LAST MINUTE TIPS for LEGAL ETHICS, BAR 2018

with J. Del Castillo Case Digests

LAWYER’S OATH

I, _______(name)_______, 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.

Q: What is the significance of lawyer's oath? (1996, 2003 Bar)

A: “The significance of the oath is that it not only impresses upon the attorney
his responsibilities but it also stamps him as an officer of the court with rights,
powers and duties as important as those of the judge themselves. The oath of a
lawyer is a condensed code of legal ethics. It is a source of his obligation and
its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary
action". (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 5th ed., p.59)

Q: Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates nine (9) duties of
attorneys. Give at least three (3) of them. (2000, 2007 Bar)

A: Under Section 20, Rule 138, it is the duty of an attorney:

1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
2. To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
3. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to
him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law;
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him
such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek
to mislead the judge or any Judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;
5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to
preserve the secret of his client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his client’s business except from him with his knowledge
and approval;

1
 6. To abstain from all offensive personality, and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
7. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an
action or proceeding or delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive
or interest;
8. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of
the defenseless or oppressed;
9. In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person
may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

Q: State the duties of a lawyer imposed by the Lawyer’s oath (2016 Bar)

A: The following are the duties of a lawyer imposed by the lawyer’s oath:
1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
2. To support its Constitution;
3. To obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities;
4. To do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of the same in any court;
5. Not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit nor to give nor to consent to the doing of the same;
6. To delay no man for money or malice;
7. To conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion, with all good fidelity to the courts as to his clients;
8. To impose upon himself that voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.

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
2
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.

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);

3
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.);

4
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;

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:
5
 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).

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Promulgated June 21, 1988)

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF

THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

Maintenance of adulterous relationship

The act of a lawyer of marrying someone while he still has a subsisting
marriage constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment.
(Cojuanco Jr vs. Palma)

A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her loan obligation. But
unwarranted obstinacy in evading the payment of a debt has been considered
as gross misconduct. (Constantino vs. Saludares)

However, issuance of bouncing checks reflects on the lawyer’s moral character

and he may be disciplined.

A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal processes. This includes

order of the commission on bar discipline of the IBP. The lawyer’s Oath
likewise says. I will obey the duly constituted authorities.

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.

Panganiban v. Borromeo, 58 PHIL 367

FACTS: Husband and wife Alejandro Pabro and Juana Mappala signed a contract
before the notary public of Elias Borromeo. The contract had been prepared by
6
the municipal secretary of Naguilian, Isabela. Atty. Borromeo cooperated in the
execution of the document. He was quite knowledgeable about its contents
although he did not know it fully because of a difference in dialect. The contract
is an agreement between the husband and the wife which permitted the
husband to take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous
relationship with another man, without opposition from either one of them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract is valid

HELD: No. Although RPC allowed the offended party to give pardon to his or her
offender spouse, this doesn’t mean that the purpose of the legislature is to
legalize adultery and concubinage. A notarized contract that permits
concubinage and adultery is not judicially recognizable. Although the consent
of a party is a bar to the prosecution of the said crimes, the acts are still
contrary to customs, good morals and against the sanctity of marriage which is
constitutionally provided for.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Ambulance chasing
It is the unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims to bring suits.
The practice of lawyers in frequenting hospitals and homes of the injured in
order to convince them to go to court. It is disreputable.
Refers to personal injury cases.
Refers to cases brought before the judiciary.

A. To hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and information thereof

in order to be employed to bring suit or collect judgment.

B. To breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or
those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients.

C. To pay or reward directly or indirectly those who bring or influence the

bringing of such cases to his office.

D. To remunerate policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital

attaches, or others who may succeed under guise of giving disinterested
friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the such and the injured, the
ignorant or others to seek his professional services.

Barratry
It is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits either
at law or otherwise.
Refers to any action.
Refers to suits before judicial or non judicial bodies.

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

7
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the 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 latter's rights.

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

Primary characteristics which distinguishes the legal profession from a

business:

1. Duty of public service of which emolument is a byproduct and in which

one may attain the highest eminence without making much money.
2. A relation as officer of the court to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity integrity and reliability.
3. A fiduciary relation to client in the highest degree.

In re Sycip
A relation to colleagues 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.

Example
A well known lawyer has been engaged to run a program in which he
encourages indigent party litigants to consult him free of charge about their
legal problems over a radio and television network.

Has he violated any ethical rules?

Yes as it involves indirect advertising and solicitation and is likewise violative

of the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. His act may also be
considered as a form of self-praise hence subject to discipline. (In re Tagorda)

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

The reason for rule 2.04 is that the practice of law is a profession and not a
trade. It is improper to lower your legal rates just because another lawyer has
offered a lower legal fee.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE

ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - 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.

Allowable or permissible forms of advertising by a lawyer:

8
A. Publication in reputable law lists of brief biographical and honest
informative data.
B. Use of an ordinary professional business card.
C. Announcement of specialization and availability of service in a legal journal
for lawyers.
D. Seeking of appointment to a public office requiring lawyers.
E. Advertising to seek full time position as counsel for a corporation.
F. Offering free legal service to indigents through radio broadcasts or printed
matter.
G. Announcement of opening of a law firm, changes of personnel, firm name or
office address.
H. Listings in a telephone directory.

It is unethical for a lawyer to resort to advertisement as a merchant would

advertise his wares. (Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot)

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 communications that said
partner is deceased.

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the
firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows
him to practice law currently.

Rule 3.04 - 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.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND
IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Example:
MCLE Program - Mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

It is a program which requires lawyers to show proof of having undertaken

improvement in their legal knowledge as a precondition for renewing their
license to practice.

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 THE
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

Example:
May a former government lawyer appear in a case against the government?

Yes, he may appear in a case against the government unless there is specific
ethical rule or provision of law which prohibits him from doing so.
9
When may a former government lawyer be prohibited from accepting a legal
engagement?

A. A lawyer shall not after leaving the government service accept engagement
or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while
in said service.

B. Retired members of the judiciary receiving pensions from the government

should not practice law where the government is the adverse party or in a
criminal case involving a government employee in the performance of his
duties as such.

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.

In criminal cases a public prosecutor should be present for the following

reasons:

A. To protect the interest of the state. As the criminal case is in reality a crime
done against the state.

B. To see to it that justice is done. Naturally the private prosecutor is interested

only to convict the accused. However, the primary duty of the public prosecutor
is not to convict but to see that justice is done.

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.

Ladigon vs. Garong

The respondent Judges letter prompted Ladignon to complain to the Justices of

this Court against the respondent Judges improper conduct as a member of the
Judiciary, for his use in a private communication of his official court stationery
and his title as a judge.

The respondent Judge admitted using the letterhead of his court and signing
his letter using the word judge. He claimed, however, that he merely used an
ordinary bond paper where he typed his courts station to indicate the return or
inside address from where he wrote the letter. He further alleged that he did
not see any harm or abuse in using the word judge on the honest belief that he
is entitled to use such appellation, and that [t]he practice of using papers in
whatever sizes with the address of their office printed on it is a very regular
occurrence among government offices, be it a personal or official one.

On May 22, 2008, Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao submitted her

evaluation, reporting as follows:

The courts heading or letterhead serves as a 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 the
courts heading must be observed at all times.
10
Respondent’s use of the courts heading in his personal letter to the First United
Methodist Church (FUMC) in Michigan, USA is inappropriate. He has unwittingly
dragged the name of the court into his private affairs, giving the appearance
that there is an implied or assured consent of the court to his cause.
Notwithstanding his avowed good intentions, regard should have been given to
the possible and even actual harm that inappropriate use of the court heading
might entail. Hence, respondent judges use of the court heading outside of
judicial business warrants disciplinary action for violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct particularly Section 1, Canon 4 which states that judges shall
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

We agree with the Report that what is involved here is the rule that Judges
shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities. Indeed, members of the Judiciary should be beyond reproach and
suspicion in their conduct, and should be free from any appearance of
impropriety in the discharge of their official duties as well as in their personal
behavior and everyday life. No position exacts a greater demand for moral
righteousness and uprightness on the individual than a seat in the Judiciary.
Where we significantly differ with the Report is in its sweeping implication that
any use of a courts letterhead for non-official transactions would necessarily
expose the user to liability for impropriety or giving the appearance of
impropriety.

The Judges claim that he used ordinary bond papers and placed thereon his
official station as return address is not totally without merit. For, indeed, this is
not an unusual practice and it would be hypocritical to deny its occurrence at
all levels of the Judiciary. For example, some members of the Judiciary may use
a social card with the letterhead of their office to indicate their address as well
as their station within the judicial hierarchy; some also use notepads bearing
their names, designation and station.

A thin line, however, exists between what is proper and what is improper in
such use, and this was the line that the respondent Judge crossed when he
used his letterhead and title the way he did. As the Report stated, his use of the
letterhead and his designation as a Judge in a situation of potential dispute
gave the appearance that there is an implied or assured consent of the court to
his cause. This circumstance, to our mind, was what marked the respondent
Judges use of his letterhead and title as improper. In other words, the
respondent Judges transgression was not per se in the use of the letterhead,
but in not being very careful and discerning in considering the circumstances
surrounding the use of his letterhead and his title.

To be sure, this is not the first case relating to the use of a letterhead that this
Court has encountered and passed upon. In Rosauro v. Kallos, we found the
respondent Judge liable for violating Rule 2.03 of the Code of the Judicial
Conduct when he used his stationery for his correspondence on a private
transaction with the complainant and his counsel parties with a pending case in
his court. The Court held:

By using his sala's stationery other than for official purposes, respondent
Judge evidently used the prestige of his office x x in violation of Rule 2.03 of
the Code.

We do not depart from this rule on the use of official stationary. We clarify,
however, that the use of a letterhead should not be considered independently

11
of the surrounding circumstances of the use the underlying reason that marks
the use with the element of impropriety or appearance of impropriety.

In the present case, the respondent Judge crossed the line of propriety when
he used his letterhead to report a complaint involving an alleged violation of
church rules and, possibly, of Philippine laws. Coming from a judge with the
letter addressed to a foreign reader, such report could indeed have conveyed
the impression of official recognition or notice of the reported violation.

The same problem that the use of letterhead poses occurs in the use of the title
of Judge or Justice in the correspondence of a member of the Judiciary. While
the use of the title is an official designation as well as an honor that an
incumbent has earned, a line still has to be drawn based on the circumstances
of the use of the appellation. While the title can be used for social and other
identification purposes, it cannot be used with the intent to use the prestige of
his judicial office to gainfully advance his personal, family or other pecuniary
interests. Nor can the prestige of a judicial office be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, or to convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. To do any
of these is to cross into the prohibited field of impropriety.

Time and again, this Court has reminded the members of the Judiciary that one
who occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a
high price for the honor bestowed upon him; his private as well as his official
conduct must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety. Because
appearance is as important as reality in the performance of judicial functions, a
judge like Caesar’s wife must not only be pure and faithful but must be above
suspicion.

The respondent Judge, even if he did not intend to take undue advantage of the
use of his letterhead and his title, at least gave the appearance of impropriety
when he did so under the circumstances of his use. To this extent, we find him
sufficiently liable to merit the admonition and warning of this Court regarding
any future inappropriate use of his letterhead and title. We limit ourselves to
an admonition and warning since this is the respondent’s first brush with our
ethical rules and no bad faith or ill motive attended his actions.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Rixon M. Garong of the Metropolitan

Trial Court, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, liable under Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Ethics and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We accordingly
ADMONISH him to be ever mindful of the standards he has to observe in his use
of his letterhead and title, and WARN him that a repetition of this transgression
shall be dealt with more severely.

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.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.

12
A lawyer should maintain the standard of moral fitness required of him when
he applied for admission to the bar.
He should always be faithful to his oath.

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.

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.

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.

A lawyer may not be held administratively liable for complaints involving

collection of debts.

In Litigio vs. Dixon the Supreme Court held that it does not take original
jurisdiction of complaints for collection of debts. The creditor’s course of action
is civil, not administrative in nature and proper reliefs may be obtained from
the regular courts.

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.

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.

Nothing is wrong with giving advice or assistance to the client of another

lawyer provided that no conflict of interest is involved and that a lawyer does
not encroach directly or indirectly on the employment of the other counsel.

ORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., and BEN A. NICOLAS

vs. Atty. MACARIO D. ARQUILLO
A.C. No. 6632. August 2, 2005

Facts:
Atty. Mac trio D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in one a case before the
before the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch in
San Fernando, La Union. Herein, complainants accuse Atty. Arquillo of deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by
representing conflicting interests. The case was filed with the IBP-Commission
on Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge and
recommended a penalty of suspension for 6 months. The governors of the IBP
increased the penalty for 2 years.

Issue:

13
Whether or not the acts of Arquillo merits his suspension from the practice of
law

Held:
The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients.
Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests, except
with all the concerned clients’ written consent, given after a full disclosure of
the facts. When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a
conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by three separate
tests:

1) when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to fight for an

issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client;

2) when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to perform
an act that may injuriously affect the first client or, when called upon in a new
relation, to use against the first one any knowledge acquired through their
professional connection; or

3) when the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of
an attorney’s 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. An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine
grounded on public policy that a lawyer’s representation of both sides of an
issue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting interests
arise with respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may
be. It applies even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in good
faith.

In accordance with previous rulings from this court Atty. Arquillo is suspended
for 1 year from the practice of law.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino
to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not possess required qualification of having
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987
constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections.
However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

Issue:
Whether the respondent does not possess the required qualification of having
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years

14
Held:
In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice
of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all
advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the
law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services,
contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of 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. Practice of law means
any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not possess the required qualification of
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since
Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts,
and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does
In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533

Topics:
“A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.”—Canon 3, Code of
Professional Responsibility

“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 for legal services.”—Rule 3.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility

Facts of the Case:

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim,
according to Nogales, was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients
who cannot afford the services of big law firms.

Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its
advertisements which states undignified phrases like-- “Secret Marriage?
P560.00 for a valid marriage. Information on DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ABSENCE,
VISA. The Legal Clinic, Inc. Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am to
6:00pm 7th Floor Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue, Manila.”

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal
Problems in The Philippine Star because it is composed of specialists that can
take care of a client’s situation no matter how complicated it is, especially on
marriage problems like the Sharon and Gabby situation.

Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should
be allowed based on this American Jurisprudence. According to him, there is

15
nothing wrong with making known the legal services his Legal Clinic has to
offer.

Issue:
Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.

Court Ruling:
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals, which is undoubtedly beyond
the domain of the paralegals. As stated in a previous jurisprudence, practice of
law is only reserved for the members of the Philippine bar, and not to
paralegals. As with the Legal Clinic’s advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer in making known his legal services must
use only honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.

A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his
goods. The Legal Clinic promotes divorce, secret marriages, bigamous
marriages which are undoubtedly contrary to law.

The only allowed form of advertisements would be:

1.) Citing your involvement in a reputable law list, (2.) An ordinary professional
card (3.) Phone directory listing without designation to a lawyer’s
specialization.

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.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

(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; or

(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a

deceased lawyer; or

(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.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE

COURT.

Duty of an attorney as an officer of the court. An officer of the court has the
duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote
confidence in the fair administration of justice. No less must this be and with
greater reasons in the case of the court’s highest court, the Supreme Court, as
the last bulwark of justice and democracy.
(In re: Letter of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda)

The first duty of an attorney is not to his client, but to the administration of
justice, to which his client’s success is wholly subordinate.
16
His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and
Ethics.

The lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth
and orderly administration of justice. It must be done within the confines of
reason and common sense.

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.

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.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.

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.

Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing

language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.

Example
May a lawyer properly criticize a court decision?

Yes, a lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the
Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised
responsibly.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.

***

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.

17
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.

**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.
18
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:
19
 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.

Quantum Meruit (“as much as he deserves”)

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.

J. Del Castillo Case Digests / Legal Ethics

20
 LUMINZA DELOS REYES vs. JUDGE DANILO S. CRUZ andCLERK OF COURT
VGODOLFO R. GUNDRAN,of the Regional Trial Court,Branch 152, Pasig City
A.M. No. RTJ- 08-2152, January 18, 2010

DOCTRINE: A heavy caseload may excuse a judge’s failure to decide cases

within the reglementary period but not their failure to request an extension of
time within which to decide the case on time.

FACTS:
The case stemmed from a letter-complaint filed by complainant Luminza Delos
Reyes against respondents Judge Danilo S. Cruz and Clerk of Court V Godolfo R.
Gundran, both of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 152, for
dereliction of duty. Specifically, Judge Cruz is charged with delay in the
disposition of LRC Case No. R-5740 while Clerk of Court Gundran is charged
with failure to timely transmit the records of said case.

Complainant alleged that she is the defendant in LRC Case No. R-5740 pending
before Branch 152 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. She claimed that on
March 25, 2004, Judge Cruz issued an Order giving the parties 15 days within
which to file their respective memorandum after which the case would be
deemed submitted for decision. The parties complied; hence, on April 9, 2004
the case was deemed submitted for decision.

However, it was only on July 30, 2007, or more than three years since the case
was submitted for resolution, that a decision in the said case was rendered.
Consequently, complainant argued that Judge Cruz incurred delay in disposing
the case thus should be held administratively liable therefor.

Complainant also alleged that after receipt of the adverse decision, she timely
filed on September 6, 2007 a notice of appeal and paid the corresponding
appeal and docket fees. However, despite the lapse of more than six months
from the time the appeal was filed, respondent Clerk of Court Gundran still
failed to transmit the records to the appellate court in violation of Section 10,
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not both Judge Cruz and Clerk of Court V Gundran are negligent

HELD:
Yes. As regards Judge Cruz, we find him grossly inefficient in failing to decide
LRC Case No. R-5740 within 90 days from the time it was submitted for
decision. He should be mindful that failure to resolve cases submitted for
decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the
constitutional right of the parties to the speedy disposition of their cases.

As such, lower courts are given a period of 90 days only within which to decide
or resolve a case from the time it is submitted for decision. In this case, it is
undisputed that LRC Case No. R-5740 was submitted for decision on April 9,
2004 but the decision was rendered only on July 30, 2007 or more than three
years beyond the 90-day reglementary period.

A heavy caseload may excuse a judges failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period but not their failure to request an extension of time within
which to decide the case on time.
21
As regards respondent Clerk of Court Gundran, we find him guilty of simple
neglect of duty for failure to timely transmit the records of LRC Case No. R-
5740. The duty to verify the correctness and completeness of the records of the
case rests with the respondent. However, in this case, respondent Clerk of
Court Gundran relegated the performance of his job to another court employee
without any justifiable reason.

When the records cannot be completed, respondent should indicate in his letter
of transmittal the exhibits or transcripts not included in the records being
transmitted to the appellate court, the reasons for their non-transmittal, and
the steps taken or that could be taken to have them available. Finally, it has not
escaped our notice that the records were eventually transmitted only on March
28, 2008 or more than six months after complainant filed her appeal, or about
two weeks after the instant administrative complaint was filed.

JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-JOAQUIN vs. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, Process

Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
AM. No. P-06-2241, July 10, 2012 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2422-P)

DOCTRINE: Dishonesty x x x is not simply bad judgment or negligence.

Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person
accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and
circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but
also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he
might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the
consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that
moment.

FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin
(Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin) against Process Server Nicomedes Dela Cruz (Dela
Cruz), both of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
for Conduct Unbecoming of Court Personnel and Dishonesty. In her complaint,
Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin alleged that Dela Cruz submitted belated and false
return of service of notice. In particular, she claimed that Dela Cruz received
the order dated November 25, 2005 relative to Criminal Case No. 5744-96 on
December 9, 2005 but served the same to the parties only on March 23, 2006.
She also alleged that Dela Cruz submitted false returns relative to Criminal
Case Nos. 04-0488 and 04-0489, No. 04-0483 and No. 05-0213. According to
Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin, Dela Cruz stated in his return of service in Criminal
Case Nos. 04-0488 and 04-0489 that the accused therein was no longer
residing at her given address.

However, during pre-trial, this was denied by the accused herself who declared
in open court that she has not transferred residence. Dela Cruz likewise
indicated in his return of service that therein accused is no longer residing at
his given address and that the houses thereat have already been demolished.
However, during the scheduled pre-trial, the complainant manifested that the
accused who is her neighbor still resides at his given address and that his
house is still standing thereon. Finally, as regards Criminal Case No. 05-0213,
two of the accused therein manifested during their scheduled arraignment that
they are still residing at their given address contrary to the report of Dela Cruz.
Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin also alleged that notwithstanding receipt of three
orders dated March 10, 2006, relative to Criminal Case Nos. 04-0488 and 04-
22
0489, No. 04-0483 and No. 05-0213 directing him to explain why no
administrative action should be taken against him for submitting false returns,
Dela Cruz still failed to submit any explanation or compliance therein.

According to Judge DalmacioJoaquin, the aforesaid acts of Dela Cruz were

unbecoming, undesirable, dishonest and even more reprehensible, undermined
the integrity of the court processes and tarnished the trustworthiness of the
court employees and of the judiciary. In his comment, Dela Cruz denied the
allegation that he deliberately delayed the service of the November 23, 2005
order relative to Criminal Case N0. 5744-96. He claimed that the same was
served to the parties concerned three days before the scheduled hearing. Anent
the returns relative to Criminal Case Nos. 04-0488 and 04- 0489, No. 04-0483,
No. 05-0213, and other cases, Dela Cruz denied submitting false returns. In
view of the factual issues presented, the matter was referred to the Executive
Judge of the RTC, Malolos, Bulacan for investigation and recommendation.

For the above infractions, the Investigating Judge recommended that Dela Cruz
be suspended from employment for a period of one year. The report of the
Investigating Judge was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
for evaluation, report and recommendation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dela Cruz is guilty of dishonesty

HELD:
In sum, the court finds Dela Cruz guilty not of dishonesty but only of simple
neglect of duty which is defined as the failure of an employee to give proper
attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or
indifference. Considering his 24 years of service in the judiciary and his health
condition, as well as the fact that no prejudice was caused to the party-
litigants in the abovementioned cases as they were all able to attend the
scheduled hearings, we deem it proper to impose upon Dela Cruz the penalty of
suspension of three months. However, in view of Dela Cruz’s resignation on
June 10, 2008, forfeiture of his salaries of three months should instead be
imposed in lieu of suspension, to be deducted from whatever benefits he may
be entitled under existing laws.

JASPER RODICA vs. ATTY. MANUEL LAZARO

A.C. No. 9259 March 13, 2013

DOCTRINE: The disbarment complaint against respondent therein was motu

propio dismissed by this Court after finding "no sufficient justification for the
exercise of its disciplinary power”.

FACTS:
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition1 filed
by complainant Jasper Junno F. Rodica of our August 23, 2012 Resolution2the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Complaint for disbarment
against respondents Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin M. Espejo,
Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. Michelle B. Lazaro and Atty. Joseph C. Tan is
DISMISSED. Atty. Edwin M. Espejo is WARNED to be more circumspect and
prudent in his actuations. SO ORDERED.”

23
In her Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition, complainant argues
that this Court unfairly ignored the supporting affidavits attached to the
Complaint and that this Court should expressly declare whether it is lending
credence to said affidavits or not and why.

Complainant next claims that this Court deviated from usual practice and
procedure when it proceeded to resolve the disbarment Complaint after the
separate Comments of the respondents have been filed without giving her the
opportunity to file a Reply. She also faults the Court for deciding the case
without first declaring the same to have already been submitted for resolution.
To her, this constitutes denial of due process.

Lastly, complainant asserts that this Courts reference to her Affidavit

supposedly executed on July 21, 2011 as un-notarized was misplaced. She also
insists that the Courts observation that the withdrawal of pending cases should
not have been limited "to the RTC case," is erroneous considering that there
were no other pending cases to speak of at that time. She also maintains that
the Court erroneously gave the impression that the decision of the Regional
Trial Court in Kalibo had already become final.

Complainant also prays for the inhibition of the justices who participated in this
case in the belief that they have been biased against her.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the complainant was denied due process

HELD:
NO. Complainant’s contention that she was denied due process because she
was not allowed to file a Reply deserves scant consideration. This is equally
true of complainant’s argument that this Court deviated from usual procedure
when it resolved the disbarment Complaint without first declaring the case to
have been submitted for resolution. The Court will outrightly dismiss a
Complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is clearly wanting in merit. Thus,
in International Militia of People Against Corruption & Terrorism v. Chief
Justice Davide, Jr. (Ret.) the Court, after finding the Complaint insufficient in
form and substance, dismissed the same outright for utter lack of merit. It took
the same stand in Battad v. Senator Defensor-Santiago, where the disbarment
Complaint against respondent therein was motupropio dismissed by this Court
after finding "no sufficient justification for the exercise of its disciplinary
power." In this case, the Court did not dismiss outright the disbarment
Complaint. In fact, it even required the respondents to file their respective
Answers. Then, after a judicious study of the records, it proceeded to resolve
the same although not in complainants favor. Based on the Complaint and the
supporting affidavits attached thereto, and the respective Comments of the
respondents, the Court found that the presumption of innocence accorded to
respondents was not overcome. Moreover, the Court no longer required
complainant to file a Reply since it has the discretion not to require the filing of
the same when it can already judiciously resolve the case based on the
pleadings thus far submitted. And contrary to complainants mistaken notion,
not all petitions or complaints reach reply or memorandum stage. Depending
on the merits of the case, the Court has the discretion either to proceed with
the case by first requiring the parties to file their respective responsive
pleadings or to dismiss the same outright. Likewise, the Court can proceed to
resolve the case without need of informing the parties that the case is already
submitted for resolution.

24
The Motion to Inhibit is denied for lack of basis. "An inhibition must be for just
and valid reason. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough
ground x xx to inhibit, especially when the charge is without basis." In this
case, complainant's imputation that her Complaint was decided by the
magistrates of this Court with extreme bias and prejudice is baseless and
clearly unfounded.

ROLANDO VIRAY vs. ATTY. EUGENIO T. SANICAS

A.C. No. 7337 September 29, 2014

DOCTRINE: The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree

of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers
because of their fiduciary relationship.

FACTS:
Complainant alleges that he engaged the services of respondent relative to a
labor case he filed against Ester and Teodoro Lopez III. The Labor Arbiter ruled
in favor of complainant. Subsequently, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued
relative to aforesaid decision. During the implementation of said writ, however,
complainant discovered that respondent had already collected the total amount
of ₱95,000.00 from spouses Lopez. Respondent received said amount.
Complainant also discovered that respondent misrepresented to spouses Lopez
that he is authorized to receive payments on his behalf, when in truth and in
fact he is not. Respondent admits that he received ₱95,000.00 from spouses
Lopez on installments, but denies that he was not authorized to accept it. He
explains that complainant agreed to pay him additional attorney's fees
equivalent to 25o/o of the total monetary award, on top of the attorney's fees
that may be awarded by the labor tribunal, and to refund all expenses
respondent incurred relative to the case. IBP recommended that the
respondent be meted the penalty of two (2) years suspension.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to
promptly account to his client the funds received in the course of his
professional engagement and return the same upon demand

HELD:
The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of
their fiduciary relationship. Specifically, Rule 16.01 of the Code imposes upon
the lawyer the duty to account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client. Rule 16.03 thereof, on the other hand, mandates that a
lawyer shall deliver the funds of his client when due or upon demand.

The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money in his
hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the obligation to make a
prompt accounting. Moreover, a lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate
his client's money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him
attorney's fees.In sum, respondent's failure to immediately account for and
return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in
him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action.

25
 DARIA O. DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS
A.C. No. 9395 November 12, 2014

DOCTRINE: A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct,

act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client.

FACTS:
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge.
She leased from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac) a building space located at No. 22 Otek
St., Baguio City where she operated the bar. Complainant received a Retainer
Proposal from Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by respondent and his partner
Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling). This eventually resulted in the
signing by the complainant, the respondent and Atty. Sabling of a Retainer
Agreement. That complainant entered into a Retainer Agreement dated March
7, 2005 with respondent's law firm. This agreement was signed by the
respondent and attached to the rollo of this case. And during the subsistence of
said Retainer Agreement, respondent represented and defended Balageo, who
was impleaded as one of the defendants in the ejectment case complainant
filed before the MTCC of Baguio City. In fact, respondent filed on behalf of said
Balageo an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction dated July 11, 2005. It was only on August 26, 2005
when respondent withdrew his appearance for Balageo.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of representing clients who have
conflicting interest

HELD:
Yes, a lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former
client. The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is absolute and
the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention
to represent conflicting interests.

DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., vs. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO,

A.C. No. 5116. April 13, 2015

DOCTRINE: Every lawyer must serve his client with utmost dedication,
competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. Sympathy
towards a client does not justify a counsel’s act of stating in his motion for
extension that he received the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision at a later
date to make it appear that the filing of the said motion is well within the
period for filing an appeal.

FACTS:
On this Complaint for Disbarment where complainant asserts that respondent’s
actuations of (1) not appearing in the pretrial of the case, (2) not availing of
the legal remedies against the dismissal of the Complaint due to non suit, and
(3) failing to file a petition for review, constitute unprofessional behavior or
misconduct and violations of Canon 12 of the CPR, which merit disciplinary
action, if not, disbarment.

26
On the respondent’s defense, Pandili allegedly took from respondent the case
folder despite the latter’s warning that they only have 15 days to file a Petition
for Review with the CA. It was only after 30 days that Pandili returned to him
and begged that he file an appeal, again, for fear that he would be terminated
by complainant. Out of pity, and despite knowledge of the expiration of the
period for filing an appeal, respondent still filed a Motion for Extension of Time
to File Petition for Review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Lawyer’s actions is justified by sympathy for his client

HELD:
No, Given his years of experience in the legal profession, respondent should be
well aware that “[a] lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. Thus,
while he owes his entire devotion to the interest and causes of his client, he
must ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason and common sense,
always aware that he is an instrument of truth and justice. More importantly,
as an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of
administering justice, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any
other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to its processes.

Thus, any act on his part which tends visibly to obstruct, pervert or impede and
degrade the administration of justice constitutes professional misconduct
calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him.”

Canon 18 of the CPR requires every lawyer to serve his client with utmost
dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively
liable.

PATROCINIA H. SALABAO vs. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, JR.

A.C. No. 8084. August 24, 2015.

DOCTRINE: While the Supreme Court agrees that lawyers owe their entire
devotion to the interest of their clients, they should not forget that they are
also officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.

FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Patrocinia H. Salabao (complainant)
against Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. (respondent) for abuse of court processes
in violation of Canons 10 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
After respondent filed his Answer we referred this case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation

She narrates as follows: In 2002, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig
City which tried Civil Case No. 65147 issued its resolution in her favor. In order
to delay the case, Respondent brought the case on appeal to the Court of
Appeals under C.A.G. R. CV No. 76360. The Court of Appeals decided in her
favor on January 13, 2004 but Respondent again filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court under G.R. No. 167413. Lumberio lost and the case became final
and executory.

Undeterred, respondent tried to defer the execution of the decision of the RTC,
Branch 162, by bringing to the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment under C.A.G. R. S.P. No. 97564. When rebuffed, he again appealed to
27
the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 181243 sans a clear or new arguments other
than what he had presented before the Court of Appeals. Still, Respondent filed
a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the 29 November 2007 Order of the
RTC before the Court of Appeals under C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 101992 which was
however dismissed. From hereon, there was not stopping the Respondent.
Once again he filed a new complaint before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon, Branch
64 under Civil Case No. 080666M. Apart from this, Respondent filed several
Motion, Inhibition and Contempt that were meant to delay the resolution of the
case. He likewise filed an administrative case against Judge Briccio Ygaña of
RTC Branch 153, Taguig City. Complainant then complained that Respondent
had done more than enough to suppress her rights as a winning litigant and
filed this case for abuse of processes pursuant to Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02 of
Canon 10 and Rule12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility(CPR).

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent should be meted with suspension for the abuse of
judicial process (or in his point of view exhausting the remedies)

HELD:
Yes. From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear
that respondent’s intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent was only doing
his duty as a lawyer to exhaust all legal remedies to protect the interest of his
client, his other actions belie his claim of good faith. Respondent filed a civil
case for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon in what was
clearly a case of forum shopping. Moreover, respondent filed three Motions to
Inhibit against the three judges hearing these cases, and even a motion to cite
the sheriff in contempt of court who was simply carrying out his duty to
execute the decision.

It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by
abusing Court processes, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution
of a final judgment, and feigning ignorance of his duties as an officer of the
court.

WILSON CHUA vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ,

A.C. No. 9880 November 28, 2016

DOCTRINE: A lawyer's negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising

from the relationship of counsel and client may cause delay in the
administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant particularly his
client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a
lawyer's lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional
and unethical."

FACTS:
Wilson Chua entered into a retainership agreement with Atty. Diosdado B.
Jimenez for the latter to handle all his legal problems against Excellent Quality,
Alexander Ty, Benny Lao, Clarita Tan. and Amosup. He entrusted to him all the
pertinent documents and gave P235,127.00 for the necessary filing fees. For
the last seven years prior, he had never attended a single hearing on any case
that he had assigned to him, except those involving Clarita Tan and Union Bank
where he was a defendant. On 24 September 2003, he terminated Atty.
Jimenez’s legal services for failure to file the necessary cases and filed a
complaint for grave misconduct, malpractice, dishonesty, and conduct
28
unbecoming a member of the Bar against him with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline on October 20, 2003. On 23
October 2003, the IBP directed Atty. Jimemez to file his Answer within 15 days,
but he requested for additional 15 days within which to comply. He filed a
Motion for Bill of Particulars and another Urgent Motion to File Answer, but the
IBP denied. Wilson subsequently moved that Atty. Jimenez be declared in
default which the IBP granted and set the mandatory conference on April 28,
2004. In the meantime, Atty. Jimenez moved for the lifting of the default order
attaching thereto his Answer with Counterclaim. Atty. Jimenez alleged that he
withheld the filing of the complaints due to Wilson’s non-payment of his
professional fees. He also denied receiving the amount of P235,127.00 from
complainant. By way of Reply, Wilson insisted that Atty. Jimenez had received
P235,127.00 intended for payment of filing fees as evidenced by photocopies of
checks payable to him and cash vouchers showing details of said payment.
After the termination of the mandatory conference, both parties were directed
to submit their verified position papers. Wilson complied, while Atty. Jimenez
failed to submit his position paper. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found
Atty. Jimenez guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 as well as Canon 22, Rule 22.02.
It recommended suspension from the practice of law for a period of 3 months
and that he be ordered to return the pertinent files and documents to
complainant. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner, but modified the recommended penalty to
suspension of 1 year from the practice of law and to return the files and
documents of the complainant, and the amounts duly supported by receipts.
Atty. Jimenez filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted and
reinstated the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner.

The records of the case was thereafter transmitted by the IBP to Supreme
Court pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
In particular, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 15, states: A
lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients. Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez fell short in being fair
and loyal to his client, Wilson Chua. Rules 18.03 further states: A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. He did not even file the cases for which he
was engaged and upon which he collected filing fees.

Rule 18.04 continues: 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. He was utterly lacking in this responsibility to his client as he
unfairly kept him in the dark, misleading him for seven years.

While the same Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the right of a

lawyer to have a lien over the funds and property of his client as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees, Rule 16.03 demands that "a lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand." This is
a reiteration of Rule 16.01, which states that "a lawyer shall account for all
money and property collected or received for or from the client."

29
"A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in
his professional capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from a
client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to
his client, showing that he spent the money for the purpose intended." He
miserably disregarded the mandate of accountability expected of him.

His issue on the supposed non-payment of his fees should have prompted him
to seek communication with Wilson and resolve such matter. He should not
have used the same as a ground for his inaction insofar as the cases referred to
him were concerned.

"A lawyer's negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the
relationship of counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of
justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant particularly his client. Thus, from
the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer's lethargy in
carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical."
"Indeed, under their sacred oath, lawyers pledge not to delay any person for
money or malice."

30
 New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

This Code supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Judicial
Conduct to the extent that the provisions or concepts therein are embodied in
this Code, provided that in case of Deficiency or absence of specific provisions
in this Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
should be applicable in a suppletory character. This was adopted from the
universal declaration of standards for ethical conduct embodied in the
Bangalore Draft as revised at the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at
the Hague (A.M. No. 03-05-01, June 1, 2004).

Canon 1. Independence

Individual Judicial Independence v. Institutional Judicial Independence

Individual Judicial Independence focuses on each particular case and seeks to

insure his or her ability to decide cases with autonomy within the constrains of
the law. On the other hand Institutional Judicial Independence focuses on the
independence of the judiciary as a branch of government and protects judges
as a class (In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr.
Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21,
2007).

Right to be Heard on a Matter of Public Concern; Influencing any Litigation

As regards going on the air to express one’s opinion over a matter of public
concern, respondent judge cannot be held to answer administratively simply
because he was exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a petition for
the redress of grievances, as a consumer and a member of the body politic. It
was his right, any his duty, to air what he honesty believed to be an incipient of
irregularity. However, his 2 telephone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor who
was presiding the court where the petition to stop the governor was pending,
definitely violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Section 3 of canon
1, which states that “Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative
agency” (Concerned Boholanos for Law and Order v. Judge Dionisio R. Calibo,
Jr., A.M. NO. RTJ-01-1621, September 27, 2007)

Canon 2. Integrity
Plagiarism

To plagiarize is “to steal and pass off as one’s own the ideas or words of
another”. Stealing implies malicious taking. The presentation of another
person’s ideas as one’s own must be deliberate and premeditated – a taking
with ill intent. While the academic publishing model is bases on the originality
of the writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare
decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical legal ate, precedents, and
31
related studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to produce original
scholarship in every respect. Citing published articles or work of a number of
legal writers, the Court ruled that a judge writing to resolved a dispute,
whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if
ideas, worlds or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in
a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving
attribution. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim of
legal plagiarism (In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7—17-SC, February 8,
2011)

Misconduct

Misconduct is “a transgression of some established and definite action, more

particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.” The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be
proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.
Records fail to indicate that those additional elements are present here (Atty.
Ernesto Jacinto v. Judge Lydia Q. Layosa, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1743, July 11,
2006).

A judge’s act of sending his staff to talk with the complainant and show copies
of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office
premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required
to be observed by a member of the Bench. Such constitutes gross misconduct
(Tan v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, September 8, 2004)

The use of official position to secure benefits constitutes grave misconduct.

Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official
or employees who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character to
procure some benefit for herself or for another, contrary to the rights of others.
A court employee is not prohibited from helping individuals in the course of
performing her official duties, but her actions cannot be left unchecked when
the help extended puts under suspicion the integrity of the Judiciary (Guerrero
v. Ong, A.M. NO. P-09-2676, December 16, 2009)

Dishonesty

Dishonesty like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence.

Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person
accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and
circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but
also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he
might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on his
consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that
moment (Re: Anonymous Complaint against Ms. Hermogena F. Bayani for
Dishonesty, A.M. No. 2007-22-SC, February 1, 2011).

Compliance with Rules, Directives and Resolutions

32
It is an imperative for judges to comply with resolutions issued by the Court. A
resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request and
should not be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively (Rolando
Gaspar v. Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1565, August 16, 2006)

Canon 3. Impartiality

Asking a lawyer from which law school he graduated from and engaging in
casual conversation about it is unbecoming conduct. New Code of Judicial
Conduct demands that judges avoid situations that may reasonably give rise to
the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality in their personal
relations with individual members of the legal profession who practice
regularly in their courts. Publicizing professional qualifications or boasting of
having studied in and graduated from certain law schools, no matter how
prestigious, might have even revealed, on the part of the judges, their bias for
or against some lawyers (Jasmani-Rodriguez v. Ong, AM NO. 08-19-SB-J,
August 24, 2010)

Two kinds of Inhibition

The judge a quo is not disqualified to hear and decide the case. Rule 137
contemplates 2 kinds of inhibition: compulsory and voluntary. In the first
paragraph, compulsory disqualification conclusively assumes that a judge
cannot actively or impartially sit on a case for the reasons there in stated. The
second paragraph, concerning voluntary inhibition, leaves to the judge’s
discretion whether he should desist from sitting in a case for other just and
valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him (Fidel V. Amarillo Jr v. The
People of the Philippines and Hermo, G.R. No. 153650, August 31, 2006)

Inhibition: “UTANG NA LOOB”

Inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a friend, classmate, associate or

patron of a presiding judge appears before him as counsel for one of the
parties to a case. “utang naloob” per se should not be a hindrance to the
administration of justice. Nor should recognition of such value in the Philippine
society prevent the performance of one’s duties as judge. However, where, as
in this case, the judge admits that he may be suspected of surrendering to the
persuasions of utang naloob or he may even succumb to it considering that he
“and the members of his family, no less, shall ever remain obliged in eternal
gratitude to Justice Reyes”, the negative answer to the question of Judge
Elizaga yields to exceptions in extraordinary cases (Querry of Executive Judge
Estralla T. Estrada on the conflicting Views of RTC – Judges Masado and Elizaga
Re: Criminal Case No. 4954-M, 87-9-3918-RTC, October 26, 1987)

Duty to Sit

The rule of disqualification of judges must yield to demands of necessity. A

judge is not disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other judge available to
hear and decide the case. When all judges would be disqualified,
33
disqualification will not permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power in
the premises. The doctrine operates on the principle that a basic judge is
better than no judge at all. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the
disqualified judge to hear and deicide the controversy, however, disagreeable it
may be (Rodolfo Parayno, et al v. Judge IluminadoMeneses, GR No. 112684
April 26, 1994)

Filing Unfounded Cases Against Judges

Unfounded administrative charges against members of the bench degrade the

judicial office and greatly interfere with the due performance of their functions
in the Judiciary. Thus, a complainant, who carries the burden of proof, but has
miserably failed to substantiate his/her allegations with clear and convincing
evidence, must show cause in writing why he/she should not be punished for
indirect contempt (Re: Complaint of Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco Against Justices
Maria Elisa Sempio-Dy, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, and CermelitaSalandanan-
Manahan of the CA, IPI No. 14-222-CA-J, February 23, 2016)

Canon 4. Propriety

Appearance of Propriety

Judges shall ensure that not only their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. The behavior and
conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the
judiciary. In the same vein, Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance
of impropriety in all o their activities (Rosqueta V. Asuncion, A.M. No. MTJ-13-
1823, March 29, 2014)

An attorney who accepts an appointment to the bench must accept that his
right to practice law is thereby suspended, and it shall continue to be so
suspended for the entire period of his incumbency as a judge. The term
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or to participation
in court proceedings, but extends to the preparation of pleadings or papers in
anticipation of a litigation, the giving of legal advice to clients or persons
needing the same, the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which
legal rights are secured, and the preparation of papers incident to actions and
special proceedings (Decena v. Malanyaon, AM No. RTJ-10-2217, April 8, 2013)

Failure to File SALN

A judge clearly violates the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when he
fails to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) without
justifiable reasons. While every office in the government service is a public
trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and
uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are
strictly mandated to abide with the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and with
existing administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in
34
the administration of justice (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Uyag P.
Usman, Presiding Judge, Shari’a Circuit Court, Pagadian City, A.M. No. SCC-08-
12, October 19, 2011)

Canon 5. Equality

Appearance of Bias and Prejudice

The court pointed out that the act of the members of the judiciary in publicizing
professional qualifications or boasting of having studied in and graduated form
certain law schools, no matter how prestigious , might reveal bias for or
against some lawyer. In performing their judicial duties, they should not
manifest bias or prejudice by world or conduct towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds. If is very essential that they should live up to the high
standards their noble position on the Bench demands. Their language must be
guarded and measured, lest the best intentions be misconstrued (Assistant
Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justices Gregory S.
Ong, A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J, August 24, 2010)

Canon 6. Competence and Diligence

Undue Delay in the Disposition of Cases; Request for Extension

Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period
constitute gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative
sanction against the erring magistrate. Delay in resolving motions and
incidents pending begore a judge within the reglementary period of 90 days
fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitute gross
inefficiency (Pio Angelia v. Judge Jesus L. Graneda, RTC, Branch 4, Panabo City,
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220, February 7, 2011)

Delay in deciding cases within reglementary period and in complying with OCA
directives constitute gross inefficiency. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct mandates judges to attend promptly to the business of the
court and decide cases within the periods prescribed by law and the Rules.
Moreover, Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that lower
court judges are also mandated to decide cases within 90 days form the date of
submission (Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Romeo B. Casalan, A.M.
No. RTJ-14-2385, April 20, 2016)

Mitigating Circumstance for Judge’s Delay

Poor health condition of a Judge is not an excuse for him to delay in deciding
cases within the reglementary period. The Court usually considers the poor
health condition of a judge as a mitigating circumstance in determining the
imposable administrative penalty. A Judge could have simply asked the Court
for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of his cases because poor health
conditions of a judge is a valid ground in extending the time to dispose cases,
35
depending on the instances. (Re: Evaluation of Administrative Liability of Hon.
Antonio C. Lubao, Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, A.M.
No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016)

Undue Delay in Rendering Decisions

Failure of a judge to resolve cases without strong and justifiable reason

constitutes gross incompetence, inefficiency, negligence, and dereliction of
duty, warrant only the imposition of administrative sanctions. Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court provides that undue delay in rendering a decision or order is
classified as a less serious charge (Office of the Court Administrator v. Retired
Judge FilemonTandinco, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760. November 16, 2015.

36
DISBARMENT

37