DESPERATE ETHICS Secretary of Education that, before he

began the study of law, he had pursued

REVIEWER (Use at your own and satisfactorily completed in an
risk, sobrang basura lol) authorized and recognized university or
SUMMREV— 1-18—56-86 college, requiring for admission thereto
Codals- see essentials/ powerful kapitan the completion of a four-year high school
WTO-make a stand course, the course of study prescribed
LASTMIN TIPS— gloss over therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences with any of the following
subjects as major or field of
concentration: political science, logic,
“roles and english, spanish, history and economics.
responsibilities of
lawyers in society” Familiarise yourselves with various
1-18 scenarios: on:

“review the reading on the good moral character—

something more than an absence of bad
two document and think character.It is the will to do the unpleasant
about your stand on allowing thing if it is right and not do the pleasant
thing if it is wrong
foreign lawyers to practice in
the philippines”
E.g.
Sec. 5. Additional requirements for other 1.)concealment of pending criminal case
applicants. - All applicants for admission pending , regardless of its merits, to take the
other than those referred to in the two bar exams
preceding sections shall, before being
admitted to the examination, MORAL TURPITUDE
satisfactorily show that they have 2. ) Those that involve fraud or deceit:
regularly studied law for four years, and • Violation of BP 22;
successfully completed all prescribed • Falsification of public documents;
courses, in a law school or university, • Estafa;
officially approved and recognized by the • Embezzlement;
Secretary of Education. The affidavit of • Swindling;
the candidate, accompanied by a • Smuggling
certificate from the university or school • murder
of law, shall be filed as evidence of such • bigamy
facts, and further evidence may be • hazing
required by the court. • Murder
• Bigamy;
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar • Participation in fatal hazing of a
examinations unless he has satisfactorily fraternity 

completed the following courses in a law
school or university duly recognized by
the government: civil law, commercial
IMMORAL CONDUCT
law, remedial law, criminal law, public >What is grossly immoral conduct?
and private international law, political It is conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
law, labor and social legislation, medical shameless and which shows a moral
jurisprudence, taxation and legal
indifference to the opinion of the good and
ethics. chan robles virtual law library
respectable members of the community.
Sec. 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for (Arciga v. Maniwag, A.M. No. 1608, August
admission to the bar examination shall 14, 1981)
be admitted unless he presents a >Grossly immoral act - one that is so
certificate that he has satisfied the
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. (Reyes v.
Wong, A.M. No. 547, January 29, 1975.)
>The question of whether an act is grossly
immoral may depend, to some extent, upon
the prejudice, caprice & bias of the court,
and the general concept of morality
prevailing at the time.
>Cohabitation per se is not grossly immoral;
it will depend on the surrounding
circumstances. (In re: Regidor R. Toledo v.
Atty. Jerry R. Toledo, A.M. No. P-07-2403,
February 6, 2008.) Mere intimacy between a
man and woman, both of whom possess no
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on
and devoid of any deceit on the part of the
former, is neither so corrupt nor so
unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him, even if as
a result of such relationship a child was born
out of wedlock. (Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr.,
SBC Case No. 519, July 31 1997,) However,
this rule does not apply to lawyers who are
married, to whom a stricter rule would apply.
>Even if a lawyer is not judged as grossly
immoral, he may nonetheless be
reprimanded where such evidence shows
failure on his part to comply with the
rigorous standards of conduct appropriately
required from members of the bar and court
(Tolosa v. Cargo, A.M. No. 2385, April 7,
1982).
>Upholding the Dignity and Integrity of
the Profession
>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 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable
for knowingly making false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection
with his application for admission to the
bar.
Failure to live up to the standards of conduct
may prevent an aspiring lawyer from being
admitted to practice (Barba v. Pedro, A.M.
No. 545-SBC, December 26, 1974.) and, if
admitted without the Supreme Court
acquiring knowledge of his transgressions
thereof, he may be disbarred for such
misconduct. (Diao v. Martinez, A.C. No. 244,
March 29, 1963.)
>Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support
the application for admission to the bar
of any person known by him to be
unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.
He should volunteer information or
cooperate in any investigation concerning
alleged anomalies in the bar examination so
that those candidates who failed therein can
be ferreted out and those lawyers
responsible therefor can be disbarred. (In re
Parazo, 82 Phil. 230, December 3, 1948.)
>A Lawyer Shall Always Conduct Himself
Ethically and Morally
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in
any conduct or do any act that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
to behave, in his public or private life, in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
He should conduct himself at all time in such
a way as to give credit to the legal
profession and to inspire the confidence,
respect and trust of his clients and the
community.
A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or
private capacity. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, or whether it renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court. (Navarro v. Solidum Jr., A.C No.
9872, Jan 28, 2014.)
>Gross Immorality Reflective of
Unfitness to Practice
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act
must not only be immoral; it must be grossly
immoral as well. (Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr.,
SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997).
VIOLATION OF NOTARIAL
RULES
Misconduct as notary public
2-fold penalty: 1st for the act and omission
as a notary public, and 2nd for act or
omission as a lawyer.
By applying for and having himself
commissioned as notary public, a lawyer
assumes these duties in a dual capacity, in
the non-performance of which duties he may
be disciplined as a member of the bar. He
may be held to account as a lawyer for an
act as a notary public of a disgraceful or
immoral character even to the extent of the
disbarment (Benguet Electric Cooperative v.
Flores)
Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is
invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who
are qualified or authorized may act
as notaries public. Notarization
converts a private document into
a public document; thus, making
that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is
by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face.
QUALIFICATIONS (F21- GOOD
MORAL RESIDENT)
REVOCATION AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
Grounds
3. Any ground on which an
application for a commission may be
denied (e.g., conviction at the first
instance of a crime involving moral
turpitude); 
 Court held that the notary public had
4. failure to keep a notarial
register; 
 Quezon City, and therefore the will in
5. failure to make the proper
entry or entries in his notarial register
concerning his notarial 
 acts; 

6. failure to send the copy of the
entries to the 
 Executive Judge
within the first ten (10) 
 days of the
month following; 

7. failure to affix to
acknowledgments the date 
 of
expiration of his commission; 

8. failure to submit his notarial
register, when 
 filled, to the
Executive Judge; 

9. failure to make his report,
within a 
 reasonable time, to the
Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be
required by the judge; 

10. failure to require the presence
of a principal at the time of the
notarial act; 

11. failure to identify a principal
on the basis of personal knowledge
or competent evidence; 

12. executing a false or
incomplete certificate; 

13. knowingly performing or
failing to perform any other act
prohibited or mandated by the 2004
Notarial Rules; and 

14. committing any other
dereliction or act 
 which in the
judgment of the Executive Judge
constitutes good cause for
revocation of commission or
imposition of administrative
sanction.(Notarial Law, Rule XI
Section 1[a] and 1[b]). 

Guerrero v. Bihis (G.R. No. 174144,
2007), a notary public commissioned
for and in Caloocan City notarized a
will in Quezon City. The Supreme
no authority to notarize documents in
this case was void for being
defectively- notarized.
The “act of notarizing documents
outside one's area of commission is
not to be taken lightly. Aside from
being a violation of Sec. 11 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it
also “partakes of malpractice of
law and falsification.

Notarizing documents with an

expired commission is a violation of
the lawyer's oath to obey the laws,”
more specifically, the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Since the public is
deceived into believing that he has
been duly commissioned, it “also
amounts to indulging in deliberate
falsehood,” which the lawyer's oath
proscribes.

“Notarizing documents without the

presence of the signatory to the
document is a violation of Sec.
2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility,
and the lawyer's oath which
unconditionally requires lawyers not
to do or declare any falsehood.”

Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally

accountable for the documents that
he admitted were “signed by his
wife.” He cannot relieve himself of
liability by passing the blame to his
wife. He is, thus, guilty of “violating
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires
lawyers not to directly or indirectly
assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.” Laquindanum v. Quintana (A.C.
No. 7036, June 29, 2009, En Banc)
OTHERS
Member of the bar may be disbarred 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
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.”
Grounds for Discipline; in general (M.U.)
As a rule, a lawyer may be disciplined for
gross misconduct or malpractice or
unprofessional conduct (Rule 138, Sec.
27).
Malpractice ordinarily refers to any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice
(Id.).
Unprofessional Conduct in an attorney is
that which is unbecoming a member of that
profession.
**Enumerated grounds not exclusive
>The enumeration is not exclusive.
>A lawyer may be removed from office or
suspended from the practice of law on the
grounds other than those specifically
provided in the law .
>Any misconduct on the part of a lawyer in
his professional or private capacity which
shows him to be wanting in moral character
may justify his suspension or removal from
office even though the law does not specify
the acts as a ground for disciplinary action
(Mortel v. Aspiras, G.R. No. L- 9152, Dec.
28, 1956)
1.) Obstructing justice and abuse of legal
process
constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him
2.) Misleading the court
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. Under
the Code of Professional Responsibility, he
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
courts. He shall neither do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any. He also has
a duty not to mislead or allow the courts to
be misled by any artifice (Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores)
Forum Shopping
constitutes direct contempt of court and
makes the lawyer liable administratively,
such as suspension from practice of law for
one year
Proffering false charges
>A lawyer, including a public prosecutor,
may be disciplined for filing or prosecuting
false charges against another, for his action
is a violation of his sword duty to do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court, nor wittingly or willingly promote or
sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit
>To warrant disciplinary action against a
lawyer for preferring or prosecuting false
charges or complaints, it must be shown that
the charges are false and the lawyer
knows them to be so, in spite of which he
nevertheless filed them. In short, the lawyer
must have been moved by malice or bad
faith.
Introducing false evidence
-a violation of his oath to do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court
-constitutes a willful disregard of his solemn
duty to act at all times in a manner
consistent with the truth
Blackmail
Blackmail is the extortion of money from a
person by threats of accusation of exposure
or opposition in the public prints, obtaining of
value from a person as a condition of
refraining from making an accusation
against him, or disclosing some secret which
is calculated to operate to his prejudice (
ETC…
Plus current events re:
duterte, calida,, aguirre,
yesay, alvarez
E. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE
OF LAW
A lawyer does not shed his professional
obligations upon assuming public office
(Report of IBP Committee, p. 30.). Hence,
lawyers engaged in government service are
also governed by the Canons and Rules in
the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Canon 6, Code of Professional
Responsibility; Pineda, p. 100.) They are
expected to be more sensitive to their
professional obligation because their
conduct may be scrutinized by the public
eye. (Report of IBP Committee, p. 30.)
Lawyers in government service are
expected to be more conscientious of their
actuations as they are subject to public
scrutiny. They are not only members of the
bar but also public servants who owe utmost
fidelity to public service. A government
lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is
burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility, higher than his brethren in
private practice. (Ramos v. Imbang, A.C.
6788, August 23, 2007.)
Discipline of Lawyers in Government
Service
General Rule: A lawyer who holds public
office may not be disciplined as a member of
the bar for misconduct in the discharge of
his duties as a government official.
Exception: The misconduct constitutes a
violation of his duties as a lawyer.
Misconduct in office as a public official may
be a ground for disciplinary action if it is of
such character as to affect his qualification
as lawyer or to show moral delinquency.
DUTY TO SOCIETY
The primary duty of a lawyer to the society
or the State is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the
Constitution and obey the laws of the land.
As a servant of the law, a lawyer should
moreover make himself an example for
others to emulate. Being a lawyer, he is
supposed to be a model in the community in
so far as respect for the law is concerned.
Canon 1 - A Lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal
processes.
The presence of evil intent on the part of the
lawyer is not essential in order to bring his
act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01
which specifically prohibits lawyers from
engaging in unlawful conduct.
Duty Not to Counsel Illegal Activities
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.
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in
the development of the legal system by
initiating or supporting efforts in law
reform and in the improvement of the
administration of justice.
It is not a strict duty of lawyers to contribute
to the improvement of the legal system.
However, it is a duty that stems from a
lawyer’s sense of responsibility. He must
recognize that the law is part of an intricate
social network, which necessarily includes
interaction with the society. He must
broaden out and continue to grow in
knowledge and competence in order to be
able to make the law socially responsive
(Comments of the IBP Committee that
drafted the Code, pp. 20-21.)
Upholding the Court’s Authority and
Dignity
A lawyer, as a member of the bar and as an
officer of the court, should uphold the dignity
and authority of the court. He should not
promote distrust in the administration of
justice. (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board
v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, January 9,
1970)
Misconduct in the discharge of duties as
a public officer
Former Rule: A lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as
a member of the bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government
official (Cruz v. Cabal, Adm. Case No. 482,
October 31, 1964).
New Rule: However, with the promulgation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the ruling in Cruz has lost its validity
because the Code applies to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their
official tasks and makes their negligence in
the performance of their duties as
government lawyers a ground for
disciplinary action.
In case of government lawyers,
administrative discipline may be imposed by
both the Civil Service Commission (because
he is a civil servant) and by the Supreme
Court (because he is a lawyer).
.