LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

LAWYER’S OATH

I____(name)_______ of ___(place of birth)____ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

PRACTICE OF LAW

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991).

Nature of the Practice of Law

It is not a right granted to anyone who demands it but a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise
of sound judicial discretion. It is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid
standards of mental and moral fitness.

The legal profession is not a business. It is not a money-making trade similar to that of a businessman
employing a strategy for the purpose of monetary gain. It is a sacred profession imbued with public interest
whose primary objective is public service, as it is an essential part in the administration of justice and a
profession in pursuit of which pecuniary reward is considered merely incidental.

Admission to the Bar

The power of admission to the practice of law is vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court. The
constitutional power to admit the candidates to the legal profession is a judicial function and involves the
exercise of discretion.

Q: Director Agrava issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an examination for the
purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines
Patent Office (PPO). According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other
persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination.

It is the contention of Philippine Lawyer's Association (PLA) that the Director requiring members of
the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office as a
condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before said office is in excess of his jurisdiction
and is in violation of the law. Is the Director allowed to require lawyers to submit to and pass on
examination prescribed by it before they are allowed to practice before the Patent Office?

A: NO. The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the
practice of law in the Philippines and to any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law
anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines.

Under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by Supreme Court to practice law, and in
good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the
business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the
Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved
(Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, G.R. No. L-12426, February 16, 1959).

Essential criteria in determining whether a person is engaged in the practice of law [CAHA]
1. Compensation – implies that one must have presented himself to be in active practice and that his
professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his said services.
2. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience;
3. Habituality – implies customary or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer. Practice of
law is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary action; and
4. Attorney-Client relationship - engaging in the practice of law presupposes the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship. Ten (10) years of practice of law includes work as a litigator, in-house counsel, giving of
legal advice, teaching of law, and even foreign assignment which requires the knowledge and application
of the laws.

1
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

Non-Lawyers in Court

The following are the instances whereby non-lawyers may appear in court:
1. Cases before the MTC: A party to the litigation, may conduct his own case or litigation in person, with
the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC);
2. Before any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally but if he gets someone to aid him,
that someone must be authorized member of the Bar (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC);
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of the Bar is not available, the
judge may appoint a non- lawyer who is (a) Resident of the province; and (b) of good repute for probity
and ability to aid the accused in his defense (Sec. 7, Rule 116, RRC);
4. Any official or other person appointed or designated to appear for the Government of the Philippines in
accordance with law (Sec. 33, Rule 138, RRC).

Other Instances when Non-lawyers may appear in Court

1. Before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter, if
a. They represent themselves, or
b. Represent their organization or members thereof with written authorization of the latter, or
c. They are the duly accredited members of any legal aid office duly recognized by the
Department of Justice, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
2. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the Cadastral Court.

NOTE: The unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without
authority constitutes INDIRECT CONTEMPT which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing

1. Proceedings before the Small Claims Court, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant
2. Proceedings before the Katarungang Pambarangay – During the pre-trial conference under the Rules
of Court, lawyers are prohibited from appearing for the parties.

Public Officials and the Practice of Law

GR: The appointment or election of an attorney to a government office disqualifies him from engaging in the
private practice of law. Reason: A public office is a public trust, and a public officer or employee is obliged not
only to perform his duties with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency but also
with exclusive fidelity.

Public officials NOT allowed to engage in law practice (ABSOLUTE Prohibition)

1. Judges and other officials and employees of the Supreme Court (Sec. 35, Rule 148, RRC)
2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.);
3. Government Prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450, May 27, 1965);\
4. President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Sec. 13, Art VII,
1987 Constitution);
5. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Sec. 2, Art IX-A, 1987 Constitution);
6. Civil Service Officers or employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be
at the disposal of the government (Ramos v. Rada, A.M. No. 202, July 22, 1975);
7. Ombudsman and his deputies (Sec. 8 [second par.], Art. IX, 1987 Constitution);
8. All governors, city and municipal Mayors (Sec. 90, R.A. No. 7160); and
9. Those prohibited by Special laws.

Restrictions on the Practice of Law on Certain Individuals (RELATIVE Prohibition)

1. No Senator or member of the House of Representatives may personally “appear” as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administration bodies
(Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution).

NOTE: What is prohibited is to “personally appear” in court and other bodies. The word
“appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any such body but also filing a pleading on
behalf of a client as “by simply filing a formal motion, plea, or answer.

2. Under the Local Government Code (Sec. 91, RA 7160), Sanggunian members may practice their
professions provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall NOT:
a.) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office,
agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
b.) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;

2
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

c.) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government
unit of which he is an official; or
d.) Use property and personnel of the government except when the Sanggunian member concerned
is defending the interest of the government.

3. Under Sec. 1, R.A. 910, as amended, a retired justice or judge receiving pension from the government,
cannot act as counsel:
a.) In any civil case in which the Government, or any of its subdivision or agencies is the adverse
party; or
b.) In a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense
in relation to his office; nor
c.) Collect any fees for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest
adverse to the government, provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers
(Sec. 1, R.A. 910).

4. Civil service officers and employees without permit from their respective department heads (Noriega
v. Sison, A.M. No. 2266, October 27, 1983).

5. A former government attorney cannot, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service (Rule
6.03, CPR).

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.

Grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is willful, flagrant, or shameless act, which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community (Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case
No. 519, July 31, 1997).

Acts NOT constituting gross immorality

1. Stealing a kiss from a client (Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007).
2. Live-in relationship involving two unmarried persons.
3. Failure to pay a loan

Moral turpitude

Everything that is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary
to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty modesty, or good morals (Soriano v. Dizon, A. C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006).

Q: In 1970, when Segundino D. Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with
Magdalena T. Arciga, then a medical technology student. They started having a sexual relationship in
1971 and in 1973, Arciga got pregnant resulting in the birth of their child, Michael. The two then
went to Arciga’s hometown to tell the latter’s parent about the pregnancy and they also made Arciga’s
parents believe that they were already married but they would have to have the church wedding in
abeyance until Maniwang passes the bar exams.

Segundino passed the bar examinations on April 25, 1975. In December 1975, Arciga followed
Maniwang only to be told that their marriage could not take place because he had married Erlinda
Ang on November 25, 1975. She was broken-hearted when she returned to Davao.

Arciga asked for the disbarment of Maniwang on the ground of grossly immoral conduct because he
refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.

Segundino admits in his answer that he and Magdalena were lovers and that he is the father of the
child Michael. He also admits that he repeatedly promised to marry Magdalena and that he breached
that promise because of Magdalena's shady past. She had allegedly been accused in court of oral
defamation and had already an illegitimate child before Michael was born. Is Maniwang’s
cohabitation with Arciga and his reneging on his promise of marriage warrant disbarment?

A: NO, Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. It
is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or

3
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member
of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows
a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community".

There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be in consonance with the canons of the moral code but
he is not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation from the path of rectitude is not
glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's behavior to the opposite sex where the question of
immorality usually arises. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of marriage should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the surrounding
circumstances (Arciga v. Maniwang, A.M. No. 1608, August 14, 1981).

Q: Generoso Obusan had carnal relations with a married woman in the name of Natividad Estabillo to
whom he begot a child named John Obusan. Subsequently, Generoso married plaintiff Preciosa
Obusan(Preciosa) in a civil ceremony and was later on ratified in a religious ceremony. The couple
lived with the wife's mother in Tondo, Manila for more than one year. However, one day, when his
wife was out of the house, Generoso asked permission from his mother-in-law to leave the house and
take a vacation in his hometown, Daet, Camarines Norte. Since then, he has never returned to the
conjugal abode. Preciosa immediately started looking for her husband. After much patient
investigation and surveillance, she discovered that he was living and cohabiting with Natividad. Is
there sufficient ground for Atty. Obusan’s disbarment?

A: YES. Preciosa has proven his abandonment of her and his adulterous relations with a married woman
separated from her own husband. Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was
guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former
paramour, a married woman, fails within "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community". He failed
to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar (Obusan v. Obusan,
Jr., A.C. No. 1392, April 2, 1984).

Rule 1.03, Canon 1 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.

BARRATRY AMBULANCE CHASING

An offense of frequently
exciting and stirring up
quarrels and suits, either at
law or otherwise; lawyer’s
act of fomenting suits among
individuals and offering his
legal services to one of them.
Barratry is not a crime under
the Philippine laws.
However, it is proscribed by
the rules of legal ethics.
An act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of talking to the said
victims (or relatives) and offering his legal services for the filing of a case
against the person(s) who caused the accident(s). It has spawned a number
of recognized evils such as [FSMD]:
1. Fomenting of litigation with resulting burdens on the courts and the
public;
2. Subornation of perjury;
3. Mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon manufactured causes of
action; and
4. Defrauding of injured persons having proper causes of action but ignorant
of legal rights and court procedures 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 just
rights of the injured persons (Hightower v. Detroit Edison Co. 247 NW 97,
1993).

Rule 2.03, Canon 2 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designated primarily to solicit
legal business.

Advertisement

Lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. Lawyers are prohibited from
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation
constitutes malpractice. The act of the respondent in including the phrase ―with financial assistance – in his
calling card is a conduct of advertising the legal profession with commercialism and with the purpose of

4
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

enticing clients to change counsels through the promise of loans to finance their legal action (Linsangan v.
Tolentino, A.C. 6672, September 4, 2009).

GR: No advertisement by lawyers is allowed. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

XPNs: [LEPO-LABAN-PD]

1. Reputable Law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative data, are allowed;
2. Advertisements or simple announcement of the Existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere where it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and
government buildings;
3. Ordinary, simple Professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law
firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced;
4. A simple 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, is not objectionable;
5. Advertisements or announcement in any Legal publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines and in telephone directories (Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993);
6. Writing legal Articles;
7. Engaging in Business and other occupations except when such could be deemed improper, be seen as
indirect solicitation or would be the equivalent of a law practice;
8. Activity of an association for the purpose of legal representation;
9. Notice to other local lawyers and publishing in a legal journal of one’s availability to act as an
associate for them;
10. Seeking a Public office, which can only be held by a lawyer or, in a dignified manner, a position as a
full time corporate counsel; and
11. Listing in a phone Directory, but not under a designation of a special branch of law (Atty. Khan Jr. v.
Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003).

Canon 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.

Rule 6.03, Canon 6 - 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.

Q: Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance
and supervision of the court in the GenBank’s liquidation. Mendoza gave advice on the procedure to
liquidate the GenBank. Subsequently, President Aquino established the PCGG to recover the alleged
ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos, his family and cronies. The PCGG filed with the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against
Tan, et al. and issued several writs of sequestration on properties they allegedly acquired. Tan, et al.
were represented by former SolGen Mendoza, who has then resumed his private practice of law. The
PCGG filed motions to disqualify Mendoza as counsel for Tan, et al., alleging that then SolGen and
counsel to Central Bank, “actively intervened” in the liquidation of GenBank, which was subsequently
acquired by Tan, et al. Is Rule 6.03 of the CPR applicable to Mendoza?

A: NO. 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”. 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 from the subject matter of the civil case about the sequestration of the
shares of Tan et al. in Allied Bank. 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).

5
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

LAWYER TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Structure of the IBP Board

Nine Governors shall be elected by the House of Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis
of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the
Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. The
President and the Executive Vice President, if chosen by the Governors from outside of themselves as
provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso facto become members of the Board (Sec. 6, Rule 139-A, RRC).

Waiver of Position
The IBP Samar had effectively waived its turn in the first rotational cycle when it did not field any nominees
and the first rotational cycle was already completed after 2005-2007 term.

The rotation rule is not absolute but subject to waiver as when the chapters in the order of rotation opted
not to field or nominate their own candidates for Governor during the election regularly done for that
purpose. If a validly nominated candidate obtains the highest number of votes in the election conducted, his
electoral mandate deserves to be respected unless obtained through fraud as established by evidence (Atty.
Maglana v. Atty. Opinion, B.M. No. 2713, June 10, 2014).

Effect of non-payment of dues in the IBP

Default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of
the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys (Sec. 10, Rule 139-A, RRC) subject to the requirement
of due process (Funa, 2009).

Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients

Rule 15.02, Canon 15 – A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Privileged Communication

Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged communication
even if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines the employment. It
covers crimes and offenses already committed by the client. The reason for this is to make the prospective
client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will be
divulged or used against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the
prospective client (CPR Annotated, PhilJA).

Requisites:
1. There is attorney-client relationship or a kind of consultancy requirement with a prospective client.
2. The communication was made by the client to the lawyer in the course of the lawyer’s professional
employment; and
3. The communication must be intended to be confidential.

Conflict of Interest

A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any
manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases.

A lawyer may not be precluded from accepting and representing other clients on the ground of conflict of
interests, if the lawyer-client relationship does not exist in favor of a party in the first place.

The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse
to or in conflict with that of the former client. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do
anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously
represented the client. (Samson v. Atty. Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013)

GR: An attorney cannot represent diverse interests.

6
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

XPN: Representation of conflicting interest may be allowed where the parties consent to the representation
after full disclosure of facts. (Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No. 2040, Mar. 4, 1998)
XPN to XPN: Where the conflict is between the attorney’s interest and that of a client; or between a private
client’s interests and that of the government or any of its instrumentalities.

Three (3) tests to determine conflict of interest for practicing lawyers

1. Conflicting Duties – When, on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s duty to contest for that which his
duty to another client requires him to oppose or when possibility of such situation will develop.
2. Invitation of Suspicion – Whether the acceptance of the new relation will prevent a lawyer from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or will invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof.
3. Use of Prior Knowledge Obtained – Whether a lawyer will be called upon in his new relation to use
against the first client any knowledge acquired in the previous employment.

What is material in determining whether there is a conflict of interest in the representation is probability,
not certainty of conflict.

Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Diligence required

Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or mistake, and will be
protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the best of skill and knowledge. An attorney is not
expected to know all the laws. He is not liable for disbarment for an honest mistake or error. He is not an
insurer of the result in a case where he is engaged in as counsel. Only ordinary care and diligence are
required of him (Pineda, 2009).

Are the mistakes or negligence of a lawyer binding upon the client?

GR: Client is bound by attorney’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case or in the management
of litigation and in procedural technique, and he cannot complain that the result might have been different
had his lawyer proceeded differently.

XPN:
1. Lack of acquaintance with technical aspect of procedure;
2. When adherence thereto results in outright deprivation of client’s liberty or property or where
Interest of justice so requires;
3. Where error by counsel is Purely technical which does not substantially affect client’s cause;
4. Ignorance, incompetence, or inexperience of lawyer is so great and error so serious that client, who
has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in court; and
5. Gross negligence of lawyer.

NOTE: If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has been caused to his client, the latter has a cause
of action against him for damages. However, for the lawyer to be held liable, his failure to exercise
reasonable care, skill and diligence must be proximate cause of the loss.

Rule 20.01, Canon 20 – A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
a. The time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c. The importance of the subject matter;
d. The skill demanded;
e. The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
f. The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to
which he belongs;
g. The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
h. The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i. The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j. The professional standing of the lawyer.

7
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

Quantum Meruit (“as much as he has deserved”)

To avoid unjust enrichment to a party from resulting out of a substantially performed contract, the principle
of quantum meruit may be used to determine his compensation in the absence of a written agreement for
that purpose. The principle of quantum meruit justifies the payment of the reasonable value of the services
rendered by him.

Instances when the measure of quantum meruit may be resorted to:

1. There is no express contract for payment of attorney’s fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the
client;
2. Although there is a formal contract for attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or
unreasonable by the court;
3. The contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal matters or defects of execution;
4. The counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion;
5. Lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney’s fees; and
6. The client dismissed his counsel before the termination of the case.

DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

“Under the revisions of Rule 139-B (Bar Matter No. 1645, Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B, October
13, 2015), the administrative complaints against attorneys are generally not dismissed outright but are
instead referred for investigation, report and recommendation either to the IBP, or the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC), or any office of the Court or even a judge of a lower court. Such referral ensures that the
parties’ right to due process is respected as to matters that require further inquiry and which cannot be
resolved by the mere evaluation of the documents attached to the pleadings. Consequently, whenever the
referral is made by the Court, the IBP, the OBC or other authorized office or individual must conduct
the formal investigation of the administrative complaint, and this investigation is a mandatory
requirement that cannot be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons because it serves the
purpose of threshing out all the factual issues that no cursory evaluation of the pleadings can determine.

However, the referral to the IBP is not compulsory when the administrative case can be
decided on the basis of the pleadings filed with the Court, or when the referral to the IBP for the
conduct of formal investigation would be redundant or unnecessary, such as when the protraction of
the investigation equates to undue delay. Dismissal of the case may even be directed at the outset should the
Court find the complaint to be clearly wanting in merit. Indeed, the Rules of Court should not be read as
preventing the giving of speedy relief whenever such speedy relief is warranted.”

PROCEEDING IN THE DISBARMENT

139-B as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645, Re: Amendment of Rule 139-B, October 13, 2015:

Section 1. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of

attorneys may be taken by:

a. Supreme Court, motu propio; or

b. upon filing of a verified complaint of any person before the
Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Section 13. In proceeding initiated by the Supreme Court, or in other proceedings when
interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for
investigation to:

a. Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC); or

b. to any officer of the Supreme Court; or
c. judge of the lower court.
(Review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.)

The complaint may also be referred to IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation (Christian Spiritists in the Philippines v. Atty. Mangallay, A.C. No.
10483, March 16, 2016).

8
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

Aims and objectives:

Continuing legal education is required of members of the IBP to ensure that throughout their career, they
keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of
practice of law.

Persons Exempted from the MCLE:

1. The President, Vice-President and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the
judiciary, incumbent members of Judicial Bar Council, incumbent members of the MCLE Committee,
incumbent court lawyers who have availed of the Philippine Judicial Academy programs of continuing
judicial education (Amendment to Bar Matter 850, Resolution of the Court En Banc, July 13, 2004);
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Dept. of Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor
of the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10
years in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professional and Professorial Lecturers
of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors because they are prohibited from practicing their profession

Other parties exempted:

1. Those who are not in law practice, private or public;
2. Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors

JUDICIAL ETHICS

Gross Ignorance of the Law

Gross ignorance of the law, it must be shown that in the issuance of the assailed resolutions, the justices have
committed an error that was gross or patent, deliberate or malicious (Atoc v. Camello, et al., I.P.I. No. 16-241-
CA-J, November 29, 2016).

It is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. A judge may also be administratively liable if
shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in ignoring, contradicting or
failing to apply settled law and jurisprudence. Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law
and that, if committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, the same applies only in cases
within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment (DOJ v. Judge Mislang, A.M. RTJ-14-2369, July 26, 2016).

Q: Lourdes Ferrer and Prosperidad Arandez prevailed in an ejectment suit. The adverse party failed
to file the sufficient supersedeas bond. However, Judge Rabaca did not order the immediate execution
explaining that he had lost jurisdiction by virtue of the defendant’s appeal.
A: The Judge’s omission to order immediate execution in an ejectment suit absent the supersedeas bond is
inexcusable. He had ignored the urging to follow the clear and explicit provision of the rule made in the
plaintiffs motion for immediate execution. His mere failure to perform a duty enjoined by the Rules of
Court sufficed to render him administratively accountable for gross ignorance of law (Ferrer and
Arandez v. Judge Rabaca, G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580, October 6, 2010 [Bersamin, J.]).

PROPRIETY

Prior to entry of final judgment, the trial judge reached out to Petitioner in the form of a Facebook “friend”
request. Upon advice of counsel, Petitioner decided not to respond to that invitation. Thereafter, the trial
court entered a final judgment against petitioner. The trial judge's efforts to initiate ex parte communications
with a litigant is prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct and has the ability to undermine the confidence
in a judge's neutrality. The appearance of partiality must be avoided. It is incumbent upon judges to place

9
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

boundaries on their conduct in order to avoid situations such as the one presented in this case (Sandra Chase
v. Robert Loisel, No. 5D13-4449, January 24, 2014).

JUDICIAL CLEMENCY

In the exercise of its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts and all personnel
thereof, the Court lays down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to
certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and
probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct
will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reformation.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of
him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and
other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

NOTARIAL PRACTICE

GR: Notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the
persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notaries
public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually
executed the document in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act or deed.
Furthermore, notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has
acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or exemption from
the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and date of issue as part of certification.

XPN: Instances when a Notary Public may authenticate documents without requiring the physical
presence of the signatories:
1. If the signatory is old or sick or otherwise unable to appear, his presence may be dispensed with if one
credible witness not privy to the instrument and who is known to the notary public, certifies under
oath or affirmation the identity of the signatory.
2. If two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, not known to the notary public
but can present their own competent evidence of identity of the signatory.
3. In cases of copy certification and issuance of certified true copies.

Non-Lawyers as Notaries
The Rules now requires that notaries must be members of the Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court no longer
approves requests from non-lawyers for appointment or reappointment as notaries.

Competent Evidence Identity

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and
signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations
Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay
certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card,
Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID,
certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification;

OR

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction
who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows
the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.

10
 LEGAL ETHICS LAST MINUTE TIPS 2017

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF JUDICIARY

Condition before Justices of the Supreme Court may be disbarred

Justices of the Supreme Court in order to be disbarred must first be impeached in accordance with the
Constitution.

Q: Several administrative complaints were filed against Judge Yu for her refusal to comply with the
Supreme Court’s AO 19-2011 which established “night courts” to expedite the handling of criminal
cases in foreign tourists arrested at nighttime in Pasay and Makati; sending inappropriate messages
with sexual undertones to a fellow judge when she was a state prosecutor; and unlawfully issuing
show-cause orders on her colleagues. Should she be disbarred?

A: Yes. The grossness and severity of her offenses taken together demonstrated Judge Yu’s unfitness and
incompetence to further discharge the office and duties of a Judge. Her arrogance and insubordination in
challenging A.O. No. 19-2011, and her unyielding rejection of the appointments of court personnel
constituted gross insubordination and gross misconduct, and warranted her immediate dismissal from the
Judiciary. Her requiring her fellow Judges to submit to her authority by virtue of her show-cause order,
whereby she revealed her utter disrespect towards and disdain for them, as well as her conduct unbecoming
of a judicial officer aggravated her liability. The administration of justice cannot be entrusted to one like her
who would readily ignore and disregard the laws and policies enacted by the Court to guarantee justice and
fairness for all.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney may be disbarred on the ground of gross
misconduct and willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Given her wanton defiance of
the Court’s own directives, her open disrespect towards her fellow judges, her blatant abuse of the powers
appurtenant to her judicial office, and her penchant for threatening the defenseless with legal actions to
make them submit to her will, we should also be imposing the penalty of disbarment (OCA v. Judge Eliza Yu,
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, November 22, 2016).

11