I.

The Philippine Legal System

A. Who interprets the Constitution and the law?
1. Judicial Power Defined: (Lopez v. Roxas)
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such
rights.
2. Separation and Blending of Powers (Angara v. Electoral Commission)
Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
within its own sphere. Not intended to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other.
The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances
In cases of conflict, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional
mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries.
3. Hierarchy of the Philippine Judicial System
a. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts (Diocese of Bacolod vs COMELEC)
To ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.
Trial courts determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an
executive issuance in relation to the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and
law made by the trial courts.
o It is collegiate in nature, ensuring more standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court.
o Also has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions.
o Its writs can have a nationwide scope.
o It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not necessarily
be novel unless there are factual questions to determine.
- The Supreme Court, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further reiterating in the light of new
circumstances or in the light of some confusions of bench or bar existing precedents.
- The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule

b. Highest Court of the Land: The Supreme Court

i. En banc and Division Cases:
Philippine Constitution, Art 8 Sec4 (2-3)
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division
may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

Firestone Ceramics v. CA: The following are considered en banc cases:

1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order,
or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;
3. Cases raising novel questions of law;
4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and
Commission on Audit;
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a
lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or
both;
7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed;
8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the courten
banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and
9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit
its attention.
ii. SCs Rule Making Powers
Philippine Constitution, Art 8 Sec5 (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.

Fabian vs Desierto: No definitive line can be drawn between those rules or statutes which are procedural, hence within
the scope of Supreme Courts rule-making power, and those which are substantive.

Sec. of Defense vs Manalo: Respondent Manalo in this case sought forand all other legal reliefs under Art 8, Sec. 5(5).
The Court granted the Writ of Amparo. Amparo Rule was promulgated in light of the prevalence of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances.

c. Third Level courts:

i. Court of Appeals (Carpio-Morales vs CA)
The Court of Appeals shall exercise original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. CA's
certiorari jurisdiction is not only original but also concurrent with the RTCs and the SC. In view of the concurrence of
these courts' jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts should be followed.
A party may appeal by certiorari , from a judgment of the Court of Appeals, by filing with the Supreme Court a
petition for certiorari , within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or of the denial of his motion for reconsideration
filed in due time, and paying at the same time, to the clerk of said court the corresponding docketing fee Only questions
of law may be raised in the petition and must be distinctly set forth.

ii. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 9282)

Jurisdiction over Commissioner of Internal Revenue, RTC local tax cases, Commissioner of Customs, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, Secretary of Finance on customs cases, Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry in case of
nonagricultural commodities or articles, and the Secretary of Agriculture. Violations of the National Internal Revenue
Code or Tariff and Customs Code, and other laws administered by the Internal Revenue of the Bureau of Customs

iii. Sandiganbayan The Anti-graft Court (Duncano vs Sandiganbayan)

Jurisdiction: (1) officials of the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 or higher, and (2) officials specifically enumerated
in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g), regardless of their salary grades. While the first part of Section 4 (A) covers only officials
of the executive branch with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials
whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads;
"(b) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
The legislative intent is to allow the Sandiganbayan to devote its time and expertise to big-time cases involving the
so-called big fishes in the government and leave the small fry to the lower courts.
Yet, those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions enumerated by the law.

d. Second Level Courts:

i. RTCs Courts of General Jurisdiction: civil actions on property, intestate and testate heirs, marriage,
juvenile and domestic relations; and, criminal actions not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court
e. First Level Courts:
 i. Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit trial courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities

4. Jurisdiction (Echagaray vs Sec of Justice)

By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. The court
retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. For after the judgment has become final facts and circumstances may
transpire which can render the execution unjust or impossible.

5. Basis of Decisions
Phil. Const. Art 8, Sec14
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.

Oil and Natural Gas vs CA

The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein dearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions" which
adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals (or in this
case, a foreign tribunal).

6. The Judicial and Bar Council

Phil. Const. Art 8, Sec8
(1) 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.

De Castro vs JBC
Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department): (1). The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and
fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of
Members of the Supreme Court, they would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15,
Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most
likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the
President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of the Presidents or Acting Presidents term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.

B. The Power of Judicial Review: What is Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

1. Origins of Judicial Review
Phil. Const. Art 8, Sec 5: The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
 (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(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.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Marbury vs Madison
Principle of judicial review is a process under which executive and legislative actions are subject to
review by the judiciary. The power of courts to assess whether a law is in compliance with the
constitution.
Francisco vs HOR
Guidelines in the exercise of judicial review:
1. actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power
2. the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement
3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
4. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
**The power of judicial review includes the power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment
proceedings.
2. Political Question (Tanada vs Cuenco)
Political questions are those that lie outside the scope of judicial questions, which under the constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. The question at hand is NOT political in
nature. Clearly, the Constitution did not foresee the composition that the Senate had in this case. However, as
a matter of principle, questions of law such as this comes under the province of the Judiciary. The
application of the Constitutional provisions is paramount; therefore, any violation of such must be given the
exercise of judicial review.
3. Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Film Development vs Colon Heritage
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. An exception to this rule is the
doctrine of operative fact which nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law or an executive act by
recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative
fact and may have consequences that cannot always be ignored. It applies when a declaration of
unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
4. Grave Abuse of Discretion (Ocampo vs Enriquez)
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is (1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or
jurisprudence or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal bias.

C. Judges
1. Qualifications
Phil Const. Art 8 Sec 7
(1) Natural-born citizen (SC and lower courts), at least 40y.o. (SC) , and must have been for 15yrs or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, citizen of the Philippines and a
member of the Philippine Bar.
 (3) Person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Kilosbayan vs Exec Secretary
From the records, Ong (who was appointed by the President as member of SC) is a naturalized citizen
(formerly Chinese) and is not qualified to be a judge.
2. Role and Standards
a. Independence (In Re Allegations of Macasaet; blind items about bribery in SC)
A truly independent judiciary is possible only when both concepts of independence (individual/judge and
institutional/judiciary as a branch) are preserved - wherein public confidence in the competence and
integrity of the judiciary is maintained, and the public accepts the legitimacy of judicial authority.
Personal attacks, criticisms laden with political threats, those that misrepresent and distort the nature and
context of judicial decisions, those that are misleading or without factual or legal basis, and those that
blame the judges for the ills of society, damage the integrity of the judiciary and threaten the doctrine of
judicial independence.
b. Integrity (OCA vs Floro)
A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary." This means that a judge whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice "should not
only be impartial, independent and honest but should be believed and perceived to be impartial,
independent and honest" as well. Like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but above suspicion.
Judge Floro, by broadcasting to his staff and the PAO lawyer that he is pro-accused, opened himself up to
suspicion regarding his impartiality. Prudence and judicial restraint dictate that a judge should reserve
personal views and predilections to himself so as not to stir up suspicions of bias and unfairness.
Irresponsible speech or improper conduct of a judge erodes public confidence in the judiciary. "His
language, both written and spoken must be guarded and measured, lest the best of intentions be
misconstrued."
c. Impartiality (People vs CA)
One of the essential requirements of procedural due process in a judicial proceeding is that there must be
an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. Thus,
every litigant, including the State, is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The judge must
not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his
decision will be just.
d. Propriety (In Re: Allegations against Ong)
Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Justice Ongs
act of visiting Napoles was grossly improper (this case was related to PDAF).
e. Competence and Diligence (Ocampo vs Arcaya-Chua)
Judge Arcaya-Chua accorded TPO to Albert Tan. R.A. No. 9262 (VAWC) is specifically applicable to
"women and their children," not to men. Thus, while the TPO may be justified with respect to the
protection accorded the minor, the same is not legally tenable with respect to the petitioner, Albert Tan.
Under R.A. No. 9262, a TPO cannot be issued in favor of a man against his wife. Certainly, such a TPO
would be absurd. Judge Arcaya-Chua's error in this regard was found to be gross ignorance of the law.
When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elementary a rule, a law or a
principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position
and the title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith
and in grave abuse of judicial authority. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to
simply apply it; anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.
3. Liabilities of a Judge
a. Civil Liability (Civil Code, Art 27 & 32)
b. Criminal Liability
RPC Art 204-206
Santiago III vs Enriquez
An admin complaint is not appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available.
Judicial immunity insulates a judge or a justice from being held to account criminally, civilly or
administratively for an erroneous decision made in good faith.
c. Administrative Liability (A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC )
d. Discipline of Members of Bench
Phil Const Art 8, Sec11
 The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior
until they reached 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.
OCA vs Yu (Case about implementation of night courts and appointments of Clerk of Courts which was
disobeyed/disagreed by Judge Yu and other admin complaints against Yu)
By her refusal to adhere to and abide the Admin Order on night courts, the Judge deliberately
disregarded her duty to serve as the embodiment of the law at all times. Judge Yu had no good reason
to reject the appointments of the concerned Clerks as such appointments were valid.
Some administrative cases against justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of
regular and special courts; and court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise
grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code
of Professional Responsibility; and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of
breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary action
against the respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The
respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in
both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of
a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
i. Misconduct: In Re: Charges of Plagiarism against Judge del Castillo
This case is concerned with charges that, in preparing a decision for the Court, a designated
member plagiarized the works of certain authors and twisted their meanings to support the
decision.
When Justice Castillos researcher "cut" research materials from a law website and "pasted"
them on the decision's main manuscript, the attributions were "accidentally deleted." Justice
Del Castillo retained control over the writing of the decision in the Vinuya case without,
however, having to look over his researchers shoulder as she cleaned up her draft report to
ensure that she hit the right computer keys. Notwithstanding this, the court held that there was
no inexecusable negligence on the part of Justice del Castillo.

D. Lawyers: Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers

1. Nature and Scope of the Legal Profession (Ulep vs Legal Clinic)
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. The practice of law,
therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. Applying the aforementioned criteria to the
case at bar, the activities of The Legal Clinic, as advertised, constitute "practice of law."
2. Admission to the Practice of Law
Phil Const Art 8, Sec 5(5)
In Re: Cunanan
The judiciary is in charge of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and reinstating attorneys at law in the
practice of the profession. It is concededly a judicial function. The congress has exceeded its power to
 repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar since the rules made by congress (An Act
to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955) must elevate the
profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare minimum.
3. Nature of the Lawyers Oath: Sebastian vs Calis (case about the passport/documents of the lawyers
client, who then was going to travel to US, such that his client can assume another persons identity)
The lawyer was found guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The lawyer deceived his
client by assuring the latter that he could give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents
nothing untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the
fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong.
Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a
lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the
highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is
not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. The nature
of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character. This requisite is not
only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law.
4. Qualifications (Cojuangco vs Palma case about a lawyer, being then married, married his fellow
lawyers daughter)
Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is
always an indispensable requirement.
Respondents act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment. He exhibited a deplorable lack
of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of
marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage
is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
5. The Lawyer and Society (Castaneda vs Ago)
Respondents Agos, abetted by their lawyer, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to
thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. The respondents, with the
assistance of counsel, maneuvered for 14years to doggedly resist execution of the judgment thru manifold
tactics in and from one court to another.
A counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is
to be commended; what we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of
his client's position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to
the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's
cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than
traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients
propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is indisputable.
6. The Lawyer and the Legal Profession (In Re Edillon about payment of IBP membership dues)
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to
associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He
became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer
to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote
or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of
annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by
the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers.
7. The Lawyer and the Courts (In Re Letter of UP Law see also In Re Charges of Plagiarism against Del
Castillo)
8. The Lawyer and the Client
a. Attorney-Client Relationship (Burbe vs Magulta)
Respondent believed that his lawyer filed the case but upon checking at the Office of the Clerk of Court, no
case was filed by his counsel, even after the lawyers receipt of the filing fee. The lawyer argues that there
is no lawyer-client relationship between them.
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for
legal advice 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. If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles
of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is established.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the
lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the formers fees
b. Conflict of Interest (Pacana vs Pascual-Lopez / lawyer of Multitel and the complainant constantly
communicated, with the former disclosing all his involvement and interests in Precedent and Precedents
relation with Multitel)
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full
disclosure of the facts.
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 lawyers 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.
c. Attorney-Client Privilege (Regala vs Sandiganbayan)
Privileged communication between attorney and client may be asserted in refusing to disclose the name of
ACCRA Law Firms clients. An attorney is more than a mere agent or servant, because he possesses special
powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. A lawyer is also as independent as the judge of
the court, thus his powers are entirely different from and superior to those of an ordinary agent. Moreover,
an attorney also occupies what may be considered as a "quasi-judicial office" since he is in fact an officer of
the Court and exercises his judgment in the choice of courses of action to be taken favorable to his client.
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, can
an attorneys secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity
d. Attorneys Fees (Roxas vs de Zuzuarregui)
Under the subject contract, the attorneys are to receive contingent fees. Contingent fees are sanctioned by
Canon 13 of the canons of Professional Ethics. These fees should be reasonable under all the circumstances
of the case including risk and uncertainty of the compensation but should always be subject to the
supervision of the court. Lawyers should only charge fair and reasonable fees. It should depend on the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered and the professional
standing of the attorney. In this case, the attorneys received 44% of the just compensation paid. This is
therefore excessive considering there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case.

II. The Executive and Legislative Branches in Relation to the Judicial Branch
A. The Executive
1. Who comprise the Executive? President, VP, Cabinet Secretaries, Local Governments
2. What is the scope of Executive Power? (Marcos vs Manglapus)
Whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. The
request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light
solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel. It must be treated as
a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in
and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that
context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the
President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.
3. Executives Calling Out Power, Power to Declare Martial Law, and Power to Suspend the Privilege of the Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Lagman vs Medialdea)
 4. The Concept of Executive Privilege
US vs Nixon
When the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the
confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to
protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument
that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly
diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district
court will be obliged to provide.
The legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential privilege.
Neri vs Senate
Elements of presidential communications privilege
1) The protected communication must relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable presidential power"
2) The communication must be authored or "solicited and received" by a close advisor of the President or
the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in "operational proximity" with the
President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a
showing of adequate need, such that the information sought "likely contains important evidence" and by the
unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
5. Immunity of President from Suit
Soliven vs Makasiar
Beltran argues that "the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative
disability to file suit". He contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the President's filing of
her complaint-affidavit, she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution, bringing her under
the trial court's jurisdiction. This, continues Beltran, would in an indirect way defeat her privilege of
immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would be exposing herself to possible
contempt of court or perjury.
The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief
Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder's time, also demands
undivided attention. But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the
office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President's behalf
Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential
privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Moreover, there is nothing
in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the President
may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of
whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative.

6. Impeachment of the President (Estrada vs Desierto)

Estrada argues that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative investigation that bars him from
resigning. The prohibition on resignation or retirement of a public official with pending criminal and
administrative cases against him is to prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being used by a public
official as a protective shield to stop the investigation of a pending criminal or administrative case and to
prevent his prosecution under the Anti-Graft Law or prosecution for bribery under the Revised Penal Code.
The Court ruled that even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it can not be considered
pending at the time petitioner resigned because the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-
judges voted against the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the
public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed
indefinitely. There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against petitioner when he resigned
B. The Legislature
1. Who comprise the Legislature? Congress (Senate and HOR)
2. Concept of Legislative Power and the Principle of Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
a. Law-making of the Legislature as Distinguished from Rule-Making Authority of the Executive or Law
Execution
Araneta vs Gatmaitan
 The true distinction between (1) delegation of the power to legislate and (2) the conferring of authority or
discretion as to the execution of the law consists in that the former necessarily involves a discretion as to
what the law shall be, while in the latter the authority or discretion as to its execution has to be exercised
under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.
In so far as the protection of fish fry or fish egg is concerned, the Fisheries Act is complete in itself. It (1)
prohibits the catching of fish eggs in the waters of the Phil and (2) authorizes Sec. of Agriculture and Nat.
Resources to provide regulations/ restrictions as may be deemed necessary (3) assign sanctuaries and
prevent fishing in those areas and deem violators as unlawful. It does leaves to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources the promulgation of rules and regulations to carry into effect the
legislative intent.
Eastern Shipping Line vs POEA
Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can he
delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The
ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated
or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power,
viz,, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete
in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only
thing he will have to do is enforce it 13 Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot.
Administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details
which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their
promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such
administrative regulation. Other accepted sufficient standards include public interest, justice and equity,
public convenience and welfare, simplicity and economy and efficiency, sense and experience of men,
national security.
b. Undue Delegation of Legislative Power (Belgica vs Ochoa)
On Congressional Pork Barrel:
Notably, the principle of non-delegability should not be confused as a restriction to delegate rule-making
authority to implementing agencies for the limited purpose of either filling up the details of the law for its
enforcement (supplementary rule-making) or ascertaining facts to bring the law into actual operation
(contingent rule-making).The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or
proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The Court observes that the 2013 PDAF
Article, insofar as it confers post-enactment identification authority to individual legislators, violates the
principle of non-delegability since said legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the
power of appropriation. The power to appropriate must be exercised only through legislation.