LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. Alimurung
I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION (PRACTICE OF LAW)
-

Usual definitions of practice of law rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill. Most of the time involves more counseling than trying cases.
Consti Commission adopted liberal interpretation.
Not limited to litigation in court; embraces preparation of pleadings incident to actions, management of actions
and proceedings before courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and
drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the
legal effect of facts and conditions.

II. ADVERTISING AND SOLICITATION

-

A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
- 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.
- Ulep v Legal Clinic: the prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession, not a trade. The
most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the establishment of a wellmerited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character
and conduct.
- Kahn Jr v Simbillo: it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money which should only be
subordinate, is the primary consideration. Solicitation, to be proper, must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession.
- Director v Bayot: the lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the
practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public.
- In re Tagorda: Lawyers are prohibited from directly or indirectly advertising their services either thru
themselves or thru agents. It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar. Usual punishment is disbarment.
- Exceptions (allowable advertising) publication of basic information (name, address, phone number,
branches of law practiced, school attended) in reputable law lists, use of ordinary and simple calling
cards, publication of simple announcement of opening of law firm or changes in partnership, general
listing in telephone directory.
No false advertising.
- 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.
- 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 communications that said partner is deceased.

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

III. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

A. Concept of Retainer
- Hilado v David: to constitute professional employment it is not essential that any retainer should have been
paid or promised, or that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had, [or that there was no written contract]. Where it appeared that an attorney, representing
one party in litigation, had formerly represented the adverse party with respect to the same matter involved in
the litigation, the court need not inquire as to how much knowledge the attorney acquired from his former
during that relationship, before refusing to permit the attorney to represent the adverse party. An information
obtained from a client by a member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm. It does not
matter if the information relayed is confidential or not. So long as the attorney-client relationship is established,
the lawyer is proscribed from taking other representations against the client.
- Juneo v Grupo: if a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation,
then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
- Tumbagahan v CA: the attorneyclient relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal made of
record (which is initiated thru filing a petition in court); at least so far as the opposite party is concerned, the
relation otherwise continues until the end of the litigation. Unless properly relieved, the counsel is responsible
for the conduct of the case.
- Dee v Mutuc: A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services
rendered at the special instance and request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying
to serve and represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just fees. Defense that they are
friends and it is a personal favor -- no merit.
- Hadjula v Madianda: The moment a lawyer-client relationship is established, lawyer is bound to keep
confidential information divulged in the course of consultation, even if such lawyer is not inclined to handle the
case.
B. Duty of Diligence
- Overzealousness (A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.)
- Erectors v NLRC: A lawyer's duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent
claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that while lawyers are
bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their client's cause or defending it, their duty, first and
foremost, is to the administration of justice.
- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
- Santiago v Fojas: once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.
- Santiago v Fojas: client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or
defense. Pressure and large volume of work is no excuse for inability to perform his duties.
- Incompetence/lack of preparedness
- A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to
render.

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

Exception: he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
- A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Negligence
- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
- A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client's request for information.
- Endaya v Oca: a lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyerclient relationship is
terminated either by the act of his client or his own act, with permission of the court. Until such time,
the lawyer is expected to do his best for the interest of his client.
- Negros Steverdoring v CA: the negligence of clerks which adversely affect the cases handled by
lawyers, is binding upon the latter. Part of duty of lawyer to check on his case, and not just wait
passively for updates etc. Lawyers have the duty to be proactive in handling their clients cases.

C. Fixing and Determination of Fees

- Some concepts:
- Attorney's fees as part of damages are not the same as attorney's fees in the concept of the amount
paid to a lawyer. Attorney's fees as part of damages is awarded only to the client in the instances
specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
- General retainer fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any
ordinary legal problem that may arise in the routinary business of the client referred to him for legal
action. The fees are paid whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer. The reason for the
remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the
opposing party or other parties.
- Special retainer fee for a specific case handled or special service rendered by the lawyer for a
client.
- Contingency fee agreement laid down in an express contract between a lawyer and a client in which
the lawyer's professional fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action is
made to depend upon the success of the litigation.
- A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
- Canlas v CA: lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. The
petitioner's efforts partaking of a shakedown of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and
certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to delay no man for money.
- Taganas v NLRC: court may determine reasonableness of fee on its own professional knowledge. A
written contract for services (even contingent fee arrangement) shall control the amount to be paid
therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. LC: Maximum of 10%
contingent fee for lawyers in labor cases. 50% contingent fee considered unconscionable, taking into
consideration the financial capacity of the janitor-clients.
- Traders Royal Bank Union v NLRC: the measure of compensation, in the absence of contract, should
be by the rule of quantum meruit, meaning "as much as he deserves." Lawyer is entitled to receive
what he merits for his services.
But it is essential for the proper operation of the principle that there is an acceptance of the
benefits by one sought to be charged for the services rendered under circumstances as

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

reasonably to notify him that the lawyer performing the task was expecting to be paid
compensation.
A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
1. Time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required
2. Novelty and difficulty of the questions involved
3. Skill demanded
4. Probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case
5. Importance of the subject matter
6. Amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service
7. Contingency or certainty of compensation
8. Character of the employment, whether occasional or established
9. Professional standing of the lawyer
10. Customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs
A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to
the work performed and responsibility assumed.
A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs,
commission, interest, rebate, or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other than the client.
A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action
only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud.

D. Conflict of Interest
- A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter
would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective
client.
- A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests.
- Abaqueta v Florido: There is a conflict of interest in the interests of two or more opposing parties. A
lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client.
- Quiambao v Banaba: Existence of conflict of interest is determined by 3 separate tests:
1. When a lawyer is required to fight for a claim for one client, but is also dutybound to oppose it
for another client
2. When the acceptance of the new relation will require an attorney to perform an act that may
injuriously affect the first client or to use against the first one any knowledge acquired through
their professional connection
3. When the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of an attorneys duty
to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance of that duty.
- Hornilla v Saluat: Retained counsel of a corporation who also served as lawyers for certain members
of the BoD guilty of conflict of interest.
- Nakpil v Valdes: the test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the representation is
probability, not certainty of conflict.
- Nakpil v Valdes: the proscription is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be. It applies
although the attorney's intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith. Even if the
claims are valid, the set-up is still undesirable.

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

Nakpil v Valdes: As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business
transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith.
- Artezuela v Maderazo: lawyer need not be counsel-of-record of both sides to be guilt of representing
conflicting interests. Enough that he had a hand in preparation of adverse partys pleading. To require
that he also be counselofrecord of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of
deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.
- Abragan v Rodriguez: this stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from
fraudulent conduct, but as well as to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
unprofessional practice. It behooves attorneys, like Caesar's wife, not only to keep inviolate the
client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and doubledealing. Only thus can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
- Exception: by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
- Nakpil v Valdes: Disclosure alone is not enough; clients must give their informed consent to such
representation. The lawyer must explain to his clients the nature and extent of conflict and the
possible adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by his clients.
- Quiambao v Bamba: a lawyer has the right to decline employment if conflict of interest.
A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.
- Dee v Mutuc: generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending positions.
However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the court, a lawyer may represent
conflicting interests with the consent of the parties. A common representation may work to the
advantage of said parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of
the parties' disparate positions, may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of
their differences, being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and confidence of
said parties.
- A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service.
- PCGG v Sandiganbayan: Enforcing or interpreting the law, which is what Estelito did here, is not
covered by the term matter. Intervene only includes an act of a person who has the power to
influence the subject proceedings.
-

E. Confidentiality
- Regala v Sandiganbayan: GR: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
identity of this client.
- First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be
protected is flesh and blood
- Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established.
The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client
- Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
- EXCEPTION: Client identity is privileged where:
- a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice;
- disclosure would open the client to civil liability; and

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's
name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict an individual of a crime.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
- Preservation and protection of fiduciary relation will encourage a client to entrust his legal problems to
an attorney, which is of paramount importance to the administration of justice.
- Lorenzana Food Corp v Daria: taking on case against client after termination of attorney-client
relationship is betrayal of confidence of former client.
Attorney-client privilege a lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client
- Mercado v Vitriolio: Elements which must be substantiated by complainant:
There exists an attorneyclient relationship, or a prospective attorneyclient relationship, and it is by reason of
this relationship that the client made the communication
Communication for some other purpose not priveleged
Client must intend communication to be confidential
Mere attorney-client relationship does not raise the presumption of confidentiality.
Confidential communication information transmitted by the voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence which, so far as the client is
aware, discloses the information to no other third person other than one reasonably
necessary for the transmission of the info.
Legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity.
Communication must not be intended for mere information but for purposes of
seeking legal advice
- Extent:
Even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.
- Exceptions:
When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure
When required by law
People v Sandiganbayan: announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not
included within the confidences which his attorney is bound to respect.
People v Sandiganbayan: in order that a communication between a lawyer and his
client may be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful
end. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
Genato v Silapan: The privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or
information is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly
within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made
in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action
Nb difference between atty-client privilege and other general rules on confidentiality:
ACP applies to communication.
Confidentiality much broader.
Being discreet
-

1.

2.

3.

1.
2.

3.
-

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized
by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the clients.
- A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's affairs even with members of his family.
- A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible
conflict of interest.
- Disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof allowed unless prohibited
by client.
- Genato v Silapan: even if attorney-client privilege not applicable, improper for lawyer to reveal
communications of client when it is not relevant to case. Breach of fidelity.
A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge
of the circumstances consents thereto.
- Outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose give information only with written consent of client.
-

IV. OBLIGATION TO COURTS

A. Candor and Fairness
- General rule: a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
- Heirs of Romero v Reyes: when lawyers appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as the parties
representatives but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients
interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to act with complete candor. In all their dealings, they
may not resort to the use of deception and the pretentions of wolves.
- Heirs of Romero v Reyes: True, lawyers are obliged to present every available remedy or defense to
support the cause of their clients. However, their fidelity to their causes must always be made within
the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth and justice.
- In re Election of IBP: duty to promote respect for law and legal processes and to abstain from
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
- Artiaga Jr v Villanueva: lawyers should obey all lawful orders and rulings of the court.
- Do not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court. Do not mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
- Munoz v People: It is not candid or fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote the contents of a paper,
the testimony of a witness, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the language of a
decision or a textbook or; with knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority a decision that has been
overruled, or a statute that has been repealed; or in argument to assert as fact that which has not
been proved, or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening and closing arguments to mislead
his opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his opening argument upon which his side then
intends to rely.
- Berenguer v Carranza: even if there be no intent to deceive, a lawyer whose conduct betrays
inattention or carelessness and is the proximate cause of the courts being misled should not be
allowed to free himself from a charge. There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely on the
submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation of evidence,
whether oral or documentary, is concerned.

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

Adez Realty v CA: clearly malicious attempt to deceive the court by misquoting CA decision.
Disbarred!
Do not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, etc. Or knowingly cite as law a defunct
provision. Or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
- Komatsu Industries v CA: lawyers should refrain from conduct tending to create mistrust in judicial
system through innuendos on which no evidence is offered nor indicated to be proferred. Only
pleadings formulated with intellectual honesty on facts duly ascertained can subserve ends of justice
and dignify cause of pleader.
Observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
But nb lawyers are allowed, within the parameters of truth and justice, to present their case in a way as
advantageous as possible to clients.
- Quasha v Juan: understandably lawyers are apt to slant the presentation of their clients' case so that
they would have favorable judgments. Courts are not deceived by the exaggerations and distortions in
a counsel's lopsided submission of his client's case especially where, as in this case, the alert
opposing counsel calls the court's attention to that fact.
-

B. Seeing the Judge in Chambers

- A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity
with judges.
- Austria v Masquel:
- Improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in chambers and talk to him about a matter related to
the case pending in the court (contempt).
- However, going to chambers to request judge to inhibit himself from case, on just ground, is not
contempt of court. The true intention of the law is that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is
not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Therefore, even if the Rules do not explicitly
provide that a judge should voluntarily inhibit himself from the case when one of the counsel/ litigant is
his former associate, he should still inhibit himself.
C. Respect to Court/Disciplinary Action
- A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist
on similar conduct by others.
- A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
- A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.
- Zaldivar v. Gonzales: Punishing contempt is not really to avenge a wrong inflicted upon the judge's own
person; rather, he upholds and vindicates the authority, dignity, and integrity of the judicial institution and
its claim to respectful behavior on the part of all persons who appears before it, and most especially from
those who are officers of the court. Claim that the Court deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust
decision, alleged in pleadings and even in media interviews CONTEMPT
- In Re Ponciano v Jacinto: Every lawyer is expected to maintain the proper decorum in his dealings with
the courts of justice and is never justified in using scurrilous and threatening' language in pleading his
client's cause. While criticism of judicial conduct is not forbidden and zeal in advocacy is in fact
encouraged, the lawyer must always act within the limits of propriety and good taste and with deference
for the judges before whom he pleads.

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

In re Almacen: It is the right and responsibility of every lawyer to criticize the decision of the Court but
such criticism must be decent and proper. A critique of the court must be intelligent and discriminating
fitting to its high function as the court of last resort.
Rheem of the Phils. V Ferrer: Lack of intent to disrespect the court only lessens the liability.
Balaoing v Calderon: Filing frivolous charges against judges in whose salas a lawyer has pending cases
with no other purpose but to harass and exact vengeance run counter to the canons.
Maceda v Abiera: As a general rule, the acts done by a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though erroneous. These acts become subject to our disciplinary power only
when they are attended by fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.
A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

D. Discourage Litigation
- A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's
cause.
- A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
- Castaneda v Ago: It is the duty of counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and
vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is
defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse
the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients
propensity to litigate (especially if case is already in the execution of judgment stage).
- A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
E. Encourage Settlement
- Pajares v Abad Santos: Counsel in a collection case should have advised his client to confess judgment
and ask for a reasonable time to pay his debts in order to avert additional litigation costs.
F. Avoid Dilatory Tactics
- A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
- A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.
- It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions,
repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of
a judgment.
- Samar Mining v Arnado: Filing a complaint for the second time based on a theory that was already
rejected by the Court in the previous complaint is a dilatory tactic especially when it results to a delay of
settlement of an issue for a long time and when it attempts to drain the resources of the poorer party.
- Mendoza v Duave: Postponements of trial are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and this
discretion should not be interfered with unless it has been abused. Lawyers are required to cooperate with
the courts in the prompt trial of cases, esp. those which are summary in nature, by refraining from filing
motions for continuance unless there are sufficient and strong grounds for doing so.
- Sanchez v Brion: Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of
justice, such as forum shopping which leads to the clogging of the dockets, contravenes such lawyer's
duty.

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

Millare v Montero: The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.
A lawyer is not a gun for hire. It is unethical to abuse procedural rules to defeat the ends of substantial
justice.

V. COURTESY, FAIRNESS, AND CANDOR TOWARDS COLLEAGUES AND LITIGANTS

- A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues,
and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
- A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
- 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.
- Reyes v Chong, Jr.: Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and
the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals
and members of the bar.
VI. UNLAWFUL SCHEMES, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT
- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
- A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.
- 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.
- Uy Cheng Seng v Magat: The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be dishonest,
or the conniving at a violation of law (threat to report a person for tax evasion if he does not come across,
extortion), are acts which justify disbarment.
- Guevarra v Eala: Mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant
administrative sanction. However, extra-marital relations is considered disgraceful and immoral as it
manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws; sufficient to disbar erring lawyer. The law speaks of immoral
conduct; need not be under scandalous circumstances.
- Puyat v de Guzman: Motion for intervention, which is filed by a lawyer who purchased shares of stock for
the sole purpose of gaining status of a real party in interest and thus appearing actively in an
administrative proceeding, is an indirect violation of the Constitutional prohibition on congressmen
appearing as counsel before administrative bodies.
- Laxamana v CA: There is extrinsic fraud (which invalidates a final judgment) when a party was prevented
from having presented all of his case to the court as when the lawyer connives at his defeat or corruptly
sells out his client's interest.
- Garcia v Manuel: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. He should also account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
Moreover, a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of his client in the course of his
professional employment shall deliver the same to his client (a) when they become due or (b) upon
demand.
- Foster v Agtang: Overpricing (filing fees) is an act customarily related to depravity and dishonesty.

10

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)

A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in
the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client.
Constantino v Saludares: Unwarranted obstinancy in evading debt obligations is unbecoming and does
not speak well of a member of the Bar. A lawyer's professional and personal conduct must at all times be
kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. He must perform his duties to the Bar, to the courts, to his
clients, and to society with honor and dignity.
Fernandez v Grecia: A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and
good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoy
the privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of an attorney, or for conduct which
tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.
Roque v Clemencia: A lawyer is required not only to be of good moral character, but must also be seen to
be leading a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A lawyer should avoid
even the appearance of impropriety (like drinking with opposing counsel).
Banogon v Zerna: One reason why there is a degree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them
misinterpret the law to the point of distortion in a cunning effort to achieve their purposes. By doing so,
they frustrate the ends of justice and at the same time lessen popular faith in the legal profession as the
sworn upholders of the law. While this is not to say that every wrong interpretation of the law is to be
condemned, as indeed most of them are only honest errors, this Court must express its disapproval of the
adroit and intentional misreading designed precisely to circumvent or violate it.
Libat v Olivia: The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor.
Halili v CIR: Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority of the court which tends to bring the authority
and administration of the law into disrespect. The Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any conduct
on his part showing his unfitness for the confidence and trust which characterize the attorney and client
relations, and the practice of law before the courts, or showing such a lack of personal honesty or of good
moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence.

11

Legal Ethics
April Guiang (ft. Va Vergara)