the applicable canon
a. CANON 2 Provisions that a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Canon 2 provisions that a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that, [a] judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Under this
Canon, the following rules must also be observed by a judge:
(1) Rule 2.01 which states that, [a] judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(2) Rule 2.02 which states that, [a] judge should not seek publicity for
personal vainglory.
(3) Rule 2.03 which states that, [a] judge shall not allow family, social, or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of
judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of
others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
(4) Rule 2.04 which states that, [a] judge shall refrain from influencing in any
manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
b. DISQUALIFICATION: RULE 3.12 A judge should take no part in
a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. Enumerate the proceedings.
Disqualification: Rule 3.12 A judge should take no part in a proceeding
where the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Enumerate the
proceedings.
Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that, a judge should take no
part in a proceeding where the judges impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:
(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
the proceeding; (b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee or lawyer in the case or matters in controversy, or a former associate of
the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was
a material witness therein;
(c) the judges ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within
the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;
(e) the judge knows that the judges spouse or child has a financial interest, as
heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in
controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.
8. Cite the applicable Canon for the following:
a. Rafols, Jr. v. Barrios, Ir. - A.C. No. 4973. 15 March 2010, Lawyer
who facilitated an illegal transaction (bribery) between his clients and
the judge handling the case.
The lawyer violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 7.03 of CPR provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
He disregarded the vow to delay no man for money or malice and to
conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He also
disobeyed the explicit command to him as an attorney to accept no
compensation in connection with his clients business except from him or with
his knowledge and approval.
b. Valor- Fabroa v. Paguinto - A.C. No. 6273, 15 March 2010 - Lawyer
who caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against
complainant.
When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complainants
against complainant, he violated the Lawyers Oath that a lawyer shall not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
nor gives aid or consent to the same.
Furthermore, when, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment
on the complaint, respondent failed to file any and ignored the Courts
subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleading, memoranda or brief let the period lapse
without submitting or offering an explanation to his failure to do so.
c. Barandon v. Ferrer - A.C. No. 5768, 26 March 2010 Lawyer who used
temperate language and unkind ascriptions against another lawyer.
Atty. Ferrers violated Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers
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 Code provides: Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the
legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the Code provides: Rule 7.03. A
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
d. Barandon v. Ferrer - A.C. No. 5768, 26 March 2010 Lawyer who
used temperate language and unkind ascriptions against another
lawyer.
The respondent failed to observe Canon 11 and 11.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Canon 11 requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the courts
and judicial officers. The respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that
provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the courts.
The respondents argument that Judge Baculi provoked him to shout
should not be given due consideration since the respondent should not have
shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created the impression that
disrespect of a judge could be tolerated.
e. Baculi v. Battung - A.C. No. 8920, 28 September 2011. Lawyer who
disrespected a fudge by shouting at him inside the courtroom and
continued to threaten him even after the latter had cited him for
contempt.
 Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed
at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a
mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By notarizing
such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit
upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and
purpose.
f. Calimlim-Verzonilla v. Pascua - No. 6655, 11 October 2011. Lawyer
made an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful
purpose
Omaa violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Omaa knew fully well that the
Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay has no legal effect and is against public policy.
Therefore, Omaa may be suspended from office as an attorney for breach of
the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
g. Bansig v. Celera - A.C. No. 5581. 14 January 2014. For contracting a
second marriage %Oily his first marriage was still subsisting and for
willfully ignoring the Orders of the Supreme Court which. Ill itself, is
already a ground for suspension or disbarment.
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03-
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a
second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment. Considering respondent's
propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful orders
of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of
the court. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
h. Brunet v. Guaren - A.C. No. 10164, 10 March 2014. Lawyer received
Php 7,000.00 as partial acceptance fee for the titling of complainant's
Property but failed to perform his obligation to the the case despite
the lapse of five years.
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that:
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of
P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to
perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of complainants' lot
despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client
with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to
him.
i. Dizon v. de Taza, AC No. 7676, 10 June 2014. Lawyer manifested a
propensity for borrowing money, issuing bouncing checks and
incurring debts which she left unpaid without any reason. Lawyer
also made it appear to the complainant that the proceedings before
the Court can be expedited and ruled in their favor in exchange for
an exorbitant amount of money as part of a scheme to milk more
money from her clients.
Respondent lawyer violated rule 16 of the Code of professional
responsibility, particularly rule 16.03 which states that, Rule 16.03 - A lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on
all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in
the Rules of Court.
j. Tan v. Diamante, AC No. 7766, 5 August 2014. Respondent Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
committed acts of falsification in order to misrepresent to his client, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
i.e., complainant, that he still had an available remedy in his case, regarding his qualifications or legal services.
when in reality, his case had long been dismissed for failure to timely
A lawyer should not claim a qualification other than his real qualifications,
file an appeal, thus, causing undue prejudice to the latter.
doing which is synonymous to deception and is a ground for disciplinary
Respondent Pedro S. Diamante shall be DISBARRED for Gross action.
Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18
l. Sanchez v Atty Torres. Respondent borrowed P2.2M from
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the
complainant and failed to pay his due debt despite demand
CPR, it is the lawyers duty to keep his client constantly updated on the
developments of his case as it is crucial in maintaining the latters confidence, Respondent lawyer violated canon 1.01 and 16.03 of the code of
to wit: professional responsibility.
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. deceitful conduct.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
and shall respond within a reasonable time to clients request for information. due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
Respondent engaged in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct that
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
caused undue prejudice and unnecessary expenses on the part of complainant.
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured
Accordingly, respondent clearly violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR,
for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
which provides:
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Respondents acts are so reprehensible, and his violations of the CPR are
so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and inability to discharge his duties
as a member of the bar. His actions erode rather than enhance the public
perception of the legal profession. Therefore, in view of the totality of his
violations, as well as the damage and prejudice caused to his client, respondent
deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment
k. Respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer, and
received P350,000 as downpayment for his legal services. In truth,
however, respondent has no specialization in immigration but merely
had a contact with a purported US consul.
Respondent lawyer violate rule 3.01 of the Code of professional
responsibility,