+ All Categories
Home > Documents > LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Date post: 14-Apr-2015
Category:
Upload: donna-hill
View: 313 times
Download: 21 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS
82
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS Lecture Notes Compiled by: Atty. Chezie K. Demegillo A. LEGAL ETHICS Legal Ethics is the branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his collegues in the profession and to the public. (Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, page 8 [1949]) 1. Practice of Law a. Concept (a.1) Privilege The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. (In Re: Argosino, 1997). Practice of Law – any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which or devise or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210). A lawyer is one who: a. Passed the Philippine Bar Examination b. Has taken his/her oath c. Has registered in the roll of attorneys d. Has received the certificate of license to practice law from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court. After admission to the Bar, he or she must be: a. IBP member of good standing(paying regular dues) b. Pay annual privilege tax c. Observe the rules on proper ethics. Qualifications/Requirements for admission to the Bar: 1. citizen of the Philippines
Transcript
Page 1: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICSLecture Notes

Compiled by: Atty. Chezie K. Demegillo

A. LEGAL ETHICS

Legal Ethics is the branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his collegues in the profession and to the public. (Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, page 8 [1949])

1. Practice of Law

a. Concept

(a.1) Privilege

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. (In Re: Argosino, 1997).

Practice of Law – any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which or devise or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210).

A lawyer is one who:

a. Passed the Philippine Bar Examinationb. Has taken his/her oathc. Has registered in the roll of attorneysd. Has received the certificate of license to practice law

from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court.

After admission to the Bar, he or she must be:

a. IBP member of good standing(paying regular dues)b. Pay annual privilege taxc. Observe the rules on proper ethics.

Qualifications/Requirements  for admission to the Bar:

1. citizen of the Philippines2. at least 21 years old3. of good moral character4. Philippine resident5. Production before the supreme court satisfactory

evidence of:a. good moral character (continuing

requirement)b. no charges against him, involving moral

turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Page 2: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Requirement of Good Moral Character: a continuing requirement; good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact in order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. (Tapucar vs. Tapucar, A.C. 4148, 1998)

Academic Requirements for Candidates:

1. a bachelor’s degree in arts and sciences (pre-law course)2. a completed course in:

a. civil lawb. commercial lawc. remedial lawd. public international lawe. private international lawf. political lawg. labor and social legislationh. medial jurisprudencei. taxationj. legal ethics

Supreme Court shall have the following power:

5). Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar and legal assistance to the underprivileged. (Section 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)

(a.2) Profession, Not Business

In DOMINADOR P. BURBE, vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA, respondent. AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002, the Supreme Court said:

“In this day and age, members of the bar often forget that the practice of law is a profession and not a business.11Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.12 The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary consideration.13 Duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence may be attained without making much money.”

b. Appearance of Non-Lawyers

(1) Law Student Practice

Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who is enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical education program approved by the Supreme Court may appear

Page 3: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

before any court without compensation, to represent indigent clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school.  The student shall be under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited by the law school.

(2) Non-Lawyers in Administrative Tribunal

If before the Labor Court, Section 8, Rule III of the NLRC Rules:

(4) he is a duly-accredited member of any legal aid office recognized by the Department of Justice or Integrated Bar of the Philippines: Provided, that he (i) presents proof of his accreditation; and (ii) represents a party to the case;

(3) Non-Lawyers in Courts

Cases before the MTC:  Party to the litigation,  in person OR through an agent or friend or appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)

Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in person (Ibid.)

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 provinceb. of good repute for probity and ability

to aid the accused in his defense (Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC).

Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).

(4) Proceedings Where Lawyers Prohibited from Appearing

ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO, vs. ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO-JACOBA, A.C. No. 6296 November 22, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled:

Section 415 of the LGC of 19917, on the subject Katarungang Pambarangay, provides:

Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of the counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers.

The above-quoted provision clearly requires the personal appearance of the parties in katarungan pambarangayconciliation

Page 4: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

proceedings, unassisted by counsel or representative. The rationale behind the personal appearance requirement is to enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct information about the facts and issues, 8 the exception being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties. There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues.9 Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case.

c. Sanctions for Practice or Appearance Without Authority

(1) Lawyers Without Authority

Ground to cite him/her for contempt. If corrupt or willful appearance, ground for DISBARMENT.

(2) Persons Not Lawyers

Kinds of Appearances:

a. General appearance is when the party comes to court either as plaintiff or defendant and seeks general relief from the court for satisfaction of his claims or counter-claims respectively.

It is the one done by a lawyer for any act except to question the jurisdiction of the court.

b. Special Appearance is when a defendant appears in court solely for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

Is one solely intended to question the jurisdiction of the court.

d. Public Officials and Practice of Law

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.

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.

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.

Page 5: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Note: Public Officials include elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent and temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation regardless of amount. (Sec. 3(b) R.A. 6713)

Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of Law in the Philippines:

1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC).

2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.)3. Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109).4. President, Vice-President, members of the

cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art. VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution).

5. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution)6. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8

(2nd par), 1987 Constitution)7. All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No.

7160, Sec. 90).8. Those prohibited by special law

Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law:

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

b. Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec. 91) Sanggunian members may practice their professions provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall not:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official;

4. use property and personnel of the government except when the Sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the government.

Page 6: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

c. Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice or judge receiving pension from the government, cannot act as counsel in any civil case in which the Government, or any of its subdivision or agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense in relation to his office.

(1) Prohibition or Disqualification of Former Government Attorneys

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.

Section 7 (b) of R.A. 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of the following acts:

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

This prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public service, except in case of sub-paragraph b,2 above, BUT THE PROFESSIONAL CONCERNED CANNOT PRACTICE HIS PROFESSION IN CONENCTION WITH ANY OTHER MATTER BEFORE THE OFFICE HE USED TO BE WITH in which case the one (1) year prohibition shall likewise apply.

e. Lawyers Authorized to Represent the Government

Office of the Solicitor General is required to represent the government, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceedings or investigation requiring the services of a lawyer. (Section 35, Administrative Code)

f. 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 willingly nor wittingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or 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 court as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental

Page 7: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.” (Form 28, RRC)

2. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer

A. Society

(1) Respect for Law and Legal Processes

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

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

Case Digest on Julieta B. Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag (291 SCRA 451) Gross Immoral Conduct

Facts: Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. Atty. Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. IBP disbarred him, hence, this petition.

Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

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.

Case Digest on Felicidad L. Oronce, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (298 SCRA 133) Gross Misconduct

Page 8: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.

Held: Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says that they “peacefully” took over the property, such “peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”

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

BARRATRY is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise. It is lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal services to one of them. (Albano and Albano, page 45)

AMBULANCE CHASER is a lawyer who haunts hospitals and visits homes of afflicted, officiously intruding their presence and persistently offering his services on the basis of a contingent fee. (Warvelle, Legal Ethics, pp. 56-67)

Examples of delaying man’s cause:

a. Resorting to technicalities to frustrate the ends of justice.b. Filing of multiple or repetitious petitions which obviously

delay the execution of a final and executor judgment.c. Filing several actions covering the same subject matter

or seeking substantial or identical relief.d. Frivolous appeals for purposes of delay.e. Filing motion for postponements and other kinds of

motions for dilatory purposes.f. Indiscriminate filing of suits against a party clearly

intended for harassment. (Albano and Albano, pp. 45-46)

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

(Reason: to save client from litigation expenses and minimize clogging of court docket.)

Case: Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, A.C. No. 4690, August 29, 2000.

Facts: Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC and held the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of Candidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino

Page 9: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time.

Held: GUILTY. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer for such irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs. There is a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable. Indeed, what is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood.” The Court found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.

(2) Efficient and Convenient Legal Services

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

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

Page 10: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

(3) True, Honest Fair, Dignified and Objective Information on Legal Services

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.

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 withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.

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.

NO ADVERTISEMENT IS ALLOWED: Exceptions:

1. Reputable law list , in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data are allowed (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic Inc. 223 SCRA 378)

2. Use of simple professional card (with name, name of law firm, address, telephone number, and special branch of law practiced (Id)

3. Publication of announcement of opening of law firm or changes in partnership, associates, firm name, or office address, being for the convenience of the profession.(Id)

4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted anywhere except court rooms and government buildings.

5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books, journals and legal magazines and in telephone directories.

(4) Participation in the Improvement and Reforms in Legal System

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.

Page 11: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

(5) Participation in Legal Education Program

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

B. The Legal Profession

(1) Integrated Bar of the Philippines

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

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) Membership and Dues

Case: Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas A.C. No. 4749. January 20, 2000 Misrepresentation and Non-payment of IBP Dues

Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a “limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues.

Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s

Page 12: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of membership or association dues. In addition, by indicating “IBP Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

(2) Upholding the Dignity and Integrity of the Profession

(3) Courtesy, Fairness and Candor Towards Professional Colleagues

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD 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.

(4) No Assistance in Unauthorized Practice of Law

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

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 profitable sharing arrangement.

Page 13: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Case: Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco. A.C. No. 6116,

August 1, 2012. Attorney; sharing of fees with non- lawyers. Respondent’s defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11, 1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of complainant’s commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.

c. The Courts

(1) Candor, Fairness and Good Faith Towards the Courts

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

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 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.

Atty. Josabeth V. Alonso, et al. vs. Atty. Ibaro B. Relaminda, Jr., A.C. No. 8481, August 3, 2010. Attorney; violation of rules on forum shopping and abuse of judicial processes. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code,

Page 14: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

as well as a lawyer’s mandate “to delay no man for money or malice.”

(2) Respect for Courts and Judicial Officers

Cases:

In re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822. A.C. No. 6332, April 17, 2012 .Attorney; groundless imputation of bribery. As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Atty. Peña cannot be excused for uttering snide and accusatory remarks at the expense of the reputation and integrity of members of this Court, and for using those unsubstantiated claims as basis for the subject Motion for Inhibition. Not only has respondent Peña failed to show sincere remorse for his malicious insinuations of bribery and wrongdoing against Justice Carpio, he in fact continually availed of such unethical tactics in moving for the inhibition of eleven Justices of the Court. Indeed, his pattern of behavior can no longer be seen as isolated incidents that the Court can pardon given certain mitigating circumstances. Respondent Peña has blatantly and consistently cast unfounded aspersions against judicial officers in utter disregard of his duties and responsibilities to the Court. Respondent Peña’s actions betray a similar disrespectful attitude towards the Court that cannot be countenanced especially for those privileged enough to practice law in the country.

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.

Case:

Complaints of Mrs. Milagros Lee & Samantha Lee against Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito, A.M. No. 2008-19-SC. August 18, 2010. Attorney; gross discourtesy. When Milagros finally met respondent on September 30, 2008 [in order to collect on his debt to her], respondent, in the presence of several others, told her “Eh kung sabihin ko na sugar mommy kita,” adding that “Nagpapakantot ka naman sa akin.” The Court finds that respondent is indeed guilty of gross discourtesy amounting to conduct unbecoming of a court employee. By such violation, respondent failed to live up to his oath of office as member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court has consistently been reminding officials and

Page 15: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

employees of the Judiciary that their conduct or behavior is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility which, at all times, should be characterized by, among other things, strict propriety and decorum. As such, they should not use abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing and improper language. Their every act or word should be marked by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. Aside from violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent appears to have also violated Rule 8.01 of the same Code.

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

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

(3) Assistance in the Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

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.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.

Case: Ban Hua U. Flores v. Atty. Enrique S. Chua (306 SCRA 465) Falsehood/Forum-shopping/Dilatory Tactics

Facts: Chua was charged with many offenses. The evidence was found to support the charges that he notarized a forged deed of sale, that he caused to be published an advertisement of a SEC decision in order to bring ridicule and shame upon a corporation, that he filed a civil case knowing that the reliefs he prayed for were probably granted in the SEC case – thus belying his certification against forum shopping. He has also been previously reprimanded for bribing a judge and for consistently using dilatory tactics to prolong a litigation.

Page 16: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Held: DISBARRED. He has thus violated Rules 10.01, 12.02, 12.04 (foisting or commission of falsehood, forum-shopping and causing in court proceedings), Canon 19 (failing to resort to lawful means in representing his client), 27, 3.01 and 13.02 (causing undue publication of a pending action). He had an active role in committing fraud since he falsely stated that the person making the deed of sale appeared before him and stated that the same was his free act and deed- when evidence shows the signature was forged; also, he prolonged a family dispute by using dilatory tactics and placing an advertisement in order to ridicule his opponents – in violation of Rule 1.04 that lawyers should encourage their clients to end a controversy by a fair settlement. A lawyer must uphold the integrity of the profession. He brings honor to it by honesty and fair dealing and by performing his duties to society, the bar, the courts and his clients.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like, or b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.

(4) Reliance on Merits of Case, Not From Improper Influence Upon the Courts

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

Page 17: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.

d. The Clients

(1) Availability of Service Without Discrimination

(a) Services Regardless of Person’s Status

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.

(b) Services as Counsel De Officio

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.

(c) Valid Grounds for Refusal

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless: a) he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently; b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the prospective client;

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.

(2) Candor, Fairness and Loyalty to Clients

(a) Confidentiality Rule

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:

Page 18: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

a) When authorized by the client after acquianting him of the consequences of the disclosure; b) When required by law; c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action.

Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use he same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose.

Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.

Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the client.

Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client’s affairs even with members of his family.

Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.

(b) Privileged Communications

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

Requisites:

2. There is attorney-client relationship3. Communication made by client to lawyer in the course of

lawyer’s professional engagement.4. Communication is intended to be confidential

(Rule 130, Sec. 21 (b), Rules of Court)

(c) Conflict of Interest

Page 19: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.

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.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE:

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

TESTS OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS:

1. Conflicting Duties: when on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s duty to contest for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will develop.

2. Invitation of Suspicion: whether or not the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness in 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

Cases:

Aniñon vs. Sabistsana. A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012.Attorney; representation of conflicting interests. “The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.” The prohibition also applies even if the “lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated.” To be held accountable under this rule, it is “enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.”

Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., represented by Gabriel H. Abad vs. Atty. Richard V. Funk. A.C. No. 9094, August

Page 20: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

15, 2012 Attorney; representing conflicting interest. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. An attorney 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. This rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer’s part does not make it inoperative. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former client’s doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. It would simply be impossible for the lawyer to identify and erase such entrusted knowledge with faultless precision or lock the same into an iron box when suing the former client on behalf of a new one.

(d) Candid and Honest Advice to Clients

Rule 15.05 - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.

Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.

(3) Client’s Moneys and Properties

(a) Fiduciary Relationship

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Case:

Suzette Del Mundo vs. Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano. A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012.Attorney; obligation to hold in trust money of his client. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not

Page 21: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

Emilia O. Dhaliwal vs. Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing. A.C. No.

9390, August 1, 2012. Attorney; failure to account for money. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 16-A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.02-A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

Rule 16.03-A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

(b) Co-Mingling of Funds

Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

(c) Delivery of Funds

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.

(d) Borrowing or Lending

Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

Page 22: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

(4) Fidelity to Client’s Cause

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

Case Digest on Development Bank of the Philippines and Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals and Continental Cement Corporation (302 SCRA 362) Duty to Protect Client’s Interest

Facts: CCC filed an injunction suit to prevent the DBP and APT from foreclosing on its mortgages. During trial, DBP & APT were unable to appear for cross-examining CCC’s witnesses because the respective counsels were unprepared, unavailable or ill. The lower court decided this as a waiver, hence judgment was rendered for CCC. DBP & APT filed this petition alleging denial of due process.

Held: Petition denied. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but did not do so. Counsel for APT was absent on several occasions because of withdrawal of previous counsel, unreadiness to conduct the cross-examinations and serious illness. The withdrawal of APT’s previous counsel in the thick of the proceedings would be a reasonable ground to seek postponement of the hearing. However, such necessitates a duty on the part of the new counsel to prepare himself for the next scheduled hearing. The excuse that it was due to the former counsel’s failure to turn over the records of the case to APT, shows the negligence of the new counsel to actively recover the records of the case. Counsel should have taken adequate steps to fully protect the interest of his client, rather than pass the blame on the previous counsel. A motion to postpone trial on the ground that counsel is unprepared for trial demonstrates indifference and disregard of his client’s interest. A new counsel who appears in a case in midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings that have transpired prior to his takeover. Also, even if counsel had been ill with dengue, he chose not to notify his co-counsels who could have conducted the cross-examination.

(5) Competence and Diligence

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

(a) Negligence

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable.

Case:Suzette Del Mundo vs. Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano. A.C. No.

6903, April 16, 2012. Attorney; lack of diligence. When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that

Page 23: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling one’s case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle. Suzette Del Mundo vs. Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano. A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012.

Case Digest on Corazon T. Reontoy v. Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit (302 SCRA 604) Negligence of Counsel

Facts: On January 28, 1998 the SC found Ibadlit administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year for failing to appeal within the reglementary period the decision rendered against his client. His reason was, an appeal would only be futile. SC declared that it was highly improper for him to have adopted such opinion. SC said that a lawyer was without authority to waive his client’s right to appeal and that his failure to appeal within the reglementary period constituted negligence and malpractice, proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides “(a) lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” This is a motion for reconsideration.

Held: Suspension lowered to 2 months – his arguments are partly persuasive, he believed in good faith that his client’s case was weak and that she accepted his explanation that the adverse decision was not worth appealing anymore. Besides, it was only several years later that she complained when no more relief was available to her. Also, complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second opinion whether to appeal from the judgment or file a petition for relief, that he did not commit to handle his client’s case on appeal and that the testimonies of complainant and her brother were unpersuasive. This is also his first offense.

Case: People of the Philippines v. Sevilleno ( 304 SCRA 519) Negligence of Counsel

Facts: In a criminal case for rape with homicide, the accused pleaded guilty. However, the 3 PAO lawyers assigned as counsel de officio did not perform their duty. The first did not advise his client of the consequences of pleading guilty, the second left the courtroom during trial and thus did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The third postponed the presentation of evidence for the defense, and when he did appear, he said he would rely solely on the plea in the mistaken belief that it would lower the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Held: Case remanded. Canon 18 required 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. In this case, the defense lawyers did not protect, much less uphold, the fundamental rights of the accused. N.B. Case remanded because of error by the judge in not using searching questions to find if the plea was made knowingly.

Page 24: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

(b) Collaborating Counsel

Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

(c) Duty to Apprise Client

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information.

(6) Representation with Seal Within Legal Bounds

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the case.

(7) Attorney’s Fees

(a) Acceptance Fees

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:

a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

Page 25: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

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 form 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.

(b) Contingency Fee Arrangements

Contingent Contract is an agreement whereby the fee usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered is made to depend on the success of the action.(Albano and Albano, Reviewer, page 20)

(c) Attorney’s Liens

4. Must at all times be reasonable5. Courts must guard against charging of

unconscionable and excessive fees by lawyers.

Retaining Lien is the right to retain the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come to his possession until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and to apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.

Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Charging Lien is a right to have the fees and lawful disbursements due a lawyer for his services in a suit secured to him out of the judgment for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance thereof in the particular suit.

Retaining Lien Charging LienNature Passive lien cannot

be actively enforced(general lien)

Active lien. Can be enforced. (Special lien)

Basis Lawful possession of papers, documents, and

Securing a favorable money judgment

Page 26: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

property of his client

Coverage papers, documents, and property in his lawful possession

Covers all judgments, for payment of money and execution issued.

Effect As soon as he gets possession of them

Atty’s fees entered into the records of the case

Notice Client need not be notified

Client and adverse party must be notified

Applicability May be exercised before judgment or execution

After a favorable judgment

(d) Fees and Controversies with Clients

Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice of fraud.

Note: any stipulations on attorney’s fees is not illegal and is enforceable as the law between the parties provided it does not contravene any law, good morals, and public policy.

CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT (Void) – is an agreement between a lawyer and his client wherein it is stipulated in prosecution of the case, the lawyer will bear all the expenses for the recovery of things or property being claimed by the client and the latter agrees to pay the former a portion of the thing or property recovered a compensation.

(e) Concepts of Attorney’s Fees

(i) Ordinary Concept The reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter.

(ii) Extra-Ordinary ConceptAn indemnity for the damages ordered by the

court to be paid b the losing party in litigation. Basis: Article 2208 of the Civil Code and payable to the client not to the lawyer unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

QUANTUM MERUIT- means “as much as he deserves” and is used as the basis for determining the lawyer’s professional fees in the absence of a contract.

Page 27: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Case: Renato S. Ong & Francia N. Ong v. Court of Appeals, Inland Trailways, Inc. & Philtranco Service Enterprise, Inc. (301 SCRA 387) Attorney’s Fees

Facts: Renato Ong was injured during a vehicular collision. He was awarded damages by the trial court. On appeal, the CA, the awards for actual damages, moral damages & attorney’s fees were reduced because (1) the cost & feasibility of corrective surgery had not been adduced in evidence, (2) the document relied upon to prove actual damages was not formally offered in evidence and (3) no evidence but the bare assertion of counsel was put forward to prove damages for unearned income.

Held: Attorney’s fees is an indemnity for damages ordered by a court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, based on any of the cases authorized by law. It is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the 2 have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The Court has established a set of standards in fixing the amount of attorney’s fees. Counsel’s performance, however, does not justify the award of 25 percent attorney’s fees. The nature of the case was not exceptionally difficult, and his handling of the case was sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure & evidence. It is well-settled that such award is addressed to sound judicial discretion and subject to judicial control.

(8) Preservation of Client’s Confidences

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED

Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:

a) When authorized by the client after acquianting him of the consequences of the disclosure; b) When required by law; c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action.

Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use he same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for auditing,

Page 28: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose.

Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.

Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the client.

Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client’s affairs even with members of his family.

Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.

(9) Withdrawal of Services

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRTUMSTANCES.

Rule 22.01 -A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases: a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and g) Other similar cases.

3. Suspension, Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers

a. Nature and Characteristics of Disciplinary Actions Against Lawyers

Administrative Liabilities of Lawyers:

a. Disbarment

It is a quasi-summary proceeding instituted and prosecuted before an appropriate court for the purpose of depriving an attorney of his license to practice his profession by reason of some misconduct .

Page 29: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

b. Suspension

It is the act of court prohibiting an attorney from practicing law for a certain definite period.

Characteristics of Disbarment:

(1) Neither civil nor criminal proceedings (sui generis)(2) It is imprescriptible.(3) No double jeopardy(4) It can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or IBP(5) Proceedings are confidential in nature(6) It can proceed regardless of lack of interest of the complainant(7) It constitutes due process.

b. Grounds

1. Deceit2. Malpractice or other gross misconduct in office3. Grossly immoral conduct4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude5. Violation of oath of office6. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.7. Corrupt or willful appearance a attorney for a party to a case

without authority. (Section 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court)

Cases:

Cases:Re: SC Decision date May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under Rule

139-B of the Rules of Court vs. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin. A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012. Falsification. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do. The crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Re: SC Decision date May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court vs. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin. A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012.

Grace M. Anacta vs. Atty. Eduardo D. Resurrecction. A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012. Attorney; grave misconduct and dishonesty. 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

Page 30: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. The Court cited the case of In Re: Sotto and ruled that “One of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession of good moral character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he disregards the rule of professional ethics required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian of the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct, to make use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.

Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, respondent may either be disbarred or suspended for committing deceitful and dishonest acts. This rule provides that in any of the following circumstances, to wit: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct; (4) grossly immoral conduct;(5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or (8) corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so; the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension.

Engr.Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco. A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012. Attorney; immorality . The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code. Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. Respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath14 and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

c. Proceedings

1. Institution by SC or IBP or Verified complaint by any other person.

2. Six (6) copies of verified complaint filed with the secretary of the IBP of its local chapter who shall forward the same to the IBP Board of Governors.

3. Investigation by the National Grievance Investigators

Page 31: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

4. Submission of investigative report to the IBP Board of Governors.

5. Board of Governors decides within 30 days6. Investigation by the Solicitor General7. SC renders final decision for disbarment/suspension/dismissal.

d. Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practice in Foreign Jurisdictions

ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, vs. ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA, A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006

In Maquera, we emphasized that the judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines as the acts giving rise to his suspension are not grounds for disbarment and suspension in this jurisdiction. Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. We likewise held that the judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer.

In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his client's money without the latter's acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and confidence.48 Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.

Nevertheless, we do not agree with complainant's plea to disbar respondent from the practice of law. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution.49 Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be decreed.

In Mortera v. Pagatpatan,50 we imposed upon Atty. Pagatpatan two years suspension from his practice of law for depositing the funds meant for his client to his personal account without the latter's knowledge. In Reyes v. Maglaya;51 Castillo v. Taguines;52 Espiritu v. Atty. Cabredo IV,53 the respondents were meted one year suspension each for failing to remit to their clients monies in the amounts of P1,500.00; P500.00, and P51,161.00, respectively, received by them for their clients without the latter's permission. In Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya,54 we indefinitely suspended respondent for failure to remit to his client the amount of the measly sum of P4,344.00 representing the amount received pursuant to a writ of execution. Considering the amount involved here – US$12,000.00, we believe that the penalty of suspension for two (2) years is appropriate.

4. Readmission to the Bar

a. Lawyers Who Have Been Suspended

If the lawyer could show that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to. (Cordova vs. Cordova, Nov. 29, 1989)

b. Lawyers Who Have Been Disbarred

Page 32: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

The lawyer must file an appropriate petition with the Supreme Court (In Re: Rovero, 101 SCRA 803)

c. Lawyers Who Have Been Repatriated

Case:Carlos Reyes vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan/Celia Arroyo-Posidio vs. Atty.

Jeremias R. Vitan/Violeta Tahaw vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan/Mark Yuson vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, A.C. No. 5835/A.C. No. 6051/A.C. No. 6441/A.C. No. 6955, August 18, 2010.Attorney; reinstatement. The Court, in the recent case of Ligaya Maniago v. Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios, issued the guidelines on the lifting of orders of suspension, and has advised strict observance thereof. However, the Court will not hesitate to withhold the privilege of the practice of law if it is shown that respondent, as an officer of the Court, is still not worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and of the public. Thus, applying the guidelines in Maniago, the Court Resolved to GRANT Respondent’s Petition for Reinstatement, effective upon his submission to the Court of a Sworn Statement attesting to the fact: 1) that he has completely served the four (4) suspensions imposed on him successively;2) that he had desisted from the practice of law, and has not appeared as counsel in any court during the periods of suspension; and 3) that he has returned the sums of money to the complainants as ordered by the Court, attaching proofs thereof

5. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (Download Bar Matter 850)

a. Purpose

SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. -- Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their careen they keep abreast with Jaw and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.

b. Requirements

SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. -- Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute

resolution.(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and

procedural laws, and jurisprudence.(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral

advocacy.(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and

international conventions.(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may

be prescribed by the MCLE Committee.

c. Compliance

Page 33: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Rule III, SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than .three (3) months froth the constitution of the MCLE Committee. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.

SEC. 2. Compliance group 1. -- Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group1.

SEC. 3. Compliance group 2. -- Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 2.

SEC. 4. Compliance group 3. -- Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to Compliance Group 3.

SEC. 5. Compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after establishment of the program. -- Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the program shall be permanently assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission.

The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.

(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member is not required to omply with the program requirement for the initial compliance.

(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the number of months remaining in the compliance period in which the members admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

d. Exemptions

Rule 7, SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:

(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;

(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and

retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;

(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;

(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government

Corporate Counsel;(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen

and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching

experience for at least 10 years in accredited law schools;

Page 34: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and

(I) Governors and Mayors

SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:

(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of

Governors.

SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement -- A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such, as physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in-law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.

SEC. 4. Change of status. -- The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the sam

e day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.

SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. -- Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.

e. Sanctions

Rule XIII, SECTION 1. Non-compliance fee. -- A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.

SEC. 2. Listing as delinquent member. -- Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section 2 of Rule 12 shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court shall apply.

6. Notarial Practice (Supreme Court A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)

a. Qualifications of Notary Public

SECTION 1, Rule III, Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules.

To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:

(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and

maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;

(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with

Page 35: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and

(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.

b. Term of Office of Notary Public

SEC. 11. Rule III, Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

c. Powers and Limitations/Prohibitions

SECTION 1. Powers. –

(a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:(1) acknowledgments;(2) oaths and affirmations;(3) jurats;(4) signature witnessings;(5) copy certifications; and(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.

(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if:

(1)the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.

(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if:

(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;(4) the notary public writes below his signature: "Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two \2] witnesses)"; and

Page 36: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

SEC. 2. Rule IV, Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction:

(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;

(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization;

(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and

(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization;

and(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the

notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

SEC. 3. Rule IV, Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage,

right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

d. Notarial Register

SECTION 1, Rule VI, Form of Notarial Register. –

(a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages.

The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the book consists.

For purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Court Administrator.

(b) A notary/ public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time.

Page 37: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. –

(a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following:

(1) the entry number and page number;(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;(3) the type of notarial act;(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;(5) the name and address of each principal;(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the

signatory is not personally known to the notary;(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming

the person's identity;(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's

regular place of work or business; and(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or

relevance.(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and

circumstances for not completing a notarial act.(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of

any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the requester's name, address, signature, thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded.

(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and 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. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.

(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.

(f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the notary public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other fact touching the same.

(g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact.

(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the

Page 38: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required.

e. Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place of Notarization

SEC. 11. Rule III, Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

f. Revocation of Commission

SECTION 1. Rule XI, Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. – (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied.

(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:

(1) fails to keep a notarial register;(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial

register concerning his notarial acts;(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive

Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following;(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of

expiration of his commission;(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the

Executive Judge;(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to

the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge;

(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;

(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence;

(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;

(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and

(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the

Page 39: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.

(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.

(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public, subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).

g. Competent Evidence of Identity

SEC. 12, Rule II, Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or

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

In the case of Maria vs. Cortez. A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012. The Notary public has the duty to ascertain the identities of the parties executing the document.

Luzviminda R. Lustestica vs. Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6258. August 24, 2010.Attorney; notarization of falsified deed , We cannot overemphasize the important role a notary public performs. In Gonzales v. Ramos, we stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a

Page 40: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

notarized document would be undermined. The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the respondent in discharging his duties as a notary public. He failed to ascertain the identities of the affiants before him and failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do, i.e., to require the parties’ presentation of their residence certificates or any other document to prove their identities. Given the respondent’s admission in his pleading that the donors were already dead when he notarized the Deed of Donation, we have no doubt that he failed in his duty to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him as donors in the Deed of Donation. Under the circumstances, we find that the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

h. Sanctions

SECTION 1. XII, Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:

(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public;(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public; and(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a

notary public to commit official misconduct.

B. JUDICIAL ETHICS

1. Sources

a. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft) (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004)

This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as the New Code of Judicial

Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and

the Code of Judicial Conduct heretofore applied in the Philippines to the extent

that the provisions or concepts therein are embodied in this Code: Provided,

however, that in case of deficiency or absence of specific provisions in this New

Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be

applicable in a suppletory character.

This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary shall take

effect on the first day of June 2004, following its publication not later than 15 May

2004 in two newspapers of large circulation in the Philippines to ensure its widest

publicity.

Promulgated this 27th day of April 2004.

b. Code of Judicial Conduct

Code of Judicial Conduct

Page 41: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Preamble

An honorable, competent and independent judiciary exists to

administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the

stability of government, and the well being of the people.

CANON 1- A judge should uphold the integrity and independence

of the judiciary 

Rule 1.01 – A judge should be the embodiment of competence,

integrity, and independence.

Rule 1.02 – A judge should administer justice impartially and

without delay.

Rule 1.03 – A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to

subvert the independence of the judiciary and resist any pressure from

whatever source.*Judges should avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.* Must be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty*Should not relax in his study of the law and court decisions.*Should not be swayed by public clamor or considerations of personal popularity*Must decide motions without delay.*Should also appear impartial.

Case: Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas (292 SCRA 306) Impartiality

Facts: Atty. Rojas was appointed a judge. One of the criminal cases he inherited was one in which he acted as prosecutor. He explained that his delay in inhibiting himself from presiding on that case was because it was only after the belated transcription of the stenographic notes that he remembered that he handled that case. He also says that the counsels did not object and he never held “full-blown” hearings anyway.

Held: Judge is fined & reprimanded. The Rules of Court prevent judges from trying cases where they acted as counsel without the consent of the parties. This prevents not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He should administer justice impartially & without delay. The prohibition does not only cover hearings but all judicial acts (e.g. orders, resolutions) some of which Judge Rojas did make

Case: Tomas Cabulisan v. Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan (297 SCRA 593) Good Moral Character

Facts: Cabulisan filed an administrative complaint against respondent for grave misconduct committed as follows : (1) peeping into the bathroom where Marilyn C. Dumayas, a public health nurse, and daughter of the owner of the house where he was boarding, was then taking a bath; (2) having a mistress in the neighboring town; and (3) allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him.

Held: Respondent fined for voyeurism, other charges dismissed for lack of evidence. People who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest degree on integrity and probity and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives. By committing

Page 42: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

the acts in question, respondent violated the trust reposed in him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality required in the judicial profession.

CANON 2 – A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all activities. 

Rule 2.01 – A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Rule 2.02 – A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.

Rule 2.03 – A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships

to influence judicial conduct or judgment.  The prestige of judicial office shall

not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or

permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to

influence the judge.

Rule 2.04 – A judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the

outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court of

administrative agency.*A judge must be beyond suspicion. He has the duty not only to

render a just and impartial decision but also to render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to his integrity.

*Every litigant is entitled to nothing short of the cold neutrality of an independent, wholly free, disinterested and impartial tribunal.

*A judge must be temperate in his language and must not lose his cool.

*A judge is prohibited from making public statements in the media regarding a pending case so as not to arouse public opinion for or against a party (violates the Principle of Subjudice)

* Judges must not use or permit the use of any undignified/self-laudatory statement regarding their qualifications or legal services.

*A judge must not allow anyone to ride on his prestige. He should not create the impression that someone or some people are so close to him to enjoy his favor.

Case: William R. Adan vs. Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano A.M. No. MTJ-00-1298. August 3, 2000

Facts: William Adan was the complainant in 2 criminal cases for Grave Oral Defamation tried and decided by Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano of the MCTC of Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. Respondent judge convicted the accused and sentenced them accordingly. Upon Motion for Reconsideration, however, respondent judge reversed her decision and rendered a judgement for acquittal. Adan questioned the reversal of the conviction, alleging that Judge Abucejo-Luzano had modified her judgement because having received new information from the accused, she conducted a personal ocular inspection of the place where the crime was committed without the presence of the parties involved.

Held: GUILTY. Respondent Judge should have known that an ex-parte ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the parties and after the case had already been decided was highly improper. If respondent Judge had entertained doubts that she wished to clarify after the trial had already terminated, she should have ordered motu proprio the reopening of the trial for the purpose, with due notice to the parties, whose participation therein is essential to due process. Thus, it is error for the judge to go alone to the place where the crime was committed and make an inspection without previous knowledge or consent of the parties. The conduct of the ex-parte inspection, the result of which apparently influenced her to reconsider her earlier

Page 43: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

decision, was highly improper as she, in effect, admitted additional evidence without giving the prosecution a chance to object to its introduction or to controvert the same. Her actions show an ignorance of the law and proper procedure to be followed for a situation such as this. Furthermore, respondent judge has opened herself to charges of partiality and bias by meeting with the accused privately. No matter how noble her intentions may have been, it was improper for respondent judge to meet the accused without the presence of complainant. Respondent Judge has failed to live up to the norm that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. She thus violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Judge Abucejo-Luzano was fined PhP 10,000 and issued a stern warning that any similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Case: Carlos Dionisio v. Hon. Zosimo V. Escano (302 SCRA 411) Impropriety

Facts: E posted an advertisement for waitresses and singers to work at his restaurant at the RTC bulletin board. He also conducted interviews for this in his sala. He was later caught when a reporter from “Hoy Gising!” taped an interview which revealed that he intended to operate a drinking pub with scantily clad waitresses.

Held: SUSPENDED. Rules 2.00, 5.02 and 5.03 provide that a judge should avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety. He should also refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers and litigants. He should also manage financial interests so as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification. Finally, the halls of justice should not be used for unrelated purposes.

Case: Benjamin Sia Lao vs. Hon. Felimon C. Abelila III (295 SCRA 267) Impropriety

Facts: in a family dispute over a parcel of land, respondent judge committed acts of forcible entry, attempted to deny complainant of possession despite a lease in the latter’s favor. He also gave firearms to his men in order to assault complainant’s workers. Respondent also fled from police when called in for questioning.

Held: Respondent DISMISSED. A judge is the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice and that, accordingly, he should constantly keep himself away from any act of impropriety, not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his everyday actuations. No other position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than perhaps a seat in the judiciary. A judge must be the first to abide by the law and to weave an example for the others to follow.

CANON 3 -  A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with

impartiality and diligence.

 

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

Rule 3.01 – A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional

competence.

Judge should be conversant with the law and its amendments.

Case: Alfonso C. Ortiz vs. Judge Alex L. Quiroz A.M. No. MTJ-00-1259 August 4, 2000 Application of Rules of Procedure

Page 44: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Facts: Alfonso Ortiz initiated a criminal complaint against Inocencia Hernandez for malicious mischief and grave threats. The case was assigned to Judge Alex Quiroz, presiding judge of Branch 69 of the MTC of Pasig City. Before trial, however, Judge Quiroz ruled that the case would be governed by ordinary rules of procedure rather than the summary rules of criminal procedure because the case fell within the exceptions in P.D. 1508. Ortiz filed an administrative complaint against Judge Quiroz, arguing that the summary rules not the ordinary rules should be followed for his case.

Held: GUILTY. Under the Revised Penal Code, grave threats is penalized with imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months (arresto mayor) and a fine not exceeding PhP 500, if the threat is not subject to a condition (Article 282). Malicious mischief, on the other hand, is penalized with imprisonment of 2 months and 1 day to 6 months (arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods) if the value of the damage caused exceeds PhP 1,000 (Article 329). In this case, the alleged damage to complainant was estimated to be PhP 50,000. Thus, the subject criminal cases should have been tried under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, considering that such rule is applicable to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding PhP 1,000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise or of the civil liability arising therefrom [Section 1 B(4), Revised Rule on Summary Procedure]. Respondent judge, therefore, erred in applying the ordinary rules of procedure instead of the rules of summary procedure. A judge has a duty to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. In fact, the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. He must have the basic rules at the palm of his hand and be proficient in the interpretation of laws and procedural rules. Judge Quiroz was reprimanded, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Case: Zenaida S. Beso v. Judge Juan Daguman A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211. January 28, 2000 Neglect of Duty/Abuse of Authority

Facts: In a Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12, 1997, Zenaida S. Beso charged Judge Juan J. Daguman, Jr. with solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local Civil Registrar. In his comment, the respondent judge alleged that the marriage of the complainant had to be solemnized in Calbayog City though outside his territory as municipal Judge of Sta. Margarita, Samar because : 1) physically indisposed and unable to report to his station in Sta. Margarita; 2) complainant said she had to fly abroad that same day; 3) that for the parties to go to another town for the marriage would be expensive and would entail serious problems of finding a solemnizing officer and another pair of witnesses or sponsors; 4) if they failed to get married on August 28, 1997, complainant would be out of the country for a long period and their marriage license would lapse and necessitate another publication of notice; 5) if the parties go beyond their plans for the scheduled marriage, complainant feared it would complicate her employment abroad.

Held: GUILTY. The authority of a judge to solemnize marriage is only limited to those municipalities under his jurisdiction. Clearly, Calbayog City is no longer within his area of jurisdiction. Additionally, there are only three instances, as provided by Article 8 of the Family Code, wherein a marriage may be solemnized by a judge outside his chamber[s] or at a place other than his sala, and the circumstances of this case do not fall in any of these exceptions.

Moreover, as solemnizing officer, respondent Judge neglected his duty when he failed to register the marriage of complainant to Bernardito Yman. Such duty is entrusted upon him pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code which provides:

“It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate

Page 45: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

copies of the certificates not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. xxx”

Lastly, a judge is charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events. The records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on respondent Judge’s part. This Court reiterates that judges must adopt a system of record management and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. It is, in fact, incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court because he is after all the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions.

Rule 3.02 – In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain

the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interest, public opinion

or fear of criticism. Finding of facts must be based not on the personal knowledge of the judge but upon

the evidence presented. If the personal view of the judge contradicts the applicable doctrine promulgated by

the Supreme Court, nonetheless, he should decide the case in accordance with that doctrine and not in accordance with his personal views.  He is however not prohibited from stating his own opinion on the matter if he wants to invite constructive attention thereto.

Rule 3.03 – A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the

courts.

Rule 3.04 – A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to

lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others

appearing before the court.  A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into

the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the

courts for the litigants. Conduct of trial must not be attended with fanfare and publicity; not permit pictures or

broadcasting. Must use temperate language; should not make insulting remarks.

Rule 3.05 – A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and

decide cases within the required periods.

Case: Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 68 of Camilang, Tarlac (305 SCRA 61)

Facts: Judge R was due for compulsory retirement. The OCA found that he had many pending cases, some of which were undecided beyond the 90-day period.

Held: FINED but penalty mitigated. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 enjoins all judges to attend promptly to the business of the court and decide cases within the time fixed by law. A judge is mandated to render judgment not more than ninety (90) days from the time the case is submitted for decision. Failure to render the decision within the prescribed period of ninety (90) days from submission of a case for decision constitutes serious misconduct and gross inefficiency. However, since after being reminded of this, Judge R cleared most of his docket (even those not overdue for decision) before retiring, the fine is mitigated.

Case: Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court – Branch 24, Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur; Branch 2, Isabela, Basilan; and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Labason, Zamboanga del Norte (303 SCRA 208)

Page 46: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Facts: Judge Apostol had a backlog of 280 cases. Also, there had been no actions on 268 other cases assigned to him. Judge says he has constant medical problems and no legal researchers to help him. These and the peace and order problems in his locality prevent him from expediting.

Held: Fined for gross neglect of duty. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should administer justice without delay and dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the reglementary periods. If his health problems were preventing him from doing his duty, he should have retired early so a healthier successor could act on the case load.

Rule 3.06 – While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or

clear up some obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence

during the trial, it should always be borne in mind that undue interference

may prevent the proper presentation of the cause of the ascertainment of the

truth.

 Rule 3.07 – A judge should abstain from making public comments on any

pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of

court personnel. Judge should take notes and rely on transcripts. Judge is not excused if stenographer is overloaded. He is excused for delay on grounds

of multifarious motions; appellate court enjoins judge from further proceeding; heavy caseload.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

Rule 3.08 – A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities,

maintain professional competence in court managements, and facilitate the

performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court

personnel.

Rule 3.09 – A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to

ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times

the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

Rule 3.10 – A judge should take or inititate appropriate disciplinary measures

against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the

judge may have become aware.

Rule 3.11 – A judge should appoint commissioners, receivers, trustees,

guardians, administrators and others strictly on the basis of merit and

qualifications, avoiding nepotism, and favoritism. Unless otherwise allowed by

law, the same criteria should be observed in recommending appointment of

court personnel.  Where the payment of compensation is allowed, it should be

reasonable and commensurate with the fair value of services rendered. Ascertain that the records of all cases are properly kept and managed. Maintain a checklist on the cases submitted for decision with a view to know exactly

the specific deadlines for the resolution/decision of the said cases. Loss of records: gross negligence Should be a good manager. May not summarily suspend a lawyer for indirect contempt. Judge has the power to appoint, but the power to dismiss court employees is vested in

the Supreme Court.

Page 47: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

If knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualification therefor, shall be guilty of unlawful appointment punishable with imprisonment and fine (Art 244, RPC).

 

DISQUALIFICATIONS

Rule 3.12 – A judge should take no part in proceeding where the judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  These cases include, among

others, proceedings where;1. a.      the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts

concerning the proceeding;2. b.     the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or

lawyer in the case or matters in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;

3. c.      the judge’s ruling in a lower court is subject of review4. d.     the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant

within the 6thdegree or to counsel within the 4th degree;5. e.      the judge knows that the judge’s spouse  or child has a financial

interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition. Petition to disqualify judge must be filed before rendition of judgment by the judge;

can’t be raised first time on appeal. If a judge denies petition for disqualification, the ultimate test: is whether or not the

complaint was deprived of a fair and impartial trial. Remedy: seek new trial.

Case: Carlito D. Lazo v. Judge Antonio V. Tiong (300 SCRA 214)

Facts: Judge Tiong was accused of failing to inhibit himself in a criminal case because he was related within the fourth degree of affinity to the accused. The judge claims he did so in the hopes that his presence would allow the parties to settle amicably.

Held: Judge reprimanded. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Also, Rule 137, Rules of Court, provides that no judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, inter alia, is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree computed according to the rules of the civil law. Under this provision, the Presiding Judge is mandated to disqualify himself from sitting in a case. He cannot exercise his discretion whether to inhibit himself or not.

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION

Rule 3.13 – A judge disqualified by the terms of Rule 3.12 may, instead of

withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of

disqualification.  If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers

independently of the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the reason

for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge may then

participate in the proceeding.  The agreement, signed by all parties and

lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

Page 48: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

 

CANON 4 – A judge may, with due regard to official duties, engage in

activities to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of

justice.

Rule 4.01 – A judge may, to the extent that the following activities do

not impair the performance of judicial duties or case doubt on the judge’s

impartiality:1. a.      speak, write, lecture, teach or participate in activities concerning the

law, the legal system and the administration of justice;2. b.     appear at a public hearing before a legislative or executive body on

matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice and otherwise consult with them on matters concerning the administration of justice;

3. c.      serve on any organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.

Decision to engage in these activities depends upon the sound judgement of the judge.

If has not enough time to spare (such as when caseload is too heavy) prudence dictates, he must concentrate on his judicial duties.

If a judge has time to spare, the best attitude to take is to participate in activities which are closely related to the performance of his duties and which do not consume much of his time and energy.

Case: Teresita Jason vs. Judge Briccio Ygana A.M. No. RTJ-00-1543. August 4, 2000 Judge Issuance of a Writ of Execution

Facts: Teresita Jason was the defendant in an ejectment case before the MTC of Pasig City. Having received an adverse judgement, Jason appealed the decision to Branch 153 of the RTC of Pasig City, presided by Judge Briccio Ygana. Respondent judge affirmed the decision of the MTC and subsequently issued a Writ of Execution for the judgement. The Sheriff of Branch 153 executed upon some personal properties of Jason and gave a Notice to Vacate. Jason filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ygana, arguing that the Writ of Execution should have been issued by the court of origin and not the appellate court.

Held: GUILTY. The case should have been remanded back to the MTC for execution. The rule is that if the judgment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed the regional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself elevated to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter become final, the case should be remanded through the regional trial court to the metropolitan trial court for execution. The only exception is the execution pending appeal which is not evident from the records of this case. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles. Canon 4 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that the judge should be studious of the principles of law. Canon 18 mandates that he should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. Judge Ygana was fined PhP 10,000 for gross ignorance of the law.

CANON 5 – A judge should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the

risk of conflict with judicial activities.

Page 49: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

VOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

Rule 5.01 – A judge  may engage in the following activities provided that they

do not interfere with the performance of judicial duties or detract from the

dignity of the courts:1. a.      write, lecture, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;2. b.     engage in the arts, sports, and other special recreational activities;3. c.      participate in civic and charitable activities;4. d.     serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a non-profit

or non-political, educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.

If they opt to engage in such activities, they must learn how to manage their time in such manner that their judicial responsibilities do not falter and suffer.

FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES

Rule 5.02 – A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that

tends to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere with the

proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvements with

lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage

investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases

giving grounds for disqualification.

Rule 5.03 – Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a judge may hold

and manage investments but should not serve as an officer, director,

manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a family

business of the judge.

Rule 5.04 – A judge or any, immediate member of the family, shall not accept

a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.

Rule 5.05 – No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be used or

disclosed by a judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not

related to judicial activities.

Prohibitions under the Revised Penal Code:

Art 215. Prohibited Transaction. The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum period or a fine ranging from P200 to P1000 or both, shall be imposed upon

any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly

become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory

subject to his jurisdiction.

Art 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. The penalty

of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a

fine ranging from P200 to P1000, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who

directly and indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business which it is

his official duty to intervene. Sec 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.  In addition to acts or omissions of public

officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

XXX

(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, or

contract or transaction in connection with which here intervenes or takes part in his

Page 50: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

official capacity or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from

having any interest, (Sec. 3(h), RA 3019)

General Rule: Avoid taking or receiving loans from litigants. Exception (AGCPA): Unsolicited gifts or presents of small value offered or given as a

mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local custom or usage.

FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

Rule 5.06 – A judge should not serve as the execution administrator, trustee,

guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust, or person of a

member of the immediate family and then only if such service will not

interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. “member of

immediate family” shall be limited to the spouse  and relatives within the

second degree of consanguinity.  As a family fiduciary, a judge shall not:1. a.      serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said judge; or2. b.     act as such contrary to Rule 5.02 to 5.05

PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION

Rule 5.07 – A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law.  Unless

prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of

any other profession provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to

conflict with judicial functions. Includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of litigation, and giving of

legal advice to clients or persons needing the same. Not engage in notarial work. Exception: “Notaries public ex-oficio” – may engage only

in notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. Provided, all notarial fees on account of the government and certification attesting to lack of any lawyer or Notary Public.

Sworn statement of assets and liabilities including statement of amounts and services of income, the amount of personal and family expenses and the amount of income tax is paid for the next preceding calendar year.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Rule 5.08 – A judge shall make full financial disclosure as required by law.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Rule 5.09 – A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency

performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

Rule 5.10 – A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political

questions.  But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not

make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse

candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political

activities.

This code, promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take effect on 20

October 1989.

Page 51: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

An administrative case against a judge is not necessarily dismissed by the withdrawal by or desistance of the complainant.

Retirement, resignation or promotion of a judge does not necessarily render moot and academic all the cases against him.

Civil Liabilities Re Official Functions:1. obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs the civil

rights.2. Willful or negligent rendition of a decision which causes damages to another3. For damages: rendering/neglecting to decide a case causing loss to a party.

Civil Code Disabilities:

Rule:  Can’t purchase properties subject of litigation is his court.

Exception: Does not apply where the subject property was not acquired

from any of the parties to the case, nor will it apply when the litigation is

already finished.

But… while in a technical sense, the judge may not have acquired the

property in litigation in a case before him, nevertheless, it is improper for him

to have done so under the canons of judicial ethics.

Donations made to a judge by reason of his office are void. Taking advantage of his position to boost his candidacy amounts to gross

misconduct. Cannot serve as officers or advisers of political groups.

Criminal Liabilities of Judges Malfeasance under the RPC:

A. Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment (Art. 204, RPC)

The elements are:

1. That the officer is a judge;2. that he renders judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;3. that the judgment is unjust;4. the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.

B. Judgment Rendered Through Negligence (Art. 205, RPC)

           

 The elements are:1. that the offender is a judge;2. that he renders judgment in a case submitted to him for decision3. that the judgment is manifestly unjust;4. that is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

2. Qualities (New Code of Judicial Conduct)

a. Independence (Canon 1)

Page 52: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

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

of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its

individual and institutional aspects.

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

their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the

law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or

indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial

colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.

SEC. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or

dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial

conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the

private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are

in a special position to influence the judge.

Case:

Michael B. Belen vs. Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36 Calamba City, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139, August 6, 2010.(Mon thanks Barbara Anne A. Gandionco for her help in preparing this post.)Judge; violation of Code of Judicial Conduct. In Ladignon v. Garong, respondent judge’s act of using the official letterhead of his court and signing the same using the word “judge” in his letter-complaint to the First United Methodist Church in Michigan, USA, was held to be violative of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In view of the foregoing, we find respondent judge guilty of violation of Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary [for committing a similar act].

SEC. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and

influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be

free therefrom to a reasonable observer.

SEC. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to

the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.

SEC. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial

duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the

judiciary.

SEC. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to

reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of

judicial independence.

 

b. Integrity (Canon 2)

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to

the personal demeanor of judges.

SE. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is

perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

Page 53: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the

integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against

lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become

aware.

Case: Erlinda Sy vs. Danilo Norberte A.M. No. 00-1398-P. August 1, 2000

Facts: In her civil case versus Antoinetta Galvez, complainant Erlinda Sy obtained a writ of preliminary attachment against all properties of the former. She alleged, however, that respondent Danilo Norberte, Sheriff of Branch 125 of the RTC of Kalookan City, tipped off Galvez about the said writ. She further alleged that Norberte actively assisted Galvez in the removal of her personal property from the latter’s residence. Sy filed a complaint with Branch 125 of the RTC of Kalookan City which was submitted for investigation.

Held: GUILTY. The investigation revealed that Norberte was positively identified and seen by the complainant Sy and 2 other witnesses in the act of helping Galvez remove her personal property from her residence. Norberte’s alibi did not prove to be credible. The offense of serious or grave misconduct refers to such misconduct that shows the element of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules. In tipping off and assisting Galvez, Norberte’s actions are an attempt to circumvent a valid court order. Even if Norberte did not tip off Galvez, his mere presence at the scene is punishable. Being an officer of the Court, respondent sheriff should have refrained from actuations though innocent and in good faith which may result in suspicion of impropriety and may consequently taint the good image of the judiciary. The nature and responsibilities of officers of the judiciary are not mere idealistic sentiments but true working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds. They are expected to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times. Norberte was suspended for 1 month without pay and issued the warning that similar conduct in the future will be punished more severely.

c. Impartiality (Canon 3)

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.

SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and

enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the

judge and of the judiciary.

SEC. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the

occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding

cases.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before them,

make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding

or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or

otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

Page 54: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

SEC. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they

are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that

they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to,

instances where

(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; 

(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in

controversy; 

(c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the

matter in controversy; 

(d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter

in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or

the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; 

(e) The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree

or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or 

(g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,

creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the

proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

proceedings;

SEC. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding,

disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and

lawyers, independently of the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the

inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The

agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the

proceedings.

d. Propriety (Canon 4)

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the

activities of a judge.

SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their

activities.

SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal

restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so

freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent

with the dignity of the judicial office.

SEC. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of the legal

profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situations which might reasonably give

rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in which any member of

their family represents a litigant or is associated in any manner with the case.

SEC. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member of the legal

profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members of the legal profession.

SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,

association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in

such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and

independence of the judiciary.

Page 55: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary and financial

interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of

members of their family.

SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their

private interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or

permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to

influence them in the performance of judicial duties.

SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be

used or disclosed for any other purpose related to their judicial duties.

Case:Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Go, et al. A.M. No.

MTJ-07-1667, April 10, 2012. Judge; gross misconduct. In Guerrero vs. Judge Deray, the Court held that a judge “who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of [the Supreme] Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.” In the present case, the Court found that Judge Go failed to heed the Court’s pronouncements. He did not file the required comment to the Court’s show-cause resolutions despite several opportunities granted him. His willful disobedience and disregard to the show-cause resolutions constitutes grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office. It is noteworthy that Judge Go was afforded several opportunities to explain his failure to decide the subject cases long pending before his court and to comply with the directives of this Court, but he has failed, and continuously refuses to heed the same. This continued refusal to abide by lawful directives issued by this Court is glaring proof that he has become disinterested to remain with the judicial system to which he purports to belong.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Indar. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012. Judge; gross misconduct and dishonesty. In this case, Judge Indar issued decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases which do not exist in the records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City. There is nothing to show that (1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases; (2) docket fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as calendared; (4) hearings had been conducted; or (5) the cases were submitted for decision. Judge Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage cases, without any showing that such cases underwent trial and complied with the statutory and jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly constitutes gross misconduct. Among the questioned annulment decrees is Judge Indar’s Decision dated 23 May 2007, in Spec. Proc. No. 06-581, entitled “Chona Chanco Aguiling v. Alan V. Aguiling.” Despite the fact that no proceedings were conducted in the case, Judge Indar declared categorically, in response to the Australian Embassy letter, that the Decision annulling the marriage is valid and that petitioner is free to marry. In effect, Judge Indar confirms the truthfulness of the contents of the annulment decree, highlighting Judge Indar’s appalling dishonesty

Page 56: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

e. Equality (Canon 5)

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due

performance of the judicial office.

SEC. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and

differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, color, sex,

religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and

economic status and other like causes.

SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or

conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all

persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues,

without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of

such duties.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or

her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter

before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.

SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain

from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds,

except such as are legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the subject of

legitimate advocacy.

 

f. Competence and Diligence (Canon 6)

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of

judicial office.

SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other

activities.

SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties,

which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in

court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial

office or the court’s operations.

SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their

knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of

judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other facilities

which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.

SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant

developments of international law, including international conventions and other

instruments establishing human rights norms.

SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of

reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before

the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses,

lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall

require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to

their influence, direction or control.

Page 57: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent

discharge of judicial duties.

 

Case:Dr. Ramie G. Hipe vs. Judge Rolando T. Literato, Municipal Trial Court,

Mainit, Surigao Del Norte. A.M. No. MTJ-11-1781, April 25, 2012. Judge; gross ignorance. Civil Case No. 632, a case for ejectment, is covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. It is equally undisputed that in summary procedure, a preliminary conference should be held not later than 30 days after the last answer has been filed. Considering that no preliminary conference at all was held in Civil Case No. 632, Judge Literato evidently failed to comply with a basic rule of procedure for which he should accordingly be held accountable. Judge Literato’s inaction in Civil Case No. 632 for 322 days constitutes utter disregard for the summary nature of an ejectment case. Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law and basic legal principles. Basic legal procedures must be at the palm of a judge’s hands. In sum, Judge Literato is administratively guilty of gross ignorance of the Rule on Summary Procedure and undue delay in rendering a decision.

3. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary

a. Members of the Supreme Court

(1) Impeachment

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. (Section 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)

Impeachment is a process of national inquest into the conduct of public officials and the bringing of charges against them for misconduct in office.

While the process of impeachment has the elements of a criminal process, it is basically a political process designed to deal with the misconduct by high public officers. The political aspect of this process stems from the fact that the participants (ie. senator judges, prosecutors) are not ordinary citizens acting as judges but rather are elected officials who serve by virtue of their positions and not because they have been selected by the courts to serve in judgment.

b. Grounds

Article XI, Section 2. "...may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust."

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution

Page 58: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

It is the deliberate and wrongful breach of the Constitution. Violation of the Constitution made unintentionally, in good faith, and mere mistakes in the proper construction of the Constitution do not constitute and impeachable offense.

2. Treason

It is committed by any person who, owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippines, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere. (Art. 114, Revised Penal Code)

3. Bribery

Bribery as an impeachable offense may either be Direct Bribery or Indirect Bribery.

Direct bribery - It is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do. (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code)

Indirect bribery. -It is committed by a public officer when he accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (Art. 211, Revised Penal Code)

4. Graft and Corruption

This must be understood in the light of the provisions of the Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.. Any violation of the prohibited acts provided therein constitutes a ground for impeachment.

5. Other high crimes or Betrayal of Public Trust

The exact meaning of "other high crimes or betrayal of public trust" as an impeachable offense is still undefined. The framers of the Constitution put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch and transformed it from a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Hence, the definition of an impeachable offense depends on the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be a given moment in history.

In impeachment investigation against President Quirino, the special committee of the House of Representatives referred "other high crimes" as to those crimes which, like treason and bribery, are of so serious and enormous a nature as to affect the very life or orderly workings of the government.

Betrayal of Public Trust, on the other hand, is a new ground for impeachment, which covers "any violation of the oath of office involving loss of popular support even if the violation may not amount to a punishable offense." (De Leon, Philippine Constitutional Law, 1999, Rex Printing Company, Inc., p.757)

c. Lower Court Judges and Justices (CIRCULAR NO. 30-91 September 30, 1991)

Justices and Judges — Judicial discipline matters involving the justices and judges of all lower courts (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax

Page 59: LECTURE NOTES LEGAL ETHICS

Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, metropolitan Trial Courts, MTCC, MCTC, Shari'a Courts) filed with the Office of the Court Administrator or the lower courts shall be immediately referred to the Court En Banc for appropriate action.

d. Sanctions Imposed by the Supreme Court On Erring Members of the Judiciary

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (Section 11, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Based on CIRCULAR NO. 3-89, February 6, 1989:

(1) The IBP (Board of Governor and Commission on Bar Discipline) shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate action all cases involving justices and judges of lower courts, whether or not such complaints deal with acts apparently unrelated to the discharge of their official functions, such as acts of immorality, estafa, crimes against persons and property, etc.

(2) As noted above, his Resolution as well as our Resolution dated November 29, 1988 constitute an interpretation of Section 1, Rule 139-B.

(3) In principle, the Supreme Court would not assign complaints filed with it against justices and judges of the lower courts to the IBP for investigation after the Supreme Court shall have found a probable cause in such charges. As a matter of long standing practice, the Court has assigned complaints against Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Judges to an Executive Judge, against Regional Trial Courts judges to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation, while a complaint against a member of the Court of Appeals would probably be assigned to a member of the Supreme Court for investigation, report and recommendation.

(4) The IBP shall refer to the Supreme Court all cases filed against judges, including complaints charging judges jointly with practicing lawyers, whether filed directly with the IBP or transmitted to the IBP by the Office of the Solicitor General. The Supreme Court will examine these complaints individually and on a case by case basis. The court may refer such a case for joint investigation to an Executive Judge of a Regional Trial Court or to a justice of the Court of Appeals. There may, however, be instances when the case against the practicing lawyer may be separable and conveniently referred to the IBP for investigation.

References:

Ateneo Reviewer on Legal EthicsBar Reviewer in Legal Ethics , Albano and Albano. 2000.Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Carmelo SisonCode of Professional ConductCode of Judicial Conduct and New Code of Judicial ConductPinaylawyer.com


Recommended