legal ethics: summary of case doctrines

8/14/2019 LEGAL ETHICS: SUMMARY OF CASE DOCTRINES

1/23

LEGAL ETHICS: SUMMARY OF CASE DOCTRINES

I.II. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Marquez vs. Clores-Ramos, AM No. P-96-1182, July 19, 2000

It cannot be overemphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of

integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense ofhonesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and

private dealings with other people, to preserve the Courts good name and standing.[8]

This is

because the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official orotherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its

personnel. Thus, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to

maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.

The Code of Judicial Ethicsmandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from anywhiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the judicial branch but also to his

behavior outside the court as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a courtemployee is also judged by his private morals. These exacting standards of morality and decency

have been strictly adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of the judiciary.

Respondent, as a court stenographer, did not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life. Heract of maintaining relation with Atty. Burgos speaks for itself.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Liangco, A.C. 5355, December

Gross Mi sconduct

In Sps. Donato v. Atty. Asuncion, Jr.[27]

citing Yap v. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., this Court explained the concept of gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant

unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice; i.e.,

conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. Themotive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.

As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be well-versed in the Rulesof Procedure. This expectation is imposed upon members of the legal profession, because

membership in the bar is in the category of a mandate for public service of the highest order.

Lawyers are oath-bound servants of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible

norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth andjustice, for which they have sworn to be fearless crusaders.[34]

As judge of a first-level court, respondent is expected to know that he has no jurisdiction to

entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Moreover, he is presumed to know that in his capacityas judge, he cannot render a legal opinion in the absence of a justiciable question. Displaying an

utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he in effect erodes the publics confidence in the

competence of our courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his ignorance of the power and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/am_p_96_1182.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/am_p_96_1182.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/am_p_96_1182.html#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/5355.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/am_p_96_1182.html#_ftn8


2/23

responsibility that attach to the processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of

the bar should know.

Canon 1 of the Code of Pr ofessional Responsibi li tymandates that a lawyer must uphold the

Constitution and promote respect for the legal processes.

INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE OF THE LAWin violation of Canons 1 and 10, Rule10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

CANON 1A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote

respect for law and legal processes.

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.

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 incourt; 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 ofpaper, 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.

II. LAWYERS OATH

Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999

In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct forviolating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibi l i tywhich provides that a

lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They revealmoral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others

should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is theessence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a

sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.[6]

The nature of the office of an attorney

requires that he should be a person of good moral character.[7]

This requisite is not only acondition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential

for remaining in the practice of law.[8]

We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn6


3/23

lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt

as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.[9]

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that

they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of

such privilege.

[10]

We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened withconditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be

deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after

giving him the opportunity to be heard.[11]

Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the

IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective ofunprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis

from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward

complainant.

In Re: Petition Of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyers Oath, B.M. No. 712, March 19, 1997

We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for

practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn

promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictlyaccording to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration ofjustice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned.

De Guzman vs. De Dios, A.C. No. 4943. January 26, 2001

As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission

and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and discretion. Thelawyers oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension,

disbarment, or other disciplinary action.

Berenguer vs. Carranza, A.C. No. 716 January 30, 1969

A lawyer's oath is one impressed with the utmost seriousness; it must not be taken lightly. Every

lawyer must do his best to live up to it. There would be a failure of justice if courts cannot rely

on the submission as well as the representations made by lawyers, insofar as the presentation ofevidence, whether oral or documentary, is concerned. If, as unfortunately happened in this case,

even without any intent on the part of a member of the bar to mislead the court, such deplorable

event did occur, he must not be allowed to escape the responsibility that justly attaches to aconduct far from impeccable.

III. THE PRACTICE OF LAW

Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Black defi nes " practice of law" as:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/AC%205118.htm#_edn9


4/23

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal

principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not

limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions

and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all

kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clientsand all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorneyengages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-

an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling

clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pendinglitigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate.

(Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)

The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer orinvolve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as

the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their

respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment asmembers or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.

ULEP vs. Legal Clinic, Inc. Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly

qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an

individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of

moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the

bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject tothe disciplinary control of the court.

Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,

honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. He is not supposed to

use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatoryor unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or

give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,

publicity to attract legal business. Prior to the adoption of the code of Professional

Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort

to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiringnewspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in

which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the

magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other likeself-laudation.

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


5/23

manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The prescription against advertising of legal

services or solicitation of legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the

practice of law is a profession.

Exceptions to the rul e against advert ising or solicitation:

Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conductimposed by the canons, 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 ofhis 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 andoffices 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."

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a meresupplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published

principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief

biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.

Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management orcontents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower

the dignity or standing of the profession.

The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may containonly 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.

The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes inthe partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the

profession, is not objectionable.

He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designationof special branch of law.

Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-12426, February 16, 1959

The practice of lawis not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the

preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, themanagement of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, andin addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in

mattersconnected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services

contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement

of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings inattachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice,

as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the


6/23

determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p.

262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)

Practice of l awunder modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of

any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing,

the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution oflegal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other

affairs.Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they

are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degreeof legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to

difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law

bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far

as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of thelawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and drafting of

instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold

customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound

moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which restsupon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666,

citingIn re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted inRhode Is. Bar Assoc. v.Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144).

In conclusion, we hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by

this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before thePatent Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation

and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as

well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the

Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders anddecisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court.

Aguirre vs. Rana, B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited topersons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The

exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational

attainment, and even public trust[4]

since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate

does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice oflaw is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the

person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.[5]

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However,

it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneysthat finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact

that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the onlyqualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites

for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oathto be administered by

this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn4


7/23

Burbe vs. Magulta, AC No. 99-634,June 10, 2002

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rules 16.01 and 18.03 which

state that respectively:

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.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in

connection therewith shall render him liable.

The Practice of LawaProfession, Not a Business

Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not acapital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a

secondary consideration. 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.

[14]

Rul e 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibi l i tystates that lawyers shall hold in trust all

moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their possession.

Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professionalethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

GUILTY of violating the above-mentioned provisions.

IV. POWER TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW

In re: Cunanan, March 18, 1985

FACTS:

RA 972Bar Fluners Act of 1953

Objectives: to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from:(a) Insufficiency of reading materials and (b) inadequate preparation. By its declared objective,

the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly

had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession.

Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded everywhere to be theexercise of a judicial function. Admission to practice have also been held to be theexercise of one of the inherent powers of the court.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/ac_99_634.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/ac_99_634.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/ac_99_634.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/ac_99_634.htm#_edn14


8/23

If the legislature cannot indirectly control the action of the courts by requiring of themconstruction of the law according to its own views, it is very plain it cannot do so

directly, by settling aside their judgments, compelling them to grant new trials, ordering

the discharge of offenders, or directing what particular steps shall be taken in the progressof a judicial inquiry.

HELD: In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952, ageneral average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be admitted in

mass to the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment a judgment

revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited year affecting the bar candidates

concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments even now, forjustifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive

department, that may be so. Any attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear

usurpation of its functions, as is the case with the law in question.

That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rule

promulgated by this Tribunal, concerning the admission to the practice of law, is no validargument. Section 13, article VIII of the Constitution provides:

Section 13.The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading,practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be

uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive

rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, andare declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the

same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning

pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.

Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13.

The ultimate power to grant license for Practice of Law belongs EXCLUSIVELY to the court,

and the law passed by the Congress is of PERMISSIVE character (merely to fix the minimumcondition for the license).

Republic Act No. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor

effectfor the following reasons, to wit:

1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of

1946-1952, and who, it admits, are certainly inadequately prepared to practice law, as was

exactly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these

candidates, depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at present alreadyprepared to become members of the Bar. It obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to

reason and in an arbitrary manner. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional

responsibility of the Supreme Court.

2. Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of

these 810 candidates, without having examined their respective examination papers, andalthough it is admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable


9/23

reasons, only this Court and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to do it directly

Republic Act No. 972 violated the Constitution.

3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and

supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. Such additional or amendatory rules are, as they

ought to be, intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improveand elevate the practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum norms

towards that end in the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the

Bar, inasmuch as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions andis essential to a worthy administration of justice. It is therefore the primary and inherent

prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and

may continue in the practice of law according to existing rules.

4. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates, which the law makes, is

contrary to facts which are of general knowledge and does not justify the admission to the Bar of

law students inadequately prepared. The pretended classification is arbitrary. It is undoubtedly a

class legislation.

5. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what theConstitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of article 1, the entire law is

void.

6. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the

examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part of article 1, insofar as it concerns the examinations in

those years, shall continue in force.

Decision of the the eight members of the Court:

1. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946

to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and, therefore, void and withoutforce and effect.

2. That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1 which refers to theexaminations subsequent to the approval of the law, that is from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid

and shall continue to be in force, in conformity with section 10, article VII of the Constitution.

Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the

examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates who in the

examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or more, without having agrade below 50 per cent in any subject, are considered as having passed, whether they havefiled petitions for admission or not. After this decision has become final, they shall be permitted

to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates

that the chief Justice may set.

RATIONALE: The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and

efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An


10/23

adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be

developed constantly and maintained firmly. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of

property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially of those inadequately preparedindividuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger.

Moreover, the statement that there was an insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly

exaggerated.

Florence Teves Macarubbo v. Atty. Edmundo L. Mararubbo, ADM Case No. 6148,

January 22, 2013

Charge: WHEREFORE, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of gross immoralityand is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is likewise ORDERED to show

satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and to this Court that he issupporting or has made provisions for the regular support of his two children by complainant.

Let respondent's name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

FACTS:Respondent here has 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.

Respondent also failed to support his children by complainant. Such pattern of misconduct byrespondent 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 bechecked if not stopped.

HELD:As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character butmust also be perceived to be of good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the

highest moral standards of the community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of amember of the bar to continue as such, including that which makes a mockery of the inviolablesocial institution of marriage,

51outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the

community.

In sum, respondent has breached the following precepts of the Code of Professional

Responsibility:

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

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 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practicelaw, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit

of the legal profession.

Javellana vs. DILG, et. al., G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992


11/23

Petition: Right of a public official to engage in the practice of his profession while employed inthe Government. PETITION DENIED.

FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of

Bago City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously engaged in the practice of law

without securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of LocalGovernment, as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG

Memorandum Circular No. 74-58.

As to members of the bar the authority given for them to practice their profession shallalways be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In all

cases, the practice of any profession should be favorably recommended by the

Sanggunian concerned as a body and by the provincial governors, city or municipal

mayors, as the case may be.

c) That no conflict of interests between the practice of profession or engagement inprivate employment and the official duties of the concerned official shall arise thereby;

Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) was

signed into law, Section 90 of which provides:

Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. - (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited

from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of theirfunctions as local chief executives.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(b)Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach inschools except during session hours:Provided, That sanggunian members who are members ofthe Bar shall not:

(1)Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or anyoffice, 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 proceedingsinvolving the local government unit of whichhe is an official;and

(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian member

concerned is defending the interest of the Government.

HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLGMemorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is

completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's

power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and

DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials toavoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of

their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.


12/23

Frias vs. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656, May 4, 2006

The court held that the defense of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings againstlawyers. And in the 2004 case ofHeck v. Santos, we declared that an administrative complaint

against a member of the bar does not prescribe.

If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to

disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as

long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a

chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liabilitythey ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the

practice of law as well as the administration of justice.No matter how much time

has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of and the

time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and barcannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.This categorical pronouncement

is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from

committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Codeof Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath.

The CBD-IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative complaintsagainst lawyers from this Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and

control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its delegated

power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the CBD-IBP should beguided by the doctrines and principles laid down by this Court.

In the Matter Of The Integration Of The Bar Of The Philippines, January 9, 1973

I ntegration of the Phi li ppine Barmeans the official unification of the entire lawyer populationof the Philippines. This requires membershipandfinancial support (in reasonable amount) of

every attorney as conditionssine qua nonto the practice of law and the retention of his name in

the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

The term " Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of

Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.

The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:

(1) Assist in the administration of justice;

(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning, professionalcompetence, public service and conduct;

(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;


13/23

(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;

(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice andprocedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information

relating thereto;

(6) Encourage and foster legal education;

(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make

reports and recommendations thereon; and

(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.

Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it possible for the legal profession to:

(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;

(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical judges and prosecuting officers;

(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplining and/or removal of

incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting officers;

(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except within its own forum,

from the assaults that politics and self-interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its

integrity, impartiality and independence;

(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting officers;

(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any monopoly of local practice

maintained through influence or position;

(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased lawyers;

(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices and set up lawyer reference

services throughout the country so that the poor may not lack competent legal service;

(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to obtain in many of our

provinces;

(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for practising attorneys in

order to elevate the standards of the profession throughout the country;

(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum fees schedules;

(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research;


14/23

(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights and obligations, on the

importance of preventive legal advice, and on the functions and duties of the Filipino lawyer; and

(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide involvement of the lawyer

population in the solution of the multifarious problems that afflict the nation.

The Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power,

under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules concerning pleading,

practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law." Indeed, the powerto integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing

that "the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar,"

Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent power, but is amere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote public interest or, more

specifically, will "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of

justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively."

The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.

The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover, clothed withpublic interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the

profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions

of the State, the administration of justice, as an officer of the court.

Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far and just that the

exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public

responsibilities.

These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action; but there canbe no collective action without an organized body; no organized body can operate effectively

without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute

to the support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficientmeans of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to

pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.

Freedom of Association.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member.He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration

actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized

and in cohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not

attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as hechooses. The body compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.


15/23

Regulatory Fee.

A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a taxis revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to

regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to push

through an Integrated Bar program without means to defray the concomitant expenses. Thedoctrine of implied powers necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.

Fair to All L awyers.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because although the requirement topay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system which

they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they

have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective

manner than they have been able to do in the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a validexercise of regulatory power by the Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and

old, at the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new regulation in exchange fornew benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.

Part II. D. Exception No. 1 of the Syllabus (Section 1, Rule 138-A, Rules of Court):

In Re: Need That Law Student Practicing Under Rule 138-A Be Actually Supervised

During Trial, Bar Matter No. 730, June 13, 1997

For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional

Trial Court under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer.Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.

Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall beunder the direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other

papers to be filed, must be signed the by supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than the physical presence of the

supervising lawyer during the hearing. This is in accordance with the thr eefold rationale behind

the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit:

1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of incompetence orinexperience of law students, who, not having as yet passed the test of professional

competence, are presumably not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;

2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be able to

protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising from some culpable action by

their law students; and


16/23

3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is allowed to

practice a particular profession without possessing the qualifications, particularly a

license, as required by law.

The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control and

supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law schools.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing before the Regional TrialCourt under the authority of Rule 138-A must be under the direct control and supervisionof a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school

and that said law student must be accompanied by a supervising lawyer in all his

appearance.

Cruz vs. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007

RULE 138-A LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE

Section 1. Conditions for Student Practice.A law student who has successfully completed his3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law

school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without

compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, boardor officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

Sec. 2.Appearance.The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall be underthe direct supervision and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly

accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers

to be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the

issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in hispersonal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides:

SEC. 34.By whom litigation is conducted. In the Court of a municipality a party mayconduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that

purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation

personally or by aid of an attorney and his appearance must be either personal or by a dulyauthorized member of the bar.

Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer isallowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in BarMatter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent

or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts.

Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution and Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch

116, Pasay City are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45,


17/23

Pasay City is DIRECTED to ADMIT the Entry of Appearance of petitioner in Criminal Case No.

00-1705 as a private prosecutor under the direct control and supervision of the public prosecutor.

V. CASES ON REQUIREENT OF CITIZENSHIP

Petition to Resume Practice of law of Benjamin Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17,2007

Re: Application for Admission to the Bar Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999

Under Ar ticle IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitut ion, the citizenship of a legitimate childborn of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon

reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship.4This right to elect

Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it provided that "(t)hose

who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteenhundred and thirty-five" are citizens of the Philippines.

5Likewise, this recognition by the 1973

Constitution was carried over to the 1987 Constitution which states that "(t)hose born before

January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age ofmajority" are Philippine citizens.

C.A. No. 625which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), Article I V of the 1935 Consti tuti on,

prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine

citizenship. Under Section 1 thereof, legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may electPhilippine citizenship by expressing such intention "in a statement to be signed and sworn to by

the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the

nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of

allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines."

VI. Cases on Requirement of good moral character:

In The Matter Of The Disqualification Of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar

Examinations And For Disciplinary Action As Member Of The Philippine Sharia Bar,

Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez, B.M. No. 1154, June 8, 2004

In Bar Matter 1209, the Court stated, thus:

It has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good

reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by

the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one

which corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is notsatisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal

law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998

The Code of Professional Responsibi li ty provides:


18/23

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

deceitful conduct.

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 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his

fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but

a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of

gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.

Immoral conducthas been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless asto show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.

Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be

so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a highdegree

[31]or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the

common sense of decency.

We explained inBarrientos vs. Daarol[33]

that, as officers of the court, lawyers must not only infact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading

lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a

member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous

relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoidscandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

Advincula vs. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007

As may be gleaned from above, the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers fromengaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a

continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continuedpossession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of

law.[6]

InAldovino v. Pujalte, Jr., we emphasized that:

This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moralcharacter of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the

integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission

which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,

honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal professionis a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer

worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/A.C.%20No.%207204.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/A.C.%20No.%207204.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/A.C.%20No.%207204.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/A.C.%20No.%207204.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jun1998/ac_3405.htm#_edn31


19/23

also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the

privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has four ostensibl e purposes,namely:

(1) to protect the public;

(2) to protect the public image of lawyers;

(3) to protect prospective clients; and

(4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with

rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful,

flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members

of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.

Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, CBD CASE No. 251, July 11, 1995

Well-settled is the rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to anadmission to the legal profession but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one's good

standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity.

The Code of Professional Responsibility

mandates:

CANON 1. . . .

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

deceitful conduct.CANON 16A 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.

Cordova vs. Cordova, A.M. No. 3249, November 29, 1989

After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We also agree

that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming the same to be

real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent

carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar andupon the Philippine Bar itself. An 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.

Tapucar vs. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998


20/23

As this Court often reminds members of the Bar, they must live up to the standards and norms

expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of

Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers must maintain a high standards of legalproficiency, as well as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they are at all

times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community approbation. Needless tostate, those whose conduct both public and private fails this scrutiny would have to bedisciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, penalized accordingly.

Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as

abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of familyobligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyers oath. Such gross misbehavior over a

long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondents character, his moral indifference

to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not

but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice inperil, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

Bacarro vs. Pinatacan, Adm. Case No. 559-SBC January 31, 1984

One of the indispensable requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar is that the applicant mustbe of good moral character. 14This requirement aims to maintain and uphold the high moral

standards and the dignity of the legal profession, and one of the ways of achieving this end is to

admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be honest and

to possess good moral character. 15"As a man of law, (a lawyer) is necessary a leader of thecommunity, looked up to as a model citizen" 16He sets an example to his fellow citizens not

only for his respect for the law, but also for his clean living. 17Thus, becoming a lawyer is more

than just going through a law course and passing the Bar examinations. One who has the loftyaspiration of becoming a member of the Philippine Bar must satisfy this Court, which has the

power, jurisdiction and duty to pass upon the qualifications, ability and moral character of

candidates for admission to the Bar, that he has measured up to that rigid and Ideal standard ofmoral fitness required by his chosen vocation.

As in the Tan cases, We hold that herein respondent Pinatacan had failed to live up to the high

moral standard demanded for membership in the Bar. He had seduced complainant intophysically submitting herself to him by promises of marriage. He even eloped with her and

brought her to another place. He got her pregnant and then told her to have an abortion When

complainant refused, he deserted her. Complainant had to track him down to ask him to help

support their child born out of wedlock, and during the few times that she was able to see him,respondent merely made promises which he apparently did not intend to keep. On top of all

these, respondent had the audacity and impudence to deny before this Court in a sworn Affidavit

the paternity of his child by complaint.

In The Matter Of The Admission To The Bar And Oath-Taking Of Successful Bar

Applicant Al C. Argosino, Petitioner. B.M. No. 712, July 13, 1995


21/23

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012

From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself,

we find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former

employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not onlyadmitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever

when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave hermoney. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his

disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover,

the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmostmoral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his

profession.

Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-

year-old minor, who for a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounterbetween the respondent and complainant was or was not with the latters 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 professionand should be disciplined accordingly.

Leda vs. Tabang, A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992

Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he

was"single" wasa gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for

which he should be made answerable.Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter I I of the Code of

Professional Responsibi li ty explicitly provides: "A lawyershall be answerable for knowinglymaking a false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for

admission to the bar." That false statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him

outrightfrom taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moralcharacter.

Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident.He has resorted to conflicting

submissions before thisCourt to suit himself.He has also engaged in devious tactics with

Complainant in order to serve his purpose. Inso doing, he has violatedCanon 10 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibi li ty, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faithto the court" as well as Rule 1001 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor

consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by anyartifice."Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers

appearing and pleading before them. Respondent, through his actuations, has been lacking in thecandor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.

Laguitan vs. Tinio, A.M. No. 3049 December 4, 1989


22/23

The Court agrees that respondent Tinio deserves to be suspended from the practice of law but not

merely because he has failed in his obligation to support the children complainant bore him but

also because for a prolonged period of time, he lived in concubinage with complainant, a courseof conduct inconsistent with the requirement of good moral character that is required for the

continued right to practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar, Concubinage imports moral

turpitude and entails a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.

Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between

two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit

behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all

forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, 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, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARREDfor grossly immoral conduct,

violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of theCode of Professional Responsibility.

In Re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975; In Re: Ramon E. Galang, A.C.

No. 1163 August 29, 1975; In Re: HON. BERNARDO PARDO, HON. RAMON

PAMATIAN, ATTY. MANUEL TOMACRUZ, ATTY. FIDEL MANALO And ATTY.

GUILLERMO PABLO, JR., Members, 1971 Bar Examining Committee, A.M. No. 1162

It is patent likewise from the records that respondent Lanuevo too undue advantage of the trust

and confidence reposed in him by the Court and the Examiners implicit in his position as Bar

Confidant as well as the trust and confidence that prevailed in and characterized his relationship

with the five members of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee, who were thus deceived and

induced into re-evaluating the answers of onlyrespondent Galang infivesubjects that resulted in

the increase of his grades therein, ultimately enabling him to be admitted a member of the

Philippine Bar.

Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rulesof Court of 1964, in connection, among others, with

the character requirement of candidates for admission to the Bar, provides that "every applicant

for admission as a member of the Bar must be ... of good moral

character ... and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral

character, and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are

pending in any court in the Philippines."

Respondent Galang when he took the Bar for the first time in 1962 did not expresslyrequire the disclosure of the applicant's criminal records, if any.


23/23

Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his criminal case ofslight physical injuries which was then and until now is pending in the City Court of

Manila; and thereafter repeatedly omitted to make mention of the same in his applications

to take the Bar examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will

support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted

authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not

wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, 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

courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental

reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

legal ethics: summary of case doctrines

Documents