Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC Adopting the NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT for
the Philippine Judiciary - Took effect June 1, 2004
Definition of Terms
Ethics the discipline dealing with what is good and bad, or right and
wrong.
When do we consider something as right or good?

If it conforms to what he or she ought to do. Ethics then presupposes
a standard to be followed.
Legal Ethics the science treating of what an attorney ought to do in

relation to the court, to his client, to his colleagues, and to the public.
Judicial Ethics the branch of moral science which treats of the right and
proper conduct to be observed by judges in administering justice.
It is a legal and moral mechanism that keeps and maintains the
trust and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
Why did the SC promulgate a new code?

-
To manifest the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a

universal declaration of judicial ethics.
th
xxx (4 whereas)
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal declaration of standards for
ethical conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at
the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague is imperative
not only to update and correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress
the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a universal code
of judicial ethics.
Xxx
Why is judicial ethics important to lawyers? Why study it?

-
The administration of justice is a partnership between the lawyer and

the judge. It is a joint responsibility of both the judge and the lawyer. If
the judge expects the lawyer to do his part well, there is also a
corollary and equal duty on the part of the judge to exert his utmost
effort in the dispensation of justice. So real administration of justice
could only be accomplished if both the lawyer and the judge are aware
of the corresponding ethical obligations of the other. Only in this
manner can each of them minimize occasions for delinquency; and
consequently, help attain the ends of justice. What good is it if all
lawyers are ethical if the judges are not? So it is a mission for both
lawyers and judges.
This universal declaration is contained in what we call the Bangalore Draft,

which in turn contains the universal declaration of judicial ethical
standards.
WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace
Palace, The Hague, on 25-26 November 2002, at which the Philippine
Supreme Court was represented by the Chief Justice (Hilario Davide) and
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Bangalore Draft of the Code of
Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial
Integrity was deliberated upon and approved after incorporating therein
PALE team:
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
1

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethics. All these are not overturned by the new code. The
new code only updates and correlates the existing laws on
ethics.
several amendments;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is intended to be the
Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon a universal recognition
that a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the
courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of
law; that public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority
and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost importance in a modern
democratic society; and that it is essential that judges, individually and
collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive to
enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system;
th
xxx (4 whereas)
In the new code, there are seven cardinal values that every judge should
possess. And these are embodied in six canons.
7 Cardinal Values
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Independence
Integrity
Impartiality
Propriety
Equality
Competence
Diligence
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
CANON 1: INDEPENDENCE
Does the new code supersede or overturn the old code?

-
NO. It only correlates the existing judicial ethics rules. It adds some
new sections also not found in the old code.
The preamble of the Old Code says, An honorable competent and
independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote
the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the wellbeing of the people.
The New Code of Conduct will update and correlate the Code
of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. So we
have the Code of Judicial Conduct, we also have the even
earlier form of ethical rule that is the Canons of Judicial
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a

fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional
aspects.
That is how importance judicial independence is. Without it, there could be
no fair trial.
PALE team:
2

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Two aspects of judicial Independence
Two possible sources of influence:
1.
1.
Individual Judicial Independence

-
2.
focuses on the particular judge and seeks to ensure his or her

ability to decide cases with autonomy. The judge himself as a
person must be independent.
Internal Source
-
Example: There is a judge in a criminal case that sees to it that he

must look at the body of the accused, and see if there are tattoos.
If there are tattoos, the judge would think that that person is
guilty. So the judge is influenced by his prejudices.
Institutional Judicial Independence

-
focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a branch of

government. So the judiciary as an institution must be
independent also.
2.
Both are important. You cannot choose one. So when you say
independence of the judiciary, you refer to individual and institutional
judicial independence.
External Source
-
SECTION 1. 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 influence,
inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any
quarter or for any reason.
Comes from the biases, prejudices, or preconceived notions of the

judge.
Comes from outside the judge. Political, social, familial, etc.

The judge is being pressured by the governor, or family members,
or relatives.
Judge dismissed a case based on vague grounds upon his receipt
of death threats. That is not allowed. Judges must be
independent.
How to measure independence

-
The judge must only decide cases based on the facts and the law and
not on some other source of influence.
Simply put, how should judges decide?
Ramirez v. Corpus-Macandog
Based merely on the facts of the case and the law applicable to the
facts of the case. If a judge decides a case because of extraneous
factors, then there is no independence.
The judge here admitted that she rendered rulings based upon the
directives of a government official. In her defense, she said it was a
revolutionary government, and therefore, she found it fit to succumb to
the pressure of the government official.
PALE team:
3

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SC denounced the judges act and said that it was a patent betrayal of
public trust and a revelation of her weak moral character. Thus, judges
should not allow public officials, local or national, to influence their
decisions and actions in judicial proceedings before them.
Are these 3 justices still independent from one another?

-
YES. They still retain their independence from the other justice. Even
in collegiate courts, this still applies.
Justices, even in the same division, are free to dissent if they do not
agree with the majority opinion.
Libarios v. Dabalos
There is a rally conducted outside the courtroom. The rally was conducted
by the supporters of the complainant. Because of that rally, the judge was
overwhelmed. So the judge issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the bail of
the accused without the required hearing.
SC said that there was unjustified haste in the actions of the judge. A judge
must diligently ascertain the facts and applicable law, unswayed by
partisan or personal interest. So it was very clear here that the judge acted
in that way because of the rally conducted outside.
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the

outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
If judges must be independent from their colleagues, they should not also
wield influence on their judicial colleagues. You extend not just to other
judicial colleagues but also other administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.
In a bar exam question, the judge wrote to the NLRC commissioner:

SECTION 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges shall be independent from
judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to
make independently.
The judiciary could be a very close knit brotherhood. But regardless of the
close relations, the camaraderie and compaerismo, judges must make
sure that they remain independent from their judicial colleagues.
Dear NLRC, my wife is a party in a case before you. This letter is to inform
you that everything my wife said in her affidavits and pleadings are
untrue.
In other words, that the judge is telling them not to believe his wife.
Reason of the judge was that he was merely interested in upholding the
truth? Ethical or unethical?
-
th
In collegiate courts, lets say CA, 19 division, and 1 division is composed of

3 justices. They have to decide in division.
Unethical. Even if it is for a noble purpose, still it constituted influence

upon a quasi-judicial tribunal.
PALE team:
4

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CASE
The judge entered his appearance in a court case representing himself,
signing the pleading wherein he indicated that he is the presiding judge of
RTC branch x and then appending to the pleading a copy of his oath of
office with a picture of his oath taking.
SC: Unethical. This was intended to put pressure on the fellow judge.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationship 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.
The position of the judge is very delicate. The judge may not be aware that
the people whom he trusts could already be selling him, without him
knowing it.
Example:
Section 4 reminds judges of this danger and so they should do their best
not to let their public office advance the private interests of others.
Judges family includes a judges spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,

daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judges household.
So this section discourages influence peddling by members of the judges
inner circle.
Judges should brace themselves knowing that by their assumption to
judicial office, people close to them might in the future seek favors or
intend to influence them. Judges should be prepared to handle these
situations and must be ready to maintain their independence in the midst
of all these external influences.
SECTION 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections

with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of
government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable
observer.
Close associates, or even family members, might say, give me 50k and you
will win the case before my uncle judge. But in reality that nephew or niece
already knew the decision beforehand because when he visited his uncle
judge, he saw in the table the draft decision. The nephew already knew
that he would win. So taking the opportunity to earn money, he went to
that party about to win and asked 50k.
All throughout the Code, there is a similar theme: the actual possession of
the quality of the judge is just as important as the appearance. So,
APPEARANCE is just as important as the actual quality itself.
So, the judge must be able to safeguard himself from influence peddling
people. Especially those close to him, especially those people that he trust.
Example: Judges must not only be independent, but must also appear to
be independent.
PALE team:
5

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Even the appearance of impropriety, even when there is no proof of actual
impropriety, it is already ethically actionable.
It could be very difficult for the judge to remain independent from the
two other departments. How?
practice of receiving allowances from LGUs, but this is allowed.

Regardless of all the criticisms and protests against it, it is allowed
because judges, if they are really to rely on the budget coming
from the SC, the SC could not afford to give those amounts to
judges and justices. And these amounts are, according to the SC,
commensurate to the stature and to the hazards that go with the
work of the judge.
a. The president, executive branch, appoints judges.

b. The Congress, legislative branch, enacts the budget through the
appropriations law.
As long as judges remain to be guided by section 5 and they remain free

from appropriate connections with the LGU giving allowances to them,
there would be no ethical violation.
CASES
So it could be very tempting on the part of the judge to have inappropriate

connections because of the beneficence it could have received from the
other two branches. Lets say you are appointed as a judge by PNoy. So to
the mind of the judge, PNoy is the best president ever. Unconsciously, the
judge, because of that mindframe, might tend to favor not just the
president but even the allies of the president in cases before him. Just one
call from the president. So, INAPPROPRIATE CONNECTIONS are not
allowed. This is a very tall order but this is very important to obtain justice.
Allowance from the LGUs this is a very hot topic. Judges receive
allowance from LGUs. CA justices for instance, they receive allowance from
the City of Cebu, 45k, and from the Province, 15k, in addition to salaries
and the usual allowances given to the judges by the SC. So why is this a hot
topic?
c.
Judges receive allowances from LGUs. LGUs could be parties to a

case before the judge. The other party will now entertain a
reasonable suspicion of the impartiality of the judge. And
subsequently, the other party loses. Even if there is no actual bias,
there is the appearance of bias. That is the criticism of the
1.
Judge makes it a point to invite Sanggunian members to his chamber

for a quick chat before he begins the hearing for that day.
2.
Judge referred the matter of transfer of court employees to the vice

mayor. That is improper because any personnel action under the
judiciary falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the court
administrator. The judge should not have referred it to the vice mayor.
SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general

and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
Judges are independent in relation to society, but not really withdrawal

from society. Judges are not required to be hermits and not have friends.
PALE team:
6

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Judges are not required to live in seclusion for as long as they are
independent from society.
The more important portion here is independence in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.
Ethical violation: Judge was found to have used the service vehicle of a
party for one year for free.
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the

discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the
institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial

conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.
CANON 2: INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
When you say integrity, you really cannot separate the judge as a judge,
and the judge as a person. Integrity has to be taken in its entirety. So the
judge must not only be a good judge, but must also be a good person.
When applying for judgeship or promotion in the judiciary, there is the
duty to disclose all disciplinary, criminal and civil cases. Many judges have
been suspended, or dismissed from the judiciary because of the failure to
disclose pending cases.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable observer.
Again, appearance is just as important. Judges have been disciplined for

lack of good moral character, both in their private and public capacities.
There is a high level of intellectual, as well as moral fitness that judges
must comply with because the judges are the visible representations of the
law and of the judiciary.
Some prohibited acts:
Judge was disciplined for always getting drunk at parties. SC said it is very
improper behavior on the part of the judge.
___________________________________________________________
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Accepting bribes
Going to casinos and cockpits
Delay in rendering decisions
Ignorance of the law
Voyeurism
PALE team:
7

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gambling case
In a case, the judge said, Yes, I was at the casino but I just accompanied
my wife, it was my wife who played the slot machines, I just watched.
Still disciplined by the SC. If judges would go to casinos or cockpits, the
person who sees him would think that the judge is gambling. Even if
casinos are regulated forms of gambling, judges are still not allowed to go
there. That person looking at the judge, would think that the judge is a
gambler, and then unwittingly in his mind, that person is doing
mathematics, how much is the judges salary, etc. How can he afford this
very expensive vice? Then another thought forms, this judge is like this
or like that. There is ethical violation, the appearance of impropriety is
enough.
said that this is very basic and elementary. He is not just incompetent,
he also lacks integrity.
2.
The judge ordered the imprisonment of the lawyer of the accused,

because the lawyer did not appear at the time of the promulgation of
judgment. Can you imprison the lawyer? No. Its very basic.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the peoples
faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.
Ignorance of the law obviously, this shows incompetence. But there are
also instances where in addition to lack of competence, it could also mean
lack of integrity.
You might think that the most important part of the judges task is to
render fair decisions. But that is not the only important thing. Equally
important is the PROCESS reaching that decision. The parties might still
entertain the idea that the judge is biased or prejudiced because there
seems to be no fairness in the process.
When would it indicate lack of integrity?
Upon his assumption to office, a judge ceases to become an ordinary

mortal. He becomes the visible representation of the law, and more
importantly, of justice. He must, therefore, become the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence.
If the law involved is basic and elementary, it is inconceivable that the

judge did not know that law. Therefore, the judge is either too
incompetent or undeserving of the title he holds, or he is too vicious that
the oversight was deliberately done, resulting to a travesty of justice.
Basic policy: the judges conduct in his private and public life can always be
subjected to scrutiny.
Examples:
1.
The judges application of the indeterminate sentence law was

inaccurate. In many decisions, he always misapplied the ISL. So the SC
PALE team:
8

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CASES:
CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY
1.
2.
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It

applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the
decision is made.
3.
4.
Judge forcibly kissed court employees.

Judge punched another judge in the face after a disagreement over
the use of an office table.
Having sexual intercourse with a 15-year old
Judge held to be devoid of any integrity.
SECTION 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures

against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the
judge may have become aware.
So the judge should police the justice system. If the judge learns of some
abuses committed by court personnel, the judge must not hesitate to
undertake the necessary investigative or administrative action. Same thing
for lawyers, if the judge learns that the lawyer engages in unethical or
illegal courses of action, it is incumbent upon the judge to expose said
lawyer. The judges owe it to the administration of justice, to be vigilant not
just on themselves but also on the other participants in the justice system.
__________________________________________________________
A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but
should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality and as to its integrity.
Although the senator-judges are not really members of the judiciary, a very
good example would come to mind. But you recall some senator-judges
who may have acted in such a way that their impartiality may be
questioned?
What good is a fair and impartial decision if the process did not seem fair?
The judge may be seen to be too friendly to the defense, and too hostile to
the prosecution. Lets say there is nothing wrong with the decision, it is
perfect, still the same, it is tainted with doubts and suspicions as to the
fairness of the judge. So judges must not only concern themselves of the
final product of the case which is the decision. Everything, all the
proceedings that lead to the decision must be fair, and must appear to be
fair in the eyes of the reasonable observer. Even the appearance of
impartiality is enough to discipline the judge.
EXTRAJDUCIAL SOURCE RULE
this is the standard used to know whether the judge is partial or not. To
sustain a claim of bias or prejudice, the resolution or opinion or decision of
the court must be based upon an extrajudicial source, that is, some
PALE team:
9

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
influence other than the facts and the law presented in the courtroom. So
this is the gauge to measure if there is fairness.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or
prejudice.
What is required of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary does not

mean that judges can resolve specific disputes entirely as they please.
There are limits to judges adjudication. They cannot innovate at pleasure.
A judge is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of
beauty or goodness. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague
and unregulated benevolence.
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal;
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
What is it to be like Caesars wife? Judges are said to be like Caesars wife,
meaning, they should be above reproach and beyond suspicion. Its not
easy to be a judge.
Examples:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Having lunch with a litigant

Standing as a sponsor in a litigants sons wedding
Using the car of the litigant as a service vehicle
Undue interference in the direct and cross examination of
witnesses judges can ask questions for as long as the questions
are clarificatory only. But if the judge went to the extent of crossexamining the defense witnesses for instance, what will the other
party think? The judge is now taking the cudgels for the
prosecution, and therefore, the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge is destroyed. There is no more perception of cold neutrality.
So clarificatory questioning only, but not to the extent of
examining witnesses.
5.
A judges inebriated behavior and intolerant behavior during

parties are reprehensible. A judge who yields to the strength of
the spirits and acts like an uninhibited drunkard in a public place,
demeans his judicial office, strips himself of his dignity of his man,
and disrobes the court of the respect of the people it serves.
It is not uncommon among lawyer circles that some judges tend to develop
a reputation. Some judges are known to be biased in favor of children in
child abuse cases, or this judge has a reputation to be tender to the rights
of the accused, etc.
Judges are reminded not to let their personal biases, their personal
convictions, their ideals of goodness, clout their judgment. There are limits
to how they adjudicate. And they must adjudicate according to the facts
and law, and not for some other reasons. Otherwise, there is a tendency
that the lawyers will talk, and wittingly or unwittingly, the judge finds
himself with a reputation.
And although a speedy determination of an action implies a speedy trial,
speed is not the chief objective of a trial.
PALE team:
10

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as

to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
Resign as a manager. There is obvious conflict of interest. And

because of his position as manager, there is more probability that
he will come in contact with persons who will go to him as judge.
What if he is the owner of the surety bonding company, and then he is

appointed as judge thereafter, what should the judge do?
Thats the primary function of a judge, to hear and decide cases. That
being the primary duty of a judge, the judge must make sure that he will
minimize occasions that he will have to disqualify himself from hearing
cases. So judges are required to regulate their business activities, their
social connections, with the end view of minimizing their disqualification in
cases before them.
Divest. He should not retain such investments previously made

longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them
without serious loss. There should be a divestment of interests
and shareholdings if there is conflict of interest as provided under
RA 6713.
Reasonable time RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for

Public Officials and Employees), Section 9
Dionisio v. Escao
A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises
which are actually involved in litigation in his court, and after admission to
the bench, he should not retain such investments previously made longer
than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them without serious
loss.
If there is conflict of interest, the public official must resign from the
position in any private enterprise within 30 DAYS from assumption of
office.
If not just mere employment, like you are the owner, then the second
one applies to you, you divest from shareholdings or interest within 60
DAYS from assumption of office.
Scenario
CASE
You are a judge, and you are thinking of opening a business. Would it be
wise and ethical for you to open a surety bonding company which is
connected to your profession?
-
No. the judge should stay away from such investments.
If prior to appointment as a judge, the judge is an employee, a manager of

a surety bonding company, what should the judge do?
1.
The judge acted as broker together with the complainant in the sale of
lots to the Church of Jesus Christ xxx.
SC: By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the subject property,
respondent judge has increased the possibility of his disqualification to act
as an impartial judge in the event that a dispute involving the said contract
of sale arises.
PALE team:
11

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, the possibility that the parties to the sale might plead before his
court is not remote. And his business dealings with them might not only
create suspicions as to his fairness, but also as to his ability to render it in a
manner that is free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality
and also as to the judges integrity.
So judges must regulate their business activities, in a way that it will not
severely affect their competency, their qualification to hear the case.
2.
There is another case involving an MCTC judge in a very remote

locality. Still the same he is also realtor in addition to being a judge. As
a realtor, obviously he dealt with properties, anywhere in the
Philippines, including properties within his territorial jurisdiction.
That practice was questioned because what if those transactions over
real properties figured in cases filed before him, his impartiality will
now be questioned because he intervened as realtor, as the agent or
broker in the transaction. Another difficulty is because it was a circuit
trial court in a very remote locality, he is the only judge there, he could
not easily inhibit because there is no other judge to take the case.
He was reprimanded by the SC, even if his reasons may be sound. He
said that he was sending children to school using the income he is
earning from his dealings. But notwithstanding his noble intention, the
SC reminded the judge of the price in exchange for the judicial
position. And the price is that he must regulate, if not minimize
business activities that will give ground for disqualification from cases
before him, especially in this instance where he cannot inhibit because
there is no other judge.
3.
The judge lends money at unconscionable interests and files suits for
collection at the place where he is judge, to enable him to take
advantage of his position. Reprimanded.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or

could come before, them to make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest
fairness of the process.
Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might
affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Trial by publicity - There is trial by publicity if the judge is swayed by

overwhelming public opinion, hence, he is now unable to decide
independently based on the facts and law but based on overwhelming
public opinion.
Judges should not make any comment that might reasonably be expected
to affect the outcome of such proceeding.
Castillo v. Juan
In every litigation, the manner and attitude of the judge are crucial to
everyone concerned. He should, in the performance of his functions, avoid
side comments, side remarks, hasty conclusions, loose statements, or
gratuitous utterances that could form the basis for erroneous impressions
in the mind of those who hear and who could conclude that he is
prejudging the case or the issues that come before him.
Bar Exam Question
Judge advised the parties to plea bargain or compromise. That by itself
would not be so unethical. What made it unethical was the way he
advised. Accused, I suggest that you plead guilty to a lesser offense.
PALE team:
12

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyway, I think the prosecution will accept your plea because their
evidence is not so strong. Or Defendant, I suggest that you compromise
because you are losing.
So those side comments might give the impression that the judge has
already prejudged the case. The first hearing has not even been done yet,
and yet the judge has already prejudged the case. So the judge should not
make any comment that might be misconstrued or that might create
impressions on anyone that is watching.
SECTION 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any

proceeding in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to
decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited
to instances where:
a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in
the matter in controversy;
c) The judge or member of his or her family, has economic interest in
the outcome of the matter in controversy;
d) 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 a counsel during their association, or the judge
was a material witness therein;
e) The judges ruling in the lower court is the subject of review;

f ) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant
within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree; or
g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial
interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the
subject matter in the controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or
any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceedings;
Take note of the word shall. Judges shall disqualify. This is mandatory,
there is no discretion involved. The judge has no other choice but to
disqualify himself. In the instances of mandatory disqualification, the law
itself conclusively presumed that the judge is unable to decide the matter
impartially.
a) The judge has
a.
b.
actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings
Judge is riding a bus, and then the bus collided with another bus. The judge
was there to witness everything. If a case for reckless imprudence xxx filed
against one of the drivers is raffled to the judge, can the judge disqualify
himself from hearing the case?
PALE team:
13

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
YES. The disqualification is mandatory. The judge has personal

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. The judge may be a witness
but he cannot hear the case.
b.
c.
a former associate of the judge served as a counsel during their

association, or
the judge was a material witness therein
b) The judge previously

e) The judges ruling in the lower court is the subject of review
a.
b.
served as a lawyer or
was a material witness in the matter in controversy;
c) The judge or member of his or her family, has economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy
Self-explanatory. Again, recall the definition of Judges family.
Judges family includes a
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
judges spouse,
son,
daughter,
son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, and
any other relative by consanguinity or affinity
i.
within the sixth civil degree, or
ii.
person who is a companion or employee of the judge and
iii.
who lives in the judges household
d) The judge served as

a.
executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or

matter in controversy, or
From RTC judge, the judge is promoted CA justice. One of the cases raffled
to him was an appeal of his decision as RTC judge. Can the judge disqualify
himself?
YES. Mandatory disqualification. He cannot review his own decision.
f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant
within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree; or
relationship to the lawyer.
th
If lawyer 4 civil degree

th
If litigant up to the 6 civil degree
g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child

a.
has a financial interest,

i.
as heir,
ii.
legatee,
iii.
creditor,
iv.
fiduciary,
v.
or otherwise, in the subject matter in the controversy or in a
party to the proceeding,
b. or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceedings;
PALE team:
14

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bar Exam Question
A bus driven by X collided with and damaged the car of Y. In the criminal
case filed for reckless imprudence xxx Judge G acquitted the accused X.
Subsequently, a separate civil action for damages was filed against X. The
civil case was raffled again to the sala of Judge G. Can Judge G be
disqualified from hearing the case? He was the same judge who heard the
criminal case and acquitted X. Can he be disqualified from hearing the civil
case for damages?
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify

himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than
those mentioned above.
Even if there are no grounds for mandatory disqualification, a judge may
still inhibit from a case. It says for just and valid reasons. That is voluntary
inhibition. It essentially involves discretion on the part of the judge. It is
strictly a matter of conscience.
What is the standard to be followed by a judge in examining himself?
NO. No ground for mandatory disqualification. He has no personal

knowledge. He only has his knowledge as a judge from the records of
the case. That does not translate to personal knowledge.
He has no economic interest.
He is not reviewing his decision of acquittal.
It is an entirely separate case. He cannot be disqualified.
The judge must ask himself whether a losing party could entertain a
reasonable belief that the judge was partial to the prevailing party. It
is not whether the judge was actually partial or not. So even the
appearance of partiality, the judge should already determine if there
could be the appearance of partiality, or bias, or prejudice.
Examples:
VOLUNTARY INHIBITION
1.
Utang na loob in a case the lawyer appearing before the judge

was the same lawyer member of the JBC who recommended the
appointment of the judge to the bench. Valid ground to
voluntarily inhibit, but not a ground for mandatory
disqualification.
2.
Counsel of a party in a case before the judge is also the judges

counsel in a separate case
Rule 137, Rules of Court provides for disqualification of judicial officers.

Section 1:
st
1 paragraph: similar to what we have just read, grounds of mandatory

disqualification
nd
2 paragraph: the new code of judicial conduct, the old code does not
expressly provide for voluntary inhibition, but you have heard of judges
voluntarily inhibiting. That is allowed. But the authority is not the Code of
Judicial Conduct, but Rule 137, Section 1, Rules of Court, particularly the
nd
2 paragraph which says:
Since voluntary inhibition is strictly a matter of conscience, there could be

many grounds. The more important question is, are there grounds which
the Supreme Court has already declared insufficient grounds for voluntary
inhibition?
PALE team:
15

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.
Counsel for a party has filed an administrative case against the

judge it is not a ground for voluntary inhibition. The mere act of
filing an administrative case against the judge is insufficient
ground for voluntary inhibition. In the absence of evidence that
the judge was in fact prejudiced against the lawyer, you cannot
presume bias or prejudice. That cannot be presumed.
-
Also, a contrary rule would lead to unpleasant consequences.

Imagine if a judge can just voluntarily inhibit if you have filed
an administrative case against him, it now becomes easy for
lawyers to get rid of judges that they do not like.
So mere filing does not translate to evidence of actual

prejudice. There should be separate evidence showing that
the judge really cannot anymore decide the case fairly.
2.
Mere friendship the judge is a close friend of a lawyer appearing

before him. Not a ground. Judges should be independent from
society, but they are not required to withdraw from society.
Judges are not required to drop all their friends and live a very
lonely, solitary life. So it is expected for judges to have friends
within the legal circle, they are expected to have lawyer friends.
Again, in the absence of actual bias.
3.
Counsel is a classmate of the judge
Because voluntary inhibition is discretionary, in many cases, a mandamus

suit did not prosper. It cannot be compelled by mandamus or prohibition,
generally. But there are exceptions:
Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc.

While ordinarily mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act,
the writ shall issue in instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest
injustice or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled
right to which the petitioner is entitled, and when there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy. This court has recognized that a judges
decision to refuse to act on account of some disqualification is not
conclusive and his competency may be determined on an application for
mandamus to compel him to act.
In this case, the judge inhibited from hearing the case. In her order of
inhibition, the judge was able to explain her actions, and the judge was
even able to justify all her actions in the case. But then, the judge inhibited
nonetheless to preclude any suspicion on her part. The SC said that there is
no cause for inhibition. So there are instances where the mere reason just
to preclude any doubt or suspicion on her part although there is no bias,
just to preclude any doubt, she decided to inhibit. SC said this cannot be
done. The judges right to inhibit must be weighed against their duty to
decide cases without fear of repression. To affirm the judges order to
inhibit would open the floodgates to a form of forum shopping, in which
the litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic to
their case. Such action would be antithetical to the speedy and fair
administration of justice.
The second paragraph does not give judges the unfettered discretion to
decide whether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for
just and valid causes. The mere implication of bias and partiality is not
enough ground for them to inhibit especially if the charge is without basis.
PALE team:
16

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Barnes v. Reyes
Martinez v. Gironella
Here, there is a specific performance plus damages case, raffled before

Judge Padilla. Judge Padilla dismissed the case on motion of the defendant.
The dismissal was appealed to the CA all the way to the SC, and the SC
reversed the RTC and remanded the hearing of the civil case to the RTC. So
the complainant in the RTC now wanted to inhibit the judge because the
judge previously dismissed the case, so the complainant was not confident
so much of the impartiality of the judge anymore because it is the same
judge who previously dismissed the case. The judge inhibited. In her
inhibitory order, the judge said that the motion for her disqualification
contained no statement of specific act or acts that would show her
partiality or bias in the treatment of the case, nonetheless is inhibiting to
preclude any suspicion or doubts on her impartiality.
The judge insisted on hearing the case even if there was a motion for
inhibition, notwithstanding vehement objection by the other party. There
is a murder case before this judge. There were 3 accused, but only 1
accused (C) is being tried because the 2 others (A and B) are at large. In the
decision of the trial judge in the criminal case, the trial judge said,
according to evidence presented by the prosecution, accused (C) is only, if
ever he is liable, would only be liable as an accessory. But even then, C was
acquitted because he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And
in the same decision, the judge said that A is really the principal, A is the
one guilty of murder.
SC said it was NOT proper. It was only on account of dispelling any doubt
and perception of bias. Clearly therefore, no just and valid reason supports
the inhibition of the judge.
Another issue: The fact that the judge previously decided against the
petitioner is not a proper ground for inhibition. It is not enough reason
absent any extrinsic evidence of malice or bad faith to conclude that the
judge was biased and partial against petitioner. So the remedy of
erroneous interlocutory rulings in the course of a trial is not the outright
disqualification of a judge, for there is yet to come a judge with
omniscience to issue rulings that are always infallible. Judges will always be
mistaken. If you use that as a reason to inhibit the judge, then it is not
sufficient reason, it is not a valid reason. The courts will close shop if we
disqualify judges who err, for we all err.
Subsequently, A surrendered. Now, the case is also filed against him,

before the same judge. A pleaded not guilty, and he moved for the
disqualification of the judge because that same judge in his decision in the
prior criminal case already said that A is guilty of the murder. But the judge
said that there is no bias, or partiality because he said that what he said in
the previous decision was what the evidence suggested. Since only C was
tried, A was unable to confront witnesses against him. He was unable to
present his evidence. So there is still the possibility that A would be
acquitted once the defenses of A would be heard.
However, SC said where respondent judge in acquitting the accused stated
that the crime was committed by petitioner who was then at large, and
subsequently petitioner was apprehended and tried before respondent, it
was held that respondents previous statement rendered it impossible for
him to be free from the suspicion that in deciding petitioners case, he will
be biased and prejudiced. Under such circumstances, prohibition is
available to enjoin him from deciding the case, and petitioner is entitled to
have his case decided by another judge.
PALE team:
17

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition to the remedies of prohibition and mandamus, an
administrative case against the judge could also be filed.
What are the disadvantages on the rule of inhibition?

1.
It can be used by a judge to extricate himself from a case. The

judge could just concoct any reason and make it seem valid, and
in so doing, he is able to extricate himself from an undesirable
case.
In many cases like those cases where the SC held that it is not a
valid ground, SC said that it is not a valid ground, go ahead.
2.
The lawyers could also use it to choose a judge.
To prevent these disadvantages, we have to rewrite the guidelines of the

SC. In the case of Ty v. Banco Filipino:
Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence
to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality. Issuance of
erroneous orders and decisions that pertain to the judges judicial
functions may not be proper consideration to charge a judge of bias,
except where the orders taken not singly, but collectively show that the
judge has lost the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate. So in effect, it
says, it is difficult to find suspicion of partiality in just one issuance alone.
Although there are instances where one order is enough, but in the usual
case, the orders are the decisions or whatever writs coming from the
court, taken collectively, must show that the judge has lost the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. So it is difficult to prove partiality.
SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of

withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records that basis of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of the judges participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then
participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and
lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
Section 6 presupposes that there is a ground for mandatory

disqualification.
This refers to what we call REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION. Parties are
allowed to waive a mandatory ground for disqualification, for as long as
these 3 requisites are complied with.
General rule: if there is a ground for mandatory disqualification, the judge
must disqualify
Exception: valid REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.
The parties and their lawyers agree independently of the judges

participation
They agree that the reason for inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial
The agreement is reduced to writing, signed by all parties and
lawyers, entered upon the records of the case.
PALE team:
18

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Example: The judge and the lawyers of plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiffs
lawyer is the son of the judge. This is a ground for mandatory
disqualification. So the judge must disqualify himself. When can there be
valid remittal in this case?
-
For example the judge would disclose in open court to all parties and
lawyers that the other lawyer is his son. He also said that he would not
be biased and his relationship would not affect his decision making.
The other parties and lawyers agreed right then and there that the
judge would continue hearing the case.
There was no proper remittal of disqualification because (requisite #1)
the parties must agree independently of the judges participation. The
judge should not have gotten the consent that way. He should have
given the parties sufficient occasion to confer with one another
independently of the judges participation. Allow the parties to talk by
themselves, et cetera.
On requisite #2, son-lawyer could say that he and his father had a rift,
and that he was disinherited, and that he always loses in cases tried
before his father-judge. So the reason for inhibition is immaterial and
unsubstantial.
CANON 4: PROPRIETY
Propriety and appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of
all the activities of a judge.
So appearance is just as important as actual propriety.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all of their activities.
Examples:
1.
2.
____________________________________________________________
3.
4.
5.
There were photos of a judge and a subordinate going out of a

hotel. The judge said that these photos prove nothing, that there
is nothing wrong with stepping out of a hotel. So the judge also
had some reason. But SC said, nonetheless, you do not really have
to prove actual impropriety, even the appearance of impropriety
is enough. The photos already give an appearance of impropriety.
The judge heard a motion while on vacation, in his room, wearing
a polo jacket.
The judge privately met litigant in a resort.
Judge held office and conducted hearings at his residence.
Judge held the hand of his interpreter who is his distant relative,
kissed by her lips, because he missed the lips for she wiggled out.
PALE team:
19

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTON 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall
conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of judicial
office.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Financial activities
Fiduciary activities
Practice of other profession
Extrajudicial appointments
Political activities
A. ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

So many restrictions on the judge, and the judge must wholeheartedly
embrace these restrictions. Business investments for instance. They must
accept and respect these restrictions.
A judge may engage in the following activities provided that they do not
interfere with the performance of judicial duties or detract from the
dignity of the court:
Examples of restrictions:
a.
1.
2.
3.
Use of intemperate language

Getting drunk in a party
The judge confronted her former boyfriend and the latters
female companion in the restaurant
b.
c.
d.
write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;

Judge is also a chef. He can teach, etc. cooking on weekends.
engage in the arts, sports, and other special recreational activities;
participate in civic and charitable activities;
serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a nonprofit or non-political educational, religious, charitable, fraternal,
or civic organization.
Found in the old code only:

-
A Judge should regulate his activities to minimize the risk of conflict

with judicial duties.
Judges, because they are also human beings, they are entitled to have
extrajudicial activities. Activities that have nothing to do with their
being judges, they are allowed.
Found in Canon 5 of the old code of judicial conduct.
Examples:
a.
Advocational, civic, charitable activities
Judge is a painter, and at the same time a model. Is it proper for a

judge to be a model in nude paintings?
-
It may be an expression of art but again, the activities

must NOT CONFLICT WITH OR DEGRADE judicial
functions.
Judge is a gymnast, contortionist even, and he has a talent of

swallowing fire. Can he perform in a circus?
-
NO. It has a tendency of degrading judicial functions.
PALE team:
20

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing that tend to reflect
adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper
performance of judicial activities or increase involvement with lawyers or
persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage
investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of
cases giving grounds for disqualifications.
Discussed before:
a. The judge cannot open bonding companies. If he does, there
might be ethical objections.
b. If employee, he must resign within 30 days.
c. If he owns the business, he must divest his interest or
shareholdings within 60 days.
Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a judge may hold and
manage investments but should not serve as officer, director, manager or
advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a family
business of the judge.
Allowed
-
director of a family business. That is the only thing allowed. So you

cannot be a manager because it would require much of your time and
attention. As compared to directors who would meet not so
frequently.
A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift,
bequest, factor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.
No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be used or disclosed by

a judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to
judicial activities.
Should not use judicial information for business. Art. 1491 of the civil code
judges are not allowed to acquire properties or rights in litigations before
him.
If the judge purchases the land subject of litigation before him, how
would you characterize the contract of sale?
-
VOID. Contrary to law, contrary to art. 1491 of the civil

code.
Judges must also make full financial disclosure of all their financial
activities.
In the SALN, there is also a portion of business interests, not just of the
judge, but also members of his own family.
C.
FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES
A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian,

or other fiduciary, EXCEPT for the estate, trusts, or person of a member of
the immediate family, and then only if such service will not interfere with
the proper performance of judicial duties.
Example:
The judges wife died. The judge is named executor of the wifes will. The
judge is so rich, and has property holdings all over the globe. To execute
the will, to partition the estate of the wife, would require practically 24/7
PALE team:
21

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
on the part of the executor for a very long time. Should the judge accept
the designation as executor?
Can the MTC judge act as a notary public?

-
YES. We call it NOTARY PUBLIC EX OFFICIO. He can engage in the

notarization of documents connected with the exercise of official
functions. So there is a complaint, can the judge notarize the
complaint? Yes. He may.
In the far flung municipalities where there are no lawyers or notaries

public, the MTC judge can even perform any act within the
competence of a regular notary public. So even private documents,
the MTC judge can notarize in far flung municipalities where there are
no lawyers or notaries public.
NO. He may not because his duties as executor will interfere with the
proper performance of judicial duties. He might not be able to work as a
judge anymore as he is busy partitioning the vast estate.
"Member of immediate family" shall be limited to the spouse and

relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. As a family, a judge
shall not:
a.
b.
serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said

judge; or
act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.
Conditions:
1.
2.
D. PRACTICE OF OTHER PROFESSION

Absolute prohibition: A judge shall not engage in the private practice of
law.
E.
Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the

practice of any other profession provided that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.
EXTRAJUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Can judges be appointed in other agencies or bodies that are nonjudicial?
Teaching is allowed, it is another profession, for as long as it will not

conflict with judicial functions.
All notarial fees shall be for the government, and turned over to
the municipal treasurer.
Certification must be made in the notarized documents attesting
to the lack of any lawyer, notary public, in such locality.
A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency

performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
PALE team:
22

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In Re: Designation of Judge Manzano
SC did not allow judges membership in the Ilocos Norte Provincial
Committee on Justice which was an administrative body.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in

which any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in
any manner with the case.
So if it is not quasi-judicial or administrative body, it is allowed.

Again, just review what is the definition of family.
F.
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Absolutely prohibited:
A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to
avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for
political office or participate in other partisan political activities.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual
members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid
situations which might reasonably give rise to suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality.
Unethical acts:
1.
2.
The judge who always invites members of the sanggunian who

appear before his court, to his chambers for coffee and a quick
chat before starting the hearing for that day.
Asking for court facilities, like aircon, from lawyers. Judge is
inviting opportunity to have familiarity with lawyers.
Judges family includes a judges spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,

daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judges household.
SECTION 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member
of the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members
of the legal profession.
The judges residence cannot be utilized as an office of lawyers.
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of

expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights,
they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the
judiciary.
PALE team:
23

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
They also have rights. But there could be restrictions on the way they
exercise these rights. You do not see judges rallying in the streets for wage
or salary increase.
Examples:
1.
Judge filed his own case for estafa. He is the private offended
party. He filed such case in his own sala and issued a warrant of
arrest against the accused. Here, there is the obvious abuse of the
judicial office, to advance his personal interest.
2.
A judge owns a restaurant, and in the bulletin board of his

courtroom: WANTED: waiters, waitresses, interested applicants
may submit their application and resume to the judge. And the
judge also conducted interviews in his chambers. So there was
improper use of judicial facilities for the promotion of his
business.
In exercising their rights, it would always have to be in conformity with the

dignity of the judicial office. They could lobby before the SC for an
increase, but not to rally.
CASE
Judge ruled in this wise: Respondent is a self-ordained, public tyrant, with
a contaminated mind, and assuming the position of a crocodile.
The order of the judge appears to be a pleading of the adverse party. It
does not appear to be an order emanating from the court, which is
supposed to be objective and impartial. In this order, the SC said that the
judge gave the appearance that he has prejudged the case and has already
formed an opinion regarding the respondent.
SECTION 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their capacity

shall not be used or disclosed by any other purpose related to their judicial
duties.
SECTION 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary

financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about
the financial interests of members of their family.
SECTION 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges
may:
SALN, full financial disclosure
SECTION 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence in
the performance of judicial duties.
a) Write, lecture, and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal
system, the administration of justice or related matters;
b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with
matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice
or related matters;
c) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity
PALE team:
24

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial
duties.
If a judge is held liable under Section 13, he is not only susceptible to

administrative action, but he could also be criminally prosecuted.
SECTION 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.
SECTION 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject
to their influence, direction or authority, to, ask for, or accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted
to be done in connection with their duties or functions.
In a case, a judge advised the municipality that it can impose a certain kind
of tax. The SC said that it was unethical for the judge to advise the
municipality because in so doing, the judge acted as a lawyer. Judges can
only give opinions in actual cases pending before them.
SECTION 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate

in other organizations representing the interests of judges.
SECTION 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the
performance of judicial duties.
Correlate this with the provisions in the RPC regarding bribery, indirect
bribery, also with RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well
as RA 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials.
So section 14 really just gives more teeth to section 13, because without
section 14, you could provide opportunities or avenues on the part of the
judge to escape the prohibition in section 13 by asking the person to give
the gift instead to the court staff. So section 14 expands the prohibition
under section 13.
SECTION 15. Subject to the law and to any legal requirements of public
disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate
to the occasion on which it is made provided that such gift, award or
benefit might not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the
judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an
appearance of partiality.
Take note of the phrase appropriate to the occasion on which it is

made. So not all gifts therefore are prohibited. Only those gifts that are
inappropriate are not allowed. So if a judge is invited speaker in a seminar,
you may give a gift to the judge, like a plaque of appreciation, or anything
appropriate to the occasion.
PALE team:
25

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RA 6713
Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to which

he belongs.
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.

_____________________________________________________________
xxx
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall
not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the
course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of
their office.
CANON 5: EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the court is essential to the due
performance of judicial office.
CASE:
Judge accepted the free use, for a year, of a car, and availed for free of
battery recharging services of the shop of a litigant who has a pending case
before him. The judge violated RA 6713.
SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society

and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to
race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital
status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and like causes.
As to permissible gifts from foreign governments:
General rule: Treat everybody and everything equally
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of

nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
Exception: If there is a valid basis to differentiate

Section 1 requires judges to know the valid causes to differentiate.
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of

a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or
expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the Philippine (such as
allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal value
if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the
Judges must know that there could be factors to give different treatments,
and it would be injustice to treat everyone equally if such factors exist in a
case. So when you say equality, there is really no prohibition against
differentiation. What is prohibited is differentiation on improper or
irrelevant grounds.
PALE team:
26

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For example, should sex matter when it comes to the right to vote or the
right to go to school, or the right to work?
different from the usual adult witnesses. Some minors are even named
AAA or BBB to protect their identity.
No. So there should be no differentiation.
The judges may also treat new lawyers differently. Judges should be
patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the young and
inexperienced. So judges are required to be more courteous and more
considerate to new lawyers.
We have Juvenile Justice Welfare Act, Senior Citizens Act, Magna Carta of
Disabled Persons, Solo Parents Act, et cetera. There is a different
treatment here.
SECTION 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words

or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
There was a judge who, when interviewed, said, I am pro-accused; I am

tender to the rights of the accused. This is improper. You showed that you
have a preference already, irrespective of the facts of each case.
SECTION 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate

consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers. Court
staff, and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant
ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or other subject to
his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.
SECTION 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to

refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on
irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.
So in a case a judge reprimanded the lawyer for making sexist and racist
comments in his pleading.
__________________________________________________________
So treat everyone fairly and equally if there is no basis to differentiate. If

there is basis, there should be a different treatment. Like a minor witness,
he may receive different treatment. He may be allowed to testify in a way
PALE team:
27

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CANON 6: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisite to the due performance of
judicial office.
SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.
If you remember judges are allowed to have extrajudicial activities, but

section 1 reminds judges that the judicial duties should take precedence
over all activities. So if the judge is also a culinary lecturer, his job as a
judge must have priority over his other activities.
SECTION 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties,

which include not only the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks
relevant to the judicial office or courts operations.
We might say that the job of the judge is to hear and decide cases, but that
is not the only job of the judge. Another job of the judge is administration.
In other words, aside from hearing and deciding cases, the judge is also the
manager of his courtroom; the judge is the boss of his courtroom. As such,
he must know how to manage his personnel. He must know how to
manage case files, how to do efficient record keeping, etc. The judge
cannot just lay the blame on court employees, because it is the duty of the
judge to manage his courtroom. So judges have been disciplined for

missing case records, missing case exhibits.
If you are a judge and you have a court personnel who is rude to the
people, it is the duty of the judge to supervise, to correct the inappropriate
behavior of that personnel. So aside from adjudication, the judge is also an
administrator of his courtroom.
You see a courtroom that is very dirty, very messy, it could reflect badly on
the administrative capability of the judge. Or the personnel are always
late, or absent, it could reflect on the judges administrative capability.
SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enlarge

their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial
control to judges
Are judges required to attend MCLE?

-
NO. They are not required, it is mandatory only for lawyers. But
they are still welcome to attend.
They have a counterpart to MCLE in the judiciary; they have a

continuing legal education conducted by the Philippine Judicial
Academy. So PJA conducts continuing legal education on judges
and justices and that is mandatory. The reason is to ensure that
judges keep themselves updated with law and jurisprudence.
PALE team:
28

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In decided cases, it is the judges duty to follow the doctrine and ruling of
the SC. Any deviation from this rule may have detrimental consequences
beyond the immediate controversy.
What if the judge feels that the SC decision is wrong, or against his
conscience?
-
If the judge feels that a doctrine enunciated by the SC is against

his way of reasoning or conscience, he may say his personal
opinion on the matter and should decide the case in accordance
the law or doctrine and not his personal belief. So he is free to
have a side comment if he does not agree with it, but he still has
to apply it.
Judges should not allow their personal beliefs and convictions to
prevail over settled jurisprudence.
Example:
Case of a judge who renders decisions pursuant to dwarves. He also has
healing sessions in his courtroom. Judge dismissed from the judiciary.
SC said spiritual, paranormal beliefs have no room in the decision making
of the judge. In the case, the judge admitted that he renders decisions that
way.
They should not also be ignorant of the law. Ignorance of the law is the
main spring of injustice as well as corruption. Disrespect and lack of
confidence will be detrimental if judges are ignorant. You cross reference
this with pertinent RPC provisions. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment,
judgment rendered through negligence, unjust interlocutory order, and
malicious delay in the administration of justice.
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

A judge is not made liable for mere error. To be liable, such error must
constitute gross ignorance of the law, bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or
some other like motives.
So if mere error, there is no ground for administrative action against the
judge. Such action will not prosper.
If it were otherwise, it would be very oppressive on the part of the judge
because you have to be right all the time. If you are wrong, you could be
held liable, or dismissed from office. So if mere error, there is no
administrative liability
The remedy of the party if there is an error is to avail of the usual
remedies, Motion for Reconsideration, appeal, certiorari, the usual judicial
modes of review but not administrative action.
SECTION 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant

developments of international law, including international conventions,
and other instruments establishing human right norms.
Because the generally accepted principles of international law form part of

the law of the land, judges must know these things.
PALE team:
29

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.
Judges should not only render fair decisions, but must render them on
time they should dispose decisions with reasonable promptness. It would
be like an empty victory on the part of the party who has already died
waiting for the decision.
This includes the utilization of pretrial, discovery modes, modes of ADR, in
order to abbreviate the proceedings.
Constitutional timeframe
The constitution says shall, but it is only a directory provision
notwithstanding the word shall. However, it could subject the
responsible government official to administrative liability, but it will in no
way affect the validity of the decision or the jurisdiction.
Judges are required to execute a certificate of service. It is equivalent to a
DTR. This shall serve as basis for their salary. There is a clause in the
certificate of service wherein the judge certifies that he has no pending
cases which have not been resolved after 90 days. So meaning, he has not
delayed decisions. This is mandatory. That certificate of service is a
prerequisite before they can receive salary.
Period within which to decide cases:

Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Other lower courts
24 months
12 months
3 months
Periods provided by no less than the constitution. You start to count that
from the date the case is deemed submitted for decision.
If for some valid reason, a judge cannot decide the case within the period
prescribed, he must request the SC for an extension of time to render the
decision.
If the judge just sits on the case, and deals with it in his own free time, he
is endangering himself, making himself susceptible to administrative
action. A party litigant might complain against him. If upon prompt audit, it
is found that he has a lot of cases, already long due, if he did not earlier
seek for extension, it might be difficult for him to explain later on in an
administrative case. So the judge should ask for an extension.
A judge who fails to decide cases within the required period and continues
to receive his salary upon his certification that he has no pending matters
to resolve beyond the prescribed period transgresses the constitutional
rights of the people to the speedy disposition of cases. Good faith (no
malicious intent to lie or defraud) could be mitigating, but not absolutory.
It will not absolve the judge from administrative liability.
Usual penalties for delaying the disposition of cases:
a.
b.
Reprimand
Dismissal, depending upon the circumstances.
In cases where the judges were dismissed, most of the dismissals were the
result of gross and inexcusable negligence, or because of the use of
falsified certificates of service.
PALE team:
30

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Not valid excuses:
1.
2.
3.
Clogged docket, heavy workload, heavy caseload

If that would be an excuse, judges might invoke that and get
away with it.
Delay in the transcription of stenographic notes
Judges are not allowed to rely on the TSN. In some hearings,
the judges take down their own notes
Inefficiency or mismanagement of court personnel
the court personnel are not the guardians of the judges
responsibilities to administer his courtroom
These have been found to be mitigating, but not exculpatory.

In rendering decisions, the constitution says that the decisions of the court
should express clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which they are
based. Reasons behind this requirement are:
1.
2.
to show that the judge really understood the case. It could be

frustrating on the part of the lawyer and the party. It could show
that the judge did not exert enough effort to understand the case.
to promote confidence in the judges intellectual integrity, and to
contribute useful precedence.
SECTION 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings

before the court and be patient dignified and courteous in relation to
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and other with whom the judge deals in an
official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction
and control.
So the judge must not resort to violence or tempestuous means to

maintain order in the court. The judge himself must not provoke disorderly
conduct. So judge must not use intemperate language, must not resort to
violent means to achieve order. Shouting, and the like, is prohibited.
SECTION 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the

diligent discharge of judicial duties.
Examples:
a.
There is a judge, his house is in Paranaque, his courtroom is in

Balanga, Bataan, a 4-hour drive. Because of the distance between
his home and his courtroom, the judge held hearings only on
Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Dismissed from the service because his conduct is incompatible
with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.
b.
Another judge declared Wednesday as his midweek pause, that

he should not be disturbed on Wednesdays.
Not dismissed but just disciplined.
PALE team:
31

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES OF JUDGES
a.
imposable penalties for serious charges, less serious charges, and light
charges.
Supreme Court Justices

Serious Charges (Section 8)
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides for the grounds of

impeachment of SC Associate Justices as well as of the Chief Justice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
Bribery, direct or indirect;

Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Law (RA 3019)
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined
by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case
pending before the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
Culpable violation of the Constitution

Treason
Bribery
Graft and Corruption
Other high crimes
Betrayal of public trust
You cannot remove SC Justices via an administrative case. They can only be
removed through impeachment. To allow them to be removed through an
administrative case would be an indirect violation of the constitutional
provision requiring impeachment as a mode of removal from office of SC
Justices.
b.
Lower court justices and judges
They are not subject to impeachment. The ordinary administrative

procedures apply to them. They are covered by Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court on discipline and removal of judges and justices. Similar to penalties
under the RPC, there are classifications of administrative offenses. In your
felonies you have grave felonies, less grave, and light.
Administrative offenses are also classified into serious, less serious and
light. The classification is there because the imposable penalty would
depend on the classification. You will also find in RULE 140 what are the
I.
Bribery, direct or indirect

In a case, the judge was caught in an entrapment, receiving bribe
money. The judge was dismissed.
II.
Dishonesty
The disposition to lie, to cheat, or to defraud.
Examples:
a.
b.
The judge made a false testimony in a judicial proceeding.

In his application to the bench, the judge falsely stated that
he had no pending case, when in fact, he had a pending
criminal case. Subsequently he was acquitted from the
PALE team:
32

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c.
criminal case. So the judges defense was that he was

acquitted so it was not really a false statement. SC said it
does not matter that he was acquitted because it is not the
commission of the crime which is penalized but his
misrepresentation in his application to the judiciary that he
has no pending cases when in fact he had a pending case. The
misrepresentation committed is dishonesty.
The judge concealed in his bio-data form required by the JBC
his previous dismissal as assistant city fiscal. So he used to be
the assistant city fiscal but he was dismissed. He concealed
that fact in his bio-data. Again, dishonesty. He was dismissed
from service.
III. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial

Conduct
The misconduct must be serious, that is weighty, momentous and not
trifling.
For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing
that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an
intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known
legal rules.
So if the misconduct is not serious or gross, does it mean that it is no
longer an administrative offense? Because rule 140 says gross misconduct,
so if the misconduct is not serious, but there is misconduct? It only means
that it is not a serious offense, but it could be a less serious or a light
offense depending on the facts of the case. It just means that it is not a
serious offense.
Examples:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The judge misappropriated the cash bail bond.

The decision was not personally prepared by the judge. In this
case the judge asked the counsel of the party to write a draft
of the decision.
Immorality
Voyeurism
Having a jeep in custodia legis repainted which was evidence
in a robbery case in his sala and changed its color and made
use of it for his personal benefit.
IV. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a

competent court in an appropriate proceeding
This is both a criminal and an administrative offense. But for it to be an
administrative offense, look at the phrase as determined by a competent
court in an appropriate proceeding.
So even if the order on its face is very erroneous, without an order
determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding that that
order is erroneous or unjust, then there is no basis for administrative
action. There must be a prior final determination by the appellate court
that the judge has indeed committed the proscribed act in an appeal from
the judgment or special action challenging the order.
So it is premature to file an administrative complaint when the appeal or
special civil action is still pending resolution by the reviewing court. So that
is a condition precedent. It should already have been determined. The
unjustness of the order or judgment has already been determined by a
competent court.
PALE team:
33

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An appropriate proceeding could be the criminal case for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment or order, then there is a conviction. An
appeal, and there is a final determination by the appellate court that it is
unjust or erroneous, or a special civil action assailing that order.
Aside from this, there is a possible accessory penalty of civil interdiction. If

you are civilly interdicted, the result is that you cannot manage properties,
you cannot enter into contracts, you cannot hold public office anymore,
etc.
V. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
So you also see what are the accessory penalties. If the accessory penalty
to the conviction includes civil interdiction, then the judge must necessarily
be de-benched.
Moral turpitude any act of violence, moral depravity that is against the
normally accepted code of mankind.
Examples of gross inefficiency:

Offenses involving moral turpitude (expressly provided in the
jurisprudence or law)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Falsification
Violation of BP22
Robbery
Smuggling
Estafa
Those which the law or jurisprudence are silent about, no explicit

declaration up to the SC to determine on a case to case basis whether
the offense or the act committed involves moral turpitude.
The conviction shows that the judge is unfit to discharge his judicial
functions or he is no longer of good moral character. So any conviction of a
judge, you could go to the SC, and it is up to the SC to determine if this
involves moral turpitude or not. It is easy for crimes which there are
express declarations. But even if there is no express declaration, there is
nothing that will prohibit the filing of an administrative case against that
judge, and in that case, it is up to the SC to determine on a case to case
basis if the conviction pertains to an act involving moral turpitude.
a.
b.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Unfamiliarity with procedure

Lost records and exhibits
Examples of gross ignorance of the law or procedure:
The judge issued a warrant of arrest in a civil case
Misapplication of the indeterminate sentence law in any decision
The judge granted bail in a non-bailable offense
The judge looked for proof of malice in a prosecution for an offense
which is malum prohibitum
The judge fixed a ridiculously small amount of bail in a murder case
which enabled the accused to escape
VI. Willful failure to pay a just debt;

VII. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case
pending before the court;
VIII. Immorality;
IX. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
X. Partisan political activities; and
XI. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
PALE team:
34

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Less Serious Charges (Section 9)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting

the records of a case;
Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual
tardiness;
Unauthorized practice of law;
Violation of the Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically
authorized by law;
Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
Simple misconduct.
Sanctions Serious Charge (Section 11)

1.
2.
3.
Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits

as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include
accrued leave credits;
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more
than 3 but not exceeding 6 months; or
A fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.
Sanctions Less Serious Charge (Section 11)

Light Charges (Section 10)
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;

Gambling in public;
Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in
his court; and
Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports
Sleeping during trial is no longer considered as a light charge. Does

that mean that judges are allowed to sleep during trial?
-
Still NO. But sleeping during trial could be simple misconduct, or it

could fall under other administrative offenses like unbecoming
conduct, depending on the gravity of the sleeping committed by
the judge. Is it everyday or every trial or in that particular instance
only?
2.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not
less than 1 nor more than 3 months
A fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.
Sanctions Light Charge (Section 11)

1.
2.
3.
4.
A fine of not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000; and/or
Censure;
Reprimand;
Admonition with warning.
Proceedings are confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of

the Court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the office of
the court administrator.
PALE team:
35

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why are proceedings confidential?
-
Because what is at stake is the reputation and goodwill of the

respondent judge. For all we know, the respondent judge could just be
a victim of malicious charges and if you allow the proceedings to be
made public, it could tarnish the reputation of the judge. It is
inconsequential that the judge is acquitted 5 years after the damage
has already been done to his name.
gross ignorance of the law, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, and other

similar ill motives.
However, if you can prove fraud, if you can prove gross ignorance of the
law, if you can prove corruption or dishonesty, then the act of the judge is
now removed from the doctrine of judicial immunity and he becomes
vulnerable to civil, criminal and administrative liability.
Quantum of proof
What do you mean confidential when it is in the SCRA?

-
What you read is only the decision, but the proceedings leading to the
decision are confidential. So only the decision, but not the
proceedings.
Substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Who has the burden of proof?
-
Doctrine of Judicial Immunity

-
In the absence of gross ignorance of the law, fraud, dishonesty and

corruption, the acts of the judge in his official capacity are not subject
to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability civil,
criminal, or administrative for any of his official acts no matter how
erroneous as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted
with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent
to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. A contrary rule
would make the judicial office impossible and intolerable because
judges should always be right, otherwise, they can be held liable.
What is the remedy for an erroneous order?

-
Appeal, or other modes of review like special civil actions but not civil,
criminal or administrative action against the judge in the absence of
The complainant, not the respondent judge. The respondent judge

enjoys the presumption of innocence. To debunk the presumption of
innocence, the complainant must discharge the quantum of proof that
is substantial evidence.
Res ipsa loquitor

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, the court may impose its authority
upon erring judges whose actuations on their face would show gross
incompetence, ignorance of the law, or misconduct.
SC Administrative Circular No.1 dated January 28, 1988
All judges are reminded that the SC has applied the res ipsa loquitor rule in
the removal of judges even without any formal investigation whenever a
decision on its face indicates gross incompetence, or gross ignorance of the
law, or gross misconduct.
PALE team:
36

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Take note of the phrase, even without any formal investigation.
The SC said that notwithstanding all the criticisms against this circular,
because the SC has spoken, then so be it. If the SC has decided, where do
you appeal? SC has provided so you accept it. You can no longer correct
the decision. (You can impeach but it cannot correct the decision or ruling
rendered)
Can judges be disbarred while they are judges?
-
YES. MTC, RTC, Sandiganbayan, CA justices. When they are disbarred,

they are also removed from the bench because membership in the bar
is an essential qualification for judgeship. So they can be removed
from the bench through disbarment.
Does a similar rule apply to SC justices?
NO. They cannot be removed through disbarment. You cannot subject

them to administrative action while they are SC justices. Otherwise, it
will be a violation of the constitutional provision requiring
impeachment as a mode of removal of SC justices.
utilized against a judge, as a judge and as a lawyer, automatic conversion

shall apply.
The administrative case against the judge shall also be considered a
disciplinary action against the judge 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 lawyer. Judgment in both respects may be
incorporated in one decision or resolution.
So, to be understood simply, if there is automatic conversion, it is like a 2
in 1 proceeding. The proceeding against the judge is treated as an
administrative case against the judge as a judge and as a lawyer because
the ground can be used against him in both capacities and because that is
the case, the judge will also be required to show cause why he should not
be disciplined as a member of the bar. There could be one judgment or
one resolution in both respects. It is possible then that in one decision, the
respondent judge is dismissed from the judiciary, and also disbarred (or
suspended, as the case may be) as a lawyer.
Criminal Liability of Judges

Doctrine of Automatic Conversion
This doctrine applies to judges and justices except SC justices. There are
grounds for removal of judges that could also be a ground for their
disbarment.
Under the RPC we have the offenses committed by the public officers,
which could also be committed by judges like falsification of official
documents, malversation of public funds. Under special laws we have
plunder, illegally acquired wealth, among many others.
Like for example, gross immorality it is a uniform ground, it can be used

as a ground to dismiss from the judiciary. It is also a ground to disbar a
lawyer. So when you are talking about administrative offenses that can be
PALE team:
37

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil Liability of Judges
You could invoke the provisions under the NCC: 19, 20, 27,32. We also
have those provisions in the Revised Administrative Code providing the
civil liabilities of judges in cases of misfeasance, malfeasance and
nonfeasance.
What if the complainant dies?

-
NO EFFECT. Jurisprudence holds that the death of the complainant

does not warrant the withdrawal of the charges against the
respondent nor does this development render the complaint moot.
The complainant is treated as a witness at most in this type of
proceedings.
Again, same thing, if after the death you can no longer substantiate
the allegations, then you dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence.
Disabilities of Judges
Article 1491 of the Civil Code judges cannot acquire properties and rights
pending litigation before them. Any contract in violation of 1491 is VOID.
Article 739 of the Civil Code donations to the judge, his spouse,
ascendants or descendants by reason of his office are also VOID.
If the complainant withdraws the administrative complaint, what is

the effect?
-
NO EFFECT. To condition administrative actions upon the will of every

complainant who may for one reason or another condone the
detestable act is to strip the SC of its supervisory power to discipline
the erring members of the judiciary. So it is of no moment that the
complainant withdrew the administrative complaint. The SC is not
divested of its authority to discipline.
What if after the withdrawal of the complainant, there is no more
evidence to substantiate the allegations against the judge? (Ex.
complainant is the only witness, and can no longer be found, so you
are left with no evidence)
You should dismiss the administrative case, on the ground of

insufficiency of evidence, if that is the result of the desistance of the
complainant. Not on the ground that the complainant withdrew the
complaint.
Effect of separation from the service or retirement of the respondent

judge, can you still remove him from the judiciary?
-
Not anymore.
Does the separation or retirement of the respondent judge render the
administrative case moot and academic?
NO, it does not render the case moot and academic. Although you can
no longer impose dismissal or suspension, there could still be
adequate penalties like the accessory penalties of disqualification to
hold public office, or you could also impose fines.
PALE team:
38

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case Involving a SC Justice
He was no longer impeached because at the time the complaint was
instituted, he was already retired. An administrative case was filed against
the ex-SC justice because of the leaking of a decision of the SC prior to
official promulgation. He leaked the decision of the SC.
SC said that even if the most severe of administrative sanctions may no
longer be imposed, there are other penalties which may be imposed if one
is later found guilty of the administrative offenses charged including
forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from public office. So that is still
applicable. So the administrative case is not rendered moot and academic.
In addition, the SC also fined Justice Reyes in the amount of P500,000 to be
deducted from his retirement benefits.
The court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce a respondent official
innocent of the charges or declare him or her guilty thereof. A contrary
rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and
dangerous implications for what remedy will the people have against a civil
servant who resorts to wrongful and illegal conduct during his or her last
days in office? What could prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous
government employee from committing abuses and other condemnable
acts knowing fully-well that he or she would soon be beyond the pale of
the law and immune from all administrative penalties?
If only for reasons of public policy this court must assert and retain
jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials because if the
respondent is innocent, he also deserves nothing less than his name be
cleared, that his record remain clean. And if he is guilty, he must face the
consequences of his offense.
What is the effect of death of respondent judge?

-
Again, it will not preclude the finding of administrative liability. It will

still forfeit benefits, et cetera. The heirs will no longer receive the
benefits of the dead judge.
Withdrawal of complaint
NO EFFECT (except if as a result

thereof, evidence would now be
insufficient,
in
which
case,
complaint has to be dismissed)
Death of complainant
NO EFFECT (except if as a result

thereof, evidence would now be
insufficient,
in
which
case,
complaint has to be dismissed)
Retirement or separation from

service of judge
Not moot and academic
Death of judge
GR: Not moot and academic; EXC

(3) see below
Death of respondent judge

General rule: not moot and academic
Exception:
1. When the respondent has not been heard and continuation of the
proceedings would deny him of his right to due process.
PALE team:
39

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Example: there is an administrative complaint against the judge,
and upon receiving the complaint, the judge had a heart attack
and died. So obviously, he was not able to advance his defenses.
The respondent had not been heard. If we continue the
administrative complaint, it would violate his right to due process.
The only resort is to dismiss the administrative case for being
moot and academic the respondent judge not having been
accorded the opportunity to present his side.
2.
Where exceptional circumstances exist in the case leading to

equitable and humanitarian considerations.
3.
When the kind of penalty imposable would render the

proceedings useless.
You also consider the imposable penalty. If the offense is just
light, like unbecoming conduct, and the imposable penalty is
reprimand, you cannot reprimand a dead judge anymore. The
proceedings are useless and hence, moot and academic.
7.
8.
9.
Acknowledgement of fault
Apology
Other analogous circumstances
Case 1
The CA Justice here joined the election for the officers and members of the
Board of Trustees of a Homeowners Association and got herself involved
in the issues that animated the two groups which shared the powers of the
association, thus getting drawn into a bitter litigation. So that was the
charge against the CA Justice: that she should not have ran as an officer in
the homeowners association.
SC: Joining the judiciary does not mean that a judge should live the life of a
hermit. The Code of Judicial Ethics does not bar him from joining
associations or institutions that promote the common good. To be sure, no
social or moral considerations prevent him from taking active part in
organizations that aim to promote the welfare of his family or community
like a homeowners association. So there is nothing wrong with the act of
the justice of being active in her homeowners association.
Mitigating Circumstances
Case 2
not completely absolutory but could reduce the penalty imposed.
Case of a judge because of a delay in the disposition of the case under the
rules on summary procedure. But prior to this case, the judge had already
been found guilty in other administrative cases. So this was not the first
administrative case of the judge. In the last administrative case, prior to
this case, the judge was dismissed from the service for gross inefficiency,
gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty and violation of the code of
judicial conduct. So at the time of rendition of the decision, the judge has
already been dismissed from the service in another previous case. Just the
same, the SC found him guilty of delay in rendition of judgments undue
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The complained acts were committed before admission to the

judiciary
Failing health
Old age
Lack of stenographer
First offense
Long and exemplary service
PALE team:
40

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
delay for which the judge is fined the amount of 20k to be deducted from
her accrued leave credits since she had already been dismissed from the
service. This judgment is without prejudice to the outcome of her other
remaining and/or pending administrative cases.
Case 3
Law firm of the judges son entered appearance as collaborating counsel in
a case before the judge. Not lead counsel but just collaborating counsel.
Can the judge be compelled to disqualify himself?
Case 5 Gross Ignorance of the Law

The presiding judge reversed and modified a final and executor order of
the acting judge motu proprio. SC said that the respondent failed to meet
the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. He has shown
himself unworthy of the judicial robe and place of honor reserved for
guardians of justice. He was also dismissed from service.
Case 6 Gross Misconduct
SC: YES. It is a ground for mandatory disqualification. Judge should have

immediately inhibited himself from the case upon learning of the entry
appearance of his sons law firm. If there is no remittal of the
disqualification, then the rules forthwith completely strips the judge of
authority to proceed.
Judge procured from complainant the building materials he needed for the
construction of his house. In doing so, he compromised his position as a
judge. His business and financial dealings with the complainant will create
a doubt about his fairness and impartiality in deciding the case and will
tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the court. Dismissed from
service.
Case 4
Case 7 Impropriety
There was a spot audit. Judge was found to have failed in deciding 102
criminal cases and 43 civil cases on time. He cannot take refuge behind the
common excuse of heavy caseload. He could have asked the court for a
reasonable period of extension to dispose of the cases but did not. His
inefficiency caused not only unnecessary financial strain to the litigants but
also physical and emotional anxiety. He was fined 50k to be deducted from
his retirement benefits.
The judge sent a letter in his official letterhead as a judge to complainant

to discuss a matter pending before his own court. The judge was fined 5k.
As discussed previously, retirement or dismissal from service do not render

the case moot and academic.

The judge implemented an order which was already annulled and set aside
by the CA and SC. If the judge studied the case records well, he could easily
have known that. Because the judge ordered the implementation of that
order, it showed his lack of diligence in studying the case.
Judge did three things here: (1) talked to a prospective litigant in his court
(2) he recommended a lawyer to handle the case (3) and he prepared the
PALE team:
41

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
motion to withdraw as counsel of the lawyer he recommended which
pleading was filed before his court and was acted upon by him.
Case 10
(X-rated) Already retired. Fined, to be deducted from his retirement
benefits.
Case 11
2 judges were shouting at each other in the workplace and during office
hours. Sc said this is discourtesy and disrespect not only towards the coworkers but to the court as well. Totally unbecoming of members of the
judicial service. What is more detestable is the fact that their squabble
arose out of a mere allowance coming from the LGU. Fined
Case 12
Falsification and dishonesty of PDS. In the judges Personal Data Sheet, he
answered no to the question have you ever been charged formally with
any infraction, when in fact there are charges against him. Dismissed from
the service. He was also disbarred in the same case. So application of
principle of automatic conversion. If the administrative charge is a charge
that can be used against the judge as a judge and as a member of the bar,
then the proceedings can be against him as a judge and as a lawyer, and a
decision can be rendered in that same case in both respects.
the courts heading must be observed at all times. Respondent judge here
used the courts heading in his personal letter, and unwittingly dragged the
name of the court into his private affairs, giving the appearance that there
is an implied consent of the court to his cause. Judge admonished.
Information filed before the MTC, but it is clear in the information that the
official was salary grade 28. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, yet the MTC
denied the motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction and
insisted in hearing the case.
The charge is reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The judge
ordered the impounding of the buss involved with directive that it will be
released only upon posting of 50k cash bond. He also increased the bond
of the accused from 60k to 350k to be posted in cash. Excessive bail and
order of impounding is premature.
The judge issued a warrant of arrest against the lawyer of the accused for
the lawyers failure to attend the promulgation of judgment and directed
that the said lawyer to remain in jail until the judgment is promulgated.
Case 13
Letterhead serves as primary identifier of the office. Written
correspondence bearing the courts heading gives the impression that it
has the imprimatur of the court, and that the signatory carries such
representation. Considering this important implication, scrupulous use of
Judge failed to require the presence of the accused in the promulgation of

judgment.
PALE team:
42

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The judge cited the complainant for direct contempt and issued a warrant
of arrest against him recommending no bail. The complainant stayed in
detention for 14 days. Further, the judge also cited the complainants
counsel indirect contempt for attaching to a motion for inhibition the
complainants affidavit executed to support his complaint against the
judge and the lawyer was assessed a fine of 3k. Maximum imprisonment in
direct contempt is only 10 days, but here it exceeded 10 days. The
maximum fine is 2k but he imposed a fine of 3k.
SC said the conveyance of several pieces of realty does not close and
terminate the case. Disciplinary cases involve not only private interest,
they are undertaken to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in
the government. To allow the parties to dictate the course of disciplinary
investigations would render hollow the courts power of supervision over
court officials and employees.
So here, the complainant was no longer interested to pursue the case
because he already received parcels of land. But just the same, the SC said
that they should continue the case. We have here the act of the judge
issuing unfunded checks.

Case 22 Simple Misconduct
The remedy of a person cited in contempt is to file a petition for certiorari
and/or prohibition and to post a bond in an amount fixed by the court. This
right to post a bond was denied when the judge indicated in the warrant of
arrest that the complainant is not entitled to bail.
Case 20 Gross Inefficiency
Delay in rendition of judgment. Defense of judge is that he had so many
additional court assignments and designations. Not an excuse. Additional
court assignments or designations imposed upon a judge do not make him
less liable in the delay in the resolution of pending cases.
Case 21
Judge sold apartment to complainant. The complainant gave a
downpayment. For whatever reason, the sale did not push through. The
judge had to refund the downpayment. To refund the downpayment the
judge issued 4 checks and those 4 checks bounced. To end the problem,
the judge just conveyed certain parcels of land to complainant.
The judge circulated calling cards bearing the following: his name as
presiding judge of RTC Branch 73 indicating that he is a bar exam
topnotcher with a grade with 87.55% and with full second honors from
Ateneo de Manila University, AB and LLB. Before he starts his court
session, he is introduced as a private law practitioner, a graduate of
Ateneo de Manila University with second honors and a bar topnotcher
during the 1983 bar exams with an average score of 87.55%, then a
reading of the Holy Bible follows, particularly the book of revelation
according to St. John. Then he gives the people of the courtroom to asks
questions on the matter read. If no question is asked, the session starts.
Violation of Canon 2 which states that a judge should not seek publicity for
personal vain glory.
He ordered the release of the accused on recognizance without the
presence of the prosecutor, thus depriving the latter of any opportunity to
oppose said release. He also ordered the release without first requiring the
PALE team:
43

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
probation officer to render a case study and investigation report. And the
order granting the release on recognizance was not reduced in writing
insisting that orders made in open court need not be reduced in writing.
PROCEDURE
Who can remove Judges?
Case 24 Unbecoming Conduct for Partiality in Criminal Cases
a.
He relayed to the members of the audit team that in criminal cases, he is

always pro-accused, particularly to certain detention prisoners and bonded
accused who have to continually pay the premium of the bonds during the
pendency of the cases. So he has revealed his tendency to be partial and
biased in favor of the accused.
SC en banc if the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of the

judge, or suspension of 1 year or more or a fine of 10kor more or
both.
b.
SC by division other cases
Case 25 Unbecoming Conduct for Signing a Pleading in His Personal Case

He is represented by a lawyer, but nonetheless he signed his pleading
indicating therein that he is the presiding judge of Branch 73 and
appending to the pleading a copy of his oath of office with a picture of his
oathtaking.
This rule is by virtue of a SC circular and many authors are of the opinion
that this SC circular is unconstitutional because the constitution expressly
mandates that the SC en banc should decide administrative cases against
judges and justices, however, since the SC has spoken and only the SC can
render laws and rules unconstitutional so this is still being followed.
Can the IBP investigate judges?
-
SC said the only logical explanation is that he was obviously trying to

influence or put pressure on a fellow judge by emphasizing that the
himself is a judge and is thus in the right.
Pamatong v. Davide, the IBP is henceforth required to forward to the

SC for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment or
discipline filed with the IBP against all justices and judges, sitting or
retired. So otherwise stated, IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate
judges. Its only jurisdiction is to forward the case to the SC.
Case 26
Unbecoming Conduct for Openly Criticizing the Rules of Court and
Philippine Justice System and for Using highly Improper and Intemperate
Language during Court Proceedings. Fined 40k. Mitigating: new in the job
and there was no allegation or proof that he acted in bad faith or corrupt
motive.
PALE team:
44

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURT
c.
or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of

indubitable integrity
DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES

OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN
SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of judges of

regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or
upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person who have
personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which
may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint,
supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be
in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by
law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
For example there is an anonymous complaint that this certain judge does
not know how to apply the indeterminate sentence law, in fact you see
attached certified true copies of 10 judgments he rendered misapplying
the ISL. Can the SC entertain it?
-
Yes because it is supported by evidence even though it may not be a

public record.
SEC. 2. Action on the complaint. If the complaint is sufficient in form and

substance, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, and he shall
be required to comment within ten (10) days from the date of service.
Otherwise, the same shall be dismissed.
Where to file?
If the complaint is not sufficient in form and substance, outright dismissal.
a.
b.
With the SC
If filed before the IBP, the IBP has to forward it to the SC
If sufficient in form and substance, the respondent shall be required to file

a comment within 10 days from service.
Who can file a complaint?

a.
b.
motu proprio by the Supreme Court

or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person
who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said allegations,
SEC. 3. By whom complaint investigated. Upon the filing of the

respondents comment, or upon the expiration of the time for filing the
same and unless other pleadings or documents are required, the Court shall
refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation,
report, and recommendation or assign the case for investigation, report,
PALE team:
45

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and recommendation to a retired member of the Supreme Court, if the
respondent is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, or
to a Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a Judge of a
Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a Judge of
the Regional Trial Court if the respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.
If the comment has already been filed, or the time to file has lapsed, the
court will assign the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for
evaluation, report and recommendation.
After investigation, after evaluating the case, they are of the opinion
that there is no evidence to substantiate the charges, can they dismiss
the case on the ground of lack of evidence?
-
NO. They cannot dismiss because their power at best is

recommendatory to the SC. They can recommend the dismissal of
the case but they could not dismiss it on their own. Only the SC
can dismiss the case, or can also find administrative liability.
So the best that they can do is make a report and

recommendation to the SC
Is it possible that the SC will assign the case to somebody else and not
to the OCA? Can the SC opt not to assign it to the OCA?
-
YES.
a.
b.
c.
It may be assigned to a retired SC Justice, if the respondent is a CA

or Sandiganbayan Justice.
It may be assigned to a CA Justice, if the respondent is a judge of
an RTC or of a special court of equivalent rank
It may be assigned to an RTC Judge, if the respondent is a judge of
an inferior court
Who may conduct an investigation, report and recommendation?

1. Office of the Court Administrator
2. Retired SC Justice
3. CA Justice
4. RTC Judge
The last 3 depends on who the respondent is.
SEC. 4. Hearing. The investigating Justice or Judge shall set a day of the
hearing and send notice thereof to both parties. At such hearing the parties
may present oral and documentary evidence. If, after due notice, the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The Investigating Justice or Judge shall terminate the investigation within
ninety (90) days from the date of its commencement or within such
extension as the Supreme Court may grant.
This is how the investigation is done. There is a hearing. It may be done ex

parte.
The investigation shall be terminated within 90 days.
SEC. 5. Report. Within thirty (30) days from the termination of the
investigation, the investigating Justice or Judge shall submit to the Supreme
Court a report containing findings of fact and recommendation. The report
PALE team:
46

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
shall be accompanied by the record containing the evidence and the
pleadings filed by the parties. The report shall be confidential and shall be
for the exclusive use of the Court.
Within 30 days, they will have to submit to the SC a report containing

findings of fact and recommendation.
LEGAL ETHICS
Legal Ethics - is the branch of moral science which treats of the duties
which an attorney owes to court, to his client, to his colleagues in the
profession and to the public. So, in this definition, we see the four- fold
duties of the lawyer: the duties to the Court, to the bar, to his client and to
the legal profession
The sources of legal ethics
SEC. 6. Action. The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts
and the law may warrant.
The SC ultimately renders the decision. It could affirm, set aside, modify. It
is not bound by the report and recommendation.
____________________________________________________________
(1) The constitution;

(2) The Rules of Court;
(3) The Code of Professional Responsibility;
(4) The Canon of Professional Ethics;
(5) Jurisprudence;
(6) Moral Law;
(7) Special Law.
Legal Ethics is very important. The highest moral and ethical standards
should be maintained so that the people will continue to repose their trust
and confidence in the legal profession. So ultimately the stability and the
survival of the legal profession depend on Ethics. The Supreme Court has
made known its stress on Legal Ethics as a very important subject. There
are 8 bar subjects and one of them is Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises. It
has a weight of 5% of the entire bar exam, as supposed to all the others
like Political Law (20%), Remedial Law (25%). Dont be misled by the
percentages. The other subject seems to have more weight, but in reality
Legal Ethics has more weight. If you consider Remedial Law (25%), how
many volumes do you need to read for the entire Remedial Law? For
Political Law (20%), how many books do you have to read? While in Legal
Ethics, you only need to read at most 2 books and you will adequately
PALE team:
47

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
prepared, but its 5%. But of course there are the practical exercises, but
only a very minimal portion. And after you pass the bar exams, it will spell
you continuance in the legal profession, your practice and your observance
of the rules of Legal Ethics.
Sources of the Legal Ethics
Section 5, paragraph 5, Article 8 of the Constitution - The Supreme Court
shall promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law.
If the Supreme Court can promulgate rules regarding admission, it also has
the power to disbar lawyers, to exclude them from the practice of laws.
Rules 138-139 of the Rules of Court cover the Rules of the Integrated Bar.
There is no prohibition against members of Congress from practicing law,
provided that they should not personally appear before the Court, before
any quasi-judicial agency or body.
They can practice law. In fact many members of Congress are also very
eminent partners in law firms, but they cannot make personal
appearances. If they do, they contravene the constitution and it is also a
ground for administrative action against them.
Puyat vs. de Guzman
A member of congress cannot indirectly fail to follow the constitutional
prohibition of not appearing personally as a counsel before the SEC, by
buying a nominal share in the corporation, after his appearance as counsel
therein was contested.
Section 13, Article 7 of the Constitution - The President, Vice-President,
and the members of the Cabinet cannot practice law during their term. The
only exception is if it is provided by the constitution itself. They cannot
practice law directly or indirectly or any other profession for that matter
during their term. The prohibition is from the constitution itself.
The members of the Constitutional Commission (COA, COMELEC and the
Civil Service Commission) cannot practice law. The prohibition is absolute.
They cannot practice any other profession while holding their position.
Senators or members of Congress can still be members of law firms, and
their names can still remain in the law firm.
Senators / members of the House can represent themselves as parties to a
case. In that particular instance, they are not representing somebody; they
are not acting as counsel for somebody. That is embodied in the due
process clause everybody has the right to be heard by himself or by a
counsel. So they can still appear as a party, but not as lawyers.
The Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman cannot practice law. The
prohibition is absolute. So take note of the Constitutional officers, they
cannot practice law absolutely or they can practice law but with
restrictions.
The Rules of Court - When the executor or administrator is an attorney, he
shall not charge against the estate, any professional fee for legal services
rendered by him. If he does, not only it is against the Rules of Court, it is
also unethical.
The Attorney-Client privilege (also from the Rules of Court) - 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 professional employment.
Other rules of court that are sources of Legal Ethics: Rule 138 (Attorneys
and admission to the bar); Rule 138-A (Law Student Practice rule) and Rule
PALE team:
48

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
139-A (Integrated Bar of the Philippines); Rule 139-B (Grievance Procedure,
disbarment or suspension of lawyers).
other words, Ethics points to standards or codes of behaviour expected by

the group to which the individual belong.
Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 of the Civil Code - Lawyers cannot acquire

rights and property pending litigation of which they are handling. And the
prohibition is absolute. Any contract arising from the violation of this
article is void. However, an acquisition after the litigation (litigation is
already terminated) is not covered by the prohibition anymore. Lets say,
after the successful termination of the case, as agreed, the lawyer gets
10% of the property, as his contingent fee. The agreement VALID, because
then, it is no longer a pending litigation. It is no longer the subject of any
existing litigation.
Lets go to corollary principles. Not everything legal is moral. In fact when

you become lawyers later on, it might be in contrary to your moral views
that you break up marriages (declaration of nullity, annulment, legal
separation), but it is legal. And not everything legal is ethical. The rigid
standard of morality and ethics is not satisfied by behaviour or conduct
which merely criminal law provision.
Other legislations which can be sources of legal ethics:

a.
b.
c.
d.
Article 2208 of the Civil Code (attorneys fees);

The Labor Code (Attorneys fee should not exceed 10%); and
The Revised Penal Code (betrayal of trust by an attorney /
revelation of secrets by an attorney).
The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which took effect
on June 21, 1988. Being an issuance of the Supreme Court, it is
binding on all lawyers. It did not supersede the Canons of
Professional Ethics (CPE). The CPE has suppletory effect to the
CPR. Court decisions, treatises by those who are experts in the
field, their opinion and their views can also be persuasive on the
courts. Other sources like the American Bar Association Model
rule.
The relation of legal ethics and morality

Ethics and morality are not the same. Morals define personal character
while ethics stresses a social system in which those morals are applied. In
The power to admit into the bar is vested in the Supreme Court. In fact,
the entire process of bar admission is judicial in nature. You do not to show
up in La Salle and take the bar. You have to file a petition to take the bar
first, and that petition starts the entire judicial process of admission to the
bar. In your petition, you give evidence that support that you have all the
qualifications to become a member of the bar. You annex there your
educational attainment, your TOR, your testimonial of good moral
character, your birth certificate, etc. You have to prove that you are
qualified to take the bar exams. If the Supreme Court approved your
petition to take the Bar, The list of Bar candidates will be published in the
newspaper. After you see your name in the list, you can now go to La Salle,
and take the bar. After that you have to take the bar.
Passing the bar does not automatically make you a lawyer. You have to
take the oath, and you have to sign the Rolls of Attorney. If you have not
done even one of those, you are not a full-pledged member of the Bar.
The oath taking is not just an ordinary ceremony. It is a judicial proceeding,
but its just in the PICC because the successful bar candidates and their
proud parents and relatives cannot fit in the Supreme Court. But it is a
judicial proceeding and it is a proceeding en banc, attended by all the
members of the Supreme Court. And it would be a petition to all the
successful BAR candidates there, to take the Lawyers Oath. And the Chief
PALE team:
49

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Justice will say Petition Granted, administer the Lawyers Oath. So it is a
judicial proceeding, from start to end.
The reason behind the requirement of Philippine citizenship is because
when you take the lawyers oath, you swear allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines. You cannot do that, if you are not a citizen of the
Philippines. You must be at least 21 (its not 18, although its the age of
majority). It is said that if you reach 21, you have reached a certain degree
of maturity and discretion, needed for any person to practice law. Good
moral character is not only a condition pre-requisite but it is a continuing
requirement.
That requisite should remain intact all throughout the legal career of a
lawyer. It is necessary that to be admitted to the Bar, you must be a
resident of the Philippines. Reason: so you will be easily accessible by the
court. And you must produce before the Supreme Court, satisfactory
evidence of good moral character. You submit testimonial evidence of at
least three members of the bar, that they know you, and that they know
you to be a person of good moral character, and that no charges against
you involving moral turpitude has been filed or are pending in any court in
the Philippines. A complaint filed against you pending in the prosecutors
office for criminal investigation. It is NOT considered a court investigation.
In re: Cuevas
We have here a successful Bar candidate. He was allowed to take his oath
after serving his probation. He was convicted to reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide, because he participated in a hazing incident and
somebody died. He was allowed to take his oath after he served his
probation. The court gave him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial
notice of the general tendency of the youth to be rash. So he was allowed
to take his oath after serving his probation.
The warranties of the SC in admitting a person to the BAR
That person so admitted has necessary learning and proficiency.
Necessary learning and proficiency does not necessarily mean expertise
in the law. It just means the requisite entry level skills. And the second
warranty is that he is a person of good moral character.
Cayetano vs. Monsod (landmark case)
The practice of law is any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
This is the modern concept of the practice of law.
Minister of Justice Opinion no. 89 series of 1986
Moral turpitude - offends the generally accepted code of mankind. It is in

act of baseless, violence or depravity, in the private and social duties which
a man owes to his fellowmen and society in general. It is immoral in itself
regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. Some laws have
been constantly and consistently held to involve moral turpitude. And
these are, among others: Robbery, Adultery, bigamy, extortion, bribery,
forgery, and libel.
Teaching of law is not practice of law. A law professor does not actually
deal with clients whose rights may be subject to legal controversies. He
does not hold himself out to the public as a lawyer, but as a mentor
learned in the law, he is qualified by reason of his legal training, to instruct
students of legal subjects.
Practice of law is a privilege, because you have to prove that you have all
the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to be admitted to the
bar. And upon admission, you have to prove that you are worthy to be a
continued member of good standing in the Bar. Lawyers must always bow
PALE team:
50

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
to the inherent powers of the court to regulate and supervise the legal
profession. So the practice of law is a privilege but it can also partake in
the nature of a right.
Phil. Lawyers Association vs. Agrava
The Philippine Patent Office (now the IPO) required that before lawyers
can appear in the Philippine Patent Office, they should pass the exam given
by the PPO. The examination is not valid. No other sort of examination or
qualification tool is necessary before a lawyer can be allowed to practice
before the PPO or before any other court or quasi-judicial tribunal. If you
have passed the bar exams, then that is enough. No need for other
qualifying examination before you can appear in any court or tribunal.
Practice of Law can also partake in a nature of a right because a lawyer
cannot be prevented from practicing law except for valid reasons.
How about if you apply to a law firm? Then you submit your application
then the clerk will tell you Atty., there is an entrance exam. Can you say
objection, according to the case of Agrava, I dont need anymore any
qualification exam. Is that correct? NO, that is incorrect. Any potential
employer has the employers prerogative to give any entrance exam or any
qualifying exam. The examination referred to in the case of Agrava is an
examination that you have to pass in order to appear before the PPO. You
can appear anywhere without examination but of course it would be
different if you apply to be an employee in the PPO. The PPO can always
give an exam. But here it is simple appearance as lawyer.
Those who are admitted as members of the Bar and who maintain good
and regular standing can practice law. (Section 1, rule 138 of the rules of
court). The practice of law is generally limited to lawyers to protect party
litigants because of the complex nature of judicial proceedings. The rules
of procedure can be very tricky.
The sanctions for unauthorized practice of law

There could be injunction to restrain continuation. Can you be suspended
or disbarred? It depends. Who is engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law? It can be a layman. He cannot be suspended or disbarred because he
does not belong to the Bar. But if youre talking about a lawyer who
practiced law during his period of suspension, that can be additional
ground for administrative sanction. Contempt of court. There can be
criminal prosecution. Damages. There could be denial of right to fees.
Malahan vs. CFI
One woman paraded as a lawyer using the name of a deceased lawyer,
was found guilty of continuous fraudulent misrepresentation and highly
improper conduct. So she was adjudged in contempt of court, severely
censured and was sentenced to suffer three months imprisonment.
Sharia Lawyers - We have Sharia Courts and before you can practice
before the Sharia courts, you have to pass the Sharia bar exams because
their laws, particularly their family laws very different from our family
code. So you have to pass the bar exams. Sharia lawyers who are LLB
graduates but are not members of the Bar are not allowed to practice
before the regular courts even if the parties are both Muslims. Under the
code of Muslim personal laws, the Sharia district courts and the regular
courts have concurrent jurisdiction. However, it does not authorize the
appearance of a Sharia lawyer who is not a duly admitted member of the
Bar. Therefore, to be able to appear before the regular courts, the Shari a
lawyer must also have taken the Bar exams and must also have passed the
regular Bar exams.
Appearance Pro Hac Vice - It is appearance by a lawyer who is not
licensed to practice in a jurisdiction but only in connection of a particular
case. This maybe allowed by courts at very limited instances if the
PALE team:
51

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
appearance is only in an isolated case and no compensation is charged for
the service.
Can a non-lawyer appear in court and represent himself as a party to the

case? Yes. That is called pro se practice or appearance pro se.
Appearance in propia presona or pro se practice - It is appearance in court

by a non-lawyer for himself and without assistance of a member of the
Bar. This is allowed. A party can represent himself before all courts from
the MTC all the way up to the SC, even in quasi-judicial tribunals and
agencies, pro se practice is allowed and that rule is absolute, no
exceptions. A party can always represent himself. Basis for allowance: The
due process clause of the constitution; the right to be heard by himself or
by counsel especially in criminal cases. Also in the Rules of Court, Sec. 3,
Rule 7: Every pleading must be signed by the party or the counsel
representing him. So, pro se practice is always allowed before any court.
This line talks about non-lawyers who are authorized as counsel to appear
in court, they are not appearing as party. Because if they appear as a party,
the rule is absolute, it is allowed.
In Re: Borromeo
A senior law student, as long as they are enrolled in a recognized law

school clinical educational program approved by the Supreme Court, they
can appear before any court, tribunal, agency or office. It could be in any
case: civil, administrative or criminal. There is NO qualification.
While pro se practice is allowed it is not advisable. A little learning is a

dangerous thing. He who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
Pro se practice does not apply to corporations. Otherwise it will
circumvent the prohibition on corporate practice of law. Corporations are
not allowed to practice law because the corporation is an entity separate
and distinct from that of its stockholders, and the practice of law is purely
personal. If a client hires you, its because the client has trust and
confidence in you. In a corporation, theres a veil of corporate fiction and
if you allow corps to practice law, it might present the opportunity for
unscrupulous lawyers to just form corporations in order to escape personal
liability.
Non-lawyers who are authorized to appear in court (Note: dont talk
about a non-lawyer appearing for himself as party because by all means it
is allowed. We are talking about a non-lawyer appearing as counsel before
the court)
General rule: non-lawyers are allowed to appear before the MTC

Exception: criminal cases
Exception to the exception: in a locality where a duly licensed member of
the Bar is not available
However, if they appear in the RTC and higher courts, they must be
accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his appearances as provided in
the Rules of Court.
Under the Labor Code, can non-lawyers appear as counsel? Yes. There are
instances provided.
Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the
cadastral court.
Also before the DARAB, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board.
PALE team:
52

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Public officials who cannot practice law
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Judges and other official employees of the superior courts

OSG officials and employees
Government prosecutor
President
Vice President
Members of the Cabinet
Members of Constitutional Commission
Ombudsman and his deputies
Governors, City and Municipal mayors
And those prohibited by special law.
Under Sec. 1 of R.A. 910, a retired justice or judge can practice law upon
retirement. However, they cannot act as counsel in any civil case in which
the government or any of its subdivisions or agencies is the adverse party
or in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the government
is accused of an offense in relation to his office.
Practice of law - any activity in or out of court which requires the
application of the law, legal procedure, knowledge, training or experience.
(Cayetano vs. Monsod)
Attorney, counsel, abogado, bosero - class of persons who are licensed
officers of the court, duly admitted to the bar.
Bar - whole body of lawyers.
Public officials who can practice law but with restriction

Bench - judges and justices.
a.
b.
Senators and Members of the house. They can practice law but
they cannot personally appear.
Under the local government code, the Sanggunian members
What are the restrictions?

1. Not appear as counsel before any court in a civil case wherein the
local government unit, or any office, agency or instrumentality of
the government is the adverse party.
2. They cannot appear in a criminal case wherein an officer or
employee of the national or local government is accused of an
offense in relation to his office
3. They cannot collect any fee for their appearance in administrative
proceedings involving the LGU of which he is an official.
4. They cannot use the property and personnel of the government
EXCEPT when the Sanggunian member concerned is defending the
interest of the govt.
Bar admission - act or process by which one is licensed to practice in court

of particular jurisdiction after satisfying certain requirements.
Attorney in fact - not necessarily a lawyer
Counsel de oficio - a counsel appointed or assigned by the court from
among members of the bar in good standing, who by reason of their
experience and ability may adequately defend the accused. It could be any
lawyer.
Amicus curiae - Friend of the court. He is not a party to the case. The court
may invite somebody who is learned on the law and to give opinion in a
particular complex issue of law. Or, if not invited by the court, one who
petitioned to become an amicus curiae because of his strong interest in
the subject matter of the case. The court is not bound by the opinion of
the amicus curiae. The opinion of the amicus curiae is only persuasive, at
best recommendatory upon the court.
PALE team:
53

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Barrister - (Philippines) One who has yet to take the bar or has taken the
bar but has not passed it yet.
immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of

lawyers.
(England) A person entitled to practice law before the superior court.
Moral turpitude - everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,

modesty or good morals.
Titulo de abogado - membership in the bar after due admission, thereto

qualifying one for the practice of law.
Canon 1
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Lawyers must not only uphold and obey the Constitution and the laws but
also Legal orders or processes of courts. They must be the very first one to
obey the law, not to look for loopholes and evade or circumvent the law.
Rule 1.01
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall be a
person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent to an admission to the practice of law; its continued possession
is also essential for remaining in the practice of law(People vs. Tuanda,
Adm. Case No. 3360 (Jan. 30, 1990).
Rule 138, Section 27, ROC
The commission of unlawful acts, especially crimes involving moral
turpitude, acts of dishonesty in violation of the attorneys oath, grossly
Immoral conduct - a conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless

andwhich shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community. (Arciga v. Maniwang, 106 SCRA
591)
What constitutes grossly immoral conduct/act?
One that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. (Figueroa v. Barranca, 275 SCRA 445, July 31, 1997)
Conviction for crime involving moral turpitude a number of lawyers have
been suspended or disbarred for conviction of crimes involving moral
turpitude such as:
1. estafa
2. bribery
3. murder
4. seduction
5. abduction
6. smuggling
7. falsification of public document
As officers of the court, lawyers must only in fact be of good moral

character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and living
lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A
member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain
PALE team:
54

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistress, but must also
behave as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting such moral standard. (Tolosa vs. Cargo, 171 SCRA 21(1989)
NON-PROFESISONAL MISCONDUCT
xxx misconduct indicative of moral unfitness, whether relating to
professional or nonprofessional matters, justifies suspension or
disbarment. xxx an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not
only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross
misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which showed him
unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the
law confer to him. (Lizaso vs. Amante, 198 SCRA (1991)
While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship between
respondent and complainant, it is well settled that an attorney may be
removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty
in the profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, showing him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of
the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. (Constantino
v. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)
Some cases of Dishonesty and Deceit which Merited Discipline by the
Supreme Court
1. Misappropriation of clients funds
2. Act of fraudulently concealing dutiable importation or smuggling
3. Giving false statements under oath in an Information Sheet submitted in
connection with the lawyers application for the position of Chief of Police
4. Wanton falsehood made in an ex parte petition in court wherein the
lawyer attached affidavit of his grandfather and which affidavit he
notarized knowing that the supposed affiant is already dead
5. Maneuvering reconveyance of property in the name of a lawyer instead
of the client in a case involving sale with pacto de retro
6. Submission or presentation of mutilated copies of certain documents to

court for the purpose of deceiving and misleading it
7. Falsification of grades in the Bar Examinations
8. Collecting several thousand pesos on the pretense that counsel would
allegedly appeal the complaints case to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that it was necessary to him to go to Washington, D.C. which
he did, knowing that the decision could no longer be appealed because it is
already final
9. Introducing someone to buy a piece of land knowing that it is not for
sale
10. Delayed failure to account money collected for the client
11. Stealing evidence attached to the court records
Instances of Gross Immorality and the Resulting Consequences:

1. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting with another woman. Disbarred.
2. Bigamy perpetrated by the lawyer. Disqualified from admission to the
Bar
3. A lawyer who had carnal knowledge with a woman through a promise of
marriage which he did not fulfill. Disbarred.
4. Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a married woman with whom
the respondent lawyer had adulterous relations. Disbarred.
5. Lawyer arranging the marriage of his son to a woman with whom the
lawyer had illicit relations. After the marriage of the woman to the
respondents son, he continued his adulterous relations with her. Disbarred
6. Lawyer inveigling a woman into believing that they had been married
civilly to satisfy his carnal desires. Disbarred
7. Lawyer taking advantage of his position as chairman of the college of
medicine and asked a lady student to go with him to manila where he had
carnal knowledge of her under threat that if she refused , she would flunk
in all her subjects. Disbarred
PALE team:
55

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Concubinage coupled with failure to support illegitimate children.
Suspended indefinitely
9. Maintaining adulterous relationship with a married woman. Suspended
indefinitely
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 32, CPE
A lawyer should not render any service or advice to any client no matter
how powerful or important is the cause which will involve disloyalty to
the laws of the country which he is bound to uphold and obey.
Canon 15, CPE
The great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and without the
bounds of the law.
The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it demand of him
any client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must
obey his own conscience and not that of his client.
Rule 1.03
A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage an suit or
proceeding or delay any mans cause.
A lawyer must not unduly delay a case.
The lawyer was reprimanded when he used his legal expertise to
unnecessarily and unjustly delay a case. (Belmundo vs. CA)
A lawyer should not refuse or delay a case just because he may not be paid
well or as expected by him. Because the legal profession is not a money
making trade. Yes, there is money but it is not the main purpose. The main
purpose of the legal profession is public service.
However, this does not mean that a lawyer cannot reject a case, the fact of
which does not convince him to be meritorious. If the lawyer is
deliberately not paid, he may withdraw as counsel. The canons of
professional ethics says that the lawyers highest honor is found in the
reserved reputation for fidelity to the private trust and public duty as an
honest man and as a patriotic and loyal citizen.
Relative to this rule is the encouragement on lawyers to employ alternative
dispute resolution modes, modes of discovery and all those modes that
can expedite and speed up litigation or avoid litigation altogether.
In re: 1989 IBP Elections, 178 SCRA 398

Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are
supposed to be minions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and
cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their
observance.
Under the common law jurisdiction, intermeddling of an interested party

to encourage a law suit can be a tort of maintenance and can be a cause of
action for damages.
The following are unprofessional acts (torts of maintenance)
a.
b.
Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits EXCEPT when ties of blood,

relationship or trust make it a duty to do so
Hunting up defects in title or other causes of action
PALE team:
56

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
To breathe litigation by seeking up claims for personal injury

Employing agents or runners
Paying direct or indirect reward to those who bring or influence
the bringing cases in his office
Searching for unknown heirs and soliciting their employment
Other similar acts.
Ambulance Chasing - is a lawyers act of figuratively chasing the victims of

an accident for the purpose of talking to the victims or latters relative and
offering his legal services for the filing of the case against the person who
caused the accident.
Ambulance chaser - is a lawyer who frequently haunts hospital and
morgues, and scenes of the crime.
Justifiable and Unjustifiable Litigation
Are these acts ethical?
The lawyer must decline a case when convinced that it is intended merely
to harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression.
No. It is contrary to ethical rule that the lawyers must not encourage
lawsuits.
A criminal complaint may be filed base on spurious or manufactured

causes of action just to have leverage against somebody.
Barratry vs. Ambulance Chasing
Lets say an employee filed an illegal dismissal case before the labor court.
The lawyer for the employer suggest to criminally charge the employee,
like for contempt, then use it for leverage. Drop the illegal dismissal case
then we will drop the criminal charge against you. That is unjustified
because it is not based on facts, it has no grounds.
But otherwise it is the lawyers right and having accepted engagement it
becomes the lawyers duty to insist upon the judgment of the court as to
the legal merits of his clients claim or defense. His appearance in court
should be deemed as an assertion on his honor that in his opinion his
clients case is one proper for judicial determination. Once a lawyer
appears in court, he warrants to the court that his case is grounded on
facts and law, that his case is justified.
Barratry - is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and
suits, either at law or otherwise. It is the lawyers act of fomenting suits
among individuals and offering his legal services to one of them.
Barratry refers to any action. Ambulance chasing refers only to personal

injury action.
Barratry may refer to suits before any fora. Ambulance chasing refers to
cases brought before the court.
Canon 28, CPE
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make his duty
to do so.
For ambulance chasing has spawned recognized evils such as:
a.
b.
c.
Fomenting of litigation with resulting burdens on the courts and

the public;
Subornation of perjury;
Mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon manufactured
causes of actions, and
PALE team:
57

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d.
Defrauding of injured persons having proper causes actions but

ignorant of legal rights and court procedure by means of contracts
which retain exorbitant percentages of recovery and illegal
charges for court costs and expenses and by settlement made for
quick returns of fees and against the just rights of the injured
persons.
Example, a lawyer takes advantage of the meritorious cause of action of

his client, and because he is sure to win, the lawyer will enter into a
contract with his client asking for exorbitant fees in exchange.
Or settlement made for quick return of fees, even if it is against the just
right of the injured. These evils could also be true to barratry.
Rule 1.04
A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy
if it will admit of a fair settlement.
A compromise is as often the better part of justice as prudence is the
better part of valor and a lawyer who encourages compromise is no less
the clients champion in settlement out of court than he is the clients
champion in the battle of court.
The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but also to
avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He
should be a mediator for concord and conciliator for compromise, rather
than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. (De Yaasi III v.
NLRC, 231 SCRA 173 (1994)
A lawyer cannot, without special authority, compromise his clients

litigation or receive anything in discharge of the clients claim but the full
amount in cash. A compromise entered into without authority is merely
unenforceable.
However, a lawyer has the exclusive management of the procedural aspect
of the litigation including the enforcement of rights and remedies of the
client. (Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662)
_____________________________________________________________
Canon 2
A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient amd
convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
Legal services should not only be efficient but should also be available and
accessible to those who need them in a manner compatible with the ethics
of the profession. A lawyer who accepts professional employment should
be in a position to render efficient and effective legal assistance, otherwise
he should help find another lawyer who is qualified and able to do so.
Rule 2.01
A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
Canon 4, CPE
A lawyer assigned as counsel for an indigent prisoner must not ask to be
excused for any trivial reason and should always exert his best efforts in his
behalf.
PALE team:
58

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The duty of a lawyer to accept the cause of the defenseless and the
oppressed empowers the court to require him to render professional
services to any party in a case, if the party is without means to employ an
attorney and the services of a lawyer are necessary to protect the rights of
such party or secure the ends of justice or to designate him as counsel de
officio for an accused if the latter is unable to employ a counsel de parte.
(People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752)
Who are the defenseless or the oppressed?
A party could be defenseless or oppressed by reason of poverty, or by
reason of physical disability, by reason of age; it depends on the particular
facts of a case.
Rule 2.02
In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latters right.
If the reason for non-acceptance of a case is conflict of interest, a lawyer
must refrain from giving legal advice because a lawyer-client relationship is
established and may lead to violation of the rule against representing
conflicting interests.
Therefore, if a lawyer has a valid reason to decline engagement, but even
so the lawyer must always render immediate legal advice to protect or
safeguard the rights of the client.
Valid reasons to decline engagement

a.
b.
c.
Under Rule 14.03, the lawyer is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
Not the field of law where the lawyer is not confident in;
If the lawyer labors under a conflict of interest between him and
the prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective client.
Lawyers must exercise the same degree or standard of diligence accorded

in paying clients. In pro bono cases, same diligence and care must be
exerted even if the lawyer is not paid because legal aid is not a matter of
charity but a matter of public responsibility.
Example, if a client knocks at your door and asked for help, he doesnt
know why he is being arrested. In practice the warrant of arrest is
accompanied by the copy of information, and in the information there is
the recommended bail. So the client presents the warrant to the lawyer
but no information. The lawyer on the other hand has a valid reason to
decline engagement. However the lawyer should not leave the client out in
the cold. He should render immediate assistance, like giving advice in
questioning the warrant of arrest.
Rule 2.03
A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment
or suspension.
PALE team:
59

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court
The law prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, and makes the act
malpractice.
A lawyer who agrees with a non-lawyer to divide attorneys fees paid by
clients supplied or solicited by the non-lawyer is guilty of malpractice, the
same being a form of solicitation of cases.
Characteristics which distinguishes the legal profession from business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in
which one may sustain the highest eminence without making much
money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice
involving thorough sincerity,integrity,and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice or dealing directly with their clients.
Types of advertising or solicitations not prohibited

1. Publication of reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, or brief biographical and
informative data.
2. The use of ordinary simple professional card. The card contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected
with, address, telephone no., and special branch of law practiced.
3. Publication or a public announcement of the opening of a law firm or of
changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being
for the convenience of the profession. (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic 223 SCRA 378)
To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the

practice of law, lower the profession in public confidence and lessen his
ability to render efficiently that high character of service to which every
member of the bar is called. It is destructive of the honor of a great
profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It
results in needless litigation. (In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929))
Rule 2.04
A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.
How do you know the rates customarily prescribed?
Every IBP local chapter has its schedule of fees and there youll see the
customarily prescribed rates for every legal service.
The reason behind this rule is to avoid demeaning and degrading
competition among lawyers. Because the legal profession is mainly not a
money making trade, it is not a business.
Does it mean that you should always charge the customarily prescribed
rates or higher? No. Take note of the unless clause. Example: a pro bono
case
___________________________________________________________
PALE team:
60

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Canon 3
A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
General rule: A lawyer is not allowed to advertise. As he is a member of an

honorable profession the primary purpose of which is to render public
service and secure justice.
Exception: Forms of permissible advertisement. (ULEP case)
Rule 3.01
1.
A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
2.
A lawyer must refrain from self-laudatory statements. Ex. An expert in

criminal law and civil law.
3.
4.
Avoid self-appraising remarks, must stick to just objective, honest and fair.
5.
Canon 27,CPE
The Canons of the Profession that tell the best advertising possible for a
lawyer is well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct.
Any false pretense therefore by a lawyer intended to defraud, mislead or
deceive to tout on his qualifications or quality of his legal services is
unethical whether done by him personally or through another with his
permission.
The proffer of free legal services to the indigent, even when broadcast
over the radio or tendered through circulations of printed matter to the
general public, offends no ethical rule.
6.
7.
Writing legal articles. However a lawyer cannot accept

employment from such publication to advice inquiries in
respect to individual rights of persons
Listing in law lists. But only brief, biographical and informative
data
Ordinary professional cards
Notice to other lawyers, and publishing of legal journal of
ones availability
Simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or
changes of the partnership or firm name or office address.
Because it is for the convenience of the profession.
Listing of telephone directory.
Giving advice over the radio.
As long as proffer of free legal services to the indigents even if broadcasted

over the radio or tender through printed matter to the general public
It would be different if the lawyer would say after his program for more
info call me at my office, my office address is x x x. It is an unlawful
advertisement.
As long as there are no self- laudatory statements, just a brief biographical
data of the lawyer is allowed. Like in the internet, as long as true honest
fair information.
PALE team:
61

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rule 3.02
In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in all its communication that said partner is
deceased.
If a partner died, and continued use of the name is desired by the surviving
partners, the name of the deceased may still be used, in all the
communications of the law firm, provided there is an indication that said
partner is already dead.
The use of a cross after the name of the deceased partner is sufficient
indication. It is advisable though that the year of the death be also
indicated.
Why is it permitted to retain the name of the dead partner?
Overtime, law firms have acquired the reputation and good will because of
the hard work and diligence of its partners and for a law firm to lose a bit
of its goodwill, if you have to drop the name of the deceased partner by
the mere accident of death, is unfair. So they can retain the law firm name.
Another situation: Atty. X was elected as Vice President of the Philippines,
should you drop the name of Atty. X in the law firm name?
Yes, because he now, as elected vice president, is prohibited to practice
law.
If only one of the lawyers appearing in the name of the law firm survives,
can the he continue the use of the firm name with his deceased partners
name? Yes.
However, if only associates are left, that is a different story.
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a foreign law firm,
as the latter cannot practice law in the Philippines and the use of a foreign
law firm name is unethical.
Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a foreign law firm.
(Dacanay vs. Baker & Mckenzie)
Canon 33, CPE
In the formation of such partnership, no person should be admitted or held
out as a member who is not a lawyer. Nor may a group of lawyers hold
themselves out as partners when, in fact, they are not or when no
partnership actually exists.
Death of a partner does not extinguish the client-lawyer relationship with
the law firm. (B.R. Sebastian Enterprises Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA
28)
Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the firm. When the
counsel of records is the Law Firm, the negligence of the lawyer assigned
to the case consisting in his leaving for abroad without notifying his
colleagues is negligence of the Law Firm. (Antonio vs. Court of Appeals,
153 SCRA 592)
What if Atty. X was elected as senator, should you drop his name?
No, because a senator can concurrently practice law.
PALE team:
62

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rule 3.03
Canon 4
Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and
his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law concurrently.
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.
RA 7160, Section 90
Canon 40, CPE
General Rule: Name of partner should be dropped from the firm name
when he accepts public office. If a partner in a law firm has accepted a
public office, his name shall be removed from the firm name.
An attorney may with propriety write articles for publications in which he

gives information upon the law; but he should not accept employment
from such publications to advise inquiries in respect to their individual
rights.
Exception: If the law allows him to practice law concurrently while holding
the position such as Sanggunian members are subject to certain
restrictions.
Rule 3.04
Facing the law in the everyday work of the lawyer, they are the first to
notice the laws imperfections or loopholes. Therefore, the most logical
people who could give suggestions to improve the legal system are the
lawyers themselves.
A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the

mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
How? Lawyers could present position papers or resolutions for the

introduction of pertinent bills in congress, or you could petition with the SC
for the amendments of some provisions of the Rules of Court.
A lawyer who seeks publicity to attract legal business is debasing the legal
profession, especially so, if he pays something of value for it.
____________________________________________________________
Canon 5
_____________________________________________________________
A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in

continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high
standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students
and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.
PALE team:
63

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Threefold obligation of a lawyer
First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the
laws;
Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the
maintenance of high standards of high education.
Third, he owes it to the law public to make the law a part of their social
consciousness
It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep

abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have
been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance report
of Supreme Court decisions (G.R.s) and in such publications as the
Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals. (De Roy vs.
Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 757)
Attorneys should familiarize themselves with the rules and comply with
their requirements. They are also chargeable with notice of changes in the
rules which have been held as including not only express reglementary
provisions but also a regular practice under the Rules of Court. (Zualo vs.
CFI of Cebu, CA-G.R. No. 27718-R, July 7, 1961)
MCLE Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Program for Lawyers (Bar
Matter 850)
units and subdivided into those topics or subjects. There must be

compliance of MCLE, 36 units every 3 years.
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM MCLE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
President
Vice President
Secretary
Undersecretary
Senators
Members of House of Representatives
Justices of the Supreme Court (including incumbent court lawyers)
Because they are also covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy
continuing legal educational program (PHILJA)
OTHERS (Bar Matter 850) (Exempted also)

1.
Those who are not in law practice whether in public or private.

However it could fall in Item no. 10: incumbent deans, bar
reviewers and professors of law having teaching experienced of at
least 10 years in an accredited law schools could qualify.
2.
Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of
the IBP Board of Governors. Retirement must be with the
knowledge and approval by the IBP Board of Governors.
The purpose is to ensure that throughout their career that lawyers are
updated with the latest law and jurisprudence and in effect they remain
competent to discharge their functions to the society.
Requirements for MCLE:
There is 3 years compliance period and for each compliance period a
lawyer must complete 36 hours of legal education, which is equal to 36
PALE team:
64

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Good Causes for Exemption from Or Modification Of The Requirements
On MCLE
Exemption no need to attend MCLE
Modification instead of 36 hours, may be less
Canon 6
Applicability of canons of professional responsibility to lawyers in the
government service
Report of IBP Committee, p.30

There must be a VERIFIED REQUEST, grounds of which are: physical
disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law.
A lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon his assuming
public office.
Consequences for Non-Compliance

A lawyer may be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the
recommendation of the MCLE Committee.
If a lawyer is a delinquent member of the IBP, that could thereafter be a
ground for administrative action against the lawyer. However, still the
listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature, and shall be
made with notice and hearing by the committee of MCLE.
In pleadings, the lawyer must indicate therein his MCLE compliance
certificate number.
Lawyers should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional

obligations as their conduct is subject to constant scrutiny of the public.
All the more when a lawyer assumes public office there are even more
rules that he has to comply with aside from the Canons of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). Such as:
a.
b.
RA 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards For Public

Officials and Employees
RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
What is the effect of non-indication of MCLE compliance?

Case may be dismissed, or such particular pleading is stricken out or
expunge from the records of the case.
Note: Judges are not covered by the CPR. They cannot be investigated by
the IBP. Lawyers who are incumbent judges are governed by the Code of
Judicial Ethics, both the new and old code.
_____________________________________________________________
R.A. 6713
Public Officials include any elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career
service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they
receive compensation, regardless of amount.
PALE team:
65

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Government lawyers are included.
The law requires the observance of the following norms of conduct by

every public official in the discharge and execution of their official duties:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
commitment to public interest

professionalism
justness and sincerity
political neutrality
responsiveness to the public
nationalism and patriotism
commitment to democracy
simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
Sec 7 par. b (2) [Government lawyers are prohibited to] engage in the
private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions
There are some government lawyers who appear in court because in their
office they are given authority to do so. They have applied for a certain
level of private practice and were authorized. But without that authority
they cannot engage in private practice law, unless allowed by the
Constitution or other laws. But then again even if allowed by the
Constitution or other laws, private practice of the lawyer should NOT
conflict or tend to conflict with their official function.
This prohibition will continue for ONE YEAR after their separation from
public office in connection with any matter pending before the office they
used to be with.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is

not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action
LAWYERS ENGAGE IN PUBLIC PROSECUTION

The duty is not always to win, but to see to it that justice is done. He
should see to it that the accused is given a fair and impartial trial and not
deprived of any of his statutory or constitutional rights. (Suarez vs. Platon,
69 Phil. 556)
A prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. Remember before a case goes to
court, it has to go to the prosecutor for preliminary investigation in
determining the existence or absence of probable cause, in that sense the
prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. In determining the existence or
absence of probable cause, the prosecutor must always maintain
objectivity, not just make sure that the respondent be brought to court
and convicted. The prosecutor must always seek equal and impartial
justice. In many cases, he should be as much concerned with seeing that
no innocent man suffers as in seeing a guilty man escapes. (State vs.
Platon, 40 O.G. 6th Supp. 235)
If the prosecutor finds no sufficient evidence, in the preliminary
investigation, he should resolve to the effect that there is no probable
cause.
If the case has already been filed, then the prosecutor finds no probable
cause, the prosecutor may file a motion before the court the order of
dismissal, that is his prerogative.
PALE team:
66

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If it is on appeal, the prosecutor may recommend before the appellate
court for the acquittal of the accused. (Although it is already the Solicitor
General who handles the case, still the public prosecutor may manifest).
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
If the law allows a public official to practice law concurrently, he must use
his public position to feather his law practice. If the law does not allow him
to practice his profession, he should not do so indirectly by being a silent
partner in a law firm or by securing legal business for a friend or former
associate in the active practice of law receiving a share in the attorneys
fees for his efforts.
General Rule: A lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct on the discharge of his
duties as government official.
The lawyer should be treated as any government official and file an
administrative case against him before the proper government authority,
not necessarily the Supreme Court. (Example: Ombudsman or own admin
machinery in their particular office)
Exception: If the misconduct is of such character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency then he may be
disciplined as a member of the BAR. The reason is it affects the continuing
requisite of good moral character.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
The prohibition is absolute. Unlike in the prior Canon, there is no one year
prohibition, the CPR is silent. There is no time frame. As long as it is of any
matter in which he had intervened while in service. Otherwise, he would
be guilty of representing conflicting interests.
Note: The intervention must be substantial.
Parallel provision is RA 3019.
Sec. 3 (d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business
with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
Therefore, aside from possible administrative liability, there is also criminal
liability under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Another parallel provision in RA 6713.

Sec 7 (1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any
private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law.
Any Matter and Intervene

Any matter, according to the American Bar Association formal opinion, is
any discrete isolatable act, as well as identifiable transaction or conduct
involving a particular situation and specific party, and not merely an act of
drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency proceeding,
regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.
PALE team:
67

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Intervene includes an act of a person who has the power to influence the
subject proceedings. (PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12, Apr.
12, 2005)
civil case which is about the sequestration of the shares of Tan et. al. in
Allied Bank.
Facts:
Consequently, the danger that confidential official information might be

divulged is still nil, if not inexistent. To be sure, there are no inconsistent
sides to be bothered about in this case. For there is no question that in
lawyering for Tan et. al., Mendoza is indirectly defending the validity of the
action of the Central Bank in liquidating GenBank and selling it later to
Allied Bank. Their interests coincide instead of colliding. (PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005)
Mendoza, as SolGen, gave advice on the procedure to liquidate the

GenBank. After his stint as SolGen, went back to private practice and
handle the cases of Tan et. al filed by the PCGG. The PCGG filed motions to
disqualify Mendoza as counsel for Tan, et al. The motions alleged that
Mendoza, as then SolGen and counsel to Central Bank, actively
intervened in the liquidation of GenBank, which was subsequently
acquired by Tan, et al.
HELD:
The advice given by Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate the GenBank is
not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the CPR.
ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that the drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or
laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within
the scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify.
It is submitted that the court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness for
it correctly disfavors lawyers who switch sides. It is claimed that
switching sides carries the danger that former government employee
may compromise confidential official information in the process.
_____________________________________________________________
LAWYERS DUTY TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

In summary, the lawyers duties to the legal profession are:
Uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and

support the IBP (CANON 7)
To be courteous, fair and frank to fellow lawyers (CANON 8)
Not to assist in the unauthorized practice of law (CANON 9)
Not to encroach upon the employment of another lawyer
However, this concern does not cast shadow in the case at bar. The act of
Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure on how to
liquidate the GenBank is a different matter from the subject matter of the
PALE team:
68

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 a false

statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
Misrepresentation vs. Concealment

There is misrepresentation when you claim certain facts to be true, when
in fact they are not. There is concealment when you suppress a material
fact.
Both misrepresentation and concealment of a material fact in connection
with the requirements for the admission to the bar are unethical.
What are the consequences?
a.
b.
c.
d.
If he has not taken the bar, he will be denied permission to take

the bar
If already taken and passed, he will not be allowed to take the
lawyers oath
If he has taken the lawyers oath, he will not be permitted to sign
in the roll of attorneys
If he has done with all those things, he will be disbarred.
Concealment: In re Ramon Galang

Ramon Galang, in his application to take the bar, he stated that he has not
been charged with any offense before a fiscal, municipal judge or any other
officers or accused of, indicted for, or convicted by any court or tribunal of
any crime involving moral turpitude nor is there a pending case against
him. But the truth is there was a pending case of slight physical injuries
against him. Upon the discovery of the pendency of the case, therefore
discovery of his concealment, his license was revoked. But take note, he
was allowed to take the bar 7 times due to such concealment then after he
passed the bar finally, his license was revoked.
Defense: Its not a crime involving moral turpitude, so there is no
obligation to disclose.
Court said, it is not a proper defense because there is the requirement to
disclose under oath all pending cases against you. The Supreme Court said
that the mere fact of concealment is an indicative of lack of good moral
character.
So regardless of the subject criminal case pending review involves moral
turpitude or not, the mere concealment of such is indicative of lack of
good moral character.
Misrepresentation: Yao vs. Martinez
He misrepresented that he has finished his undergraduate studies when in
fact he has not. He was stricken out of the roll of attorneys.
Supreme Court is very strict because it touches on the qualification of the

BAR applicant for membership in the BAR.
PALE team:
69

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
HELD: The fact that he shamelessly flaunts his mistress constitutes act
which embarrass and discredit the law profession since it is his duty and
obligation to uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession. His
actuation is contrary to good morals.
It is the lawyers ethical duty to the legal profession to see to it that the
new members of the bar are also qualified. Therefore there is the corollary
duty of every lawyer not to support the application for the admission to
the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified.
In fact any misconduct, whether related to the lawyers job or not which
put his moral character in serious doubt, he seems unfit to continue to
practice law.
Violation would make the lawyer liable for disciplinary action for gross
misconduct of office. (Rule 138 Sec 27 of the Rules of Court)
Rule 7.03 - 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.
Fitness to practice law is not to be determined only by the specific

qualifications for admission into the bar but encompasses practically all
aspects of a lawyers public or private life that could actually or potentially
tarnish the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. (CPR Annotated,
PhilJA)
Situation:
FACTS: A lawyer is married and has many mistresses. He flaunts his
mistress on social gatherings. An administrative case was filed against him.
He claimed that having a mistress has nothing to do with the competence
and with law practice, in fact within the locality he is one of the most
prominent lawyers because of his competence.
DUTY TO UPHOLD THE HONOR OF THE PROFESSION

A lawyer must expose without fear or favor before the proper tribunal
corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession.
Accept without hesitation employment against a member of the bar who
has wronged his client.
And guard the bar against admission to the profession of persons of
deficient moral character.
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
-
It is an official national body composed of all persons whose

names now appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 1, Rule 139-A, RRC)
All lawyers are required to be members and not only that they are
required to render financial support to the IBP as a condition
precedent to the practice of law
What is Integration of the BAR?

It is essentially a process by which every member of the bar is afforded an
opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the bar as well
as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)
PALE team:
70

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What does the IBP do?
The IBP has a lot of projects like legal clinic or legal aid to the indigents.
The IBP has programs on the improvement of the law. Frequently, the IBP
also gives out MCLE to lawyers; it is an accredited MCLE provider. The
MCLE has the Commission on BAR discipline and it also has the
Commissioners on BAR discipline who investigates administrative charges
against lawyers. The IBP cannot do this without money. The IBP has a lot
of offices/employees all over the country. The IBP needs money to
maintain all its operations and services to lawyers.
What is the logical source of the IBP fund?

It is the contributions from the lawyers because lawyers are also the
beneficiaries of the integration. So it is also logical that all lawyers should
participate in the financial burden of the IBP which explains why lawyers
are required to pay IBP dues. Integration of the BAR is dictated by
overriding considerations of public interests which rectify the restrictions
that the integration imposes upon the personal interest and convenience
of individual lawyers. The lawyer cannot say I dont want to be a member
of the IBP but then the dictate, the overriding benefit of integration
should prevail over the individual conveniences and preferences of
lawyers.
exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the

lawyer's public responsibilities. Given existing BAR conditions, the most
efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court
that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
Therefore every lawyer must bow to the inherent regulatory power not
just of the SC but also of the IBP.
Is bar integration a violation of the freedom of association of lawyers?

Are lawyers compelled to be members of the IBP? If that is so, if they are
compelled, is it a violation of the lawyers freedom of association?
No. To compel 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. All that
integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for
the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every
lawyer is already a member.
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to
be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an
exercise of the police power of the State.
Santos Jr. v. Atty. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749, Jan. 20, 2000
In the Matter of IBP Membership dues delinquency of Atty. Marcial
Edillon, A.M. No. 1928, Aug. 3, 1978
Is Bar integration constitutional?
Yes, it was declared to be a valid exercise of the police power over an
important profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but a
privilege clothed with public interest. Hence, it is far and just that the
FACTS: Atty. Llamas, for a number of years, has not indicated the proper
PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. He only indicated IBP Rizal
259060 but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. Atty.
Llamas averred that he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and
under R.A. 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of
income taxes and included in this exemption, is the payment of
membership dues. Is Atty. Llamas correct?
PALE team:
71

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HELD: Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall
pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership and if non-payment covers a period of 1-year,
default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquents name from the
Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not Atty. Llamas is only
engaged in limited practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by
Atty. Llamas does not include exemption from payment of membership or
association dues.
____________________________________________________________
Canon 8
A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
A lawyer should address his colleague with respect and courtesy as well as
the court and this rule should be observed even in the pleadings that the
lawyer files.
Any kind of language which attacks without foundation and integrity of the
opposing counsel or the dignity of the court may be stricken off the
records or may subject a lawyer to disciplinary action. (Report of IBP
Committee, p. 41)
What is the danger if you employ abusive, improper and offensive

language in the pleadings?
Under the Rules of Court, it could be direct contempt. Other than being
cited for direct contempt, that particular pleading could be expunged from
the records of the case. The court may do that. In the end, it could be
harmful to your clients cause.
So, in all professional dealings of lawyers including pleadings that lawyers
file, the lawyer should avoid abusive and offensive language. It does not
however mean that lawyers should use gentle and cute language. Lawyers
being advocates, their language can be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful. By all means, being an advocate, the lawyer is expected to be
passionate about his clients case. A reminder to lawyers, client not the
lawyers are the litigant. So whatever ill feelings there are between the
clients, it should not influence the lawyer. It should not mean that the
lawyer should also fight each other.
Fernandez vs. Bello
Where strong language is justified- here, it was the judge who started to
use offensive language. The judge characterized the acts of petitioner as
anomalous and unbecoming and charged the petitioner as obtaining his
fee through manoeuvres of documents. The SC said, the strong language
used by petitioner was justified by the actuations of the judge. So it is a
case to case basis. The SC will study each case according to the peculiar
facts.
PALE team:
72

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers client nor induce the latter to
retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services. Neither should he disparage another, make comparisons or
publicize his talent as a means to feather his law practice.
However, it is the right of any lawyer without fear or favour, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel. He may properly accept employment to handle a
matter which has been previously handled by another lawyer, provided
that the other lawyer has been given notice by the client that his services
have been terminated. (Laput vs. Remotigue, 6 SCRA 45 (1962)
A lawyer shall not negotiate with the opposite party who is represented by
counsel without the knowledge or consent of the other lawyer. Thats
basic. Can you however interview witnesses of the adverse party even
without the lawyers consent? Yes, it is permitted because it is only the
witness not the other party.
____________________________________________________________
Canon 9
A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.
Public policy requires that practice of law be limited only to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character.
The purpose of which is to protect the public, the court, the client and the
bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice
law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court.
The act of pretending or assuming to be an attorney or an officer of the
court and acting as such without authority is punishable with contempt of
court. The lawyer who assists in an unauthorized practice of law whether
directly or indirectly is subject to disciplinary action.
Rule 9.01 - 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.
The qualifications to be a lawyer is personal and the bar is an exclusive
group of professionals who possess the requisite classifications and for
whom defined functions are reserved. To delegate the functions would
violate the rationale behind reserving defined functions exclusively for
those who are admitted to the bar.
Can you delegate to a suspended lawyer during the period of his
suspension? No, because a suspended lawyer at the time of his suspension
is not qualified to practice law.
PALE team:
73

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Can you delegate to a disbarred lawyer? No, because all the more reason
that it is unethical.
Can you delegate to a foreigner lawyer or non-lawyer? No, because these
persons are not allowed to practice law.
Can you delegate to another lawyer? Not all the time.
Can you even delegate to a qualified person without the clients consent?
Before you delegate it to another lawyer, you must get your clients
consent. Why? Because the attorney client relationship is a personal
relationship. The client hired you based on your personal characteristics,
reputation, goodwill, or whatever for what reason or another, you client
hired you and not the other lawyer. So before you delegate, even to a
qualified person that is to another lawyer, you must get the clients
consent.
How about if the client employed a law firm? In that case, any lawyer in
the law firm can handle the case. Except if the client has expressly
instructed that his case be handled by a particular lawyer. Then any other
lawyer can handle the case except when the client wants a particular
lawyer to handle the case.
Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate a fee for legal service with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a. where there is a pre-existing agreement with the partner or associate
that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period
of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
b. where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
c. where the lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a
retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole as in part, on a profit-
sharing arrangement.
GENERAL RULE: Lawyers should not share legal fees. The reason is to
ensure that the practice of law remains only with the lawyers. If you share
legal fees, it might lead to a situation where you also share with your work
to non-lawyers. This is to avoid that situation where the legal work is also
shared because legal fees are shared. Further, non-lawyers are not
subjected to the supervision of the SC. Therefore, it could become
dangerous if non-lawyers are allowed to share with the legal fees but they
cannot be disciplined by the SC.
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or
associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in
the agreement. This exception is in the nature of a bequest. It is
still in substance, payment to the deceased lawyer. His estate
and/or assignee could not claim entitlement to the money in their
own right but only by representation. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business
of a deceased lawyer;
(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, on a
profit sharing agreement. This is not a division of legal fees but a
pension representing deferred wages for the employees past
services. This exception is an implicit recognition of the
incontestable fact that lawyers need to, and in fact, depend on
non-lawyers for the administrative support functions necessary to
PALE team:
74

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
allow lawyers to discharge their legal functions more efficiently.
(CPR Annotated, PhilJA)
LAWYERS DUTY TO THE COURT
Canon 10
A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
A lawyer owes the court the duty to render no service or to do no act
a. which involves disrespect to the judicial office
b. adoption of legal proposition which is not honestly debatable
c. artifice or false statement of fact or law to mislead the court
d. unlawful conspiracy with his client, a third person or a judge tending
to frustrate or delay the administration of justice or to secure for his
client that which is not legally or justly due him
What is candor? Honesty. When you say its a very candid shot? Its frank,
its honest, straightforward, very natural. Thats candor. A lawyer owes
candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
The reason behind this canon is the burden cast on the judiciary would be
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel.
The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of
allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition
then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of a
clients cause, it must never be at the expense of deviation from the truth.
(Muoz vs. People, 53 SCRA 190)
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
A lawyer must be a discipline of truth. He should bear in mind that as an

officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon
the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving
at correct conclusion.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of
truth and the administration of justice. (Garcia v. Francisco, Adm. Case no.
3923, March 30,1993)
A lawyer should not, in the defense of his client, put a witness on the stand
whom he knows will give a false testimony. He should not distort the facts
in disregard of the truth and the law nor make improvident arguments
based thereon or on the facts on record. (People vs Manobo 18 SCRA 30)
A lawyer, aside from administrative liability, could also be subjected to
criminal action. If a lawyer falsifies, he could also be liable for falsification
of documents. It depends if all the particular elements of the felony are
satisfied.
Some Cases of Falsehoods

1.
2.
3.
Making it appear that they are issues of first impression when in

fact they have already been settled by a final and executory
judgement.
Making it appear that a person long dead executed a dead of sale
to the lawyers favour, presenting falsified documents before the
court.
Lawyers falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is free from
all liens and encumbrances when it is not so (Sevilla vs. Zoleta, 96
Phil. 979);
PALE team:
75

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Lawyer falsifying a power of attorney and used it in collecting the

money due to the principal and appropriating the money for his
own benefit (In re: Rusina, 105 Phil. 1328)
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Courts processes. Those

who filed multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary
action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to
act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions
that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor. (Pablo R.
Olivares etc. v. Atty. Arsenio Villalon Jr., A.C. No. 6323, April 13, 2007)
A lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the courts for the
purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed. [Garcia v.
Francisco, 65 SCAD 179, 220 SCRA 512 (1993)]
This is also an instance of candor and honesty to the court.

EXAMPLE:
Some Unethical Practices:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Citing as law an inoperative, repealed or amended provision of

law, or overruled jurisprudence.
Asserting as a fact that which has not been proven.
Citing or inventing a non-existent rule
Attributing to the court a finding of fact which the latter did not in
fact made.
And other analogous circumstances.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
The rules of procedure are intended to facilitate the delivery of justice to
those to whom it is due without it is due without unnecessary expense and
waste of time for truly justice delayed is justice denied.
We have A vs. B for recovery of possession for a parcel of land. The court
granted in favor of B. A does not want to surrender possession. What did
As lawyer do? He opposed the writ of possession issued by the RTC by
filing a motion for reconsideration. Their MR was denied, they filed a
petition for certiorari to the CA. The petition was denied, so they filed a
MR and then it was denied, so they elevated the matter to the SC, petition
for certiorari denied. There was already a decision but they kept on raising
issues which has long been settled, in fact there has been already a writ of
possession. Meanwhile, because of all those dilatory and baseless
petitions, 17 years had passed and B who was supposed to have
possession of the parcel land, which was intended to be used for business,
the land has become a cemetery. At the time it was in the possession of A.
So how can he use it now? He has become the existing owner of a
cemetery. So the court exasperated and said there must be an end to
litigation at a certain point and as officers of the court, lawyers have a
responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not
discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the
workload of the judiciary especially to this court which is burdened enough
as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when
PALE team:
76

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a case such as this should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the
already congested judicial docket. They do not advance the cause of law
or their clients by commencing litigation for sheer lack of merit do not
deserve the attention of the courts.
_____________________________________________________________
said enough, while you can criticize the court, it should not spill over the
walls of decency.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Lawyers who appear in court must be properly attired. The traditional
attires for male lawyers in the Philippines are the long-sleeve Barong
Tagalog or coat and tie. Female lawyers appear in a semi-formal attires.
Canon 11
A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Judges also appear in the same attire in addition to black robes. The Court
can hold the lawyer in contempt of court if he appears not in proper attire.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

The public duties of the attorney takes precedence over his private duties.
His first duty is to the courts. Where duties to the courts conflict with his
duties to his clients, the latter must yield to the former
Counsel may even be held in contempt in coming late in the hearing or trial
of case or for failing to appear in a trial.
The respect is not only toward the Justices and Judges but also to other
officers of the Courts like Clerk of Court, Sheriffs and other judicial officers
who take part in the judicial work.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.
In Re: Almacen
A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but

respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession.
Lawyers can criticize the court but such criticisms must be bonafied and
must not spill over the walls of decency.
The lawyer filed a petition to surrender his license to practice law. He
petitioned the SC to accept his license to practice law because he is now
exasperated by the way justice is done. He also resorted to the media and
there in the peoples forum, he kept his tirades against the court. The SC
A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language

shows disrespect to the court, disgraces the bar and invites the exercise by
the court of its disciplinary power.
The language of a lawyer, both oral and written, must be respectful and
restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and with his
behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession. The use of
PALE team:
77

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
abusive language by counsel against the opposing counsel constitutes at
the same time a disrespect to the dignity of the court justice.
thereof. No other branch of the government may intrude into this power,
without running afoul of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.
The case of Maceda vs. Ombudsman provides that Ombudsman can

investigate administrative charges against judges but only after referral
from the Supreme Court.
In Re: Aguas
____________________________________________________________
The judge instructed the witness not to look at the defendants lawyer but
instead focus his attention on the judge because the judge was asking
something from the witness. When the witness did not give heed to the
warning, the judge arose from his seat and grabbed the witness by the
shoulder and shook the witness violently. The lawyer asked that the
incident be placed on record and when the lawyer did that, the lawyer was
held in contempt. The SC ruled that such act of insisting that the matter be
placed on record is not contemptuous. Lawyers must be courageous
enough to expose arbitrariness and injustice of judges.
CANON 12
A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO
ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
The evidence needed in an administrative case against a judge is the

record that shows the very questionable incident.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
Art. VII Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme
Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from
the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal
court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can oversee the
judges and court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the
proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its preference. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the copies.
A lawyer is not adequately prepared unless he has a mastery of the facts of
his case, the law and jurisprudence applicable thereto and upon which he
can appropriately anchor his theory or instance. He must have collated
every piece of evidence essential to establish his case and essential to
demolish the pretense of the opponents theory and capable of presenting
and offering his evidence in an orderly and smooth manner without
provoking valid objections.
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case midstream is expected to
know all the antecedents prior to your take over. If he needs more time to
study the case and to prepare, he can ask for the hearing to be postponed.
PALE team:
78

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause.
dismissal with prejudice; and shall (2) constitute direct contempt, as well
as (3) cause for administrative sanctions.
Forum shopping: the improper practice of going from one court to another
in the hope of securing a favorable relief in one court which another court
has denied; exists when as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
party seeks favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in
another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other would
make a favorable disposition.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Forum shopping is unethical because it leads to the clogging of already

clogged court dockets and may result in courts rendering conflicting
rulings.
For every initiatory pleading, there must be the certification of non-forum
shopping.
Failure to comply with the requirements for, the submission of a
certification against forum shopping in initiatory pleadings shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading,
but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings in a certification of no forum shopping: (1) shall constitute
indirect contempt of court (2) without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions
If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute wilful and
deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be: (1) ground for summary
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a
break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Purpose is to prevent the suspicion that he is coaching the witness what to

say during the resumption of the examination. The rationale therefore of
this rule is to uphold and maintain fair play with the other party and to
prevent the examining lawyer from being tempted to coach his own
witness to suit his purpose.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent
himself or to impersonate another.
The witness who commits the misrepresentation is criminally liable for
False Testimony either under Art. 181, 182 or 183, Revised Penal Code
depending upon the nature of the case. The lawyer who induces a witness
to commit false testimony is equally guilty as the witness.
Art. 184, Revised Penal Code: The lawyer who presented a witness
knowing him to be a false witness is criminally liable for Offering False
Testimony In Evidence
PALE team:
79

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The lawyer who is guilty of the above is both criminally and
administratively liable
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness a witness must answer
questions, although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
However, it is the right of a witness:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
to be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and

from harsh or insulting demeanor;
not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires;
not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
not to give an answer which will tend to be subject him to penalty for
an offensive unless otherwise provided by law;
not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless
it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense. (Rule 132, Sec. 3, Rules of
Court)
Santiago v. Atty. Rafanan

A lawyer can testify in behalf of his client provided his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice and to corroborate the sole defense of his
client which was an alibi and without such testimony his client will have no
other witness to prove or testify that he was indeed in some other place.
This rule will apply for lawyers who appear as witnesses during the trial
and not during the proceedings before the prosecutors office such as
preliminary investigation. There is no prohibition against the lawyers
submission of his affidavit because the case has not gone to trial yet
however if the case does proceed to trial and the lawyer really have to
testify, then he should entrust the trial to another counsel during said
testimony.
____________________________________________________________
Canon 13
A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tend to influence or giving the appearance of influencing
the court
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like, or
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the
ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the
trial of the case to another counsel.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality

to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
The rationale of this rule is to protect the reputation and the good names
of both the lawyer and the judge so as not to affect the confidence of the
litigant and the public in general on the judiciary system
PALE team:
80

EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nastoria vs. Bunyi
A lawyer drafting a decision for the judge is a violation of the
independence of the judiciary and it is unethical.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Marcelino vs. Alejandro, 32 SCRA 106

In order to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be an
allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not
simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.
If a lawyer is urged to make a statement to the public due the special
circumstances of a given case, he can only make statements that would
not go beyond the simple quotation of arguments already contained in the
court records.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another
branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
PALE team:
81

Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

EH 501 Moot Court

When do we consider something as right or good?

Legal Ethics the science treating of what an attorney ought to do in

Why did the SC promulgate a new code?

To manifest the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a

Why is judicial ethics important to lawyers? Why study it?

The administration of justice is a partnership between the lawyer and

This universal declaration is contained in what we call the Bangalore Draft,

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

Does the new code supersede or overturn the old code?

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

Two possible sources of influence:

Individual Judicial Independence

focuses on the particular judge and seeks to ensure his or her

Example: There is a judge in a criminal case that sees to it that he

Institutional Judicial Independence

focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a branch of

SECTION 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the

Comes from the biases, prejudices, or preconceived notions of the

Comes from outside the judge. Political, social, familial, etc.

How to measure independence

Simply put, how should judges decide?

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

Are these 3 justices still independent from one another?

SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the

In a bar exam question, the judge wrote to the NLRC commissioner:

In collegiate courts, lets say CA, 19 division, and 1 division is composed of

Unethical. Even if it is for a noble purpose, still it constituted influence

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationship to

Judges family includes a judges spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,

SECTION 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

practice of receiving allowances from LGUs, but this is allowed.

a. The president, executive branch, appoints judges.

As long as judges remain to be guided by section 5 and they remain free

So it could be very tempting on the part of the judge to have inappropriate

Judges receive allowances from LGUs. LGUs could be parties to a

Judge makes it a point to invite Sanggunian members to his chamber

Judge referred the matter of transfer of court employees to the vice

SECTION 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general

Judges are independent in relation to society, but not really withdrawal

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the

SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial

Again, appearance is just as important. Judges have been disciplined for

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

The judge ordered the imprisonment of the lawyer of the accused,

When would it indicate lack of integrity?

Upon his assumption to office, a judge ceases to become an ordinary

If the law involved is basic and elementary, it is inconceivable that the

The judges application of the indeterminate sentence law was

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It

Judge forcibly kissed court employees.

SECTION 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

What is required of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary does not

Having lunch with a litigant

A judges inebriated behavior and intolerant behavior during

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics (Midterms, 2013)

SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as