10922587

LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS

based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The Court cautions anew that the State's exercise of its authority over legal education extends
only to reasonable supervision and regulation, not control.

The mandate of the LEB to supervise and regulate law schools is a police power measure in
furtherance of RA 7662's objective to promote quality legal education. However, while the
academic freedom of law schools under the Constitution cannot derogate the State's
constitutional authority to supervise and regulate schools, the Court stresses once again, as it did
in its Decision, that the exercise of such authority, through the LEB, must be merely supervisory
and regulatory. It should not amount to control. The State's supervisory authority over legal
education is one of oversight. It includes the authority to check, but not to interfere. Moreover,
the supervision and regulation of legal education as an exercise of police power, to be valid, must
be reasonable and should not transgress the Constitution. Its reasonableness must be viewed in
relation to the public's right to education concomitant with the State's constitutional duty to
protect and promote the right of its citizens to quality education at all levels.

Given the foregoing, the Court reiterates that "Section 7 (e) of R.A. No. 7662, insofar as it gives
the LEB the power to prescribe the minimum standards for law admission is faithful to the
reasonable supervision and regulation clause. It merely authorizes the LEB to prescribe minimum
requirements not amounting to control." However, the LEB will do well to remember to exercise
its discretion soundly, consistent only with its authority under the statute and the Constitution.
It should not gravely abuse its discretion as this Court shall not shirk from its sworn duty to
enforce the Constitution. In clear cases, it will not hesitate to give effect to the supreme law by
setting aside a statute in conflict therewith. The Court shall exercise the power of judicial review
by the mere enactment of a law or approval of a challenged action when such is seriously alleged
to have infringed the Constitution. This includes violation of the fundamental rights of institutions
of higher learning under their academic freedom. Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, G.R. Nos.
230642, 242954 & A.M. No. 20-03-04-SC (Resolution), (09 November 2021)

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

For a non-member of the bar, the penalty of disbarment is not available.

Considering the foregoing, there is no need to resolve the merits of the case and determine
whether or not “Atty. Patrick Caronan” is guilty of the violations imputed against him. After all,
disciplinary proceedings conducted by the IBP are reserved only for those belonging in the legal
profession. Clearly, respondent is not and was never a member of the bar. Hence, the penalty of
disbarment is not available to him. Besides, AA and Reyes’ prayer that respondent be forever
barred from the law practice and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys was already imposed

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

upon respondent as among his penalties in A.C. No. 11316. AA Total Learning Center for Young
Achievers, Inc. vs. Caronan, 935 SCRA 41, A.C. No. 12418 March 10, 2020

Double jeopardy or In Pari Delicto are not available as defenses as to bar the disciplinary
proceedings against an erring lawyer.

We also take this opportunity to reiterate that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a
class of their own, distinct from and may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. There
is no prejudicial question not proscription that will prevent it from proceeding. Double jeopardy
or In Pari Delicto are also not available as defenses as to bar the disciplinary proceedings against
an erring lawyer. It should be noted that it can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court
or the IBP and even without a complaint and can proceed regardless of lack of interest of the
complainants, if the facts proven so warrant. AA Total Learning Center for Young Achievers, Inc.
vs. Caronan, 935 SCRA 41, A.C. No. 12418 March 10, 2020

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one who is assuming to be an
attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect
contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

Such a finding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt and must be reached after the
filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case, while it appears quite clearly that
petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice
of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge
pertaining thereto has been filed against him. In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, 706
SCRA 264, B.M. No. 2540 September 24, 2013

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

The CPRA expressly provides that it shall have a retroactive application, that is, it shall be
applied to all pending cases.

At this point, it must be noted that the CPR, under which Atty. Gadon was charged with
disbarment, has been expressly repealed by the new Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability (CPRA). On April 11, 2023, the Court unanimously approved the CPRA to make the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

code governing lawyers' behavior more responsive to the needs of the times. After its publication
in two newspapers of general circulation on May 14, 2023, the CPRA took effect 15 days
thereafter, or on May 30, 2023. Significantly, the CPRA expressly provides that it shall have a
retroactive application, that is, it shall be applied to all pending cases, including this one. Thus,
although the act for which Atty. Gadon was ordered to show cause why he should not be
disbarred was committed during the effectivity of the outdated CPR, the Court shall evaluate his
act using the provisions of the new CPRA. In Re: Atty. Lorenzo Gadon’s Viral Video Against Raissa
Robles, A.C. No. 13521, June 27, 2023

A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen
at another.

Lawyers, as Section 2 of Canon II provides, are expected to avoid scandalous behavior, whether
in public or private life. This is reiterated in Sections 3 and 4 of the same Canon, which
respectively prohibit the creation or promotion of an unsafe or hostile environment, both in
private and public settings, and command the use of dignified, gender-fair, child and culturally-
sensitive language in all personal and professional dealings. The Court has consistently reminded
lawyers that they cannot segregate their public life from their private affairs. In Re: Atty. Lorenzo
Gadon’s Viral Video Against Raissa Robles, A.C. No. 13521, June 27, 2023

Unfounded criticisms against members of the Judiciary degrade the judicial office and greatly
interfere with the due performance of their functions in the Judiciary.

Thus, any Court decision or resolution, such as the January 4, 2022 Resolution, does not depend
on the whim of any one Justice. Absent any proof that the January 4, 2022 Resolution was
instigated or facilitated by either Senior Associate Justice Leonen or Justice Caguioa, there is no
reason for them to inhibit from participating in the resolution of the case. The pernicious
insinuation is that either or both Senior Associate Justice Leonen and/or Justice Caguioa can
impose their will on the rest of the Court. To stress, the January 4, 2022 Resolution was issued by
the Court En Banc, not by any of the Justices in their individual capacity. For imputing baseless
accusations of partiality against Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa, the Court
finds Atty. Gadon guilty of direct contempt of court. In Re: Atty. Lorenzo Gadon’s Viral Video
Against Raissa Robles, A.C.No. 13521, June 27, 2023

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

According to Section 36, Canon II of CPRA, a lawyer shall have the duty to understand the
benefits, risks, and ethical implications associated with the use of social media.

Thus, Atty. Gadon cannot exculpate himself by claiming that he "neither published nor posted
nor uploaded" the subject video clip onto any social media platform. As a lawyer, it was
reasonable to expect that he understood the consequences of recording the video, its benefits,
if any, risks, and ethical implications, including the likelihood of it spreading indiscriminately,
becoming available to anyone on social media, and the influence that it could have on lawyers
and non-lawyers alike, not to mention the children who have been exposed, or have yet to be
exposed, to the said video clip. Atty. Gadon failed to take these implications and consequences
into account, and in doing so, he likewise failed in upholding the edict to responsibly use social
media. In Re: Atty. Lorenzo Gadon’s Viral Video Against Raissa Robles, A.C. No. 13521, June 27,
2023

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

The practice of law is not a business. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits

The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The 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 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; and (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. Khan, Jr. vs. Simbillo, 409 SCRA 299, A.C. No. 5299,
G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003

Solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed for solicitation to be proper, it must
be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.

If it were made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to
the bar. Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and
residence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the
same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. Publication in

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon,
of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. Khan, Jr. vs. Simbillo, 409 SCRA
299, A.C. No. 5299, G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

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. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It
includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. xxx
When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of
law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the
business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law.
Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct
with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion as to the proper
interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law. Ulep vs. Legal
Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378, Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

The practice of giving out legal information constitutes practice of law.

What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and
lawyers. Its contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent
than real. In providing information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and
adoption, it strains the credulity of this Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do
is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as if it were merely a
bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, 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
as may be provided-for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for which
services it will consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the
jurisprudential definition of “practice of law.” Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact
that respondent corporation does not represent clients in court since law practice, as the weight
of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances but extends to legal research, giving
legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth. Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378, Bar Matter
No. 553 June 17, 1993

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The services offered by respondent cannot be performed by paralegals here as distinguished

from the United States.

Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by respondent, there are
schools and universities there which offer studies and degrees in paralegal education, while there
are none in the Philippines. As the concept of the “paralegal” or “legal assistant” evolved in the
United States, standards and guidelines also evolved to protect the general public. One of the
major standards or guidelines was developed by the American Bar Association which set up
Guidelines for the Approval of Legal Assistant Education Programs (1973). Legislation has even
been proposed to certify legal assistants. There are also associations of paralegals in the United
States with their own code of professional ethics, such as the National Association of Legal
Assistants, Inc. and the American Paralegal Association. In the Philippines, we still have a
restricted concept and limited acceptance of what may be considered as paralegal service. As
pointed out by FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been allowed
limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable services
are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefor. Ulep
vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378, Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise.

Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility 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-laudatory or
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 inspiring newspaper
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 like self-laudation. Ulep
vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378, Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the
profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the
extent to which they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely,
those which are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied from the
restrictions.

The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with
the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. The
use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may 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. The publication of a simple announcement of the
opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable. Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223
SCRA 378, Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the
application of procedural rules. The exception to the rule is “when the reckless or gross
negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law.”

The agency created between a counsel and a client is a highly fiduciary relationship. A counsel
becomes the eyes and ears in the prosecution or defense of his or her client’s case. This is
inevitable because a competent counsel is expected to understand the law that frames the
strategies he or she employs in a chosen legal remedy. Counsel carefully lays down the procedure
that will effectively and efficiently achieve his or her client’s interests. Counsel should also have
a grasp of the facts, and among the plethora of details, he or she chooses which are relevant for
the legal cause of action or defense being pursued. It is these indispensable skills, among others,
that a client engages. Of course, there are counsels who have both wisdom and experience that
give their clients great advantage. There are still, however, counsels who wander in their
mediocrity whether consciously or unconsciously. Ong Lay Hin vs. Court of Appeals, 748 SCRA
198, G.R. No. 191972 January 26, 2015

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The unjustified withholding of funds belonging to the client warrants the imposition of
disciplinary action against the lawyer.

In Macarilay v. Seriña, 458 SCRA 12 (2005), this Court held that “[t]he unjustified withholding of
funds belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against the lawyer.”
By absconding with the money entrusted to him by his client and behaving in a manner not
befitting a member of the bar, respondent violated the following Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Plumptre vs. Rivera, 799 SCRA 639, A.C. No. 11350 August 9, 2016

A lawyer is duty-bound to protect his client’s interest and the degree of service expected of him
is his entire devotion the interest of the client.

As his client’s advocate, a lawyer is duty-bound to protect his client’s interests and the degree of
service expected of him in this capacity is his “entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability.” The lawyer also has a fiduciary duty, with the lawyer-client relationship imbued with
utmost trust and confidence. xxx A lawyer must, at no time, lack probity and moral fiber, which
are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the bar but are likewise essential demands
for his continued membership. xxx “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” Further, “a lawyer shall not state or
imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.” Plumptre vs.
Rivera, 799 SCRA 639, A.C. No. 11350 August 9, 2016

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

A lawyer’s personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires
respect and obedience to the law, on the part of the public.

Membership in the legal profession is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in
law, but also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the
public’s faith in the legal profession. “To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect
the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering
that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is
imperative that they live by the law.” Jimenez vs. Francisco, 744 SCRA 215, A.C. No. 10548
December 10, 2014

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

It needs to be emphasized that the lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the
expense of truth and justice, and must be held within the bounds of reason and common sense.

Time and again, the Court has reminded lawyers that their support for the cause of their clients
should never be attained at the expense of truth and justice. While a lawyer owes absolute
fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability,
he must do so only within the bounds of the law. It needs to be emphasized that the lawyer’s
fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice, and must be held
within the bounds of reason and common sense. His responsibility to protect and advance the
interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious
intentions. Jimenez vs. Francisco, 744 SCRA 215, A.C. No. 10548 December 10, 2014

In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations in the complaint by
preponderant evidence.

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior
to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to
the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Jimenez vs.
Francisco, 744 SCRA 215, A.C. No. 10548 December 10, 2014

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

A lawyer must not only be knowledgeable of the law and the rules of procedure. He must by
himself or herself abide by the law and rules, as well.

To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but this
statement’s profound importance can never be overstressed. Considering that, of all classes and
professions, lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that they also
live by the law. The lawyer is the nexus of the common people to the law and the rules of
procedure. For the lawyer deals directly with clients, and he or she is the one who explains to the
latter the legal procedures and remedies available to them. It is imperative, therefore, that a
lawyer must not only be knowledgeable of the law and the rules of procedure. He must by himself
or herself abide by the law and rules, as well. Lawyers are officers of the court. They are called
upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system to protect

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

and uphold truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings,
especially with the court. Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486 October 15, 2019

Respondent’s act of unduly extending the proceedings in these cases clearly run counter to the
objective of the Rules of Court to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding.

Records reveal that in order to unduly prolong the proceedings in different cases filed against
him, respondent had interposed numerous appeals and petitions from issuances rendered by
courts in these cases. A template for this kind of practice, G.R. No. 157659 and G.R. No. 157660,
respondent deliberately ignored the final and executory decisions therein and disregarded the
writs of possession correspondingly issued by the courts. Respondent’s dilatory and vexatious
tactics were obviously to delay the full enforcement of the courts’ decisions that were adverse
to him. It is a fundamental rule that it is the ministerial duty of courts of law to issue a writ of
possession once the decision in a case becomes final and executory. As it was, however, despite
finality, respondent did not recognize these decisions, rendering them inutile. Worse, respondent
employed all possible ways to stall the execution of the final and executory decisions.
Respondent’s act of unduly extending the proceedings in these cases clearly run counter to the
objective of the Rules of Court to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding. Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486 October 15, 2019

Respondent has not disobeyed a lawful court order only on a single occasion. On the contrary,
he has repeatedly defied court issuances and abused processes which should have otherwise
been availed of only by litigants with genuine causes.

This imperative proceeds from a lawyer’s duty as an officer of the court to uphold the law and
help in the efficient dispensation of justice. Respondent had miserably failed to discharge this
duty. The Court keenly notes that respondent has not disobeyed a lawful court order only on a
single occasion. On the contrary, he has repeatedly defied court issuances and abused processes
which should have otherwise been availed of only by litigants with genuine causes. Respondent’s
circumvention of a lawful court order is aggravated by his use of his knowledge of law as a tool
to perpetrate disrespect for court dispositions and his purpose to harass judges, court personnel,
lawyers, and adverse parties alike. The misuse and abuse of court procedures by lawyers like
respondent is abhorred. Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486 October 15, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

By provoking a sitting Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) to a debate, respondent violated his
basic obligation under the Rules of Court to obey the laws of the Philippines, and to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

It is a lawyer’s sworn duty to maintain a respectful attitude towards the courts. There is, thus, no
rhyme or reason for respondent’s reprehensible and arrogant behavior in challenging a Justice
of the Court of Appeals to a public debate. Even assuming that the decision rendered by a
magistrate is, according to the losing lawyer, erroneous and completely devoid of basis in law,
evidence, and jurisprudence, a person, let alone a lawyer, should not act contemptuously by
challenging the judge or justice concerned to a public debate that would unavoidably expose him
or her and the entire Judiciary which he or she represents, to public ridicule and mockery. A
lawyer must foster respect for the courts and its officers. A lawyer must not sow hate or
disrespect against the court and its members. He or she must be at the forefront in upholding its
dignity. A lawyer, more than anyone, must know that there are proper venues for grievances
against a magistrate or his or her decision or orders, which are sanctioned by law. Debate, a
public one at that, is not one of these remedies. By provoking a sitting Justice of the Court of
Appeals to a debate, respondent violated his basic obligation under the Rules of Court to obey
the laws of the Philippines, and to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers. Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486 October 15, 2019

The power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most imperative
reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and member of the bar.

The Court has to ask itself whenever this remedy is considered — Do the transgressions of the
erring lawyer justify his or her disbarment? What circumstances in the erring lawyer’s life can we
draw upon to avoid disbarment as an outcome? Would the legal profession be better off without
this erring lawyer in the Roll of Attorneys, and would others be deterred from following the erring
lawyer’s type of practice? Here, the Court has considered these questions and more. We have
found out that respondent has demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the law, the rules, and
the courts by his repeated transgressions, disobedience to court issuances, and arrogant
behavior towards not just a sitting Justice of the Court of Appeals but several of them whose
names are not recorded here, those other judges and justices who have been the subject of his
vituperative style of practicing law. Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486 October
15, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The Supreme Court (SC) has repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good character
as part of a lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his profession, because the practice of law is
a sacred and noble profession.

Respondent was previously suspended for employing dilatory tactics in the enforcement of the
decision in Mallari v. GSIS and Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga. By his actions, respondent had
definitely shown to have fallen below the bar set for the legal profession. The Court has
repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good character as part of a lawyer’s
equipment in the practice of his profession, because the practice of law is a sacred and noble
profession. We do not want this profession to become the subject of ill will by the public and
source of public disrepute. Being a lawyer is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who
are competent intellectually, academically and morally. Indeed, it is a time-honored rule that
good character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the legal profession. To cap it all, respondent has not
shown any bit of remorse for his conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the legal profession.
He has not seen the errors of his ways, and this is the most troubling occasion for the present
case. He is and has been incapable of reform. Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486
October 15, 2019

There is more reason to remove respondent from the legal profession for showing a proclivity
to disobeying the law and discourtesy and contempt of authority and decency as the practice
of law demands.

Embido v. Pe, 708 SCRA 1 (2013), reminds lawyers, thus: No lawyer should ever lose sight of the
verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to
the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe
and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private
capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and
omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but also for gross
misconduct not directly connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the
office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him.
Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and
obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or
private capacity. The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. To repeat, the Court looks deeply into the totality
of the circumstances of a respondent attendant to a disciplinary case against him or her. We are
not blind to both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in choosing the appropriate remedy
for a particular case. Just like when the wind blows, the Court knows one when it feels one.
Genato vs. Mallari, 924 SCRA 271, A.C. No. 12486 October 15, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Lawyers, as guardians of the law, are mandated to obey and respect the laws of the land and
to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

They should at all times, whether in their public or private life, “conduct themselves in a manner
that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.” Thus they should not engage in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct. Andaya vs. Tumanda, 932 SCRA 417, A.C. No. 12209 February 18, 2020

Respondent obtained a loan from complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 and in exchange
thereof issued a worthless check to complainant. This fact alone is a ground for disciplinary
action as it constitutes gross misconduct.

In this case, respondent obtained a loan from complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 and in
exchange thereof issued a worthless check to complainant. This fact alone is a ground for
disciplinary action as it constitutes gross misconduct. It indicates his unfitness for the trust and
confidence reposed upon him and his lack of personal honesty and good moral character
rendering him unworthy of public confidence. In Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, 717 SCRA 663 (2014),
the Court explained that a lawyer who issues a worthless check is in breach of his oath to obey
the laws. Andaya vs. Tumanda, 932 SCRA 417, A.C. No. 12209 February 18, 2020

Aside from issuing a worthless check, respondent has acted in utmost bad faith when he sold
to another person the Mercedes Benz he previously sold to complainant as full payment for the
loan obligation.

His deliberate failure to settle his obligation despite repeated demands is in itself a gross
misconduct for which he may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law.
As pointed out by complainant in his Complaint-Affidavit and as aptly found by the IBP,
respondent has been using several addresses to avoid being traced and to evade his obligation
to complainant. In fact, because of this, the IBP had to send copies of the Notice of Hearing to
the different addresses of respondent as he could not be located. Such aberrant behavior of
respondent lays bare his lack of integrity and moral soundness. In addition, respondent even
refused to answer the accusations against him and to appear in the mandatory conferences
despite due notice, thereby causing undue delay in the resolution of the instant case. All these
circumstances taken together justify the imposition upon respondent of a three-year suspension
from the practice of law. It bears stressing that the determination of the appropriate penalty to
be imposed on an erring lawyer is within the sound judicial discretion of the court taking into
consideration the factual circumstances of the case. Andaya vs. Tumanda, 932 SCRA 417, A.C.
No. 12209 February 18, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is required to possess.

It may be defined as “what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the
opinion generally entertained of him, or 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.” Such requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect the
public; (b) to protect the public image of lawyers; (c) to protect prospective clients; and (d) to
protect errant lawyers from themselves. Reyes vs. Nieva, 802 SCRA 196, A.C. No. 8560
September 6, 2016

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar
but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive
and honored fraternity.

Verily, lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the
Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this
exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred
for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Reyes vs. Nieva, 802 SCRA 196,
A.C. No. 8560 September 6, 2016

It has been established that respondent habitually watches pornographic materials in his
office-issued laptop while inside the office premises, during office hours, and with the
knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Supreme Court (SC) cannot countenance
such audacious display of depravity on respondent’s part not only because his obscene habit
tarnishes the reputation of the government agency he works for — the Civil Aviation Authority
of the Philippines (CAAP) where he was engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary —
but also because it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light.

As a lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected to perform and discharge his
duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and with
utmost devotion and dedication to duty. However, his aforesaid habit miserably fails to showcase
these standards, and instead, displays sheer unprofessionalism and utter lack of respect to the
government position he was entrusted to hold. His flimsy excuse that he only does so by himself
and that he would immediately close his laptop whenever anyone would pass by or come near
his table is of no moment, because the lewdness of his actions, within the setting of this case,
remains. The legal profession — much more an engagement in the public service should always
be held in high esteem, and those who belong within its ranks should be unwavering exemplars
of integrity and professionalism. As keepers of the public faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal
affairs with greater caution. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist in the dispensation
of justice should be more possessed of the consciousness and the will to overcome the weakness
of the flesh, as respondent in this case. Reyes vs. Nieva, 802 SCRA 196, A.C. No. 8560 September
6, 2016

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
Supreme Court (SC) into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.

The evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance of evidence

— is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this
type of cases. As case law elucidates, “[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis.
Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is
rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to
inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff
nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its
primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still
a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers,
the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the
Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and
honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct
have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak
of a complainant or a prosecutor.” Reyes vs. Nieva, 802 SCRA 196, A.C. No. 8560 September 6,
2016

Respondent exhibited his immoral behavior through his habitual watching of pornographic
materials while in the office and his acts of sexual harassment against complainant.

Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative cases where the lawyer exhibited immoral
conduct, the Court meted penalties ranging from reprimand to disbarment. In Advincula v.
Macabata, 517 SCRA 600 (2007), the lawyer was reprimanded for his distasteful act of suddenly
turning the head of his female client towards him and kissing her on the lips. In De Leon v.
Pedreña, 708 SCRA 13 (2013), the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years for rubbing the female complainant’s right leg with his hand, trying to insert his
finger into her firmly closed hand, grabbing her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area,
and pressing his finger against her private part. While in Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007), and

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 15 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Valdez v. Dabon, Jr., 775 SCRA 1 (2015), the Court meted the extreme penalty of disbarment on
the erring lawyers who engaged in extramarital affairs. Here, respondent exhibited his immoral
behavior through his habitual watching of pornographic materials while in the office and his acts
of sexual harassment against complainant. Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court
deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
for a period of two (2) years. Reyes vs. Nieva, 802 SCRA 196, A.C. No. 8560 September 6, 2016

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality of

the same decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery.

The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of the
simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only upon
the complainant’s persistent prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the
explanation is unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation
of a court decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright criminal
falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it was worse in the respondent’s
case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate
falsification of the court decision and the certificate of finality of the decision reflected a high
degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the administration of justice in this
country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.

That a lay person like the complainant could have swayed a lawyer like the respondent into
committing the simulations was patently improbable.

The respondent would shift the blame to his client. That a lay person like the complainant could
have swayed a lawyer like the respondent into committing the simulations was patently
improbable. Yet, even if he had committed the simulations upon the client’s prodding, he would
be no less responsible. Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly those quoted earlier, which would have been
enough to deter him from committing the falsification, as well as to make him unhesitatingly
frustrate her prodding in deference to his sworn obligation as a lawyer to always act with honesty
and to obey the laws of the land. Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express
undertaking under his Lawyer’s Oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission.”
Indeed, the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined every lawyer like him to act with the
highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. Madria
vs. Rivera, 819 SCRA 261, A.C. No. 11256 March 7, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 16 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most imperative
reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and member of the bar.

It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most
imperative reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. But we do not hesitate when the
misconduct is gross, like in the respondent’s case. We wield the power now because the
respondent, by his gross misconduct as herein described, absolutely forfeited the privilege to
remain in the Law Profession. Madria vs. Rivera, 819 SCRA 261, A.C. No. 11256 March 7, 2017

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend;
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a
consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.
Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr, 405 SCRA 212, A.C. No. 5148 July 1, 2003

Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and
civility. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and
demeanor toward each other.

Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility.
A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations
with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one
another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence
counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified
recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the
legal profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.
Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr, 405 SCRA 212, A.C. No. 5148 July 1, 2003

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 17 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit
violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.

Respondent claims that it was his client who insisted in impleading complainant and Prosecutor
Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and unacceptable. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the
interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud
or chicanery. Their rendition of improper service invites stern and just condemnation.
Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients
when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law. Reyes
vs. Chiong, Jr, 405 SCRA 212, A.C. No. 5148 July 1, 2003

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

In view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against forum shopping to
be attached to the complaint, if one is required at all in such proceedings, must refer to another
administrative case for disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent.

In view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against forum shopping to be
attached to the complaint, if one is required at all in such proceedings, must refer to another
administrative case for disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent, because such
other proceedings or “action” is one that necessarily involves “the same issues” as the one posed
in the disbarment complaint to which the certification is supposedly to be attached. Pena vs.
Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444, A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

It would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided, i.e., the filing of multiple suits and the
possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely happens in disbarment complaints.

It would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided,i.e., the filing of multiple suits and the
possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely happens in disbarment complaints considering that said
proceedings are either “taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person.” Thus, if the complainant in a
disbarment case fails to attach a certification against forum shopping, the pendency of another
disciplinary action against the same respondent may still be ascertained with ease. We have
previously held that the rule requiring a certification of forum shopping to accompany every
initiatory pleading, “should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own
ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure—which is to achieve
substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.” Pena vs. Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444, A.C. No. 7298
June 25, 2007

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 18 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The act of a lawyer in sending a demand letter threatening someone that should the latter fail
to pay the amounts he and his client propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification
of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws, is not
only unethical, but also amounts to blackmail.

Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts they
propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well
as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business
license to operate due to violations of laws. xxx Blackmail is “the extortion of money from a
person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints,…obtaining of value
from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing
some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice.” In common parlance and in general
acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money either for
the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not
infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises
to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim. Pena vs.
Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444, A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

It is quite obvious that the respondent lawyer’s threat to file the cases against complainant was
designed to secure some leverage to compel the latter to give in to his client’s demands, not
respondent’s intention to point out complainant’s violations of the law as he so gallantly
claims.

Respondent does not find anything wrong with what he wrote, dismissing the same as merely an
act of pointing out massive violations of the law by the other party, and, with boldness, asserting
that “a lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth, to report to the government commission of
offenses punishable by the State.” He further asserts that the writing of demand letters is a
standard practice and tradition and that our laws allow and encourage the settlement of
disputes. Respondent’s assertions, however, are misleading, for it is quite obvious that
respondent’s threat to file the cases against complainant was designed to secure some leverage
to compel the latter to give in to his client’s demands. It was not respondent’s intention to point
out complainant’s violations of the law as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even
contains an implied promise to “keep silent” about the said violations if payment of the claim is
made on the date indicated. Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and
tradition in this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal agent
relationship that he has with his client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent,
the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his client’s claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect
it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a specified period. However, the
letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 19 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client’s claim for
separation pay. The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to
yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Pena vs. Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444, A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

The privileged nature of a demand letter is removed when a lawyer uses it to blackmail
someone and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client.

Respondent cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged communication rule under
which a private communication executed in the performance of a legal duty is not actionable.
The privileged nature of the letter was removed when respondent used it to blackmail
complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client. Pena vs.
Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444, A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

The making of untruthful statements in the Personal Data Sheets (PDS) amounts to dishonesty
and falsification of an official document.

In Ratti v. Mendoza-De Castro, 435 SCRA 11 (2004), we held that the making of untruthful
statements in the PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document.
Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from
the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification from reemployment in the government service. Respondent, a judge, knows (or
should have known) fully well that the making of a false statement in his PDS could subject him
to dismissal. This Court will not allow him to evade the consequences of his dishonesty. Being a
former public prosecutor and a judge now, it is his duty to ensure that all the laws and rules of
the land are followed to the letter. His being a judge makes it all the more unacceptable. There
was an obvious lack of integrity, the most fundamental qualification of a member of the judiciary.
Samson vs. Caballero, 595 SCRA 423, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009

A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates his oath as a lawyer.

Since membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in the bench, the moral
fitness of a judge also reflects his moral fitness as a lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules
of judicial conduct also violates his oath as a lawyer. In this particular case, respondent’s

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 20 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

dishonest act was against the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court.” Samson vs. Caballero, 595 SCRA 423, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009

The standard of integrity imposed on members of the judiciary is—and should be—higher than
that of the average person for it is their integrity that gives them the right to judge.

The first step towards the successful implementation of the Court’s relentless drive to purge the
judiciary of morally unfit members, officials and personnel necessitates the imposition of a rigid
set of rules of conduct on judges. The Court is extraordinarily strict with judges because, being
the visible representation of the law, they should set a good example to the bench, bar and
students of the law. The standard of integrity imposed on them is—and should be—higher than
that of the average person for it is their integrity that gives them the right to judge. Samson vs.
Caballero, 595 SCRA 423, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.

It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good
moral character. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession. Alpajora
vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C. No. 8208 January 10, 2018

A case for disbarment or suspension is 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.

When lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the
rights of their client, but also of their colleagues and offends due administration of justice,
appropriate disciplinary measures and proceedings are available such as reprimand, suspension
or even disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts. The Court, however, emphasizes that a case
for disbarment or suspension is 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. Proceedings to discipline erring members of the bar are not
instituted to protect and promote the public good only, but also to maintain the dignity of the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 21 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

profession by the weeding out of those who have proven themselves unworthy thereof. Alpajora
vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C. No. 8208 January 10, 2018

The filing of cases by respondent against the adverse parties and their counsels, as correctly
observed by the Investigating Commissioner, manifests his malice in paralyzing the lawyers
from exerting their utmost effort in protecting their client’s interest.

The Court is mindful of the lawyer’s duty to defend his client’s cause with utmost zeal. However,
professional rules impose limits on a lawyer’s zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and
qualifications. The filing of cases by respondent against the adverse parties and their counsels,
as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, manifests his malice in paralyzing the
lawyers from exerting their utmost effort in protecting their client’s interest. Even assuming
arguendo that such acts were done without malice, it showed respondent’s gross indiscretion as
a colleague in the legal profession. Alpajora vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C. No. 8208 January 10,
2018

As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Here, respondent has consistently attributed unsupported imputations against the complainant
in his pleadings. He insisted that complainant antedated the order, dated August 15, 2008,
because the envelopes where the order came from were rubber stamped as having been mailed
only on August 26, 2008. He also accused the complainant judge of being in cahoots and of having
deplorable close ties with the adverse counsels; and that complainant irrefutably coached said
adverse counsels. However, these bare allegations are absolutely unsupported by any piece of
evidence. Respondent did not present any proof to establish complainant’s alleged partiality or
the antedating. The date of mailing indicated on the envelope is not the date of issue of the said
order. Alpajora vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C. No. 8208 January 10, 2018

No matter how passionate a lawyer is towards defending his client’s cause, he must not forget
to display the appropriate decorum expected of him, being a member of the legal profession,
and to continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent guilty of attributing unsupported ill motives
to complainant. It must be remembered that all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 22 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the
institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. Alpajora vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C.
No. 8208 January 10, 2018

A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to file pleadings, motions and cases as he pleases.

In defense of the multiple pleadings he filed, respondent avers that there is no law or rule that
limits the number of motions, pleadings and even cases as long as they are sufficient in form and
substance and not violative of the prohibition against forum shopping. He maintains that his
pleadings were filed in utmost good faith and for noble causes, and that he was merely exercising
his constitutionally protected rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases. Ironically,
Atty. Calayan’s indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, civil and criminal cases, and even
administrative cases against different trial court judges relating to controversies involving CEFI,
in fact, runs counter to the speedy disposition of cases. It frustrates the administration of justice.
It degrades the dignity and integrity of the courts. A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to
file pleadings, motions and cases as he pleases. Alpajora vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C. No. 8208
January 10, 2018

A lawyer’s duty, is not to his client but primarily to the administration of justice. To that end,
his client’s success is wholly subordinate.

In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, respondent apologized for not being more circumspect
with his remedies and choice of words. He admitted losing objectivity and becoming emotional
while pursuing the cases involving him and the CEFI. The Court, however, reiterates that a
lawyer’s duty, is not to his client but primarily to the administration of justice. To that end, his
client’s success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to, and must always, be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to
by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and
unethical. Alpajora vs. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99, A.C. No. 8208 January 10, 2018

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

A lawyer must build and not destroy the high esteem and regard towards the judiciary.

Compliance with the above-mentioned rules of conduct is essential for the proper administration
of justice. Respect towards the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution, without
which, it would be resting on a very shaky foundation. A lawyer must build and not destroy the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 23 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

high esteem and regard towards the judiciary. “To undermine the judicial edifice ‘is disastrous to
the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people.’” Ramos vs.
Lazo, 952 SCRA 145, A.C. No. 10204 September 14, 2020

A lawyer’s duty to respect the courts and its officers does not require blind reverence. Criticisms,
if warranted, must be respectful and ventilated through the proper forum.

Notably, a lawyer’s duty to respect the courts and its officers does not require blind reverence.
The Code does not aim to cow lawyers into silence. In fact, in Judge Lacurom v. Atty. Jacoba and
Atty. Velasco, 484 SCRA 206 (2006), this Court recognized the right of a lawyer, both as an officer
of the court and as a citizen, to criticize the acts of courts and judges in respectful terms and
through legitimate channels. Criticisms, if warranted, must be respectful and ventilated through
the proper forum. Remarkably, the lawyer’s right to criticize judges and the limits thereof have
been the subject of numerous rulings. In all of these, this Court struck a balance between the
lawyer’s right to respectfully voice his/her opinions without denigrating the administration of
justice. Reprisals that transgress the boundaries of decency and fair play are unwarranted. Ramos
vs. Lazo, 952 SCRA 145, A.C. No. 10204 September 14, 2020

Unsubstantiated accusations against judges spurred by ill motives warrant administrative

sanctions.

Markedly, unsubstantiated accusations against judges spurred by ill motives warrant

administrative sanctions. In Ret. Judge Alpajora v. Atty. Calayan, 850 SCRA 99 (2018), the lawyer
made unsupported allegations in his pleading, claiming that the Presiding Judge antedated an
Order, was in cahoots with, had “deplorable close ties with the adverse counsels,” and coached
said counsels. Ramos vs. Lazo, 952 SCRA 145, A.C. No. 10204 September 14, 2020

Lawyers owe respect and fidelity to the courts; the right to criticize is not an unbridled freedom
to malign and slander the courts and its officers; and criticisms must be supported by evidence
and ventilated in the proper forum.

Verily, in the cases cited, the malicious imputations were made against Judges/Justices in varying
forms, i.e., verbal attacks, pleadings, administrative complaints and letters. However, despite the
diverse modes of attack, the rules have remained consistent — lawyers owe respect and fidelity
to the courts; the right to criticize is not an unbridled freedom to malign and slander the courts
and its officers; and criticisms must be supported by evidence and ventilated in the proper forum.
Ramos vs. Lazo, 952 SCRA 145, A.C. No. 10204 September 14, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 24 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The moral standards of the legal profession imposes a duty upon lawyers to act with the highest
degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their practice of law. Anything
less than that calls for a member of the Bar to be held accountable in order to preserve the
dignity of the legal profession and the proper administration of justice.

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a
great degree of fidelity and good faith. As such, lawyers have the duty to account for the money
or property they receive for or from their clients. When they receive money from a client for a
particular purpose, they are bound to render an accounting of how the money was spent for the
said purpose; and, in case the money was not used for the intended purpose, they must
immediately return the money to the client. Failure of a lawyer to return the money entrusted
to him by his client upon demand creates a presumption that he has appropriated the same for
his own use. Rodco Consultancy and Maritime Services Corp. v. Concepcion, A.C. No. 7963, (29
June 2021)

Influence peddling is unethical.

Respondent's offense is further compounded by the fact that he has no qualms dropping claims
of being able to influence the outcome of cases because of his connections. Indeed, he even used
these alleged connections to ask for the money from clients. xxx The fact alone that he made it
appear he is able to dictate the outcome of a case because of such connections is already a
violation of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. It does not even matter that respondent's wife
eventually recused herself from hearing the case. The offense is consummated because the mere
claim of influence inflicts damage to the image of the judiciary and assaults the integrity of the
legal system.

The judiciary has been working tirelessly to preserve its integrity and independence. It
continuously strives to maintain an orderly administration of justice by ensuring that those who
marred its reputation would be properly sanctioned. By giving the impression that justice is
served depending on one's connections, and insinuating that the administration of justice is
susceptible to corruption and misconduct, respondent has placed the entire judiciary in a bad
light thereby eroding the public's trust and confidence in the judicial system.

A lawyer, as an officer of the court, is "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes
fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Rodco Consultancy and
Maritime Services Corp. v. Concepcion, A.C. No. 7963, (29 June 2021)

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 25 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Memorandum Circular No. 17,
Series of 1986, government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private
practice of their profession unless authorized by their department heads.

More importantly, if authorized, the practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict
with the official functions of the government official or employee. xxx In this case, respondent
was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for Mental Health, whose
authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative Order No. 21, Series of
1999. However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and
against government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest.
Respondent’s practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned on the requirement
that his practice will not be “in conflict with the interest of the Center and the Philippine
government as a whole.” Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520, A.C. No. 9018 April 20, 2016

By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same
employer he swore to serve.

There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an employee of

government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of government. By appearing against the
Office of the Ombudsman, respondent is going against the same employer he swore to serve. In
addition, the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of erring employees and their
corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, “[p]ublic office is a public trust.” The Office of the
Ombudsman, as “protectors of the [P]eople,” is mandated to “investigate and prosecute . . . any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.” Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520, A.C.
No. 9018 April 20, 2016

A conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee represents another

government employee or public officer in a case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The incumbent officer ultimately goes against government’s mandate under the Constitution to
prosecute public officers or employees who have committed acts or omissions that appear to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. Furthermore, this is consistent with the constitutional
directive that “[p]ublic officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the [P]eople,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives.” Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520, A.C. No. 9018 April 20, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 26 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or employee but to continue
to uplift the People’s trust in government and to ensure excellent public service.

The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or employee but to continue
to uplift the People’s trust in government and to ensure excellent public service: [W]hen an
officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of that officer or
employee, but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith
and confidence in the government. . . . These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated
in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken
as working standards by all in the public service. Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520, A.C. No.
9018 April 20, 2016

Lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is shown that they committed a
transgression of their oath or their duties, which reflects on their fitness to enjoy continued
status as a member of the bar.

Moreover, lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is shown that they
committed a transgression of their oath or their duties, which reflects on their fitness to enjoy
continued status as a member of the bar: The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be
exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for
the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only those
acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts
which neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser
sanction unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer’s
unfitness to continue in the practice of law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as
the motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before
suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
attended the commission of the offense should also be considered. Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA
520, A.C. No. 9018 April 20, 2016

In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage influence peddling, and in
the interest of maintaining the high ethical standards of employees in the judiciary, the
Supreme Court (SC) did not hesitate in dismissing its own employee from government service
when she peddled influence in the Court of Appeals (CA).

In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage influence peddling, and in the
interest of maintaining the high ethical standards of employees in the judiciary, this Court did not
hesitate in dismissing its own employee from government service when she peddled influence in

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 27 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

the Court of Appeals: What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of
a few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that
decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This
Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called “bad eggs” in the judiciary.
And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an
administrative case is meted to erring personnel. Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520, A.C. No.
9018 April 20, 2016

In cases involving influence peddling or bribery, “[t]he transaction is always done in secret and
often only between the two (2) parties concerned.”

In response to his alleged text messages, respondent claims that complainant must have
confused him with her other contacts. Respondent found it “mesmerizing” that complainant was
able to save all those alleged text messages from two (2) years ago. Moreover, assuming these
messages were “true, still they [were] not legally admissible as they [were] covered by the
lawyer-client privileged communication as those supposed texts ‘[had been] made for the
purpose and in the course of employment, [were] regarded as privileged and the rule of exclusion
[was] strictly enforced.’” In cases involving influence peddling or bribery, “[t]he transaction is
always done in secret and often only between the two parties concerned.” Nevertheless, as
found by the Investigating Commissioner and as shown by the records, we rule that there is
enough proof to hold respondent guilty of influence peddling. Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520,
A.C. No. 9018 April 20, 2016

Lawyers who offer no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships with regulators,
investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of law, and debase
themselves even as they claim to be members of a noble profession.

Practicing law should not degenerate to one’s ability to have illicit access. Rather, it should be
about making an honest appraisal of the client’s situation as seen through the evidence fairly and
fully gathered. It should be about making a discerning and diligent reading of the applicable law.
It is foremost about attaining justice in a fair manner. Law exists to temper, with its own power,
illicit power and unfair advantage. It should not be conceded as a tool only for those who cheat
by unduly influencing people or public officials. Fajardo vs. Alvarez, 790 SCRA 520, A.C. No. 9018
April 20, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 28 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Generally, the Supreme Court (SC) defers from taking cognizance of disbarment complaints
against lawyers in government service arising from their administrative duties, and refers the
complaint first either to the proper administrative body that has disciplinary authority over the
erring public official or employee or the Ombudsman.

Contrary to respondent’s stance, Fuji’s purported Affidavit of Desistance is not sufficient cause
to dismiss this administrative complaint. This Court has previously held that proceedings of this
nature cannot be “interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.” The
primary object of disciplinary proceedings is to determine the fitness of a member to remain in
the Bar. It is conducted solely for the public welfare, and the desistance of the complainant is
irrelevant. What will be decisive are the facts borne out by the evidence presented by the parties.
In Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93 (1998): A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the
basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has
been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding
for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff
and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest
and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the
official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the
court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has
generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice. Fuji vs. Dela Cruz, 819 SCRA 602, A.C. No. 11043 March 8, 2017

Respondent failed in the performance of her basic duties. Special prosecutors in the Bureau of
Immigration (BI) should exercise such degree of vigilance and attention in reviewing the
immigration records, whenever the legal status and documentation of an alien are at issue.

For while a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, it is
however, a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty
of a person. Respondent was expected to be reasonably thorough in her review of the documents
transmitted to her by the BI-MIS, especially as it may ultimately result in the deprivation of liberty
of the prospective deportee. She should not have simply relied on the handwritten note by a
personnel from the BI-MIS at the bottom portion of the receipt dated November 19, 2013 for 9A
visa extension stating “Valid until: 06-Dec-2013.” Had she inquired further, she would have
discovered that Fuji’s application dated July 15, 2013 for conversion from temporary visitor visa
(9A) to work visa (9G) was approved by the Board of Commissioners on November 21, 2013 —
or one (1) year and seven (7) months earlier — with validity until April 30, 2016. Thus, even if

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 29 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Fuji’s temporary visitor (9A) visa had expired on December 6, 2013 his stay in the country was
still valid under the 9G work visa. Fuji vs. Dela Cruz, 819 SCRA 602, A.C. No. 11043 March 8, 2017

Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the
Bar for misconduct in the discharge of her duties as a government official.

However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of her oath as a
lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility, then she may be subject to disciplinary
sanction by this Court. Fuji vs. Dela Cruz, 819 SCRA 602, A.C. No. 11043 March 8, 2017

Simple neglect of duty is defined as a failure to give attention to a task due to carelessness or
indifference.

Simple neglect of duty is defined as a failure to give attention to a task due to carelessness or
indifference. In this case, respondent’s negligence shows her indifference to the fundamental
right of every person, including aliens, to due process and to the consequences of her actions.
Fuji vs. Dela Cruz, 819 SCRA 602, A.C. No. 11043 March 8, 2017

Lawyers in government service should be more conscientious with their professional

obligations consistent with the time-honored principle of public office being a public trust.

The ethical standards under the Code of Professional Responsibility are rendered even more
exacting as to government lawyers because they have the added duty to abide by the policy of
the State to promote a high standard of ethics, competence, and professionalism in public
service. In this case, respondent’s negligence evinces a failure to cope with the strict demands
and high standards of public service and the legal profession. Fuji vs. Dela Cruz, 819 SCRA 602,
A.C. No. 11043 March 8, 2017

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Respondent’s statement to Dal during her recitation in class cannot be categorized as an

innocent joke only meant to lighten the mood of the class. When she was unable to comprehend
the question propounded to her, she asked him “to come again.” In response, respondent said,
“Never use slang language in my class because you might be misinterpreted. What do you
mean by ‘come again?’ It takes me several minutes before I come again.”

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 30 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

It is readily apparent that the remark is tasteless, vulgar and crude and has no place in any
academic setting. It is not a clever word play or a mere statement with sexual innuendos as its
intended meaning is obviously discernable. Respondent’s attempt at humor miserably fails as his
words clearly refer to him needing five minutes to ejaculate again. Respondent’s statements
made Dal uncomfortable and embarrassed in front of her classmates as it went beyond an
innocent joke and was instead a gross, graphic and an insensitive remark. Re: Anonymous
Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., 900 SCRA 331, A.C. No. 5900 April 10, 2019

Those privileged to practice the legal profession are expected to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality considering that they are always under the
watchful public eye scrutinizing them both in their public and private lives.

Clearly, respondent abused the power and authority he possessed over the complainants. His
sexually laced conduct had created a hostile and offensive environment which deeply prejudiced
his students. In what was supposed to be a safe place for them to learn and develop, they were
instead subjected to unwarranted sexual advances. What makes respondent’s act of sexual
harassment even more reprehensible is the fact that he is both a professor and a member of the
legal profession. Lawyers carry the burden of living up to the ethical standards of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility because public confidence in
law and in lawyers may be tainted by the irresponsible and improper conduct of members of the
Bar. Those privileged to practice the legal profession are expected to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality considering that they are always under the
watchful public eye scrutinizing them both in their public and private lives. Re: Anonymous
Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., 900 SCRA 331, A.C. No. 5900 April 10, 2019

Any errant behavior on the part of the lawyer, whether in a public or private capacity, which
tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient
to warrant suspension or disbarment.

Much is expected of lawyers in that it does not suffice that they are persons of integrity and
values, but must also appear to be so in the eyes of the people, and of God. Notwithstanding the
relativity of morality, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility — they must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. In other words,
members of the bar are measured in a more demanding light because their actions or inactions
not only affect themselves, but also the legal profession and the public’s trust and respect for the
law. As such, any errant behavior on the part of the lawyer, whether in a public or private
capacity, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor,
is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Atty.
Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., 900 SCRA 331, A.C. No. 5900 April 10, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 31 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Respondent, as a molder of minds of soon-to-be lawyers, should guide his students to behave
and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal profession.

It must be remembered that lawyers are both preachers and stewards of law, justice, morals and
fairness in that they are duty-bound to propagate observance and deference thereto. It is not
enough that they know right from wrong, just from unjust, moral or immoral, because they must
not only speak of such ideals, but must also live by them. Lawyers, aside from being competent
and adept in dealing with the intricacies of the law, must also be individuals of honor and virtue.
Legal knowledge and ability, without the guidance of morals and justice, is a dangerous tool,
which may harm, instead of uplift others. Respondent’s responsibilities and expectations are
even more heightened because he is a law professor. He should be a beacon of righteous and
conscientious conduct. Respondent, as a molder of minds of soon-to-be lawyers, should guide
his students to behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal
profession. Instead, he abused his position of authority creating an offensive and uncomfortable
atmosphere in school. Again, what should be a place of learning and growth had become a place
of fear and distrust for the affected students. Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio
P. Co Untian, Jr., 900 SCRA 331, A.C. No. 5900 April 10, 2019

It takes courage and strength to stand up and speak against any form of sexual harassment.
This is especially true considering that in most cases, the offender wields power, authority, or
influence over the victim.

It is even more disappointing that respondent fails to acknowledge the consequences of his
actions and disregard the hurt Sagarbarria, Toyco and Dal may have felt. He generally claimed
that they did not express any distress, embarrassment, or humiliation during the incidents
complained of. It must be stressed that as their law professor, respondent exercised moral
ascendancy over them. Thus, it is within reason that the concerned students could not have
readily expressed disgust or annoyance over a person in authority. It takes courage and strength
to stand up and speak against any form of sexual harassment. This is especially true considering
that in most cases, the offender wields power, authority, or influence over the victim. Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., 900 SCRA 331, A.C. No. 5900
April 10, 2019

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen
at another. Regardless of whether a lawyer is representing his client in court, acting as a
supposed spokesperson outside of it, or is merely practicing his right to press freedom as a

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 32 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

"journalist-blogger," his duties to the society and his ethical obligations as a member of the bar
remain unchanged.

Though it is true that Atty. Causing is, by all means, given the liberty to defend his client's cause
with utmost zeal, this is not without reasonable limitations. In this case, it appears that Atty.
Causing's post in Facebook was so designed to elicit, at the very least, a negative public opinion
against complainant. xxx And second, it is settled that the freedom of speech, of expression, and
of the press, like all constitutional freedoms, are not absolute. On this point, the Court's ruling in
Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra (Belo-Henares) is instructive. As in the present case, the
respondent lawyer in Belo-Henares published Facebook posts that maligned and insulted the
complaining party, which he claimed had been written in the exercise of his freedom of speech
and expression. The Court, however, rejected this defense as the "freedom of expression may not
be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or
bring them into disrepute." Thus, the Court suspended the respondent lawyer therein for a period
of one (1) year for publicly insulting the complaining party through his Facebook posts. Velasco
v. Causing, A.C. No. 12883, (02 March 2021)

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Facebook is a “voluntary social network to which members subscribe and submit information.
x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share information such as thoughts, links,
and photographs, with one another.”

Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1) billion
registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users. Social media are web-based
platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content. There
are various classifications of social media platforms and one can be classified under the “social
networking sites” such as Facebook. Facebook is a “voluntary social network to which members
subscribe and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share
information such as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another.” Users register at this
site, create a personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and
exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. A user can
post a statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone,
depending on the user’s privacy settings. Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392, A.C. No.
11394 December 1, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 33 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity —
in this case, Facebook — it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep
certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit
its visibility.

To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with
different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user’s profile, as well as
information uploaded by the user. In H v. W, the South Gauteng High Court of Johannesburg,
Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the users to “customize their privacy settings,”
but with the cautionary advice that although Facebook, as stated in its policies, “makes every
effort to protect a user’s information, these privacy settings are however not foolproof.”
Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity — in this case, Facebook — it is first necessary that said user manifests the
intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access
thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization
of Facebook’s privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation,
in the cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or her right to informational privacy. Belo-
Henares vs. Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016

Restricting the privacy of one’s Facebook posts to “Friends” does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one’s circle of friends.

The user’s own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend
thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the
former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends
of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of
which was set at “Friends.” Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent’s claim of violation
of right to privacy is negated. Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394
December 1, 2016

The constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or
half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.

Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. While the freedom of expression and the right of speech
and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, every person
exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith. As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression
may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 34 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

reputation or bring them into disrepute. A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks
complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish
the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a “quack doctor,” “Reyna ng
Kaplastikan,” “Reyna ng Payola,” and “Reyna ng Kapalpakan,” and insinuating that she has been
bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch
the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured (“binaboy”) his
client Norcio, labeling BMGI a “Frankenstein Factory,” and calling out a boycott of BMGI’s services
all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against
complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa
— which is contrary to one’s obligation “to act with justice.” Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811
SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016

By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and Belo Medical Group,
Inc. (BMGI), respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life.

He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that
is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words
unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling
insults and maligning complainant’s and BMGI’s reputation. Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811
SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016

That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is
exposed to criticism does not justify respondent’s disrespectful language.

It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent’s remarks against complainant breached
the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned. Belo-Henares
vs. Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016

Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long
as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being
an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such
privilege.

When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or
misconduct, the reference is not confined to one’s behavior exhibited in connection with the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 35 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

performance of lawyers’ professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which — albeit
unrelated to the actual practice of their profession — would show them to be unfit for the office
and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them.” Accordingly, the
Court finds that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, as originally recommended by the IBP-CBD, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392,
A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified at inception when there

are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty
of work-related misconduct.

Thus, in the 2004 case decided by the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, it was held that where
a government agency’s computer use policy prohibited electronic messages with pornographic
content and in addition expressly provided that employees do not have any personal privacy
rights regarding their use of the agency information systems and technology, the government
employee had no legitimate expectation of privacy as to the use and contents of his office
computer, and therefore evidence found during warrantless search of the computer was
admissible in prosecution for child pornography. In that case, the defendant employee’s
computer hard drive was first remotely examined by a computer information technician after his
supervisor received complaints that he was inaccessible and had copied and distributed non-
work-related e-mail messages throughout the office. When the supervisor confirmed that
defendant had used his computer to access the prohibited websites, in contravention of the
express policy of the agency, his computer tower and floppy disks were taken and examined. A
formal administrative investigation ensued and later search warrants were secured by the police
department. The initial remote search of the hard drive of petitioner’s computer, as well as the
subsequent warrantless searches was held as valid under the O’Connor ruling that a public
employer can investigate work-related misconduct so long as any search is justified at inception
and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it in the first place. Pollo vs.
Constantino-David, 659 SCRA 189, G.R. No. 181881 October 18, 2011

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 36 of 37

10922587
10922587
LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS
based on notable doctrines and cases
discussed by Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
August 9, 2024

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to
give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree
of legal knowledge or skill.”

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “practice of law”, particularly the
modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended
by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist,
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor—verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement—that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Cayetano
vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210, G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 37 of 37

10922587