Canon 1 –

Promote and Respect Law and Legal

Process

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

deceitful conduct.
In re Gutierrez, 5 SCRA 661 (1962)
Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316 (1988)
 Rule 1.01 -
No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful
Conduct

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

deceitful conduct.
 Piatt v. Abordo 58 Phil. 350 (1933)

• no evidence on the relationship of attorney and client

• act complained not committed in the exercise of his legal profession
disciplined as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds
general rule: will not assume jurisdiction to discipline for misconduct
alleged to be committed in his private capacity
exception to the rule: removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty
in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon
him. (In re Pelaez [1923], 44 Phil., 567.)
 Piatt v. Abordo 58 Phil. 350 (1933)

• The courts are not curators of the morals of the bar. At the same time the
profession is not compelled to harbor all persons whatever their character, who
are fortunate enough to keep out of prison.
• As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to
practice, when the attorney's character is bad in such respect as to show that he
is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the courts
retain the power to discipline him.
• Abordo was engaged in an opium deal in direct contravention of the criminal law
• In the eyes of the canons of professional ethics which govern the conduct of
attorneys, the act was as reprehensible … "Of all classes and professions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws…"
 Piatt v. Abordo 58 Phil. 350 (1933)
• In re Terrel: although the respondent had been acquitted on the
charge of estafa, yet it was held that, since the promotion of an
organization for the purpose of violating or evading the penal laws
amounted to such malpractice on the part of an attorney as will
justify removal or suspension, the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a term of one year.
• In re Pelaez: where an attorney-at-law who, as a guardian, pledged
the shares of stock belonging to his ward to guarantee the payment of
his personal debt, although this was misconduct committed in his
private capacity, the court nevertheless suspended the respondent
from the legal profession for one year.
• Abordo suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year
 Ui v. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)
• Atty. Iris Bonifacio’s alleged immoral relationship with complainant’s husband
• respondent begot a daughter sometime in 1986
• been living together at Ayala Alabang Village, in Muntinlupa City
• Respondent is a graduate of the UP Law was admitted to the Bar in 1982
• December 1988 - respondent and her husband had a second child
• respondent had been employed by her husband in his company.
• R: relationship is not illicit because were married abroad; not living together
one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess
good moral character; possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
 Ui v. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)
The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of
the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked,
subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal
ethics. The requisites for admission to the practice of law are:
a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;
b. a resident thereof;
c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
d. a person of good moral character;
e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in
court;
f. possess the required educational qualifications; and
g. pass the bar examinations
 Ui v. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)
Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of
respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a rippling effect on
how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined. Perhaps
morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before.
This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle
their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this case lead us to
believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such a
compromising situation had she exercised prudence and been more vigilant in
finding out more about Carlos Uis personal background prior to her intimate
involvement with him.
 Ui v. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)
All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent
was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains
that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent
believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and
the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Moreover,
for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree
 Ui v. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships x x x but must also so
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards.“ Respondents act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status
• belies alleged moral indifference and
• proves she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the
legal profession.
REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her Marriage
Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date
Figueroa v. Barranco, 276 SCRA 445 (1997)
• respondent and complainant had a child out of wedlock (son, 1964)
• did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her (20-30)
• Since 1953, during their teens, they were steadies.
• escorted complainant when she was Queen at the 1953 town fiesta
• first acceded to sexual congress sometime in 1960
• relationship ended in 1971, when respondent married another
Figueroa v. Barranco, 276 SCRA 445 (1997)
• these facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the
permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession.
• engaging in premarital sexual relations and promises to marry suggests
a doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute
grossly immoral conduct.
• to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not
only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
• A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to
a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community (matigas ang ulo, garapal, makapal ang mukha)
Figueroa v. Barranco, 276 SCRA 445 (1997)
• Arciga v. Maniwang - mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both of
whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on and devoid of
any deceit on the part of respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled
as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a
result of such relationship a child was born out of wedlock.
• the instant complaint as an act of revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and
unforgiving to the end.
• intended to make respondent suffer severely and perpetually
• Even assuming that his past indiscretions are ignoble, the 26 years that
respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer constitute sufficient
punishment therefor. (1970-1993)
• During this time there appears to be no other indiscretion attributed to him.
Respondent, who is now sixty-two years of age, should thus be allowed, albeit
belatedly, to take the lawyers oath.
 Pimentel v. Llorente & Salayon
339 SCRA 154 (2000)

• in connection with their duties as members of the Pasig City Board of

Canvassers in the May 8, 1995 elections
• respondents tampered with the votes received by complainant and
are guilty of misconduct
• Despite the fact that these discrepancies, especially the double
recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the variation in the
tabulation of votes as reflected in the SoVs and CoC, were apparent
on the face of these documents and that the variation involves
substantial number of votes, respondents nevertheless certified the
SoVs as true and correct. Their acts constitute misconduct.
 Pimentel v. Llorente & Salayon
339 SCRA 154 (2000)

• 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 CPR or the
lawyers 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.
• by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents breached
Rule 1.01 (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct) in relation to Canon 6 (applicable to gov’t lawyers ) and
violated lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood.
• FINED – Php10,000
 Pimentel v. Llorente & Salayon
339 SCRA 154 (2000)

Any delay may be overlooked

Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The sole
question for determination is whether a member of the bar is fit to be
allowed the privileges
The complainant or the person who called the attention of the Court to the
attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and generally has no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice
 For this reason, laws dealing with double jeopardy or prescription or with
procedure like verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions have no
application to disbarment proceedings
Cordova v. Cordova, A.C. No. 3249,
November 29, 1989, 179 Phil 680 (1989)
• complainant Salvacion Delizo charged her husband with immorality and acts
unbecoming a member of the Bar
• R left his family as well as his job in Quirino and went to Surigao del Sur with
one Fely (married, left her husband and children)
• R and Fely lived together in Bislig as husband and wife
• R introduced Fely to the public as his wife
• Fely using the name Fely Cordova
• R gave Fely funds to establish a sari-sari store while failing to support his
legitimate family
• 6 April 1986, R and wife reconciled
Cordova v. Cordova, A.C. No. 3249,
November 29, 1989, 179 Phil 680 (1989)
• promised to separate from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Surigao del Sur
• frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the
support of his legitimate family
• February 1987: R was living with another mistress, one Luisita and had taken his younger
daughter Melanie along with him.
reconciliation does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct/immoral behavior carried out
in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon
the Philippine Bar itself.
applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed
of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon
admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a
continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.
Cordova v. Cordova, A.C. No. 3249,
November 29, 1989, 179 Phil 680 (1989)
• respondent maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous relationship
with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the
humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on
the wound, failed or refused to support.
• after a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again with another
woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young
daughter to live with them.
• respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage
and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community
at large.
• SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law indefinitely
Cordova v. Cordova, A.C. No. 3249,
November 29, 1989, 179 Phil 680 (1989)
• moral delinquency - conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community
• Mortel v. Aspiras - the respondent being already married, wooed and won
the heart of a single, 21-year old teacher who subsequently cohabited
with him and bore him a son. Because respondent's conduct in Mortel was
particularly morally repulsive, involving the marrying of his mistress to his
own son and thereafter cohabiting with the wife of his own son after the
marriage he had himself arranged, respondent was disbarred.
• Royong v. Oblena –engaged in sexual relations with the complainant who
consequently bore him a son; and to have maintained for a number of
years an adulterous relationship with another woman.
Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608,
November 27, 2012, 686 SCRA 430 (2012)
• There is no human law that punishes a person who [has] sex with a
woman with mutual agreement and complainant [accepts]
compensation therefore. Having sex with complainant once with just
compensation does not amount to immoral conduct...
• Respondent has not violated any grounds mentioned in this rule.
Respondent respectfully submits that his having sex with complainant
with just compensation once does not amount to immoral conduct.
For who among men will not yield to temptation when a woman shall
invite him for sex?
Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608,
November 27, 2012, 686 SCRA 430 (2012)
• any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s public or
private activities, which tends to show said lawyer deficient in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant
suspension or disbarment.
• immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community.
• immoral conduct is gross (1) when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or (2) so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or (3) when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstancesas to shock the community’s sense of decency.
Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608,
November 27, 2012, 686 SCRA 430 (2012)
• act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction
• showed no remorse when he asserted that he did nothing wrong
because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money.
• having sex with a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
fidelity.
• procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money
showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of
the human person and the ethics of his profession.
Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608,
November 27, 2012, 686 SCRA 430 (2012)
• Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by
complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under
respondent’s care.
• Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and
complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no
moment.
• Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and
highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the
standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be
disciplined accordingly.
Ventura v. Samson, A.C. No. 9608,
November 27, 2012, 686 SCRA 430 (2012)
• Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the
instant proceedings in view of the public service character of the practice of
law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern.
• A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant
relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks
of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the
public and the courts.
• A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on
his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a
member of the Bar.
• DISBARRED
Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, AC. No. 6148, February 27, 2004

• R is guilty of gross misconduct in his private affairs which warrant disciplinary action
by this Court as the guardian of the purity and integrity of the legal profession. The
incontrovertible facts show that while R had a subsisting marriage with Helen Esparza
with whom he had two children, he entered into a second marriage with complainant.
• While the second marriage (complainant and R) has been annulled by final judgment,
this does not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety. He and complainant
started living as husband and wife in December 1991 when his first marriage was still
subsisting, as it was only on August 21, 1998 that such first marriage was annulled,
rendering him liable for concubinage.
• Such conduct is inconsistent with the good moral character that is required for the
continued right to practice law as a member of the Philippine bar. It imports moral
turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.
Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, AC. No. 6148, February 27, 2004
• R exhibited the vice of entering into multiple marriages and then leaving them
behind by the mere expedient of resorting to legal remedies to sever them. The
impact of R’s conduct is incalculable upon his ex-wives as well as the children he
had by them, their lives having been dislocated beyond recall.
• R may have secured educational plans for them and doled out some sums of
money in the past, but it appears that he has failed to provide them regular,
monthly support. In fact, he admitted that even before he left complainants
residence in 1995, he was only giving intermittent support to his children with her.
• Such pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions of
marriage and family, institutions that this society looks to for the rearing of our
children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of
our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole. This must be
checked if not stopped.
• DISBARRED
 People v. Tuanda, 18 SCRA 692 (1990)
• The Court affirms the suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of
Appeals upon respondent Tuanda. The CA correctly ruled that "the offense [of] which
she is found guilty involved moral turpitude." We should add that violation of B.P. Blg.
22 is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public
order. In Lozano v. Martinez, the Court explained the nature of the offense of violation
of B.P. Blg. 22.
• The crimes of which R was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound
to "obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might
not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of
the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral
character of a person convicted of such offense.
• R remains SUSPENDED
 Castillo vda. de Mijares v. Villaluz
274 SCRA 1 (1997)
• complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. de Mijares charged respondent
Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired CA with gross immorality and grave misconduct
• R undeniably guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. He has made a
mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity; at the time of his marriage to complainant, the decision of the
court annulling his marriage to his first wife had not yet attained finality.
Worse, four months after his marriage to C, R married another woman,
Lydia Geraldez, in Cavite, after making a false statement in his application
for marriage license that his previous marriage had been annulled.
• SUSPENDED 2 years
 Rule 1.01 -
No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful
Conduct

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

deceitful conduct.
 Stemmerik v. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)

• In one visit to the Philippines, complainant marveled at the beauty of the country
and expressed his interest in acquiring real property in the Philippines. He
consulted respondent who advised him that he could legally acquire and own real
property in the Philippines. Respondent even suggested an 86,998 sq.m. property
in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag, Subic, Zambales with the assurance that the property
was alienable.
• Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase the property through
respondent as his representative or attorney-in-fact. Complainant also engaged the
services of respondent for the preparation of the necessary documents. For this
purpose, respondent demanded and received a P400,000 fee.
• Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task, complainant returned
to Denmark, entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to respondent.
 Stemmerik v. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)

• R prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented by

respondent, and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the property.
• R prepared and notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold and conveyed the
property to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million.
• R also drafted and notarized an agreement between complainant and Gonzales stating
that it was complainant who provided the funds for the purchase of the property.
• Complainant then gave respondent the full amount of the purchase price (P3.8 million)
for which respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt.
• After the various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in
touch with respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in his
name. However, respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer
complainants calls and e-mail messages.
 Stemmerik v. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)
• as early as the 1947 case Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, the Constitution, aliens may not
acquire private or agricultural lands, including residential lands. The provision is a
declaration of imperative constitutional policy.
• R, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed
disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared
spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
• By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that
de Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in
behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-
Dummy Law
• By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the
Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent
deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client… misled him into parting with P400,000 for
services that were both illegal and unprofessional… by pocketing and misappropriating
the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent
committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.
• DISBARRED and directed to return Php4.2M with interest
 Stemmerik v. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)

• Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite

service of notice at his last known address. Neither did he appear in
the scheduled mandatory conference.
• Respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused the trust and
confidence reposed by complainant in him. The CBD recommended
the disbarment of respondent. The Board of Governors of the IBP
adopted the findings and recommendation of the CBD with the
modification that respondent was further required to return the
amount of P4.2 million to respondent.
• SC agreed with the IBP.
 Stemmerik v. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)
• Was respondent properly given notice of the disbarment proceedings
against him? Yes.
• The respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he
appear during the scheduled mandatory conference. Respondent in fact
abandoned his last known address, his law office in Olongapo City, after he
committed the embezzlement.
• Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act.
He can neither defeat this Courts jurisdiction over him as a member of the
bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his
whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other orders and
processes on respondents office was sufficient notice to him.
 Stemmerik v. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)
• Indeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him
impossible, the notice requirement cannot apply to him and he is thus
considered to have waived it. The law does not require that the
impossible be done.
• In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by
informing the IBP National Office or their respective chapters of any
change in office or residential address and other contact details. In
case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office
or residential address appearing in the records of the IBP National
Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of
administrative proceedings against him.
 Freeman v. Zenaida P. Reyes,
A.C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011

• for gross dishonesty in obtaining money from her, without rendering

proper legal services, and appropriating the proceeds of the insurance
policies of her deceased husband.
• recovery of all the amounts she had given to respondent and the
insurance proceeds, which was remitted to the latter
• DISBARRED and ORDERED to turn over P700,000.00 to complainant
 Freeman v. Zenaida P. Reyes,
A.C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011
• Worse, respondent even inculcated in the mind of the complainant that she had to
adhere to the nefarious culture of giving grease money or lagay, in the total amount of
P43,000.00, to the British Embassy personnel, as if it was an ordinary occurrence in the
normal course of conducting official business transactions, as a means to expedite the
visa applications. This runs afoul the dictum in Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
• Respondent's defense that the criminal complaint for estafa against her was already
dismissed is of no consequence.
• An administrative case can proceed independently, even if there was a full-blown trial
wherein, based on both prosecution and defense evidence, the trial court eventually
rendered a judgment of acquittal, on the ground either that the prosecution failed to
prove the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or that no crime was committed.
More so, in the present administrative case, wherein the ground for the dismissal of the
criminal case was because the trial court granted the prosecution's motion to withdraw
the information and, a fortiori, dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence.
 Cobalt Resources, Inc. vs. Aguado,
A.C. No. 10781, April 12: 2016
• ID Card showing R as Legal Consultant of the PASG, the Mission Order identifying
Atty. Aguado as the Assistant Team Leader
• IBP: suspension; Cobalt: disbarment; R: dismiss complaint
• a disbarment proceeding, being administrative in nature, is separate and distinct
from a criminal action filed against a lawyer and they may proceed independently
of each other. A finding of guilt in the criminal case does not necessarily mean a
finding of liability in the administrative case. In the same way, the dismissal of a
criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused, who is
also a respondent in an administrative case, does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively because the quantum of evidence required is different.
• In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. "In administrative
cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof
required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant.“ Preponderance of evidence means "evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto."
 Cobalt Resources, Inc. vs. Aguado,
A.C. No. 10781, April 12: 2016
• he was in possession of a falsified ID showing him as a legal
consultant of the PASG and mission order identifying him as the
Assistant Team Leader of the anti-smuggling operation.
• had participation in the crime as charged in the complaint, from the
planning stage up to its execution. These falsified documents found in
his possession, as certified found in his possession, as certified as
evidenced by the PASG, were used to facilitate the commission of the
crime.
• DISBARRED
 Ecraela v. Pangalangan,
AC. No. 10676, September 8, 2015

• for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing (“A-E”), abuse of authority

as an educator, and "other unscrupulous activities“
• C and R were best friends and both graduated from UP Law (1990)
• deceived CCC and DDD by representing himself to be a bachelor
• Ombudsman a Resolution finding probable cause against respondent
• R abused his authority as educator (induced his male students to
engage in "nocturnal preoccupations" and entertained the romantic
gestures of his female students in exchange for passing grades)
 Ecraela v. Pangalangan,
AC. No. 10676, September 8, 2015
• The IBP-CBD Report sufficiently showed by preponderant evidence
the grounds by which respondent has been found committing gross
immorality in the conduct of his personal affairs.
• In the present case, complainant alleged that respondent carried on
several adulterous and illicit relations with both married and
unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007, including
complainant's own wife. Through documentary evidences in the form
of email messages, as well as the corroborating testimonies of the
witnesses presented, complainant was able to establish respondent's
illicit relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant evidence.
 Ecraela v. Pangalangan,
AC. No. 10676, September 8, 2015
• The IBP-CBD Report was correct when it found that respondent
violated Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, to wit: “In
engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent disregarded the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws, which as a lawyer he swore
under oath to protect. The 1987 Constitution, specifically Art XV,
Section 2 thereof clearly provides that marriage, an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by
the State.”
• DISBARRED
 Rule 1.02 –
No Counseling to Defy Law
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
abet = encourage or assist = sulsulan
 In re Terrell, 2 Phil 266 (1903)

• assisted in the organization and acting as its attorney of the "Centro

Bellas Artes" Club created for the purpose of evading the law
• The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for
the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes
such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as
amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for
which he may be removed or suspended.
 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
416 SCRA 465 (2003)
• In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an obstinate display of defiance, repeated
his earlier claim of political partisanship against the members of the Court.
• The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made
by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive effects
in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the
erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have
been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
• In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality,
integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only
succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
• INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
 Kupers v. Hontanosas,
587 SCRA 325 (2009)
• A plain reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting
lease of private lands to aliens for a period of twenty five (25) years renewable for
another twenty five (25) years.
• 2 lease contracts:
• fifty (50) years renewable for another fifty (50) years
• forty-nine (49) years renewable for another forty-nine (49)
• In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the
Attorneys Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• to obey the laws of the Philippines (Oath and in Canon 1)
• Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law …
• SUSPENDED 6 months
 Coronel v. Cunanan, 766 SCRA 258 (2015)
• A lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or remedy that is contrary to law,
public policy, public order and public morals, or that lessens the public confidence
in the legal system is guilty of gross misconduct, and should be suspended from the
practice of law, or even disbarred.
• R advised and convinced C to engage him for the transfer of land titles which were
both registered in the name of their deceased grandparents, to C’s name and to the
names of her co-heirs by direct registration with the Office of the Register of Deeds
• The proposal was unquestionably unlawful, immoral and deceitful
• Bengco v. Bernardo - expedite the titling of the clients' property with the help of his contacts
in various government offices
• Espinosa v. Omaña - advising clients to legally live separately and dissolve their marriage by
executing an agreement; contrary to law and public policy.
• SUSPENDED ONE YEAR and RETURN Php70,000
 Rule 1.03 –
Not to Encourage Lawsuit
or Proceedings
A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
 Rule 1.04 –
Encourage Client to Avoid
Controversy
A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy
if it will admit of a fair settlement.
 Castaneda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505 (1975)
• respondents Ago, abetted by their lawyer Jose M. Luison, have misused legal
remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the
judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. The respondents, with
the assistance of counsel, maneuvered for fourteen (14) years to doggedly resist
execution of the judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one court to another
(5 times in the Supreme Court).
• Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as
an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator
of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and
a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation
instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice.
• Treble costs are assessed against the spouses Ago which shall be paid by their
lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Luison.
 Castaneda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505 (1975)
• A counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his
client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we
do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the
patent futility of his client's position, as in the case at bar.
• It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to
the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of
his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather
than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims
and caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate.
A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to
his client; its primacy is indisputable
 Canon 2–
Provide Efficient and
Convenient Legal Services
A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
 Rule 2.01 –
Not to Reject Cause of
Defenseless or Oppressed
A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
 IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment and
Operation of Legal Aid Office

• Article 1 Section. 1
• Public service. – Legal Aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for
the correction of social imbalances that may and often do lead to
injustice, for which reason it is a public responsibility of the Bar. The
spirit of public service should, therefore, underlie all legal aid offices.
The same should be so administered as to give maximum possible
assistance to indigent and deserving members of the community in all
cases, matters and situations in which legal aid may be necessary to
forestall an injustice.
RA No. 9999 - Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010

• Section 4. Requirements for Availment. - For purposes of availing of the benefits and services
as envisioned in this Act, a lawyer or professional partnership shall secure a certification from
the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ) or accredited association
of the Supreme Court indicating that the said legal services to be provided are within the
services defined by the Supreme Court, and that the agencies cannot provide the legal
services to be provided by the private counsel.
• For purpose of determining the number of hours actually provided by the lawyer and/or
professional firm in the provision of legal services, the association and/or organization duly
accredited by the Supreme Court shall issue the necessary certification that said legal services
were actually undertaken.
• The certification issued by, among others, the PAO, the DOJ and other accredited association
by the Supreme Court shall be submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for
purposes of availing the tax deductions as provided for in this Act and to the DOJ for purposes
of monitoring.
RA No. 9999 - Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010

• Section 5. Incentives to Lawyers. - For purposes of this Act, a lawyer or

professional partnerships rendering actual free legal services, as
defined by the Supreme Court, shall be entitled to an allowable
deduction from the gross income, the amount that could have been
collected for the actual free legal services rendered or up to 10% of
the gross income derived from the actual performance of the legal
profession, whichever is lower: Provided, That the actual free legal
services herein contemplated shall be exclusive of the minimum sixty
(60)-hour mandatory legal aid services rendered to indigent litigants as
required under the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Services for Practicing
Lawyers, under BAR Matter No. 2012, issued by the Supreme Court.
 Rep. Act No. 10389
Recognizance Act of 2012

• Section 5. Release on Recognizance as a Matter of Right Guaranteed by the

Constitution. – The release on recognizance of any person in custody or detention for
the commission of an offense is a matter of right when the offense is not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment: Provided, That the accused or any
person on behalf of the accused files the application for such:

• (a) Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court; and
• (b) Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court: Provided, further, That a person in
custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, or any modifying circumstance, shall be released on the person’s recognizance.
 Rep. Act No. 10389
Recognizance Act of 2012

• Section 8. Qualifications of the Custodian of the Person Released on Recognizance. – Except in cases
of children in conflict with the law as provided under Republic Act No. 9344, the custodian of the
person released on recognizance must have the following qualifications:
• (a) A person of good repute and probity;
• (b) A resident of the barangay where the applicant resides;
• (c) Must not be a relative of the applicant within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity; and
• (d) Must belong to any of the following sectors and institutions: church, academe, social welfare,
health sector, cause-oriented groups, charitable organizations or organizations engaged in the
rehabilitation of offenders duly accredited by the local social welfare and development officer.
• If no person in the barangay where the applicant resides belongs to any of the sectors and
institutions listed under paragraph (d) above, the custodian of the person released on recognizance
may be from the qualified residents of the city or municipality where the applicant resides.
 Rep. Act No. 10389
Recognizance Act of 2012

• Section 9. Duty of the Custodian. – The custodian shall undertake to

guarantee the appearance of the accused whenever required by the
court. The custodian shall be required to execute an undertaking
before the court to produce the accused whenever required. The said
undertaking shall be part of the application for recognizance. The
court shall duly notify, within a reasonable period of time, the
custodian whenever the presence of the accussed is required. A
penalty of six (6) months to two (2) years imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the custodian who failed to deliver or produce the
accused before the court, upon due notice, without justifiable reason
 Ledesma v. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473 (1974)

• order of respondent Judge denying a motion filed by petitioner to be allowed

to withdraw as counsel de oficio
• Judge denied because- "its principal effect [being] to delay this case.“
• What is readily apparent therefore, is that petitioner was less than duly
mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It could be that
for some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed
counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. For those holding such belief, it may
come as a surprise that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such an
opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law is indeed a profession
dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade. It is understandable
then why a high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so designated.
 Rule 2.02 –
Not to Refuse to Give Legal
Advice
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 – No Solicitation
Rule 138 sec. 27, Rules of
Court

A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to

solicit legal business.

Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what

grounds. —… The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
 In re Tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929)

• Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that
previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano:

LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela
(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required
by the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your application and final
requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you
collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you. Come or write to
him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)
 In re Tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929)

• wrote a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio

• “I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your
barrio people in any of your meetings or social gatherings so that they
may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my
capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality
have not as yet contracted the services of other lawyers in connection
with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing to handle
the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every
registration.”
 In re Tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929)

• The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek
or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so
would be unprofessional.
• It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly
practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of the
honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession.
It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of
the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation and in
incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.
• SUSPENDED for 1 month
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
• Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN
Ave., Mla.
• Annex B

GUAM DIVORCE.
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-
7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
• it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support
services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines
• allowed by John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona
• Issues –
• (1)whether or not the services offered by R as advertised by it constitutes practice of
law and,
• (2) in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the
advertisements herein complained of.
• Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or
render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
• In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally
engages in three principal types of professional activity:
legal advice/instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations,
preparation of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed
by ordinary layman, and
appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority
to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to law, in order to assist
in proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
• What is palpably clear is that Ulep Clinic gives out legal information to
laymen and lawyers; providing information, for example, about foreign
laws on marriage, divorce and adoption; it will necessarily have to explain
to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper
course of action to be taken
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
• the CPR provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall
use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts
• The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics
of his profession, advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods.
• the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct.
• good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
• Not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited; exceptions to the rule
against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be
undertaken; 2 broad categories, (1) those which are expressly allowed and (2)
those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions.
• (1) publication in reputable law lists, of brief biographical and informative data.
"Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the
lawyer's name and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone
numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and
admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and
other educational distinction; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal
authorships; legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations
and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the
fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references;
and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented."
law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose
 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
• (2) The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted;
contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he
is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law
practiced
• (3) publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or
of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address
• (4) name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of
special branch of law
• Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales - prime incorporator, major stockholder and
proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc.; REPRIMANDED with warning
Linsangan v. Tolentino, 598 SCRA 133 (2009)
• Labiano’s calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance.
The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their
original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress
and emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the
integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession.
However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his
culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was
personally and directly responsible for the printing and distribution of
Labiano’s calling cards.
• SUSPENDED for 1 year [Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3
of the CPR and Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court]
Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, 676 SCRA 37 (2012)
• REPRIMANDED for acts of illegal advertisement and solicitation.
• DISBARRED for engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.
• R engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting-up two financial
consultancy firms, Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business
Link, Inc.,
• used 2 firms as fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases: letter-
proposals to clients/proof of payment to the latter by clients
• A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful
occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature
or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties
as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that
can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the
lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s
behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the
practice of law.
 Rule 2.04-
No Rates Lower Than
Customarily Charged
A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.
 Canon 3 –
Information on Legal Services
that is True, Honest, Fair,
Dignified and Objective
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 –
No False or Unfair Claim
re: Qualifications
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.
 Khan v. Simbillo, 409 SCRA 299 (2003)
• a paid advertisement in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667“
• similar advertisements were published
• for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in
violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the CPR and Rule 138, Section
27 of the Rules of Court
• R: advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; time has
come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and
solicitation; interest of the public is not served by the absolute
prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on
lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old
prohibition should be abandoned.
 Khan v. Simbillo, 409 SCRA 299 (2003)
• The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:

1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one
may attain the highest eminence without making much money;

2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving

thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;

3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;

4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and

unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment
on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
 Rule 3.02-
No False or
Misleading Firm Name
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.*
 Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie,
136 SCRA 349 (1985)
• enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law
under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.
• R using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie asked Rosie Clurman for
the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E.
Gabriel, a client.
• C: denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be
informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie "and if
not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law
office."
 Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie,
136 SCRA 349 (1985)
• We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice
law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court)…. Respondents,
aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm
name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.
• use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that
being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the
highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
foreign trade and investment".
• This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law
here.
• No sanction?
 In re Petition of Sycip, 92 SCRA 1 (1979)
• Allow to continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of
partners who had passed away
• The Court believes that, in view of the personal and confidential
nature of the relations between attorney and client, and the high
standards demanded in the canons of professional ethics, no practice
should be allowed which even in a remote degree could give rise to
the possibility of deception
• create undue advantages and disadvantages in the practice
• Commercial partnership vs. professional partnership
• Not so in this jurisdiction where there is no local custom that
sanctions the practice.
 Nebreja v. Reonel, 719 SCRA 385 (2014)
• Complainant checked her records and found respondent’s demand letter bearing the
address of his claimed law office, "18/f Century Towers Building, Legaspi St. corner de
la Rosa, Makati." When complainant tried to look for the said office, she discovered
that there was no such building. She also found respondent’s calling card bearing the
address, "86 Magat Salamat Street, Project 4, Quezon City," which, complainant found
out, was respondent’s residential address
• used a fictitious office address to deceive complainant. He did not submit any proof
that such building existed or that he held office at said address. He also did not deny
either the due execution and authenticity of the letter with his printed office address -
lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood
• Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of Appeals - a six-month suspension on the lawyer after it
was established that the said lawyer indeed claimed to be a lawyer of Porac Trucking,
Inc. when, in truth and in fact, he was not. Still, in another case, the same six (6)
month suspension was inposed on the erring lawyer after it was established that he
claimed before the trial court to be a member of Citizens Legal Assistance Office when
in truth, he was not.
 Rule 3.03 –
Partners Assuming Public
Office
Constitution Art. 6, sec. 14; Art. 7, sec. 13; Art. 9, sec. 2

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.
 Samonte v. Gatdula, 303 SCRA 756 (1999)
• an admission that it is his name appears on the calling card, a permissible
form of advertising or solicitation of legal services. Respondent does not
claim that the calling card was printed without his knowledge or consent,
and the calling card carries his name primarily and the name "Baligod,
Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa
Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the left corner. The card
clearly gives the impression that he is connected with the said law firm.
The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes
an act of solicitation which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic
Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for the Public Officials and Employees" which declares it
unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others: (2) Engage in
the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with official functions.
 Rule 3.04 –
Not Use Media to Attract
Legal Business
A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
 Cruz v. Salva 105 Phil 1151 (1959)
• investigation was conducted not in respondent's office but in the session
hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the big
crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding, including members of the
press.
• A number of microphones were installed.
• Reporters were everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures.
In other words, apparently with the permission of, if not the
encouragement by the respondent, news photographers and newsmen had
a field day.
• R: addressing the newspapermen "Gentlemen of the press, if you want to
ask questions I am willing to let you do so and the question asked will be
reproduced as my own“; "Gentlemen of the press is free to ask questions as
ours."
 Cruz v. Salva 105 Phil 1151 (1959)

• Respondent is hereby publicly reprehended and

censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and
sensationalism that he had given to and allowed in
connection with his investigation;
• consider and find to be contempt of court
 Canon 4 –
Particitipate in Improvement of the Legal
System: Support Law Reforms and
Administration of Justice

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.
 Canon 5 –
Participate in Legal Education Program
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.
Manahan v. Flores, 709 SCRA 297 (2013)
Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Lim, 681 SCRA 429
(2012)