LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS HANDOUT

BASED ON CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO

AND OTHER RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE
2018 Bar Examinations
Prof. Victoria V. Loanzon
Final Advice
1. Legal and Judicial Ethics is the last subject of the bar examinations. Save the BEST for last.
2. Think before you write your final answers. Find time to make an outline using only key words in your
questionnaire. Manage your time properly. If there are 20 questions, make a mathematical computation to
divide the 4 hours allotted for you to finish the exams.
3. Remember the subject of ethics deal with appropriate standards of behavior. You can surmise from the
narration of facts if one’s act is inappropriate. Remember to apply your inherent sense of what is right and
what is wrong in a given situation.
4. In case of doubt, think whether the act of the lawyer or the judge involved serves the ends of justice,
improves the administration of justice and protects the rights of the individuals. If it does not fall within
these general guideposts, then it must be unethical and violates of the canons for the bench and the bar.
5. Follow the basic guidelines that all lawyers, whether in private practice or in government service, must
serve the ends of justice, preserve the justice system, protect the rights of individuals; and both members
of bar and the bench are the vanguards of justice.
6. Relax, have fun. It is just a matter of time for you to reap the rewards of hard work and realize a
lifetime dream.

THE LAWYER’S OATH

“I, ________________ 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, neither
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 obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God.” (Rules of Court, Form 28)

PART ONE – DECISIONS PENNED BY JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO

A. NATURE OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

Q. What is the purpose of disbarment?
A. The purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the
officers of the court and to ensure the administration of justice by requiring that those who
exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom
courts and clients may repose confidence. The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much
1|Page
to punish the individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice by
proceeding the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove
from the profession of law persons whose disregard for their oath of office has proved them unfit
to continue discharging the trust respect in them as members of the bar. (Anacta v.
Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074, August14, 2012)

Q. When may the Court take cognizance of a disbarment case?

A. The Court held in Anacta v. Resurreccion (A.C. No. 9074, August14,2012) that -
“ x x x it is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority
of the Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the
matter involves violations of the lawyer's oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the
Court's disciplinary authority. However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or
criminal liablity, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the
lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a judicial action which is understandably
outside the purview of the Court's disciplinary authority.”

Q. What is the first step which the Court must consider in a disbarment case?
A. In reviewing a disbarment case, the Court must first determine if the complaint sufficiently
alleges facts which would tend to show that the lawyer violated his Lawyer’s Oath of any of the
canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In Virgo v. Amorin, the Court held-
“While it is true that disbarment proceedings look into the worthiness of a respondent to remain
as a member of the bar, and need not delve into the merits of a related case, the Court, in this
instance, however, cannot ascertain whether Atty. Amorin indeed committed acts in violation of
his oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the Virgo Mansion without going
through the factual matters that are subject of the aforementioned civil cases, x x x. As a matter
of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusions that will be drawn by the court where the
case is pending, the Court deems it wise to dismiss the present case without prejudice to the
filing of another one, depending on the final outcome of the civil case.”

BIGAMY AS BASIS TO DISBAR A LAWYER

Q. Tabalingcos contracted two other marriages while his first marriage was still subsisting.
Can this be a subject of a disbarment case against the lawyer?
A. Yes, Tabalingcos can face disbarment proceedings for his acts. A disbarment case is sui
generis. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the
bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case. Tabalingcos’ regard for marriage
contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of marriage
or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to annul a marriage under the
old Civil Code provisions. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct
and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court. (Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012).

2|Page
FAILURE TO PERFORM NOTARIAL DUTY AS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT
Q. The IBP investigating Commissioner recommended the revocation of the notarial
commission of Atty. Kilaan and his suspension for two months for the inaccuracies in the
entries in his notarial register. As a matter of defense, Atty. Kilaan passed on the blame to his
secretary for the inaccuracies in the entries in his Notarial Register. He asserted that being a
private practitioner, he is burdened with cases thus he delegated to his secretary the job of
recording the documents which he notarized in his Notarial Register. He argued that the
revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification for two years is too harsh. a penalty
considering that he is a first-time offender; he prayed for leniency considering that his family
depended on his income for their collective needs. Should there be leniency in the imposition
of penalty for the infraction committed by Atty. Kilaan?
A. No, there should be no leniency to be extended to Atty. Kilaan. It is settled that it is the notary
public who is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in his Notarial Register. The
Court is not persuaded by respondent s explanation that he is burdened with cases thus he was
constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in his Notarial Register to his secretary.
Section 246 of the Notarial Law provides –
“SEC. 246. Matters to be entered therein. - The notary public shall enter in such register,
in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to or acknowledging the
instrument, the witnesses, if any to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or
acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in
connection therewith, and, when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a connect
copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief
description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number,
beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to each
instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to
the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his
register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.”
(Agadan et al. v. Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan, A.C. No. 9385, November11, 2013)

DISCIPLINARY ACTION EX PARTE

Q. Respondent lawyer failed to file the necessary pleading before the court resulting in its
outright dismissal. This prompted his client to institute a disbarment case against him. During
the disbarment proceedings, the respondent also disregarded the orders of the IBP when he
failed to file his Answer, to attend the mandatory conference, and to file his Position Paper
despite receipt of the corresponding notices. The Investigating Commissioner thus
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Was it
proper for the Investigating Commissioner to recommend the suspension of the respondent
lawyer despite his absence?
A. Yes, it was proper for the Investigating Commissioner to recommend the suspension of
respondent lawyer despite his absence. . Section 30 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
“Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be
removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce
witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon

3|Page
 reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to
determine the matter ex parte.”
Thus, it was proper for the Court to sustain the recommendation of the IBP to suspend the
lawyer.
The Court said that respondent should be reminded that –
“As an officer of the court, [he] is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a
mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This
is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative
cases against lawyers.” (Cabauatan v. Atty. Freddie Venida, A.C. No. 10043,
November 20, 2013)

Q. Respondent lawyer ignored all communications sent to him by the complainant. After the
disbarment complaint was filed, he failed to file his answer despite due notice. He totally
disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite receipt of summons. May the IBP continue
to proceed with the disbarment proceedings against the respondent lawyer despite his absence?
A. Yes, the IBP can continue to hear the disbarment proceedings against the lawyer despite his
absence. Section 30 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
“Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be
removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce
witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon
reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to
determine the matter ex parte.”
The act of respondent in not filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the Investigating
Commission, despite due notice emphasized his contempt for legal proceedings. He can therefore
deem to have waived his right to present evidence to dispute the allegations against him.
Q. Atty. Barcelona deliberately misrepresented to his client that he was able to successfully
facilitate the restructuring of his client’s loan with a bank through his "connection". On the
basis of said false pretenses, he collected ₱ 60,000.00 from his client. His client eventually
became aware of such misrepresentations when his property was foreclosed by the bank.
Aquino, his client lodged an administrative case against Atty. Barcelona. Atty. Barcelona,
was given ample opportunity to defend himself from the complaint filed against
him. Despite a long lapse of time, he did not make any effort to refute the
accusations made against him. Can Barcelona be penalized despite his absence during
the proceedings?
A. Yes, Barcelona can be suspended despite his absence without violating the due process clause.
As found by the Investigating Commissioner and based on the evidence on record, respondent
did not even try, despite notice, to appear and clear his name before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline. The Court was thus constrained to agree with the recommendations of the IBP
Board of Governors that indeed respondent has committed professional misconduct for which
he should be duly disciplined. (Aquino v. Atty. Barcelona , 431 Phil. 59)

EFFECT OF DEATH IN A DISBARMENT PROCEEDING

Q. Respondent lawyer died during the pendency of the case. The Investigating Commissioner
recommended the imposition of penalty upon him. Is the recommendation of the Investigating
Commission proper?

4|Page
A. No. The Court must dismiss the administrative case against the respondent lawyer. It is
impossible to impose any sanction against him in view of his death during the pendency of said
case.
In the case of Francisco et al. v. Atty. Macaraeg,records reveal that he was already 60 years old
when the hearings in his disbarment case were held in 1967. Hence, he would have been 108
years old by the time, the IBP Board of Governors acted on the case. It is also noteworthy that
the subpoena issued by the Solicitor General in 1972 contains a handwritten note that Atty.
Macaraeg had already died. Thereafter, nothing more was heard from either party despite notice.
Under these circumstances, it is safe to assume that the complainant had already lost interest in
pursuing this disbarment case against Atty. Macaraeg and that there is truth in the handwritten
notation in the return of the subpoena that Atty. Macaraeg had already passed away.

POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE LAWYER MOTU PROPIO

Q. May the Supreme Court sanction lawyers who have persistently referred to an alleged
medical report to support its claim that their client is not liable for claim disability benefits of
seafarer without actually attaching the evidence in the pleadings?
A. Yes, the Court in the case of Magsaysay Maritime Corp. v. Mazaredo (2015), held the
counsel of record of Magsaysay Maritime Corp. liable for act of deception for referring to a
medical report which never formed part of the pleadings which they allegedly submitted in the
NLRC and which became a subject of an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
The Court noted that Attorneys Herbert A. Tria and Jerome T. Pampolina, repeatedly attempted
– all throughout the proceedings or for a period of six years – to deceive and mislead the Labor
Arbiter, the NLRC, the CA, and this Court, into believing that a favorable March 27, 2009
“Medical Report” of petitioners’ company-designated physician exists which supposedly shows
that respondent’s condition was not work-connected and not compensable, when in fact there is
none.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

Q. Rodica alleged that her counsel should be sanctioned by the Court for not successfully
dismissing the deportation case against her husband despite the fact she had agreed to dismiss
the civil case against the client of the opposing counsel. Who has the burden in proving the
culpability of the lawyer in a disbarment case?
A. The complainant has the burden to prove the culpability of the lawyer in a disbarment case.
A disbarment case requires only preponderance of evidence.
Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence,
the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the
witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying , the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of
witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
(Citations omitted.)
Q. Complainants alleged that they are co-plaintiffs in a pending before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City while respondent is the counsel for the defendants therein; that
respondent committed dishonesty when he stated in the defendants' Answer that the parties to
the subject case are strangers to each other despite knowing that the defendants are half-

5|Page
brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and that they filed a criminal case for Perjury
against respondent.
Complainants also alleged that respondent introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as
part of his evidence in the pending civil case; and that they filed another Perjury case against
him. Complainants averred that respondent knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading
captioned as Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction; that said pleading is not in accordance with the rules of procedure; that the said
filing delayed the proceedings in the pending civil case. Will the complaint be given due
course?
A. The Court dismissed the case against the respondent since there are matters which are not
covered by the administrative powers of the Court to discipline lawyers. The Court said that
issues raised by the petitioners are matters which are the very issues which are subject civil and
criminal charges they have instituted against their counsel. (Felipe et al. v. Atty. Ciriaco
Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549, December 2, 2013)

INHIBITION OF MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

Q. Rodica filed a Motion for Reconsideration & Motion for Inhibition claiming that -
1. The Supreme Court unfairly ignored the supporting affidavits attached to the Complaint.
She argued that the Court should expressly have declared whether it is lending credence to
said affidavits or not and the reason for its action.
2. The Supreme 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.
Is there sufficient ground to inhibit the members of the Court based on the grounds raised by
Reodica?
A. In this case, complainant's imputation that her Complaint was decided by the magistrates of
the Court with extreme bias and prejudice is baseless and clearly unfounded. Her allegation that
the Court did not rule fairly on the issues she raised and magistrates should have inhibited
themselves, the Court said -
“[An] inhibition must be for just and valid reason. The mere imputation of bias or
partiality is not enough ground x x x to inhibit, especially when the charge is
without basis."
The Court held that it will outrightly dismiss a Complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is
clearly wanting in merit. The court said that Rodica did not raise any new issue which would
require the Court to reconsider its original decision. (Rodica v. Atty. Manuel Lazaro, Atty.
Espejo, Atty. Almario, Atty. Michelle Lazaro, and Atty. Tan, 2013)

Q. In an order where Judge Rodriguez-Manahan voluntarily inhibited herself, she wrote –

“More than mere contempt do his (Atty. Flores) unethical actuations, his traits of
dishonesty and discourtesy not only to his own brethren in the legal profession, but
also to the bench and judges, would amount to grave misconduct, if not a a malpractice
of law, a serious ground for disciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to
Rules 139 A and B.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, furnish a copy of this Order to the Bar Discipline Committee,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, & to the Supreme Court en banc, for appropriate
investigation and sanction.”

6|Page
Does the order of the presiding judge constitute a formal administrative complaint against
Atty. Flores?
A. Yes, the order of the judge can be considered as a formal complaint against Atty. Flores. The
Office of the Bar confidant referred the matter for investigation of the Executive Judge. In his
investigation report, the Executive Judge established that Flores failed to submit proof of his
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement. Flores
likewise used intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge recommended that
Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The Supreme Court found that
the recommended penalty was too harsh and just imposed a penalty of P5,000.00 considering –
(1) this is the first infraction committed by respondent; and
(2) for humanitarian reasons, he has been in the practice of law for half a century and more stern
penalty will be too harsh. (Hon. Judge Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan v. Atty. Rodolfo Flores,
A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013)

IMPARTIALITY AND LACK OF PROPRIETY – HOLDING MEETINGS WITH

PARTY-LITIGANTS IN JUDGE’S CHAMBERS
Q. Is it proper for a judge to have conferences with parties who pending cases in court?
A. No, this is inappropriate conduct on the part of the judge as it may give rise to the impression
that the judge is bias.
The Court said that in view of the increasing number of reports reaching the Office of the Court
Administrator that judges have been meeting with party litigants inside their chambers, judges
are hereby cautioned to avoid in-chambers sessions without the other party and his counsel
present, and to observe prudence at all times in their conduct to the end that they only act
impartially and with propriety but are also perceived to be impartial and proper.
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to "the
decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.”As such, judges must
ensure that their "conduct, both in and out of the court, maintains and enhances the confidence of
the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary."
In the same vein, the Code of Judicial Conduct behooves all judges to avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all their activities, as such is essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge in order to maintain the trust and respect of the people in the judiciary.
(CARMEN P. EDAÑO v. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974, July 26, 2007,
PER CURIAM)

GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW – LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF PROCEDURAL

RULES
Q. The redemption period had long lapsed and the title over the subject property had already
been consolidated in PNB’s name. When PNB applied for the issuance of the Writ of
Possession, the judge denied the same. PNB filed an administrative case against the presiding
judge for gross ignorance of the law. Will the administrative case prosper?
A. Yes, the case will prosper. It was ministerial upon Judge Venadas, Sr. to issue the Writ of
Possession in favor of PNB, the registered owner of the subject property. The judge is guilty of
grave abuse of authority bordering on gross ignorance of procedure for blatantly disregarding
Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. He is guilty of grave abuse of authority
bordering on gross ignorance of the law.

7|Page
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW – GRANT OF FURLOUGHS WITHOUT
HEARING
Q. Can a judge repeatedly grant furloughs to the accused without any motion being filed,
without conducting hearings and without informing the prosecutor of the orders granting the
accused the right to furlough?
A. The judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting ex parte
motions to allow the accused temporary liberty without setting the same for hearing. If hearing
is indispensable in motions for bail, more so in this case where the motions for the temporary
liberty of the accused were filed without offering any bail or without any prayer that he be
released on recognizance. It is basic that bail cannot be allowed without prior hearing. It is also
basic that litigious motions that do not contain a notice of hearing are nothing but a useless piece
of paper which the court should not act upon. These rules are so elementary that not to know
them constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT

DECEITFUL CONDUCT AND DISHONESTY
Q. Anacta consulted Atty. Resurreccion about her marital problem. He asked him to an
annulment case against her husband. She gave him an initial fee of P42,000.00. Counsel gave
her a copy of a Petition in court with a date of receipt and with docket number. Upon
verification with the court, there was no case on record which her counsel filed. Does Anacta
have the right to institute disbarment proceedings against her counsel?
A. Yes, Anacta has the right to file a disbarment case against her counsel.
Respondent committed deceitful and dishonest acts by misrepresenting that he had already filed
a petition for annulment on behalf of the complainant and pocketing the amount of P42,000.00.
He even went to the extent of presenting to the complainant a supposed copy of the petition duly
filed with the court. After he was found out, he made himself scarce. He ignored all
communications sent to him by the complainant.

Q. After the disbarment complaint was filed, Resurreccion failed to file his answer despite due
notice. He totally disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite receipt of summons. Will
the acts of respondent lawyer have any impact in the assessment of his alleged infraction?
A. Yes. The Court said that the natural instinct of man impels him to resist an unfounded claim
or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent
and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Hence, silence in such cases is almost always
construed as implied admission of the truth. Resurrecion’s actuation indicate that there is
admission of his deceitful conduct.
The Court suspended him for four years and ordered him to restore the full amount of
P42,000.00 to Anacta within the period of 30 days.

VIOLATION OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Q. Atty. Manuel received money from complainant Garcia for filing fees in an ejectment case.
Garcia, however, found out that Atty. Manuel filed any case on his behalf. Garcia lodged a
disbarment case against Atty. Manuel. Will the case prosper?
A. In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel (443 Phil. 479), the Court found Manuel to have committed
dishonesty and abused the confidence of his client for failing to file the ejectment suit despite
asking for and receiving from the complainant the money intended as filing fees. In his bid for

8|Page
exoneration, therein respondent attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that he has not yet
received the registry return card of the notice to vacate hence his failure to file the ejectment suit.
However, the records indubitably showed that he had already received the same. Moreover,
therein respondent likewise refused to return the monies he received from the complainant
despite repeated demands. (Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 443 Phil. 479)

Q. Atty. Rubia prompted her client, Ceniza to borrow money to be able to pay her professional
fees for the case Rubia was handling for complainant Ceniza. Ceniza, however, found out that
Atty. Rubia did not file the case despite proof that the case has been received and docketed.
Ceniza filed a disbarment case against Atty. Rubia. For her defense, Atty. Rubia said that she
withdrew the case and that it was never her intention to deceive her client. Is the defense of
Atty. Rubia tenable?
A. Yes, Atty. Rubia’s defense is tenable. The Court lent more credence to the explanation of the
respondent that the case was "withdrawn" after it had been stamped "received" by the court. She
was not guilty of violating her fiduciary duty. (Ceniza v. Rubia, A.C. No. 6166, October 2, 2009,
602 SCRA 1)

Q. Atty. Moreno issued a fraudulent (“bogus”) Certificate of Land Occupancy to the

complainant . He also refused to return the amount paid by the complainant for lawyer’s
failure to comply with the terms of engagement. Is his act a violation of his fiduciary duty?
A. Atty. Moreno violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The lawyer-
client relationship is founded on trust and confidence. The lawyer cannot take advantage of such
trust reposed in him. It is his duty to account the money he received from the client and to return
any amount which remains unaccounted for when demand was made. For his infraction, the
lawyer may be subject to disciplinary court by the court. (Roa v. Moreno, A.C. No. 8382, April
21, 2010, 618 SCRA 693)

Q. Atty. Alvero failed to deposit in court the amount of ₱300,000.00 which he received from
his client supposedly as redemption price for a foreclosed property. He also failed to return the
amount despite repeated demands by his client. Did Alvero violate his fiduciary duty?
A. Yes, Atty. Alvero violated Canon 16 of the CPR. It is the duty of the lawyer to deliver to the
client any amount money he received or to perform specific acts for which the money was
originally intended. For failure to deposit in court the redemption money, the counsel violated his
fiduciary duty. (Barcenas v. Alvero, A.C. No. 8159, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 1, 10),

Q. Atty. Adaza asked money from his client supposedly as filing fees when in fact no such
filing fees are needed or due. Worse, he issued a falsified "official receipt" as proof of
payment. Finally, when he was discovered, he failed to heed his client's demand to return the
amount. What is the liability of Atty. Adaza?
A. Atty. Adaza violated his fiduciary duty. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
proveides that the lawyer must promptly account for money received from the client. (Gonato v.
Atty. Adaza, 385 Phil. 426)

CONVICTION OF CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

Q. What is the effect of conviction involving a crime of moral turpitude committed by a
lawyer?

9|Page
A. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment. Moral turpitude
is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to
his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.Section 27, Rule 138 provides that “a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.”
In a disbarment case, the Court will no longer review a final judgment of conviction. The crime
of bribery clearly falls under one of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138.
Disbarment follows as a consequence of the lawyer’s conviction of the crime. (Atty. Policarpio I.
Catalan, Jr. vs. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa. A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012).

DUTY TO INFORM CLIENT OF STATUS OF CASE

Q. Complainant alleged that she made several follow-ups with the respondent but the latter
merely ignored her or made her believe that he was diligently handling her case. Thus,
complainant was surprised when she received a notice from the Court of Appeals informing
her that her appeal had been abandoned and her case dismissed. The dismissal had become
final and executory. Did the lawyer violate any of duties prescribed under the Code of
Professional Responsibilty?
A. Yes, he did. This is a clear violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to keep their clients informed of the status of their case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients' request for information. The Code of
Professional Responsibility pertinently provides:
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed on him.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – 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.
The Court said that it is beyond dispute that complainant engaged the services of respondent to
handle her case which was then on appeal before the Court of Appeals. However, respondent
merely showed to complainant the draft of the pleading "Appearance as Counsel/Dismissal of the
Previous Counsel and a Motion for Extension of time to File a Memorandum" but failed to file
the same before the appellate court. Plainly, respondent had been remiss and negligent in
handling the case of his client; he neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the complainant
and he is liable therefor.

Q. Sometime in August 1997, complainant Davao Import Distributors, Inc., through its
representative and branch manager, Pandili, engaged the services of respondent to file a

10 | P a g e
Complaint against Librando and Du, for the recovery of one split type air-conditioner with
replevin and damages.
Respondent failed to appear in the pre-trial. And since he also failed to inform complainant or
Pandili of the scheduled pre-trial, they too were unable to attend. As a result, the case was
dismissed for non-suit and Du was allowed to present his evidence ex-parte in support of his
counterclaim. The MTCC issued a Decision ordering complainant to pay Du the amounts of
₱70,000.00 as moral damages, ₱15,000.00 as attorney's fees and ₱5,000.00 as litigation
expenses. The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision. Complainant asked the respondent to file
an appeal but respondent failed to file the appellate brief.
Complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Johnny P. Landero (respondent) on the
grounds of professional misconduct and negligence. Will the case prosper?
A. Yes, the case will prosper. The Court agreed with complainant that respondent displayed
unprofessional behavior and misconduct and violated the CPR.
Respondent himself admitted that he deliberately did not appear at the scheduled pre-trial
conference in Civil Case No. 3854 despite notice and that he did not file a petition for review
after receiving from his client the payment for docket fees and after being granted by the CA an
extension of time to file the same. From these facts alone, it cannot be denied that respondent's
acts constitute misconduct which at the same time amount to violations of the CPR.
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.

LACK OF RESPECT TO THE COURT

Q. Respondent lawyer filed a Motion of Extension to file appellate pleading but he never failed
one. Did he violate any canon under the CPR?
A. Yes, the lawyer violated Rule 12.03 -A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering
an explanation for his failure to do so. His act of stating in his motion for extension that he
received the 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. 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." (Davao Import Distributors Inc. v. Atty. Johnny Landero,
A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015)

FAILURE TO TURN-OVER MONEY JUDGMENT

Q. Viray was represented by Sanicas in a labor case against Spouses Lopez. He won the case
and was awarded the amount of ₱189,491.60 which includes attorney’s fees of P20,000.00. He
discovered that Sanicas misrepresented to Spouses Lopez that he is authorized to receive
payments on his behalf, when in truth and in fact he is not. Consequently, Viray made several

11 | P a g e
demands from Sanicas but he never heeded Viray’s pleas. Viray even tried to reconcile their
differences by filing an action before their barangay but Sanicas ignored the proceedings.
Thus, he was constrained to file a disbarment case against Sanicas. Will the case prosper?
A. Yes, the case will prosper. 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 xx x of his client
when due or upon demand."
In this case, respondent on nine separate occasions received payments for attorney's fees and
partial payments for monetary awards on behalf of complainant from Spouses Lopez. But despite
the number of times over close to three months he had been receiving payment, respondent
neither informed the complainant of such fact nor rendered an accounting thereon. To make
matters worse, respondent withheld and refused to deliver to the complainant the money
judgment which he merely received on behalf of his client, even after demand. Complainant
brought the matter before the barangay, but respondent simply ignored the same. Such failure
and inordinate refusal on the part of the respondent to render an accounting and return the money
after demand raises the presumption that he converted it to his own use. His unjustified
withholding of the funds also warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against him.
(Rolando Viray v. Atty. Eugenio Sanicas, A.C. No. 7337, September 29, 2014)

Q. What is the normal penalty for violation of the fiduciary duty of a lawyer?
A. The penalty for gross misconduct consisting in the failure or refusal despite demand of a
lawyer to account for and to return money or property belonging to a client has been suspension
from the practice of law for two years."Thus, the IBP Board of Governors did not err in
recommending the imposable penalty. Considering, however, that this is respondent's first
offense and he is already a nonagenarian, the Court, in the exercise of its compassionate judicial
discretion, finds that a penalty of one year suspension is sufficient.

FAILURE TO FILE PLEADING ON TIME

Q. Complainants alleged that they engaged the services of respondent in the filing of a
Complaint for damages before the RTC-Davao City. Respondent failed to file the Formal
Offer of Evidence despite the lapse of the period within which to file the same. This prompted
the trial court to dismiss the case. Aggrieved, the spouses filed a disbarment case against the
respondent. Will the case prosper?
A. Yes, the case will prosper. Dublin violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
particularly Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 which provide:
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Worse, it appears that respondent deliberately mishandled the civil case to the prejudice of herein
complainants. Dublin admitted that he deliberately failed to timely file a formal offer of exhibits
because he believes that the exhibits were fabricated and was hoping that the same would be
refused admission by the RTC. This is improper. (Spouses Warriner v. Atty. Reni Dublin,
November 18, 2013)

12 | P a g e
NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL – FAILURE TO NOTICE EXORBITANT INTEREST ON
MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST CLIENT
Q. Respondents obtained a loan of P45,000.00 from petitioner payable in six months and
secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over their property in Valenzuela. The respondents failed
to pay when the debt became due despite the demand. Petitioners filed a civil case which and
prayed that the petitioner pay the principal obligation of P45,000.00, with interest thereon at
the rate of 12% per annum, from 02 March 1991 until the full obligation is paid. A case
ensued between the parties. The trial court ruled against the debtor but instead of the agreed
rate of interest of 12% per annum, the court awarded an interest rate of 5% per month or 60%
per annum. This escaped the attention of counsel. Will the negligence of counsel bind the
client?
A. Ordinarily, the mistake, negligence or lack of competence of counsel binds the client. This is
based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied
authority is regarded as an act of his client. A recognized exception to the rule is when the
lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to maintain their client’s cause and such amounted
to a deprivation of their client’s property without due process of law. In which case, the courts
must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.
A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the maintenance
and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the end that
nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law." (Leticia
Diona v. Romeo Balague et al. January 7, 2013)

NEGLECT OC COUNSEL – DILATORY TACTICS OF COUNSEL

Q. Petitioner FAJ Construction and Development Corporation and respondent Susan M.
Saulog entered into an agreement for the construction of a residential building in San
Lorenzo Village, Makati City. Construction of the building commenced but not satisfied with
the work done, Saulog refused to pay prompting petitioner to terminate the construction
contract.
Petitioner t filed with the RTC of Quezon City a civil case for collection of a sum of money
with damages against respondent.
On her part, respondent included in her Answer a counterclaim against the complainant.
After several postponements on the part of the counsel of petitioner, the trial court dismissed
the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari. Is there merit in the petition?
A. There is no merit in the petition. The Court declared that the petitioner adopted a pattern of
delay and was guilty of employing dilatory maneuvers, trifling with respondent’s right to a
speedy dispensation of justice, abusing the patience of the trial court and wasting its time,
squandering the people’s money, and impeding the administration of justice.
Petitioner was itself neglectful of its duties relative to its case, and it continued to retain the
services of its counsel which it now conveniently claims to be negligent, even after repeatedly
suffering from the latter’s claimed lack of care. The general rule still applies that the mistakes of
counsel bind his client.

NEGLECT OF COUNSEL – FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN EXPROPRIATION CASE

Q. The Municipality of Paranaque initiated expropriation proceedings against the Petitioner.
The trial court appointed commissioners to appraise the value of the property. The Petitioner

13 | P a g e
nominated its member who never actively participated in the process. The trial court rejected
the commissioner’s report and rendered its decision. Petitioner appealed the decision before
the C.A. The C.A. affirmed the RTC decision since the Petitioner failed to file the Motion for
Reconsideration on time. Petitioner filed the present action praying that it should review the
decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals because it had no counsel while the case
was pending appeal with the C.A. Should the Court grant the prayer of the Petitioner?
A. No. The petition has no merit. The period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration is not
extendible. The failure to file Motion for Reconsideration on time renders the Decision final. It is
incumbent upon the client to exert all efforts to retain the services of new counsel. VCP knew
seven months before the CA rendered its Decision, that it had no counsel. Despite its knowledge,
it did not immediately hire a lawyer to attend to its affairs. The Court cannot grant equity where
it is clearly undeserved by a grossly negligent party. (V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. v.
Municipality of Parañaque and Sampaguita Hills Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No.
178431, November 12, 2012)

NEGLECT OF COUNSEL – FAILURE TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Q. Francisco, and four others, engaged the services of Atty. Macaraeg to represent them in
Civil an action for recovery of ownership of a property. After the trial court rendered judgment
against them, Francisco and his co-defendants decided to appeal their case before the C.A.
Accordingly, Atty. Macaraeg filed a notice of appeal. Thrice he moved for extension of time to
file appellants' brief but he failed to file the same on time. Hence, upon motion of the
opposing party, the CA dismissed the appeal. The dismissal became final and executory. The
complainants filed a disbarment case against their counsel. The counsel argued that he was
not able to file the appellate brief because his clients never give him the docket fees. Is the
argument of counsel proper?
A. Yes. A lawyer must exhibit a more mindful and caring attitude towards the cause of his
clients by advancing the payment. In fact, if Atty. Macaraeg truly believed that the necessary
funds from his clients were not forthcoming, he could have excused himself from the case. The
Code of Professional Responsibility allows a counsel to withdraw his services for a good cause,
including the client’s failure to comply with the retainer agreement. (Francisco Caoile v.Atty.
Marcelino Macaraeg, A.C. No. 720, June 17, 2015)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - TAKING ADVANTAGE OF INFORMATION GAINED
FROM LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
Q. The Muertegui family through their father bought from Garcia a property under an
unnotarized Deed of Sale. To the surprise of his client, Atty. Sabistana registered the same
property in his name and that of his spouse under a notarized Deed of Sale despite his
knowledge that the Muertegui family has been in possession of the property through an
unnotarized deed.He also acted as counsel of the Muertegui family. Does the Muertegui
family have a right of cause against Atty. Sabistana?
A. Petitioners’ actual and prior knowledge of the first sale to Juanito Muertegui makes Atty.
Sabistana and his wife purchasers in bad faith. It also appears that petitioner Atty. Sabitsana was
remiss in his duties as counsel to the Muertegui family. Instead of advising the Muerteguis to
register their purchase as soon as possible to forestall any legal complications that accompany
unregistered sales of real property, he did exactly the opposite: taking advantage of the situation
and the information he gathered out of the lawyer-client relationship.

14 | P a g e
Atty. Sabitsana took advantage of confidential information disclosed to him by his client, using
the same to defeat him and beat him to the draw, so to speak. He rushed the sale and registration
thereof ahead of his client. He had no right to take a position, using information disclosed to him
in confidence by his client that would place him in possible conflict with his duty. He may not,
for his own personal interest and benefit, gamble on his client’s word, believing it at one time
and disbelieving it the next. He owed the Muerteguis his undivided loyalty. He had the duty to
protect the client, at all hazards and costs even to himself.
Atty. Sabitsana is enjoined to "look at any representation situation from the point of view that
there are possible conflicts, and further to think in terms of impaired loyalty, that is, to evaluate if
his representation in any way will impair his loyalty to a client."

CONFLICT OF INTEREST – VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1491(5), CIVIL CODE

Q. Spouses Sombilon mortgaged their property in Bukidnon to the PNB to as security for their
loan. The property was foreclosed and sold so PNB as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale
was issued in PNB’s name. The one-year redemption period lapsed but spouses Sombilon
failed to redeem the property. The spouses engaged the services of Atty. Garay. They found out
that Atty. Garay has offered to buy the property from PNB. The spouses offered to pay 10% of
the redemption price but failed to raise the money. In the meantime, PNB and Atty. Garay
concluded the sale. Spouses Sombilon filed a disbarment case against Atty. Garay for violation
of Article 1491(5). Will the case prosper?
A. The general rule is that a lawyer may not purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, in
person or through the mediation of another, any property or interest involved in any litigation in
which he may take part by virtue of his profession. This prohibition is entirely independent of
fraud and such need not be alleged or proven. Atty. Garay offered to buy the property after PNB
was adjudged the sole bidder and PNB has already consolidated the title. This is the very
property which was the object of the case which Spouses Sombilon wanted to recquire. (Spouses
Sombilon v. Atty. Ferdinand Garay and PNB, June 16, 2014)

Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code the following persons are prohibited from acquiring
property under litigation by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control either directly
or indirectly and even at a public or judicial auction:
1. guardians;
2. agents
3. administrators
4. public officers and employees
5. judicial officers and employees
6. prosecuting attorneys and lawyers and
7. those specially disqualified by law (Rubias vs. Batilles, 31 SCRA 120)
The following are the elements of Article 1491 (Civil Code; Laig vs. CA, 82 SCRA 294)
1. there must be an attorney-client relationship
2. the property or interest of the client must be in litigation
3. the attorney takes part as counsel in the case
4. the attorney by himself or through another purchases such property or interest during the
pendency of the litigation.
If the lawyer violates the prohibition, it will have the following effects:
1. malpractice on the part of the lawyer and may be disciplined for misconduct; and

15 | P a g e
 2. transaction is null and void
The following are the exceptions:
1. property is acquired by lawyer through a contingent fee arrangement
2. any of the four elements of Art. 1491 is missing

RULE IN A LAW PARTNERSHIP ON THE ISSUE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST –

ALL LAWYERS IN A LAW FRIM ARE BOUND BY THE RETAINER AGREEMENT
Q. Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She leased
from Pinlac a building space located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio City where she operated the
bar. She also agreed to sign the retainer proposal from Davis & Sabling Law Office. Atty. Riz
Davis was the principal lawyer attending to her retainer agreement.
Balgeo together with Atty. Davis took possession of the leased premises for failure of
complainant to pay rent. While her retainer agreement with the law office of Sabling was stills
subsisting, shefiled an ejectment case against Pinlac and However, respondent appeared as
counsel for Balageo
Daging filed a disbarment case against Atty. Davis. The respondent lawyer said that there was
no merit in the disbarment complaint filed by Daging. Decide the case.
A. Atty. Davis must be sanctioned. It is undisputed that complainant entered into a Retainer
Agreement with respondent's law firm. During the subsistence of said Retainer Agreement,
respondent represented and defended Balageo. Based on the established facts, it is indubitable
that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It provides:
Rule 15.03 -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
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. In Quiambao v. Atty.
Bamba, the Court emphasized that lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.(Daria Daging v. Atty. Riz Davis, A.C. No. 9395,
November 12, 2014)

AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT A CLIENT

Q. Fairland is a domestic corporation engaged in garments business and has a business
relationship with Weesan since it supplied the manpower requirements of the former. Atty.
Geronimo filed two separate positions for Fairland and Weesan in a labor case filed by the
employees of Fairland against it. The NLRC ruled that the workers of Fairland were illegally
dismissed and that Weesan and Fairland are solidarily liable to them as labor-only contractor
and principal, respectively. Fairland assailed the judgment and reasoned out that the NLRC
never acquired jurisdiction over it and its officer. It argued that the Position Paper filed by
Atty. Perez for both companies does not bind Fairland because Atty. Perez had no
authorization to represent it. Is the legal argument of Fairland tenable?
A. No, the argument is not tenable. To say that petitioner did not authorize Atty. Perez to
represent the company and its officer in the case is to unduly tax credulity. Atty. Perez is an

16 | P a g e
officer of the court, and he must be presumed to have acted with due propriety. The employment
of a lawyer or the authority to employ an attorney, it might be pointed out, need not be proved in
writing.
The fact that Atty. Geronimo entered his appearance for Fairland and Debbie and that he actively
defended them before the Labor Arbiter raised the presumption that he is authorized to appear
for them. The presumption of authority of counsel to appear on behalf of a client is found both in
the Rules of Court and in the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
“Sec. 21. Authority of attorney to appear – An attorney is presumed to be properly
authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney
is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may,
on motion of either party and reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any
attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority
under which he appears, and to disclose whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the
person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An
attorney willfully appearing in court for a person without being employed, unless by
leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions.”

AUTHORITY OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Q. In the case of National Power Corporation v. Province of Albay finding, among others, the
National Power Corporation (NPC) liable for unpaid real estate taxes on its properties located
in Albay. As the sole bidder at the auction, Albay acquired ownership over said properties.
The Sanggunian Bayan of Tiwi authorized Mayor to enter into a Contract of Legal Services
With Atty. Betito and Atty. Lawenko which provided for 10% contingent fee for the lawyers on
whatever amount of realty taxes that would be recovered by Tiwi through their efforts. Despite
receipt of its share of the real property taxes, Tiwi refused to honor the terms of the Contract
of Legal Services. The lawyers filed an action in court for specific performance. Will the
action of the lawyers prosper?
A. Yes, the action will prosper. There was a due execution of the contract and the same has been
authorized by the Sanggunian Bayan of Tiwi during the lifetime of Mayor Corral. There is
nothing objectionable in the stipulated contingent fee of 10% as this was voluntarily agreed upon
by the parties and allowed under existing jurisprudence. The stipulated fee is not illegal,
unreasonable or unconscionable. It is enforceable as the law between the parties. (Municipality
of Tiwi v. Antonio Betito, G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010)

ATTORNEY’S FEES – PROHIBITION TO SHARE WITH NON-LAWYERS

Q. May a lawyer share his professional fees?
A. No, as a general rule a lawyer may not share his professional fees with non-lawyers. A lawyer
is proscribed by Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to divide or agree to divide
the fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. In Tan Tek Beng v.
David , it was rule that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees
collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved
may be disciplined for unethical conduct. (Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos,
A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012).

17 | P a g e
ATTORNEY’S FEES – QUANTUM MERUIT
Q. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension from the
practice of law of Atty. Estebal for violating Canons 15, 16 and 20, receiving a total of
Php.345,000 from the complainants but without making any attempt to process their visa
applications. The sum received was excessive, and even if he is entitled to attorney’s fees, only
the Php.15,000 would be considered appropriate under the circumstances. Thus, it was further
recommended that he be directed to refund the amount of Php.330,000. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted the recommendation of six-month suspension and reduced the amount to
be refunded to Php.300,000. Was the recommended sanction against Atty. Estebal appropriate
under the circumstances?
A. Yes, the recommended penalty is appropriate. Even if it is based on quantum meruit, the
amount collectedby Atty. Estebal is excessive.
Recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is authorized: (1) when there is no
express contract for the payment of the attorney’s fees; (2) when although there is a formal
contract for attorney’s fees, the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the
Court; (3) when the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal defects of execution;
(4) when the lawyer for justifiable cause was not able to finish the case for its conclusion; (5)
when the lawyer and the client disregard the contract for attorney’s fees; and (6) when the client
dismissed his lawyer before the termination of the case or the latter withdrew therefrom for valid
reason. (William G. Campos, JR., represented by Rosario B. Campos, Rita C. Batac and
Dorina D. Carpio v. Atty. Alexander C. EstebaL, A.C. No. 10443, August 08, 2016)

ATTORNEY’S FEES – NATURE OF CONTINGENCY FEE

Q. May the Court review the terms of the agreement between a lawyer and his client with
respect to the professional fees to be covered by the engagement of services?
A. Yes, a lawyer’s compensation for professional services rendered are subject to the supervision
of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain reasonable and
commensurate with the services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the
legal profession to which he belongs. Thus, the court may reasonably determine what weight or
value to assign the legal services which were rendered by counsel. (Municipality of Tiwi v.
Antonio Betito, G.R. No. 171873, July 9, 2010)

ATTORNEY’S FEES IN LABOR CASES

Q. The Labor Arbiter granted permanent total disability benefits and attorney’s fees to Calo.
The Labor Arbiter held that respondent suffered permanent disability as a result of his
inability to work despite undergoing treatment and medication by the company-designated
physician for more than 120 days. The law does not require that the illness should be
incurable. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more
than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. The NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiter but the C.A. reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. Did the Labor Arbiter correctly
awarded Attorney’s Fees to Calo?
A. Yes, the Labor Arbiter correctly awarded attorney’s fees. It is clear that respondent was
compelled to litigate due to petitioners’ failure to satisfy his permanent disability claim. Where
an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, he is
entitled to an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total award at the

18 | P a g e
time of actual payment. (Alpha Ship Management Corporation/Junel M Chan and/or Chuo-Kaiun
Company, Limited v. Eleosis V. Calo, G.R. No. 192034, January 13, 2014)

Q. While aboard M/V Eagle Pioneer, Balasta experienced chest pains, fatigue, and shortness
of breath. He was examined by a physician in Gangyou Hospital in Tianjin, China, and was
diagnosed as having myocardial ischemia and coronary heart disease. He was declared unfit
for duty and was recommended for repatriation. The company-designated physician failed to
arrive at a definite assessment of the seafarer's fitness to work or permanent disability within
the period of 120 or 240 days. Thus, Balista was deemed totally and permanently disabled.
The NLRC rendered judgment ordering the petitioners herein to pay, jointly and severally,
US$60,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment as disability benefit; and (2)
US$6,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the time of payment as attorney’s fees. The C.A. affirmed
the monetary award. Hence, the employer and its agent appealed the decision. Was the award
of attorney’s fees proper?
A. Yes, the award was proper. In a decided case, the Court said that on the issue of attorney's
fees, while petitioners have not been shown to act in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to
satisfy respondent's demands, it is nonetheless true as a matter of law and it has been held in the
past that where an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his right and
interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total
award at the time of actual payment. (Fil-Pride Shipping Company, Inc., Captain Nicolas T.
Dollolasa and Ocean Eagle Ship Management Company, Pte.Ltd. v. Edgar A. Balasta, G.R.
No. 193047, March 3, 2014)

Q. The late Delfin Dela Cruz was contracted for the position of Oiler by Philippine
Transmarine Carriers Inc. After being declared fit to work, he boarded the vessel “Lady
Hilde,” he felt gradual chest pains and pain [in] his upper abdominal region. While
performing his regular duties, he was hit by a metal board on his back. He, thereafter,
requested medical attention and was given medications and advised to be given light duties for
the rest of the week. During the pendency of the labor case he filed against Transmarine
Carriers, Inc., he expired. The Heirs of Delfin Dela Cruz sought reconsider the decision which
denied his claim for disability benefits. While the Labor Arbiter granted the reliefs prayed for,
the same was reversed by the NLRC. The C.A. affirmed the denial of the benefits. Can the
heirs claim attorney’s fees?
A. No, the heirs of Delfin Dela Cruz cannot be granted attorney’s fees. The claim for attorney's
fees cannot, likewise, be allowed. The Court has consistently held that attorney's fees cannot be
recovered as part of damages based on the policy that no premium should be placed on the right
to litigate. Suffice it to say that the authority of the court to award attorney's fees under Article
2208 of the Civil Code requires factual, legal, and equitable grounds. They cannot be awarded
absent. a showing of bad faith in a party's tenacity in pursuing his case even if his belief in his
stance is specious. Verily, being compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect one's rights is not a sufficient reason for granting attorney's fees. (Heirs of the Late
Delfin Dela Cruz v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers Inc., April 20, 2015)

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN A CIVIL SUIT IN INVOLVING CO-OWNERS

Q. The Diego siblings entered into an agreement over a parcel of land left by their parents. In
the mind of the other siblings what Nicolas executed was only a contract to sell. Despite this,

19 | P a g e
the matter became a subject a suit of civil between the siblings. The trial court ruled in favor
of the other two siblings The C.A.ruled in favor of Nicolas. The C.A. also awarded him with
attorney’s fees. Was the award of attorney’s fees justified even if there was no stipulation?
A. Yes, the award of attorney’s fees was proper. Although attorney’s fees are not allowed in the
absence of stipulation, the court can award the same when the defendant’s act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest or where the defendant acted in
gross and evident bad faith. In this particular case, the Court held that it is proper to award
attorney’s fees when his brothers refused to satisfy Nicolas’ valid, just and demandable
claim." In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that petitioner was constrained to file the instant
case to protect his interest because of respondents’ unreasonable and unjustified refusal to render
an accounting and to remit to the petitioner his rightful share in rents and fruits in the Diego
Building. (Nicolas Diego v. Rodolfo Diego, Eduardo Diego, G.R. No. 179965, Feb. 20, 2013)

AWARD ATTORNEY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR WRONGFUL ACCUSATION

Q. Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casino, Inc. filed a case against Ludwin and Deoven
accusing them of benefitting from casino chips stolen by its employee Cabrera. It also alleged
that Ludwin and Deoven played at the casino only for show and to conceal their true
intention, which is to encash the chips; that respondent's claim that he owned the chips, as
they were given to him in payment of services he rendered to a Chinese client, is false.
Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos, Inc. lost the case and Ludwin and Deoven were
awarded attorney’s fees. Was the award justified?
A. Yes, the award of attorney’s fees was proper. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's
fees may be recovered when the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to
satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim, or in any other case where the
court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be
recovered. Petitioner's act of arbitrarily confiscating the casino chips and treating Ludwin and
Deoven the way it did, and in refusing to satisfy respondent's claim despite the fact that it had no
basis to withhold the chips, confirm its bad faith, and should entitle respondent to an award.
(Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos, Inc. v. Bernard Fernandez, G.R. No. 193426
September 29, 2014)

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN AN UNFAIR LABOR CASE WHEN NOT

ALLOWED
Q. Petitioner sought to reverse the NLRC Decision and that his claim for damages and
attorney’s fees on account of respondents’ unfair labor practices be awarded to him. He
claimed that in discriminating against him and other members of the union through the
provisions of the proposed 2008 CBA which they drafted; that his failure to pay the increased
union dues was proper since the approval of said increase was arrived at without observing the
prescribed voting procedure laid down in the Labor Code; that he is entitled to an award of
damages and attorney’s fees as a result of respondents’ illegal acts in discriminating against
him; and that in ruling the way it did, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Is there
basis for the award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner?
A. Yes, there is basis to grant the award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner. The unjustified acts
of respondents clearly compelled him to institute an action primarily to vindicate his rights and
protect his interest. Indeed, when an employee is forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect

20 | P a g e
his rights and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. (Allan Mendoza v. Officers
of the Manila Water Employees Union, G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016)

TERMINATION OF LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Q. What is the remedy of the lawyer when he perceives that what his client is doing is illegal?
A. If respondent truly believes that what his client is doing is patently illegal like if the exhibits
to be presented in evidence by his clients were fabricated, then he has the option to withdraw
from the case. Canon 22 allows a lawyer to withdraw his services for good cause such as
"[w]hen the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct with the matter he is
handling" or "[w]hen the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules." (Spouses Warriner v. Atty. Reni Dublin, November 18, 2013)
TERMINATION OF SERVICES AS COUNSEL UNDER A RETAINER AGREEMENT
Q. Atty. Jimenez failed to file the necessary cases which is the very object of a retainer
agreement. The complainant had written the respondent several times for the return of the
documents he had entrusted to the respondent as well as the amount he paid. The complainant
subsequently terminated the legal services of Atty. Jimenez and filed a complaint against him
for grave misconduct, malpractice, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
The IBP found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04, as well as
Canon 22, Rule 22.02. IBP recommended the suspension of Atty. Jimenez for three months
and to return the records and documents to the complainant. Should the Supreme Court
affirm the findings of the IBP?
A. Yes, Atty. Jimenez was utterly lacking in professional responsibility to his client as he
unfairly kept him in the dark, misleading him for seven years
Respondent miserably disregarded the mandate of accountability expected of him. The issue on
the non-payment of his fees should have prompted the respondent to seek communication with
the complainant and resolve the 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.
Rule 22.02 mandates that “A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer
lien, immediately turn all papers and property to which the client is entitled. (Wilson Chua v.
Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9880, November 28, 2016)

DUTY OF PROCESS SERVER

Q. Judge Dalmacio Joaquin accused her process server for dishonesty for failure to promptly
serve court processes to parties. Dela Cruz, the process server, said that heavy workload has
prevented him to perform his duties. Is the argument of Dela Cruz tenable?
A. No, it is not tenable. Heavy workload is not an adequate excuse to be remiss in the diligent
performance of one’s public duties as a public servant. Otherwise, every government employee
charged with negligence and dereliction of duty will always use this as a convenient excuse to
escape punishment to the great prejudice of public service.
The duty of a process server is vital to the administration of justice. A process server’s primary
duty is to serve court notices which precisely require utmost care on his part by ensuring that all
notices assigned to him are duly served on the parties. Unjustified delay in performing this task
constitutes neglect of duty and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. All
employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency. It is

21 | P a g e
through the process server that defendants learn of the action brought against them by the
complainant. It is also through the service of summons by the process server that the trial court
acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. It is therefore important that summonses, other writs
and court processes be served expeditiously.

Q. Is Dela Cruz guilty of dishonesty?

A. No, Dela Cruz is not guilty of dishonesty. The Court has defined dishonesty as the
‘disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
defraud, deceive or betray.’ Dishonesty 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.
It was never alleged, much less established, that Dela Cruz was impelled by some evil design or
corrupt motives to commit said errors or to favor any party or litigant. Hence, he was found
guilty only of negligence in the performance of his tasks, and not of dishonesty. Simple neglect
of duty 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.” (Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin vs.
Nicomedes Dela Cruz, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan. A.M. No. P-06-2241. July 10, 2012)

DISCIPLINARY ACTION BASED ON ANONYMOUS LETTER

Q. Abarintos was accused through an anonymous letter addressed to Chief Justice Corona for
allegedly making it appear that a pleading filed with C.A.-Cebu City was timely filed to favor
her husband's kumpadre who filed it. In the same letter, respondent likewise accused of taking
the ATM card of her officemate, Gilos, and withdrawing therefrom P10,000.00 without the
latter's knowledge and consent. Can the Court take cognizance of an administrative case
against an employee of the judiciary based on an anonymous letter?
A. Yes, the Court may take cognizance of the case based an anonymous letter. While
disbarment cases require that complaints must be verified, in administrative cases
involving members of the bench and court employees, there is no need for a verified
complaint. It is sufficient that after investigation, there is an established proof that indeed
the person has committed a violation that merits disciplinary penalty. (OCA v. Ana Marie
Abarintos, AM No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015)

NOTE: To disbar a lawyer, only preponderance of evidence is sufficient but to dismiss a

judge or a court employee in an administrative case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
needed.

Q. Was Abarintos guilty of tampering court records to favor a party in a pending case?
A. No, she is not guilty of tampering court records to favor a party. The Court said that OCA’s
conclusion that respondent's receipt of subject pleading several minutes after office hours raises a
presumption that she used her office to extend a favor to a litigant. There is simply no such
presumption that exists in the Rules on Evidence or in statute books. On the other hand, it is

22 | P a g e
basic that court officials and personnel are presumed to have regularly performed their official
duties.

Q. Was Abarintos guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty when she withdrew P10,000.00
from the Land Bank ATM account of the records officer?
A. Yes, the Court found Abarintos guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty for the
unauthorized withdrawal of P10,000.00 from the account of the records officer. The Court said
that as head of the Judicial Records Division, and involved in the administration of justice,
respondent "ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in public
service." Indeed, "[n]o position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its
holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness
and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in the judiciary." "[A]ny conduct, act or
omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish
or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.

Will the resignation of Abarintos during the pendency of the case relieve her of any penalty
for her inappropriate behavior?
A. No, the Court will continue to hear the case and impose upon Abarintos the necessary
sanctions. Resignation from the service will not extricate court employees from the
consequences of their acts. It is settled that the cessation from office neither warrants the
dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against the respondents while they were still in
the service nor does it render the case moot and academic. "A contrary rule would be fraught
with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications, "as nothing "would
prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous government employee from committing abuses and other
condemnable acts knowing fully well that they would soon be beyond the pale of the law and
immune to all administrative penalties[.]" The only effect of respondent's resignation is that it
rendered moot the imposition of the penalty of dismissal.
In view of respondent's resignation, however, the penalty that can be imposed against her is a
fine with the same accessory penalties of forfeiture and disqualification.
DISCIPLINARY CASE AGAINST A CLERK OF COURT
Q. An audit was conducted by the S.C., over the final records of the trial court disclosed
substantial irregularities of the funds held in trust by the court. The Clerk of Court was the
subject of the subsequent investigation by the Court Administrator. Upon the conclusion of the
audit, it was revealed that the audit team found him accountable for funds including
Fiduciary fund on the amount of P238,000, Judicial Development Fund of 1,402.00 and
Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund worth P708.00. What is the liability of the Clerk of
Court under the foregoing facts?
A. The Clerk of Court is guilty of gross neglect of duty. As held, "[g]ross neglect is such neglect
which, from the gravity of the case or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its
character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare." In this case, the frequency of the
instances alone, i.e., for two separate periods of accountability, Guan was both found to have
incurred shortages with respect to the JDF and SAJF due to unreported and undeposited
collections, makes respondent’s neglect of duty so serious in its character as to threaten the
public welfare.
As a final note, "Clerks of Court are the custodians of the courts’ ‘funds and revenues, records,
properties, and premises.’ They are ‘liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment’ of

23 | P a g e
those entrusted to them. Any shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual
remittance ‘constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall beheld
administratively liable. (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOEBERT C.
GUAN, former Clerk of Court, Bulan, Sorsogon, A.M. No. P-07-2293, July 15, 2015,
Second Division)

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COURT PREMISES

Q. Can a Clerk of Court of Court authorize the use of the Hall of Justice to hold a Sara Lee
party and conduct raffle of prizes therein?
A. A Clerk of Court is not authorized to conduct commercial activities within the premises of the
Hall of Justice. The Court’s categorical statement that the Halls of Justice are to be used only for
court purposes and for no other purpose, despite the use of the word "may," which the
respondents and the investigating judge argue as permissive and not mandatory. The mention of
residential and commercial purposes are used as concrete examples since such instances actually
happened x xx and were in fact the subject of administrative cases, and are thus enumerated, not
to exclude other acts (as clearly indicated by the word "least of all" prior to the enumeration) but
rather to illustrate the general prohibition. (RYAN S. PLAZA, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Argao, Cebu v. ATTY. MARCELINA R. AMAMIO, Clerk of Court, GENOVEVA R.
VASQUEZ, Legal Researcher and FLORAMAY PATALINGHUG, Court Stenographer, all
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, A.M. No. P-08-2559, March 19, 2010)

FALSIFICATION OF COURT RECORDS

Q. Wyna Marie P. Garingan-Ferreras (complainant) received an e-mail with an attachment
purportedly a Certificate of Finality of a civil case issued by RTC Cagayan. The Certificate,
signed by Umblas as Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court, stated that the Decision declaring void
ab initio the marriage of complainant with her husband had already become final and
executory. Upon verification of the records, it was established that the Certification was
spurious and no order was issued by the court regarding the civil case between her and her
husband. Can she institute an administrative complaint against Umblas?
A. Yes, she may institute an action against Umblas. Having affirmatively raised the
defense of forgery, it falls upon him to produce clear, positive and convincing evidence to
prove the same. However, he failed to do so. Aside from his bare denial, respondent did
not even make any attempt to show that the signature appearing in the Certificate was
not his signature or that it was dissimilar to his real signature. His cavalier and
lackadaisical attitude regarding this administrative matter further strengthens the view
that he was indeed guilty of the falsification. He never attended any of the hearing. The
Court found him guilty of falsification of public documents and dishonesty. (WYNA
MARIE P. GARINGAN-FERRERAS v. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, A.M. No. P-11-2989, January
10, 2017)
MATTERS RELATED TO JUDICIAL ETHICS
Leading Cases:
Chavez v. JBC, et al., G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012: Congress is entitled only to one seat in
the JBC and not one for each house.
Republic v. Sereno: An incumbent member of the Supreme Court may be removed through quo
warranto proceedings if it can be established that there was an infirmity in the appointment. The
initiation of the proceedings is allowed one year from the date of the discovery of the infirmity.

24 | P a g e
Recent rulings related to the JBC:
De Castro v. JBC: The appointment of the Chief Justice is not covered by the midnight
appointment ban.
Judge Philip Aguinaldo v. Pres. Aquino and JBC: The JBC cannot restrict the appointing
powers of the President by clustering the nominees in the vacancies in the Sandiganbayan. The
President must be given the discretion to choose qualified nominees to fill up the vacancies.
Villanueva v. JBC (2015): A first level trial court must await a 5-year period before he can be
promoted as RTC judge. The Court sustained the power of the JBC to prescribe rules in the
screening of qualified candidates to the judiciary to ensure that only men of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence will be appointed to the bench.
Jardeleza vs. Chief Justice Sereno and JBC (2015): Having been denied due process, Jardeleza
should be included in the list of nominees to be appointed as justice of the Supreme Court. An
issue about his integrity was raised in the selection process but Jardeleza was never given the
opportunity to be heard to overturn the allegation against him.
Law
Appointments made by the President in the judiciary do not need any confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. (Section 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Please note that:
Any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from the occurrence
thereof. (Section 4(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
For lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list. (Section 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Requirements in the discharge of responsibilities of members of the judiciary:
1. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly, the facts and law on which it is based. (Section 14, Article VIII, 1987
Constitution)
2. Dedicated service to the judiciary
3. Members of the judiciary shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions. (Section12, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
4. SALN Requirement
Members of the Supreme Court shall not only report all their assets, liabilities, and
net worth upon assumption to duty but they must disclose such to the PUBLIC in
the manner provided by law. (Section 17, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
5. Allegiance to the Philippine Government. Any public officer owes allegiance to the
Philippine government and its Constitution and a public officer who seeks to change
citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his
tenure shall be dealt with by law.(Section 18, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Qualities (Commit this MEMORY AS THIS REPRESENTS THE SIX CANONS OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT: I.I.I. PECd):
Canon 1: Independence
Canon 2: Integrity
Canon 3: Impartiality
Canon 4: Propriety
Canon 5: Equality
Canon 6: Competence and diligence

25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e