BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

SEAT WORK NO. 1

1.​ Distinguish:
a.​ Practicing lawyer from trial lawyer;

Practicing Lawyer from Trial Lawyer A "practicing lawyer" is not limited to

litigating cases in court; their activities include giving legal advice, counseling,
and preparing instruments and contracts that secure legal rights. On the other
hand, a "trial lawyer" specifically handles trial work in court or quasi-judicial
agencies, representing either the prosecution/complainant or the defense of
clients.

b.​ Attorney-at-law and attorney-in-fact;

Attorney-at-Law: The provided sources extensively define the "practice of law"

as the rendition of legal service or performance of acts, or the application of law,
legal principles, and judgment, in or out of court, with regard to a person's
circumstances or objectives, pursuant to a lawyer-client relationship governed by
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). This includes
employment in public service or the private sector and requires membership in
the Philippine Bar as a qualification. Only those who are licensed and in good
and regular standing are entitled to practice law. A lawyer, also considered an
"officer of the court," has a duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

Attorney-in-Fact: An "attorney-in-fact" refers to a person designated to act on

behalf of another person, typically through a power of attorney, but does not
necessarily need to be a lawyer.

c.​ Ambulance chasing from Barratry; and

Ambulance Chasing: This refers to the solicitation of almost any kind of legal
business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, to gain employment.
This practice is proscribed by Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from doing or permitting any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Barratry: This is the offense of frequently exciting, stirring up quarrels and suits,
either at law or otherwise. It involves a lawyer making suits among individuals
and offering legal services to one of them.

d.​ Champertous contract from contingent fee agreement

Contingent Fee Agreement: This is a contract where the lawyer's fee, often a
fixed percentage of what may be recovered, depends upon the success of the
litigation. This type of agreement is generally permitted as it benefits clients who
have meritorious causes but lack the means to pay for legal services upfront. The
transfer or assignment of the object of litigation under a contingent fee
arrangement is not covered by the prohibition in Article 1491 of the Civil Code
because the payment of the fee is not made during the pendency of the litigation
but after the judgment.
 Champertous Contract: This is an agreement where a stranger to a lawsuit
undertakes to carry on the litigation at their own cost and risk, in consideration of
receiving a part of the proceeds or subject sought to be recovered if successful.
When an attorney undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce
the client’s rights in exchange for a portion of the recovery, it constitutes a
champertous contract. Such contracts are considered void for being contrary to
public policy because they exploit the client's financial plight and create a conflict
of interest for the lawyer, leading the lawyer to potentially prioritize their own
interest over the client's.

2.​ Explain the law student practice rule?

The Law Student Practice Rule (A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC, amending Rule 138-A of the Rules of
Court) governs the limited practice of law by law students. It is part of the Clinical Legal
Education Program (CLEP), an experiential, interactive, and reflective credit-earning course
designed to provide students with practical knowledge, skills, and values for law application,
legal service delivery, and promotion of social justice, while instilling ethical lawyering and public
service values.

Key aspects of the rule include:

Certification: A law student must apply for and secure either a Level 1 or Level 2
Certification to engage in CLEP activities.

Minimum Academic Requirement:

a.​ Level 1 Certification: Requires successful completion of first-year law courses.

b.​ Level 2 Certification: Requires successful completion of third-year law courses.

Practice Areas:

Level 1 Certified Law Student Practitioner (under supervision): Can interview

prospective clients, give legal advice, negotiate on behalf of the client, draft legal
documents (e.g., affidavits, compromise agreements, demand letters), represent
eligible parties before quasi-judicial or administrative bodies, provide public legal
orientation, and assist in public interest advocacies.

Level 2 Certified Law Student Practitioner (under supervision): Can perform all
Level 1 activities, assist in taking depositions and preparing judicial affidavits,
appear on behalf of the client at any stage of proceedings or trial before any court
or body, appear for a government agency in criminal prosecutions (subject to
rules), and prepare pleadings in appealed cases.

Supervision: All appearances and work by law student practitioners must be under the
direct supervision and control of a duly accredited member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). All pleadings and documents must be signed by the supervising
attorney. The supervising lawyer is responsible for ensuring the student's compliance
with rules and provides meaningful training.
 3.​ Are law students subject to the standards of professional conduct governing lawyers?
Explain.

Yes, law students are subject to the standards of professional conduct governing lawyers. The
Clinical Legal Education Program (CLEP) aims to inculcate in students the values of ethical
lawyering and public service. Specifically, a law student practitioner is required to strictly
observe the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
Failure to provide adequate supervision of student practice may also be a ground for disciplinary
action against the supervising attorney.

4.​ Can a non-lawyer practice law? Explain.

Generally, no, a non-lawyer cannot practice law. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed by
the State upon those who possess and continue to possess the qualifications required by law.
Only members of the Philippine Bar are allowed to practice law. This limitation is rooted in public
policy, which requires that the practice of law be confined to individuals duly qualified in
education and character to protect the public, the courts, and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice.

However, there are exceptions where non-lawyers may appear in court or perform certain
legal tasks:

1.​ Appearance of Law Students: As explained by the Law Student Practice Rule, certified
law students may appear in civil, criminal, or administrative cases without compensation
under the direct supervision of an IBP member.
2.​ Parties Representing Themselves: A non-lawyer may appear before any court and
conduct their litigation personally, as a party exercising their right to self-representation.
In such cases, they act as a party, not as counsel or lawyer.
3.​ Specific Statutory Permissions:
○​ Non-lawyers may appear in courts when expressly allowed by the Rules of Court.
○​ Non-lawyers may appear in administrative tribunals when expressly allowed by
law.
○​ A person authorized to appear for the Government.
○​ Non-lawyers may appear before the Labor Arbiter and/or the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).
○​ Other specific laws may grant permission for non-lawyers to act in certain
capacities, such as appearing for a government agency in criminal actions (for
Level 2 certified law students).

Unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer, or a lawyer assisting in such practice, is a

serious violation. This includes identifying oneself as an attorney, appearing in court to represent
a client, or associating oneself with a law office for general law practice without proper
qualification. A lawyer must not delegate to or permit a non-lawyer to perform tasks that only
lawyers may undertake, such as accepting cases, giving legal advice, acting independently, or
signing legal opinions. Such acts degrade the function of the legal profession and diminish
public confidence. This falls under Canon II, Section 35 of the CPRA, prohibiting non-delegable
legal tasks.
SEAT WORK NO. 2
1.​ May a lawyer voluntarily appear for a person without being employed? Explain.

Yes, a lawyer may voluntarily appear for a person without a formal employment contract,
provided an attorney-client relationship has been established. An attorney-client relationship is
defined as a trust relation that arises when a client consciously, voluntarily, and in good faith
vests confidence in a lawyer for the purpose of rendering legal services, such as providing legal
advice or representation, and the lawyer, whether expressly or impliedly, agrees to render such
services.

This relationship does not always require a written contract; it can be established through an
oral agreement, where conditions and fees are agreed upon, or even through an implied
contract. An implied contract occurs when there is no written or oral agreement, but the client
allows the lawyer to render legal services not intended to be gratuitous without objection, and
the client benefits from these services. It is sufficient if the advice and assistance of an attorney
are sought and received in any matter pertinent to their profession, with acceptance implied
from the lawyer's actions on behalf of the client.

The relationship can also arise "by operation of law," such as when a court orders a lawyer to
represent a party, or through an implied agreement stemming from a mere consultation. For
instance, a "facio ut des" (I do and you give) scenario can create this relationship when a lawyer
represents a friend without a specific fee agreement. Although professional services are
generally presumed to be for a fee and not gratuitous unless stipulated, an attorney-client
relationship can still be established without fee payment or a written contract, as long as the
lawyer consistently shows an intention to provide legal representation or assistance. (Canon III,
Section 3)

2.​ Is it necessary for an attorney to secure from his client a written authority to appear in
court? Explain.

Generally, no, it is not necessary for an attorney to secure a written authority from their client to
merely appear in court. A lawyer is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause
in which they appear, and this presumption is strong. The absence of a formal notice of entry of
appearance will not invalidate the acts performed by counsel in the client's name.

However, for actions that go beyond mere appearance or ordinary judicial procedure, a written
authority is required. For example, a lawyer cannot compromise a client's litigation or receive
anything in discharge of a client's claim without a special power of attorney for such purpose. An
attorney does have the authority to bind their client in writing on matters related to the case,
including taking appeals and other ordinary judicial procedures. (Canon III, Section 4 and
Section 5)

3.​ May a practicing lawyer be required to produce or prove his authority to appear in court?
If so, when? Explain.

Yes, a practicing lawyer may be required to produce or prove their authority to appear in court.
The court, tribunal, or other government agency may, on its own initiative or upon motion of
either party, require a lawyer to produce or prove their authority to appear on behalf of the client,
but only on just cause. This means that while there's a strong presumption of a lawyer's
authority, it can be challenged if there's a valid reason to question it. (Canon III, Section 5)
 4.​ May a client dismiss his attorney at any time or substitute in his place even without
cause? Explain.

Yes, a client may dismiss their attorney at any time or substitute another lawyer in their place,
even without cause. The lawyer-client engagement is a relationship of the highest fiduciary
character, founded on trust and confidence. Due to this highly confidential nature, a client has
the absolute right to terminate the relationship at any time, especially upon loss of trust and
confidence.

However, the termination of engagement by the client does not relieve the client from the full
payment of all professional fees due to the lawyer. If the engagement was in writing, the lawyer
is entitled to the full stipulated compensation, unless the court finds it unconscionable or
unreasonable. The lawyer may also have a charging lien upon all judgments for the payment of
money and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case where their
services were retained by the client.

For a valid substitution of counsel, certain requisites must generally be met:

●​ There must be a written request for substitution.

●​ It must be filed with the written consent of the client.
●​ It must be with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted.
●​ If the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must be
at least proof of notice that the motion for substitution was served on them as
prescribed by the Rules of Court. It's important to note that the written consent of
the attorney to be substituted is not always strictly required; the rule emphasizes
notice to the adverse party, and the client's prerogative to substitute counsel at
any time is generally upheld (Canon III, Section 54)

5.​ May a lawyer refuse to undertake the defense of a person accused of a crime when he is
positive that the person is guilty of the offense charged? Reason.

No, a lawyer generally cannot refuse to undertake the defense of a person accused of a crime
solely because they are positive that the person is guilty of the offense charged.

This is explicitly stated in the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA): "A
lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of his or her own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person, except for justifiable reasons".

The reasons for this rule are rooted in fundamental principles of justice and due process:

●​ Presumption of Innocence: In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until

their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the duty of the lawyer to
determine whether the accused is guilty or not, but the judge’s.
●​ Right to Due Process: The lawyer's role is to ensure that the accused's constitutional
right to due process is observed. Denying a person legal representation based on a
lawyer's personal belief of guilt would undermine this right.
●​ Ethical Obligation: A lawyer's duty is to present every defense that the law permits to
the end that their client is not deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. To
 refuse a case on such grounds could lead to innocent persons being denied proper
defense.

However, a lawyer may refuse representation for "justifiable reasons". These include:

●​ If the lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently due to a
justifiable cause.
●​ If the lawyer will be placed in a conflict-of-interest situation.
●​ If the lawyer is related to the potential adverse party (within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity) or to the adverse counsel (within the fourth degree).
●​ If there are too many de officio cases assigned to the lawyer.
●​ If the lawyer is prohibited from practicing law due to public office that prohibits court
appearances.
●​ If the lawyer is preoccupied with too many cases, which would prejudice new clients.
●​ For health-related reasons.
●​ If there is extensive travel abroad.

These justifiable reasons are distinct from a lawyer's personal opinion regarding the client's
guilt. (Canon V, Section 1)
SEAT WORK NO. 3
1.​ Define the following:
a.​ Independence; i.​ Privileged communication;
b.​ Merit-based practice; j.​ Conflict of interests;
c.​ Propriety; k.​ Fidelity;
d.​ Safe environment; l.​ Practice of law;
e.​ Sub-judice; m.​ Amicus curiae;
f.​ Forum shopping; n.​ Limited legal services; and
g.​ Law firm o.​ Attorney's lien
h.​ Para legal;
a.​ Independence Independence pertains to a lawyer's duty to discharge professional
duties without any improper influence, restriction, pressure, or interference, whether
direct or indirect, ensuring effective legal representation and is ultimately imperative for
the rule of law [CPRA, Canon I, Sec. 1]. A lawyer must be accessible, responsible for
judicial independence, efficient, and effective. It also requires a lawyer not to allow their
client to dictate or lead in the procedure of handling a case.
b.​ Merit-based practice A lawyer shall rely solely on the merits of a cause and not exert,
or give the appearance of, any influence on, nor undermine the authority of, the court,
tribunal or other government agency, or its proceedings [CPRA, Canon I, Sec. 2]. It is
unethical for a lawyer to appear as if he or she can influence judges and court
personnel, and giving gifts to judges is discouraged as it tends to give an appearance of
influencing judicial function or breeding familiarity.
c.​ Propriety Propriety dictates that a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and
maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe
honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent
with the highest standards of ethical behavior [CPRA, Canon II]. This includes not
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 1].​

d.​ Safe environment A lawyer shall not create or promote an unsafe or hostile
environment, both in private and public settings, including online. Furthermore, a lawyer
shall not commit any form of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic abuse or
violence against another person [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 3].​

e.​ Sub-judice The sub-judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial
proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 19]. The rationale is that courts, in
deciding issues of fact and law, should be immune from every extraneous influence, and
facts should be decided based on evidence produced in court, uninfluenced by bias,
prejudice, or sympathies.​

f.​ Forum shopping Forum shopping is committed when a party deceptively avails of
several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, with the expectation of
getting a favorable decision in one while the others are pending or have already been
adversely decided [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 23]. It is an action highly prohibited and
condemned because it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the
administration of justice, and adds to already congested court dockets.​

g.​ Law firm A law firm is defined as any private office, partnership, or association,
exclusively comprised of a lawyer or lawyers engaged to practice law, and who hold
 themselves out as such to the public [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 26]. In choosing a firm
name, no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be used, and the continued use of a
deceased, incapacitated, or retired partner's name is permissible provided the firm
indicates their status in all communications [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 26].​

h.​ Paralegal A paralegal is one who performs tasks that require familiarity with legal
concepts, employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental
agency, or other entity for non-diagnostic and non-advisory work in relation to legal
matters delegated by such lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency, or other
entity [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 34]. A lawyer shall not delegate to or permit a non-lawyer,
including a paralegal, to perform duties that only lawyers may undertake [CPRA, Canon
II, Sec. 35].​

i.​ Privileged communication The privileged communication rule mandates that an

attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional
character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve the
confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship and
continues even after termination of the attorney-client relationship, outlasting the
lawyer's engagement and surviving the client's death.​

j.​ Conflict of interests There is a conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

inconsistent or opposing interests of two or more persons [CPRA, Canon III, Sec. 13].
The test for this is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an
issue or claim, but which it is his or her duty to oppose for the other client [CPRA, Canon
III, Sec. 13]. Generally, an attorney cannot represent adverse interests, but this may be
allowed with the written informed consent of all concerned parties after full disclosure of
the facts [CPRA, Canon III, Sec. 13].​

k.​ Fidelity Fidelity pertains to a lawyer's duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the
land, to assist in the administration of justice as an officer of the court, and to advance or
defend a client's cause, with full devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit of
truth and justice [CPRA, Canon III].​

l.​ Practice of law The practice of law is the rendition of legal service or performance of
acts or the application of law, legal principles, and judgment, in or out of court, with
regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person or a cause, and pursuant to a
lawyer-client relationship or other engagement governed by the CPRA [CPRA, Canon III,
Sec. 1]. It includes employment in the public service or private sector and requires
membership in the Philippine Bar as qualification [CPRA, Canon III, Sec. 1]. Generally,
to practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that requires the use of
legal knowledge.​

m.​ Amicus curiae Literally, amicus curiae means "friend of the court". It refers to an
experienced and impartial attorney who may be invited by the Court to help in the
disposition of issues submitted to it [Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 36].​

n.​ Limited legal services Limited Legal Services refer to services for a specific legal
incident, with the expectation by the lawyer and the client that the lawyer will not provide
continuing legal services in the matter [CPRA, Canon III, Sec. 35]. This includes being
appointed as counsel de officio only for arraignment. A lawyer rendering such services
must protect the client's private confidences to the same extent as if engaged under
 regular terms [CPRA, Canon III, Sec. 37].​

o.​ Attorney's lien An attorney's lien is the right a lawyer has to secure payment for their
services. There are two types:​

○​ Charging Lien: The right which the attorney has upon all judgments for the
payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of said judgments, which
he has secured in litigation of his client. This is an active lien that can be
enforced by execution and is a special lien.
○​ Retaining Lien: The right of the attorney to retain the funds, documents, and
papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession until his lawful
fees and disbursements have been paid and to apply such funds to the
satisfaction thereof. This is a passive lien that cannot be actively enforced and is
a general lien.

2.​ Answer the following:

a.​ When is there conflict of interests?

There is a conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing interests of two
or more persons [CPRA, Canon III, Sec. 13]. This applies when a lawyer would be representing
a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients, or when the
lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is related, directly or
indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation. The rule applies regardless of the
degree of adverse interests and even if the lawyer's intentions and motives were honest and in
good faith.

b.​ What are the three (3) tests to determine conflict of interest for practicing
lawyers?

To determine whether a lawyer is guilty of violating the rules on conflict of interest under the
CPRA, it is essential to determine whether:

1.​ Conflicting Duties: A lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim on behalf of one
client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.
2.​ Invitation of Suspicion: The acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
3.​ Use of Prior Knowledge Obtained: A lawyer would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.
c.​ When is communication between a lawyer and his client privileged?

When is communication between a lawyer and his client privileged? For the rule on
privileged communication between an attorney and his client to apply, the following requisites
must be present:

3.​ Existence of Relationship: There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective

attorney-client relationship.
4.​ Confidentiality: The client made the communication in confidence.
 5.​ Purpose of Advice: The legal advice was sought from the attorney in his professional
capacity.

A communication is considered confidential if it refers to information transmitted by voluntary act

of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence, by means which, so far as the client is
aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the
transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given

d. On a Saturday, Atty. A filed a petition for a writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals
(CA). Impelled by the urgency for the issuance of the writ, Atty. A persuaded his friend,
CA Justice X, to issue the writ of amparo and the notice of hearing without the signature
of the two other Justices members of the CA division. Is Atty. A guilty of unethical
conduct? Explain.

Yes, Atty. A is guilty of unethical conduct.

This scenario demonstrates a clear violation of several ethical standards for lawyers:

●​ Undermining Judicial Authority and Influence Peddling (CPRA, Canon I, Sec. 2 &
4): A lawyer is required to rely solely on the merits of a cause and not exert, or give the
appearance of, any influence on, nor undermine the authority of, the court or its
proceedings. Influence peddling, defined as an act of a lawyer implying that they are
able to influence, or may be seen to influence, any public official, tribunal, or legislative
body, or the outcome of an ongoing case, erodes the public's faith in the legal system
and places the administration of justice in disrepute. Atty. A's act of persuading CA
Justice X to act outside of established judicial procedure (i.e., without the signatures of
the other division members) constitutes an attempt to improperly influence the court and
undermines its authority.
●​ Dignified Conduct (CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 2): A lawyer must, at all times, respect the
law, the courts, tribunals, and their officials. Atty. A's action disregards the proper
functioning and collegial nature of the Court of Appeals, which is a breach of the respect
owed to judicial processes.
●​ Improper Conduct (CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 1): Engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful conduct is prohibited. By pressuring a judge to bypass established procedures,
Atty. A is involved in a conduct that is not consistent with honesty and integrity required
of legal professionals.

The duty of Independence reminds lawyers that there is no room for influence peddling in the
practice of law. A lawyer's duty to his client is subordinate to his duty to the court, and his
conduct must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. Atty. A's actions compromise
the integrity of the judicial process and reflect poorly on the legal profession
BALE SEATWORK NO. 4
1.​ Atty. X, a member of the Philippine Bar, was admitted as a member of the New York Bar.
While in Manhattan, he was convicted of estafa and was disbarred. Does his disbarment
in New York a ground for his automatic disbarment in the Philippines? Explain.

Atty. X's disbarment in New York is not a ground for automatic disbarment in the Philippines.

While a judgment of disbarment against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction can be used as
a basis for disbarment proceedings in the Philippines, it does not automatically result in
disbarment. The foreign court's judgment or order of disbarment serves only as prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension in the Philippines.

For a Filipino lawyer to be disbarred in the Philippines based on foreign disciplinary action, two
conditions must be met:

1.​ The acts that led to the disbarment in the foreign jurisdiction must also constitute
grounds for disbarment or suspension under Philippine law. In this case, Atty. X was
convicted of estafa, which is explicitly recognized as a crime involving moral turpitude.
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a specific ground for disbarment under
Philippine law.
2.​ Atty. X is still entitled to due process of law. This means that a disbarment proceeding
must still be initiated against him in the Philippines, usually before the Supreme Court or
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In these proceedings, he will be given the
opportunity to defend himself, and the Philippine Supreme Court will conduct its own
investigation in accordance with Rule 139 of the Rules of Court.

Therefore, while the conviction for estafa and subsequent disbarment in New York provides
strong prima facie evidence and a valid ground for disbarment in the Philippines, it requires
proper disciplinary proceedings under Philippine law, rather than being an automatic
consequence.

Canon and Section Reference:

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC): This scenario
involves a lawyer, so the primary reference is the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Accountability (CPRA).

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA):

a.​ Canon VI, Section 2 (How instituted): Disbarment proceedings may be

commenced by the Supreme Court on its own initiative or upon verified
complaint.
b.​ Canon VI, Section 32 (Quantum and burden of proof): The complainant has the
burden of proof to establish with substantial evidence, but the foreign judgment
serves as prima facie evidence.
c.​ Rule 138, Section 27 (Rules of Court): Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude is a ground for disbarment. Estafa falls under this category.
d.​ Supreme Court Resolution, February 13, 1992, amending Sec. 27, Rule 138:
States that a foreign judgment of suspension or disbarment is prima facie
evidence.
 2.​ Alleging that Atty. X seduced her when she was only sixteen (16) years old, which
resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a baby boy. Miss Dala Naco filed a complaint
for his disbarment seven years after the alleged seduction was committed. Atty. X
contended that, considering the period of delay, the complaint filed against him can no
longer be entertained much less prosecuted because the alleged offense has already
prescribed.Is Atty. X's contention tenable or not? Explain.

Atty. X's contention that the complaint for disbarment has prescribed is not tenable.

Disbarment proceedings in the Philippines are unique; they are considered sui generis (of its
own kind), meaning they are neither civil nor criminal actions. A key characteristic of disbarment
proceedings is that they are imprescriptible, meaning there is no prescriptive period for filing
an administrative complaint against an errant lawyer.

The purpose of disbarment proceedings is not to punish the individual lawyer but to safeguard
the administration of justice, protect the courts and the public from misconduct, and determine if
a lawyer is still fit to continue practicing law. Therefore, the delay in filing the complaint, even
seven years after the alleged seduction, does not bar the Supreme Court from entertaining and
prosecuting the administrative case. At most, such a delay might only serve to mitigate the
erring lawyer's liability, but it does not lead to the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of
prescription.

The alleged act of seducing a sixteen-year-old resulting in pregnancy and birth would likely
constitute "grossly immoral conduct," which is a serious ground for disbarment. Lawyers are
expected to maintain the highest standards of morality both in their public and private lives, and
any conduct that shows unfitness for the profession, regardless of when it was committed,
justifies disciplinary action.

Canon and Section Reference:

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA):

a.​ Canon II, Section 1 (Proper Conduct): A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. "Grossly immoral conduct" is a severe
violation.
b.​ Canon VI, Section 2 (How instituted): Proceedings for discipline may be
commenced by the Supreme Court or upon verified complaint.
c.​ Canon VI (Accountability): This Canon, along with established jurisprudence,
underscores the imprescriptible nature of disciplinary actions against lawyers.

3.​ Atty. Walasunto has been a member of the Philippine Bar for twenty (20) years but has
never plied his profession as a lawyer. His sole means of livelihood is selling and buying
real estate. In one of his transactions as a real estate broker, he issued a bouncing
check. He was criminally prosecuted and subsequently convicted for violating B.P. Blg.
22. In the disbarment proceedings filed against him. Atty. Walasunto contended that his
conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was not a valid ground for disciplinary action
against a member of the bar. He further argued that his act in issuing the check was
 done in relation to his calling as a real estate broker and not in relation to the exercise of
the profession of a lawyer. Are the contentions of Atty. Walasunto meritorious or not?
Reason.

Atty. Walasunto's contentions are not meritorious.

Here's why:

1.​ Conviction for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as a Ground for Disciplinary Action:​

○​ Conviction for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) is explicitly
recognized as a ground for disciplinary action, including disbarment. The
issuance of worthless checks constitutes "gross misconduct". B.P. Blg. 22 was
enacted to "prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious
practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the
practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated".
A lawyer's violation of this law exhibits "indifference towards the pernicious effect
of his illegal act on public interest and public order".
○​ Gross misconduct, especially when it involves "moral turpitude," is a severe
ground for disbarment. Moral turpitude includes "everything that is done contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to
society in general". Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a specific
ground for disbarment or suspension.
2.​ Conduct in Private vs. Professional Capacity:​

○​ A lawyer's conduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, is subject to

disciplinary action if it reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law or brings
discredit to the legal profession. Good moral character is an essential and
continuing qualification for admission to and continued practice of law.
○​ There is no distinction between misconduct committed in a lawyer's private life or
professional capacity when assessing fitness for the bar. A lawyer cannot "divide
his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another". Acts
that tend to show a lawyer as deficient in moral character, honesty, or probity,
even if committed in a non-professional capacity, are sufficient to warrant
suspension or disbarment.
○​ The act of issuing a bouncing check, even if done in his capacity as a real estate
broker, reflects on Atty. Walasunto's honesty and integrity, which are fundamental
qualities required of a lawyer. His failure to pay just debts and issuance of
worthless checks constitute gross misconduct that affects his moral character
and fitness to be an officer of the court.

Therefore, Atty. Walasunto's conviction for violating B.P. Blg. 22, regardless of whether it
stemmed from his real estate business, is a valid ground for disciplinary action because it
involves gross misconduct and moral turpitude that impacts his fitness to practice law.

Canon and Section References:

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA):

 a.​ Canon II, Section 1 (Proper conduct): A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
b.​ Canon II, Section 2 (Dignified conduct): A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law, nor behave in a
scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal
profession.
c.​ Canon VI, Section 33 (Serious offenses): Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude is a serious offense.

Rules of Court (ROC):

d.​ Rule 138, Section 27: Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground
for disbarment.

4.​ When Atty. Aldrin received a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, he filed a
motion for reconsideration using intemperate and disrespectful language with a subtle
threat that "knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is punishable under the revised
Penal Code" The Court of Appeals ordered him to explain why he should not be cited in
contempt of court. Instead of complying, he submitted to the Court of Appeals his
Petition to Retire from the practice of law which he immediately filed with the Supreme
Court after receiving the citation for contempt. May he be allowed to retire from the
practice of law?

Atty. Aldrin may not be allowed to retire from the practice of law to escape the pending
contempt proceedings and potential disciplinary action.

Here's the reasoning:

1.​ Nature of Disciplinary Proceedings:​

○​ Disbarment or disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis (of its
own kind), meaning they are neither purely civil nor criminal actions. Their
primary purpose is not to punish the individual lawyer but to protect the
administration of justice, safeguard the public, and determine whether a lawyer is
still fit to remain a member of the Bar.
○​ Therefore, an administrative case for disbarment or discipline may proceed
"regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant". More critically,
"resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to evade
an administrative liability or administrative sanction".
○​ Once disciplinary proceedings have been instituted, a respondent's supervening
retirement or separation from service "shall not preclude or affect the continuation
of the same". This means Atty. Aldrin's attempt to retire after receiving a citation
for contempt will not automatically halt the proceedings against him.
2.​ Improper Conduct and Contempt:​

○​ Atty. Aldrin's act of using "intemperate and disrespectful language with a subtle
threat" in a motion for reconsideration is a serious violation of a lawyer's duties.
Lawyers are officers of the court and have a duty to "respect the law, the courts,
 tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and
processes".
○​ While lawyers have the right to criticize courts and judges, such criticism must be
made "in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels". The use of
"unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the
courts and trust in judicial administration". Language that is "abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper" or "scandalous, offensive or menacing" is prohibited.
○​ Directly or subtly threatening a judge for "knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment" can be seen as an attempt to undermine judicial authority and integrity,
which is highly improper. This type of conduct "lessens the confidence of the
public in the legal system and is contemptuous".
○​ Furthermore, his non-compliance with the Court of Appeals' order to explain the
contempt citation demonstrates a "cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the
orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution", and by extension, any court.

Therefore, Atty. Aldrin's retirement petition is not a valid means to avoid accountability for his
actions, and the Court of Appeals (and potentially the Supreme Court) retains jurisdiction to
pursue the contempt citation and any resulting disciplinary action.

Canon and Section References:

●​ Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA):

○​ Canon II, Section 2 (Dignified conduct): A lawyer shall respect the law, the
courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and
processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow
members of the Bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on one’s fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in
public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.
○​ Canon II, Section 4 (Use of dignified, gender-fair, and child- and
culturally-sensitive language): A lawyer shall use only dignified, gender-fair, child-
and culturally-sensitive language. (Note: This broadly covers respectful language
in legal interactions).
○​ Canon II, Section 14 (Imputation of improper motive): A lawyer shall not, without
factual or legal basis, impute or accuse another lawyer or judge of any
misconduct or impropriety.
○​ Canon VI, Section 2 (How instituted): Disciplinary proceedings may be
commenced by the Supreme Court on its own initiative or upon verified
complaint.
○​ Canon VI, Section 30 (Proceedings initiated before the Supreme Court): The
Supreme Court may refer cases for investigation even if commenced by
complaint.
○​ Canon VI (Accountability): This Canon generally establishes a lawyer's
accountability for failing to honor their covenant to observe the highest degree of
morality and faithfully comply with rules.
●​ General Legal Principles:
○​ The imprescriptible nature of administrative complaints against lawyers, which
implies that such complaints cannot be avoided by delay or attempt to
retire/desist.
○​ The principle that retirement or separation from service does not preclude the
continuation of disciplinary proceedings if already instituted.
BALE SEAT WORK NO. 5

1.​ Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, what is the principal obligation of a
lawyer to the:
a.​ Society?
b.​ Legal profession and the Integrated Bar?
c.​ Court?

Society: A lawyer's duties to society are deeply rooted in the Lawyer's Oath, which mandates
them to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. This encompasses actively working
towards promoting the rule of law, fostering a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality,
and peace, and diligently safeguarding the rights and meaningful freedoms of all individuals and
communities. Furthermore, lawyers are obliged to ensure greater and equitable access to
justice for everyone. Ultimately, a lawyer is accountable to society by observing the highest
degree of morality and faithfully complying with the rules of the legal profession. (Canon VI,
Canon III)​

Legal profession and the Integrated Bar: Lawyers must maintain a high moral standard in
their practice. This requires them to observe the highest degree of morality, adhere to rigid
standards of mental fitness, and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession. They are
also expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by acting with honesty
and trustworthiness. The relationship with their professional colleagues should be characterized
by candor, fairness, and an unwillingness to engage in commercial advertising or encroach
upon another lawyer's practice. (Canon II, Canon III, Canon VI)​

Court: As an officer of the court, a lawyer's primary obligation is to assist in the administration of
justice. This entails conscientiously exerting every effort to ensure the speedy and efficient
administration of justice and safeguarding due process. Lawyers must at all times respect the
law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, as well as their officials, employees,
and processes. They are strictly prohibited from misleading the court regarding the existence or
content of any document, argument, evidence, or law, or from presenting another's ideas or
words as their own. Additionally, lawyers must refrain from exerting, or appearing to exert, any
improper influence on the court or undermining its authority. (Canon I, Canon II, Canon III)​

2.​ Jake Oh, an aspiring lawyer, disclosed in his petition to take the 2010 Bar Examinations
that there were two civil cases pending against him for nullification of contract and
damages. He was thus allowed to conditionally take the bar, and subsequently passed
the said exams. In 2012, after the two civil cases had been resolved, Mike Adelantado
filed his petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys before the
Supreme Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant, however, had received two anonymous
letters: the first alleged that at the time Jake filed his petition to take the bar, he had two
other civil cases pending against him, as well as criminal case for violation of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 22; the other letter alleged that Jake, as Sangguniang Bayan
(SB) Member, had been signing the attendance sheets of the SB meetings as "Atty. Jake
Oh."
a.​ Having passed the bar, can Jake Oh already use the appellation "attorney"?
Explain your answer.
No, Jake Oh cannot yet use the appellation "attorney". While passing the Bar examination is a
necessary step, it is not sufficient for admission to the Philippine Bar. To be fully admitted and
authorized to practice law and use the title "Attorney," a person must also take the Lawyer’s
Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys. The signing of the Roll of Attorneys is the final act that
signifies membership in the Bar. Therefore, Jake's use of "Atty. Jake Oh" as a Sangguniang
Bayan Member, despite not yet completing these prerequisites, constitutes unauthorized
practice of law. Only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing are authorized to practice
law and use the title.

(Relevant Canons/Sections: Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court; In Re: Petition to take the
Lawyer’s Oath, B.M. No. 1209; In Re: Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling, B.M.
No. 1154; CPRA, Canon II, Section 1)

b.​ Should Jake Oh be allowed to take his oath as a lawyer and sign the Roll of
Attorneys? Explain your answer.

No, Jake Oh should not be allowed to take his oath as a lawyer and sign the Roll of Attorneys.
Admission to the Bar is a privilege granted only to those who possess strict intellectual and
moral qualifications, and good moral character is a continuing requirement, essential not only at
the time of application but also for continued practice.

Several issues in Jake's situation raise serious concerns about his moral character and fitness:

●​ Concealment of Cases: The requisites for admission to the Bar explicitly state that an
applicant must produce satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that "no
charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines". Jake's petition disclosed only two civil cases [Query]. However,
the anonymous letters allege the existence of two other civil cases and a criminal case
for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 22, which he failed to disclose [Query].
"Deliberate silence and non-revelation of his pending criminal cases constitute
concealment," which is a serious breach of the disclosure requirement meant to
determine an applicant's good moral character. Concealing cases, even if they don't
ultimately impugn moral character, "flunks the test of fitness". Furthermore, issuing
unfunded checks, as implied by a B.P. Blg. 22 violation, indicates dishonest and deceitful
conduct. Even if a crime does not involve moral turpitude, its concealment can be taken
against the applicant because it perpetrates perjury. This conduct violates the lawyer's
oath to "do no falsehood" and the prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful
conduct.
●​ Unauthorized Use of "Atty.": His act of signing attendance sheets as "Atty. Jake Oh"
before officially being admitted to the Bar is highly improper. This behavior constitutes
unauthorized practice of law, which is a professional misconduct and reflects negatively
on his honesty and probity, demonstrating a lack of respect for the legal profession and
its rules.

If such false statements or suppression of material facts are discovered after the bar
examinations but before the oath-taking, the candidate will not be allowed to take the oath.
Jake's actions demonstrate a wanting in moral character and a disregard for ethical standards
that are prerequisites for admission to the Philippine Bar.

(Relevant Canons/Sections: Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court; In Re: Disqualification of Bar
Examinee Haron S. Meling, B.M. No. 1154; CPRA, Canon II, Section 1 and 2; CPRA, Canon II,
Section 11; Enriquez v. Atty. Trina De Vera, A.C. No. 8330; Yusay-Cordero vs. Amihan Jr., A.C.
No. 12709; Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. 99-1292; Pangan v. Ramos, A.C. No. 10563).

3.​ A businessman is looking for a new retainer. He approached you and asked for your
schedule of fees or charges. He informed you of the professional fees he is presently
paying his retainer, which is actually lower than your rates. He said that if your rates are
lower, he would engage your services. Will you lower your rates in order to get the
client? Explain.

This situation involves balancing professional conduct with business considerations in the legal
profession.

Generally, a lawyer is expected to charge "fair and reasonable fees," determined by factors such
as the time spent, the novelty and difficulty of issues, the lawyer's skill, the value of the client's
interest, and customary charges for similar services.

However, the question specifically asks if I would lower my rates "in order to get the client,"
implying a direct competitive approach to secure the engagement. The Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability emphasizes that the practice of law is a profession, not a
business, with public service as its primary consideration, not money. Lawyers are explicitly
prohibited from directly or indirectly soliciting legal business or engaging in self-laudatory
advertisements. The most effective and worthy advertisement for a lawyer is a "well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust," earned through character and conduct,
not through commercial means.

Aggressively lowering rates solely to undercut a competitor could be perceived as an

"undignified" business method or an "indirect solicitation" of legal business. Such
actions can commercialize the profession, degrade its standing in the public eye, and
undermine its ability to provide high-quality service. The ethical rules discourage lawyers from
advertising their talents "as merchants advertise their wares".

Therefore, while setting a competitive fee is not inherently unethical, lowering rates solely for the
purpose of luring a client away from another lawyer by undercutting their fees, rather than based
on a recalculation of what constitutes a fair and reasonable fee for the specific services to be
rendered, risks violating the spirit of non-solicitation and the dignity of the legal profession. A
lawyer should focus on providing competent and diligent service at a justifiable rate rather than
engaging in price wars that could diminish the profession's integrity.

(Relevant Canons/Sections: CPRA, Canon II, Section 17; CPRA, Canon III, Section 41; Atty.
Khan Jr. v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. Nos. 5299 & 157053; Pedro Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672; Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553).
BALE SEAT WORK NO. 6
1.​ Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, what is the principal obligation of a
lawyer to the courts?

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), a lawyer's principal
obligation to the courts is to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and to
safeguard due process. Lawyers must consistently strive to promote the rule of law and uphold
a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.

Specifically, a lawyer's obligations include:

●​ Respecting the Law and the Courts: A lawyer must, at all times, act with propriety and
maintain the appearance of propriety in both personal and professional dealings,
observing honesty, respect, and courtesy, and upholding the dignity of the legal
profession. They must respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government
agencies, including their officials, employees, and processes. Respect for the courts is
crucial as it guarantees the stability of the judicial institution.
●​ Merit-Based Practice and Honesty: Lawyers must rely solely on the merits of a cause
and avoid exerting, or appearing to exert, any improper influence on, or undermining the
authority of, the court, tribunal, or other government agency or its proceedings. They
must not mislead the court as to the existence or content of any document, argument,
evidence, law, or other legal authority, nor pass off another's ideas or words as their own,
or assert as a fact that which has not been proven. A lawyer is expected to correctly
inform the court on the law and facts of a case and aid it in doing justice.
●​ Assisting in Administration of Justice: As an officer of the court, a lawyer's high
vocation is to assist the court in arriving at a correct conclusion and doing justice. They
must ensure that due process is observed. Lawyers are expected to be honest and
trustworthy when dealing with the courts.

(Canon I, Section 2; Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 8; Canon III, Section 2; The Revised Lawyer's
Oath)

2.​ Why is a lawyer also an "officer of the court"? Explain.

A lawyer is considered an "officer of the court" because it is their duty to "exert every effort to
conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice". This means they are
an "indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice". Lawyers are an
integral part of the judicial machinery and, in criminal cases, may even be called upon to serve
as counsels de officio for indigents to ensure due process is observed. By taking the lawyer's
oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of the law and the rule of law.

(Canon III, Section 2; The Revised Lawyer's Oath)

3.​ A lawyer has a duty to the courts and to his clients, in case his duty to his client runs
counter to his duty to the courts, what duty must he follow? Explain.

When a lawyer's duty to his client runs counter to his duty to the courts, his duty to the court is
paramount and must prevail. While a lawyer has a solemn duty to defend their client's cause,
this conduct must never come at the expense of truth. The legal profession is primarily for public
service, and money is a byproduct. It involves a relation, as an "officer of the court," to the
administration of justice that demands thorough sincerity, integrity, and reliability. The honor of
the profession dictates that on matters of law, it is the client who should yield to the lawyer, and
not the other way around. Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must unquestionably
follow a client's bidding, especially if it is unreasonable when tested against their own expert
appreciation of facts and law.

(Canon III, Section 2; Canon I, Section 2)

4.​ During the course of his cross-examination, your client had testified to events and
circumstances which you personally know to be untrue. If his testimony was given
credence and accepted as fact by the court, you are sure to win your client's case.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, what is your obligation to the court?
Explain.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, your obligation to the court is
to uphold the truth and not allow your client to perpetrate a falsehood or mislead the court.
Lawyers are explicitly prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct. It is also their duty not to do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court,
nor mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice, nor knowingly assert as a fact that
which has not been proved.

The lawyer's oath requires them to "do no falsehood nor... pervert the law to unjustly favor nor
prejudice anyone". As officers of the court, lawyers must behave in a manner consistent with
truth and honor. Allowing a client's untrue testimony to be accepted as fact, even if it leads to
winning the case, would constitute knowingly presenting false information and perpetrating a
fraud upon the court. This is a direct violation of the lawyer's fundamental duties to truth and
justice, which are paramount to their duty to the client.

(Canon II, Section 1; Canon II, Section 8; Canon III, Section 9; The Revised Lawyer's Oath)

5.​ On June 28, 2001, RJ filed with the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition, with a
prayer for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, to forestall his removal as
chairman and general manager of a government agency. He believed he had a fixed
term until January 31, 2004, but there were indications that the new President would
replace him. As he had apprehended, an Administrative Order was issued by the Chief
Executive on July 2, 2001 recalling RJ's appointment. Shortly thereafter, PT was
appointed to the position in question. On July 3, 2001, RJ filed a motion to withdraw his
petition. On the same day, without waiting for the resolution of his motion, he filed
another petition with the Regional Trial Court seeking to prevent his removal as
chairman and general manager of the government agency. On July 8, 2001, his motion
to withdraw the first petition was granted by the Supreme Court without prejudice to his
liability, if any, for contempt for engaging in forum-shopping.

a.​ Is he guilty of forum-shopping? Explain.

Yes, RJ is guilty of forum shopping [Query]. Forum shopping occurs when a party deceitfully
avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, either simultaneously or successively,
which are substantially founded on the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances,
and raise substantially the same issues. It is considered a falsehood perpetrated upon the court,
tribunal, or other government agency, and it offends against the administration of justice.

The test to determine the existence of forum shopping involves checking for the elements of litis
pendentia or whether a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in another.
These elements are:

1.​ Identity of parties: The parties in both actions are the same, or at least represent the
same interests.
2.​ Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for: The rights asserted and reliefs
sought are the same, and they are founded on the same facts.
3.​ Identity of the two preceding particulars: Any judgment rendered in one action would,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other action under
consideration.

In RJ's case:

●​ Identity of parties: RJ is the petitioner in both the Supreme Court petition and the
Regional Trial Court petition, and the subject government agency/Chief Executive are
the respondents in both [Query].
●​ Identity of rights and reliefs: Both petitions sought to prevent his removal as chairman
and general manager of the government agency, indicating the pursuit of the same right
and relief based on the same set of facts [Query].
●​ Simultaneous/Successive filing: RJ filed his motion to withdraw the Supreme Court
petition on July 3, 2001, and on the very same day, without waiting for the Supreme
Court's resolution on his motion, he filed a new petition with the Regional Trial Court
[Query]. The Supreme Court later granted his motion to withdraw, but notably, it was
"without prejudice to his liability, if any, for contempt for engaging in forum-shopping"
[Query].

By filing a new petition in the Regional Trial Court while his initial petition in the Supreme Court,
seeking the same relief, was still pending (even with a motion to withdraw filed but not yet
resolved), RJ engaged in forum shopping. This conduct trifles with the courts, abuses their
processes, and degrades the administration of justice by creating the possibility of conflicting
decisions on the same issues.

The relevant Canon referred to here is Canon II, Section 23 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which prohibits lawyers from knowingly engaging in
or through gross negligence instituting multiple cases amounting to forum shopping.

b.​ Give three (3) Instances of forum-shopping.

Forum shopping can be committed in various ways. According to the sources, instances
include:

1.​ Filing multiple cases with the same cause of action and prayer, where the previous
case has not yet been resolved. This situation typically leads to dismissal based on
litis pendentia.
 2.​ Filing multiple cases with the same cause of action and prayer, where the previous
case has already been finally resolved. This scenario results in dismissal based on
res judicata.
3.​ Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers,
which is a form of splitting causes of action. This can also lead to dismissal based on
either litis pendentia or res judicata.

These instances are proscribed under Canon II, Section 23 of the CPRA.

6.​ When is communication privileged?

Communication is privileged when an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications

made to them in their professional character by a client, unless the client consents.

For a communication to be considered privileged, the following requisites must be present:

1.​ There must exist an attorney-client or prospective attorney-client relationship, and the
communication must be made by reason of this relationship.
2.​ The client must have made the communication in confidence.
3.​ The legal advice must have been sought from the attorney in their professional capacity.

A communication is confidential if it involves information voluntarily disclosed between an

attorney and client in confidence, without disclosure to any third person, except when
reasonably necessary for the transmission or accomplishment of the purpose for which it was
given. The privilege covers the lawyer, the client, any person reasonably believed by the client
to be licensed to practice law, and third persons assisting the attorney, such as a secretary,
stenographer, clerk, or other support staff.

The protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege is perpetual, meaning it does not cease
with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the client's decision to employ another
attorney or any other change in their relationship. It even survives the death of the client.

However, the rule on privileged communication is not absolute and does not apply in certain
situations, including:

●​ Communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.

●​ Disputes between claimants through the same deceased client.
●​ Cases involving a breach of duty by either the lawyer or the client.
●​ Documents attested by the lawyer.
●​ Communications among joint clients.

(Canon III, Sections 14(b), 17(b), 27, 40)

7.​ When is there conflict of interests?

Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent or opposing interests of two or
more persons.

The primary test to determine if a conflict of interest exists is whether, on behalf of one client, it
is the lawyer's duty to advocate for an issue or claim, while simultaneously having a duty to
oppose that same claim or issue for another client. More specifically, conflict of interest arises
when:

1.​ A lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim for one client and, at the same time,
to oppose that claim for another client.
2.​ The acceptance of a new engagement would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
3.​ A lawyer would be called upon in the new engagement to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.

As a general rule, an attorney cannot represent adverse interests, and it is considered highly
improper to represent both sides of an issue. This proscription applies even if the adverse
interest is slight, and regardless of whether the attorney's intentions or motives were honest, or
if they acted in good faith.

While representing conflicting interests is generally prohibited, it may be allowed if all concerned
parties provide their written informed consent after a full disclosure of the facts. However, even
with consent, a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests if the conflict is:

●​ Between the attorney’s own interests and that of a client.

●​ Between a private client’s interests and that of the government or any of its
instrumentalities.

The duty to avoid conflicts of interest extends beyond current engagements. The termination of
an attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer representing an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of a former client. The client's confidence, once reposed, should not be
divested merely by the expiration of professional employment.

Specific rules apply to different types of client relationships:

●​ Current Clients: Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in business transactions with
clients, using confidential information without consent, acquiring substantial gifts, making
agreements for literary/media rights based on representation, or accepting compensation
from third parties without informed consent, among other restrictions.
●​ Prospective Clients: A lawyer must, at the earliest opportunity, ascertain and disclose
any potential conflict of interest and must not accept the new engagement if either the
prospective or current client objects. Private confidences of a prospective client must be
maintained even if no engagement materializes.
●​ Former Clients: Lawyers must maintain the private confidences of former clients even
after engagement termination. They cannot use information from the former
representation or represent a prospective client in the same or a related legal matter
where interests are materially adverse, unless the former client gives written informed
consent.
●​ Corporate Lawyers: A lawyer representing a corporation does not necessarily
represent its constituents. If also a director, the lawyer must determine and disclose any
conflicts between the two roles, always prioritizing the corporate client's interest.
●​ Lawyers in Government Service: Generally, government lawyers cannot practice law
privately unless authorized and during an approved leave, and they are strictly prohibited
from representing an interest adverse to the government. After leaving government
 service, they are restricted for one year from engaging in private practice concerning any
matter they handled or intervened in while in public service.
●​ Public Attorney's Office (PAO): A conflict of interest for an individual PAO lawyer is
imputed only to that lawyer and their direct supervisor. This conflict does not disqualify
other PAO lawyers from representing the affected client, provided there is full disclosure
and written informed consent, to ensure access to justice for marginalized sectors.

(Canon III, Sections 13-22; Canon II, Section 44)

8.​ Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, what is the principal
obligation of a lawyer towards the administration of justice?

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), a lawyer's principal
obligation towards the administration of justice is to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the
land, and to faithfully assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice as an officer of
the court.

This paramount duty encompasses several key aspects:

●​ Guardian of Law and Justice: By taking the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a
guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and
impartial administration of justice.
●​ Respect for Courts and Law: Lawyers must at all times act with propriety, maintaining
respect and courtesy, and upholding the dignity of the legal profession. They must
respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, including their
officials, employees, and processes. Respect for the courts is essential for the stability of
the judicial institution.
●​ Merit-Based Practice and Honesty: A lawyer must rely solely on the merits of a cause
and avoid exerting, or appearing to exert, any improper influence on or undermining the
authority of the court or its proceedings. They are ethically bound not to mislead the
court as to the existence or content of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other
legal authority, nor to pass off another's ideas as their own, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proven. Lawyers must consistently act with truth and honor, both in and out
of court.
●​ Subordination of Client's Interest to Justice: While a lawyer has a solemn duty to
defend their client's cause, this duty is subordinate to their higher obligation to the court
and the pursuit of truth and justice. The honor of the profession requires that on matters
of law, the client should yield to the lawyer's expert judgment, especially when faced with
unreasonable requests. Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must
unquestionably follow a client's bidding, particularly if it is unethical or illegal.

(Canon I, Section 2; Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 8; Canon III; The Revised Lawyer's Oath)

9.​ In 1998, Acaramba, a telecommunications company, signed a retainer agreement with

Bianca & Sophia Law Office (B & S) for the latter's legal services for a fee of P2,000 a
month. From 1998 to 2001, the only service actually performed by B & S for Acaramba
was the review of a lease agreement and representation of Acaramba as a complainant
in a bouncing checks case. Acaramba stopped paying retainer fees in 2002 and
terminated its retainer agreement with B & S in 2005. In 2007, Temavous, another
 telecommunications company, requested B & S to act as its counsel in the following
transactions: (a) the acquisition of Acaramba; and (b) the acquisition of Super-6, a
company engaged in the power business. In which transactions, if any, can Bianca &
Sophia Law Office represent Temavous? Explain fully.

Bianca & Sophia Law Office (B & S) can represent Temavous in the acquisition of Super-6, but
cannot represent Temavous in the acquisition of Acaramba.

The relevant Canon here is Canon III, Section 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Accountability (CPRA), which pertains to conflicts of interest with former clients.

Analysis for (a) the acquisition of Acaramba: B & S had a lawyer-client relationship with
Acaramba from 1998 to 2005. Even though the retainer agreement was terminated, a lawyer's
duty to a former client continues. A lawyer has an obligation to maintain the private confidences
of a former client even after the termination of the engagement. They are prohibited from using
information relating to the former representation, and, crucially, "shall not thereafter represent
a prospective client in the same or related legal matter, where the prospective client's
interests are materially adverse to the former client's interests", unless the former client
provides written informed consent.

In this scenario, Temavous's interest in acquiring Acaramba is materially adverse to Acaramba's

interests. While the specific legal services B & S performed for Acaramba (reviewing a lease
agreement and handling a bouncing checks case) might seem limited, they would have
necessarily involved some exposure to Acaramba's internal operations, financial situation, or
other confidential information. Even general knowledge of Acaramba gained during the seven
years of retainer (1998-2005) could be used to its detriment in an acquisition. The legal
profession's honor demands that a lawyer refrain from doing anything that would "injuriously
affect" a former client in any matter where they previously represented them. The confidence
reposed by the client is paramount and "should not be divested by the mere expiration of
professional employment". Representing an acquiring party against a former client, especially
one recently involved in a retainer relationship, would inherently violate the duty of
confidentiality and loyalty to the former client. Therefore, B & S cannot represent Temavous in
the acquisition of Acaramba.

Analysis for (b) the acquisition of Super-6: Super-6 is a company engaged in the power
business, which is distinct from Acaramba's telecommunications business [Query]. B & S had
no prior legal engagement with Super-6. This transaction is not the "same or related legal
matter" to the services B & S provided for Acaramba. There is no indication that any confidential
information acquired from Acaramba would be relevant or could be used to injure Acaramba in
the acquisition of Super-6. Therefore, representing Temavous in the acquisition of Super-6 does
not pose a conflict of interest with Acaramba.

In conclusion, B & S can represent Temavous in the acquisition of Super-6. However, due to the
continuing duty of confidentiality and the prohibition against representing materially adverse
interests in related matters with former clients, B & S cannot represent Temavous in the
acquisition of Acaramba without Acaramba's express written informed consent, which is unlikely
to be given.
BALE SEATWORK NO. 7
1.​ You are the managing partner of a law firm. A new foreign company, recently granted
rights by the Civil Aeronautics Board at the NAIA, is scouting for a law firm which could
handle its cases in the Philippines and provide legal services to the company and its
personnel. After discussing with you the extent of the legal services your law firm is
prepared to render, the general manager gives you a letter-proposal from another law
firm in which its time-billing rates and professional fees for various legal services are
indicated. You are asked to submit a similar letter-proposal stating your firm’s proposed
fees. The airline company’s general manager also tells you that, if your proposed fees
would at least be 25 percent lower than those proposed by the other firm, you will get the
company’s legal business. How would you react to the suggestion?

In this scenario, as the managing partner of the law firm, my reaction to the general manager's
suggestion to reduce proposed fees by at least 25% to secure the company's legal business
would be to politely decline that specific condition, while still submitting a proposal based on our
firm's established principles of fair and reasonable compensation.

Here's how I would react and the ethical considerations involved:

a.​ Acknowledge the Request but Prioritize Professional Dignity: I would acknowledge
the general manager's interest in our firm's services and the competitive nature of their
selection process. However, I would emphasize that the practice of law is a profession,
not a mere trade or business, and our firm's fees are determined by professional
standards, not solely by competitive bidding based on drastic price cuts. The most
effective advertisement for a lawyer is a "well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust," earned through character and conduct, not through
self-laudatory claims or commercial tactics. Undercutting by a fixed, significant
percentage purely for commercial gain could be seen as undermining the dignity of the
legal profession.
b.​ Adhere to Principles of Fair and Reasonable Fees (Canon III, Section 41): I would
explain that our firm determines its professional fees based on various factors that
ensure fairness and reasonableness, as outlined in Section 41, Canon III of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). These factors include:​

○​ The time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required.
○​ The novelty and difficulty of the issues involved.
○​ The skill or expertise of the lawyer, including the level of study and experience
required for the engagement.
○​ The probability of losing other engagements as a result of accepting the case.
○​ The customary charges for similar services.
○​ The quantitative or qualitative value of the client's interest or benefits.
○​ The contingency or certainty of compensation.
○​ The character of the engagement.
○​ Other analogous factors.
c.​ Setting fees based on these comprehensive criteria ensures that the compensation
aligns with the complexity, effort, and value of the legal services provided, rather than
being arbitrarily reduced to win a bid. While a lawyer's fees are generally "conclusive as
to the amount of lawyer’s compensation," they can be deemed "unconscionable or
unreasonable" if they are "so disproportionate compared to the value of the services
rendered as to amount to fraud perpetrated upon the client". This principle, typically
 applied to excessive fees, also supports the idea that fees should be justly determined,
not just commercially competitive in a way that devalues services.
d.​ Avoid Improper Solicitation and Advertisement (Canon II, Section 17): The
suggestion to drastically lower fees to secure business verges on undignified solicitation,
which is generally prohibited. Section 17, Canon II states that "A lawyer shall not, directly
or indirectly, solicit, or appear to solicit, legal business." While submitting a proposal for
services is permissible, competing primarily on a significant, arbitrary price reduction,
especially one suggested by the client to undercut a competitor, can be construed as an
"impermissible advertisement" or "self-laudatory". It may be seen as a form of
"commercializing the profession," which is discouraged because the legal profession is
"primarily for public service".​

e.​ Uphold Competence and Diligence (Canon IV): Our commitment is to provide
"competent, efficient, and conscientious legal service". Offering significantly lower fees
just to win a client, without a corresponding adjustment based on the actual scope or
nature of services (as determined by the factors in Section 41, Canon III), could imply a
compromise in the quality of service, which would violate our duty of competence and
diligence. We are obligated to observe "diligence in all professional undertakings", and
arbitrary fee reductions could create an expectation of less thorough work or reduced
commitment.​

f.​ Maintain Independence (Canon I): A lawyer's independence in discharging

professional duties should be free from "improper influence, restriction, pressure, or
interference". Allowing fee structures to be dictated by competitive undercutting, rather
than by professional assessment of service value, could compromise this independence.​

In conclusion, I would communicate that while we appreciate the opportunity and are keen to
partner with the company, our firm maintains a commitment to ethical practice and professional
standards in setting fees. We would submit a proposal that reflects a fair and reasonable
valuation of our services based on their anticipated scope and complexity, ensuring that our
clients receive the highest quality of legal representation without compromising the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession.

2.​ On June 28, 2001, RJ filed with the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition, with a
prayer for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, to forestall his removal as
chairman and general manager of a government agency. He believed he had a fixed
term until January 31, 2004, but there were indications that the new President would
replace him. As he had apprehended, an Administrative Order was issued by the Chief
Executive on July 2, 2001 recalling RJ’s appointment. Shortly thereafter, PT was
appointed to the position in question. On July 3, 2001, RJ filed a motion to withdraw his
petition. On the same day, without waiting for the resolution of his motion, he filed
another petition with the Regional Trial Court seeking to prevent his removal as
chairman and general manager of the government agency. On July 8, 2001, his motion
to withdraw the first petition was granted by the Supreme Court without prejudice to his
liability, if any, for contempt for engaging in forum shopping. Is he guilty of
forum-shopping? Explain.

Yes, RJ is guilty of forum shopping.

Forum shopping is defined as the act of a party repetitively availing themselves of several
judicial remedies in different courts, either simultaneously or successively. These actions are
substantially founded on the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances, and raise
substantially the same issue of law or fact, with the aim of obtaining a favorable judgment. It is
prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades
the administration of justice, and adds to already congested court dockets. The primary purpose
of the rule against forum shopping is to prevent the rendition of two competent courts issuing
separate and opposing rulings.

The criteria for determining the existence of forum shopping are:

1.​ Identity of parties, or at least parties representing the same interests in both actions.
2.​ Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, with the relief being founded on the
same facts.
3.​ Such identity in the preceding two particulars that any judgment rendered in one action,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other action
under consideration (meaning it would preclude further litigation on the same matter).

In RJ's case, all three elements are present:

1.​ Identity of parties: RJ is the petitioner in both the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial
Court cases, seeking relief against the same government agency/Chief Executive for the
same issue (his removal).
2.​ Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for: Both his initial petition with the
Supreme Court (for prohibition to forestall his removal) and his subsequent petition with
the Regional Trial Court sought to prevent his removal as chairman and general
manager of the government agency. This shows an identical right asserted and the same
relief sought.
3.​ Res judicata/Litis Pendentia: RJ filed the second petition with the Regional Trial Court
on July 3, 2001, without waiting for the Supreme Court's resolution on his motion to
withdraw the first petition. The Supreme Court only granted his motion to withdraw on
July 8, 2001. This means that for a period of five days (July 3-8, 2001), two cases
involving the same parties, facts, and reliefs were simultaneously pending in different
judicial forums. Filing "multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the
same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet" is a clear instance of
forum shopping (litis pendentia). The Supreme Court's grant of his motion to withdraw
"without prejudice to his liability, if any, for contempt for engaging in forum shopping"
further indicates its recognition of this potential violation.

Canon Referred To: The legal principle violated by RJ's actions is primarily addressed in
Canon II, Section 23 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
This section explicitly states: "A lawyer shall not knowingly engage or through gross negligence
in forum shopping, which offends against the administration of justice, and is a falsehood foisted
upon the court, tribunal, or other government agency". It further advises against instituting
multiple cases "to gain leverage in a case, to harass a party, to delay the proceedings, or to
increase the cost of litigation".

Consequences of Forum Shopping: Engaging in willful and deliberate forum shopping can
lead to severe consequences, including:

●​ Summary dismissal of the case.

 ●​ Direct contempt of court imposed on the party and their lawyer.
●​ Disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer concerned.
●​ A criminal action for false certification of non-forum shopping and indirect contempt.

3.​ May a lawyer give proper advice and assistance to a client of another lawyer? Support
your answer.

Yes, a lawyer may give proper advice and assistance to a client of another lawyer under certain
specific circumstances.

While Section 24, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability
(CPRA) generally prohibits a lawyer from directly or indirectly encroaching upon or interfering in
the professional engagement of another lawyer, including attempting to communicate, negotiate,
or deal with a person represented by another lawyer on any matter, there are exceptions.

One such exception explicitly allows a lawyer to give "proper advice and assistance to anyone
seeking relief against perceived unfaithful or neglectful counsel". This is permissible as long as
no conflict of interest is involved and the lawyer does not directly or indirectly encroach on the
employment of the other lawyer.

4.​ D was charged with estafa by C before the barangay for misappropriating the proceeds
of sale of jewelry on commission. In settlement of the case, D turned over to the
barangay captain, a lawyer, the amount of P2,000.00 with the request that the barangay
captain turn over the money to C. Several months passed without C being advised of the
status of her complaint. C contacted D who informed her that she (D) had long before
turned over the amount of P2,000.00 to the barangay captain who undertook to give the
money to her (C). C thus filed a case against the barangay captain who at once remitted
the amount of P2,000.00 to C. May the barangay captain be faulted administratively?
Explain.

Yes, the barangay captain, who is a lawyer, can be faulted administratively for his actions.

The barangay captain violated several ethical duties under the CPRA:

1.​ Duty to Account and Turn Over Funds (Canon III, Section 56): A lawyer who is
discharged from or terminates an engagement must "immediately render a full account
of and turn over all documents, evidence, funds, and properties belonging to the client".
A lawyer has an absolute duty to give a "prompt and accurate account" to his client for
any money or property received on their behalf, and to "pay or remit the same to the
client... as soon as reasonably possible" unless there's a contrary understanding. The
unjustified withholding of a client's money warrants disciplinary action. In this case, the
barangay captain received the P2,000.00 from D with the specific request to turn it over
to C [Scenario]. His failure to do so for "several months" and only remitting it "at once"
after a case was filed against him demonstrates a clear breach of this duty [Scenario].
Such failure gives rise to the presumption that the lawyer converted the money for
personal use.
 2.​ Duty of Diligence (Canon IV, Section 3): A lawyer is obligated to "diligently and
seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by a client". The delay in turning over the
money, despite the clear instruction, indicates a lack of diligence.
3.​ Duty to Update the Client (Canon IV, Section 6): A lawyer must "regularly inform the
client of the status and the result of the matter undertaken" and "respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for information". C was "without being advised of
the status of her complaint" for "several months" and had to contact D to learn that the
money was with the barangay captain [Scenario]. This is a violation of the lawyer's duty
to keep the client informed.
4.​ Proper Conduct (Canon II, Section 1): A lawyer "shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct". "Dishonest conduct is the disposition to lie,
cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray be untrustworthy lacking in integrity, honesty, probity,
integrity in principle, fairmess, and straightforwardness". The barangay captain's failure
to promptly remit funds, which is akin to an unjustified withholding of money, can be seen
as dishonest conduct.

In summary, the barangay captain's delayed remittance, failure to inform C, and acting only after
C filed a case against him are serious breaches of his ethical obligations concerning client funds
and professional diligence, making him administratively liable.

5.​ From the viewpoint of legal ethics, why should it be mandatory that the public prosecutor
be present at the trial of a criminal case despite the presence of a private prosecutor?

From the viewpoint of legal ethics, the mandatory presence of a public prosecutor at the trial of
a criminal case, even with a private prosecutor present, is essential due to the distinct and
broader role of the public prosecutor as a representative of the State and an officer of the court.

1.​ Representation of the State and Administration of Justice (Canon I, Section 2;

Canon III, Section 2): A lawyer, including a public prosecutor, is an "officer of the court".
Their principal obligation towards the administration of justice is "to exert every effort to
conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice". The public
prosecutor represents the State, whose interest is not merely to secure a conviction but
to ensure that justice is done impartially, that due process is observed, and that the truth
is revealed.
2.​ Duty to Truth and Fairness (Canon II, Section 31): Public prosecutors are specifically
enjoined not to "suppress facts, conceal or destroy evidence, coach a witness or offer
false testimony". This highlights their ethical responsibility to uphold fairness and the
truth, regardless of the outcome for the private complainant.
3.​ Distinction from Private Prosecutor: While a private prosecutor represents the private
offended party and aims to secure civil indemnity or assist in the criminal prosecution,
their primary interest is often tied to the individual's specific grievances. The public
prosecutor, on the other hand, is tasked with upholding public policy and the collective
interest in maintaining peace and order through the just enforcement of criminal laws.
4.​ Safeguarding Rights: The presence of the public prosecutor ensures that the
accused's constitutional rights, such as the right to due process, are upheld throughout
the proceedings. This oversight is crucial to prevent potential abuses or overzealous
prosecution driven by private interests.
Therefore, the public prosecutor's mandatory presence ensures that the broader interests of
justice, the State, and public policy are always prioritized and safeguarded in criminal
proceedings, transcending the specific interests of the private offended party.

6.​ The shingle of a lone law practitioner Bartolome D. Carton, who inherited the law office
from his deceased father, Antonio C. Carton, carries these names: “Carton & Carton Law
Office.” Is that permissible or objectionable? Explain.

The use of the firm name "Carton & Carton Law Office" by Bartolome D. Carton is
objectionable under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), unless
specific conditions are met.

Section 26, Canon II of the CPRA, regarding the responsibility of a law firm and the choice of
firm name, states that "no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be used". It further
specifies: "The continued use of the name of a deceased, incapacitated, or retired partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is
deceased, incapacitated, or retired".

In this scenario, Bartolome is described as a "lone law practitioner" who inherited the office from
his "deceased father." [Scenario] The firm name "Carton & Carton Law Office" without any
qualification implies that Antonio C. Carton is still an active partner, which is false and
misleading given his deceased status. The rationale behind such rules is to prevent the law firm
or partners from using the name of a public official (or in this case, a deceased former
practitioner) to attract business and avoid suspicion of undue influence or misrepresentation.

To be permissible, the shingle (and all other communications) should clearly indicate that
Antonio C. Carton is deceased, for example, "Carton & Carton Law Office (Antonio C. Carton,
deceased)" or similar phrasing. Without such an indication, the name is objectionable as it
misleads the public by suggesting a partnership that no longer exists in its active form.

7.​ Atty. Hyde, a bachelor, practices law in the Philippines. On long weekends, he dates
beautiful actresses in Hong Kong. Kristine, a neighbor in the Philippines, filed with the
Supreme Court an administrative complaint against the lawyer because of sex videos
uploaded through the internet showing Atty. Hyde’s sordid dalliance with the actresses in
Hong Kong. In his answer, Atty. Hyde (1) questions the legal personality and interest of
Kristine to institute the complaint and (2) insists that he is a bachelor and the sex videos
relate to his private life which is outside public scrutiny and have nothing to do with his
law practice. Rule on the validity of Atty. Hyde’s defenses. 9. Congressman X is a senior
partner in a law firm. Although he no longer appears in court, he advises clients and
corrects the pleadings of his assistants. His political opponent lodged complaints with the
House Committee on Ethics and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) contending
that he is prohibited by the Constitution to practice law. A staff of Congressman X asked
you on whether the complaints will prosper. Will the complaints prosper? Explain.

Both of Atty. Hyde’s defenses are untenable and will likely not be valid.

Regarding Kristine’s legal personality and interest to institute the complaint:

 a.​ Ruling: Kristine's legal personality and interest are immaterial in this
administrative complaint.
b.​ Explanation: Administrative cases against lawyers, such as disbarment or
suspension proceedings, are considered sui generis, meaning they are a class of
their own. They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal in nature. The
fundamental purpose of these proceedings is not to grant relief to the
complainant (Kristine, in this instance) or to punish the lawyer. Instead, their sole
purpose is to determine whether a lawyer still possesses the requisite moral
character and fitness to continue as a member of the Bar, and to protect the
public and the courts from misconduct.
c.​ Therefore, the complainant's (Kristine's) interest or lack thereof is not a bar to the
proceedings. Any person, the Supreme Court on its own initiative, or the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) may commence such
proceedings. Kristine is viewed not as a plaintiff, but merely as a witness who
brought the alleged misconduct to the attention of the Court.
d.​ Canon Referred: Canon VI, Section 2 ("How Instituted") of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Regarding the claim that he is a bachelor and the sex videos relate to his private life
which is outside public scrutiny and have nothing to do with his law practice:

e.​ Ruling: Atty. Hyde's second defense is untenable.

f.​ Explanation: A lawyer's conduct is not confined to their professional duties; they
can be disciplined for misconduct committed in either their professional or
private capacity. The decisive factor is whether the lawyer's conduct
demonstrates a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
if it renders them unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. There is no
distinction in the disciplinary rules between a lawyer's professional and private
life, as a lawyer cannot divide their personality into separate spheres.
g.​ Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA mandates that "A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct". This broad prohibition
extends to a lawyer's actions in their private life.
h.​ Furthermore, Canon II, Section 2 (Dignified Conduct) of the CPRA explicitly
states that "A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's
fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or
private life, to the discredit of the legal profession".
i.​ The act of uploading "sex videos" through the internet, showing "sordid
dalliance," can be considered "grossly immoral conduct" or "scandalous conduct"
[Scenario]. "Grossly immoral conduct" is defined as behavior that is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, showing a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable
members of the community, or so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency. Even if Atty. Hyde is a bachelor, public dissemination of such videos
could still be deemed grossly immoral or scandalous, bringing disrepute to the
legal profession.
j.​ The CPRA also specifically addresses the "Responsible Use of Social Media"
under Canon II, Sections 36-44. Section 37 mandates that "A lawyer shall
ensure that his or her online posts, whether made in a public or restricted privacy
setting that still holds an audience, uphold the dignity of the legal profession and
shield it from disrepute, as well as maintain respect for the law". Lawyers' right to
 privacy regarding their social media accounts is limited and cannot be used as a
shield against administrative liability, particularly when their posts affect the
dignity of the profession. Flaunting illicit relationships or engaging in scandalous
online behavior, even if personal, is seen as a transgression of the high moral
standards required of a lawyer.
k.​ Therefore, Atty. Hyde's actions, though occurring in his private life, may adversely
reflect on his moral character and fitness to practice law, making his defense
invalid.

8.​ Congressman X is a senior partner in a law firm. Although he no longer appears in court,
he advises clients and corrects the pleadings of his assistants. His political opponent
lodged complaints with the House Committee on Ethics and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) contending that he is prohibited by the Constitution to practice law. A
staff of Congressman X asked you on whether the complaints will prosper. Will the
complaints prosper? Explain.

On Congressman X's Complaints:

The complaints lodged against Congressman X will not prosper.

●​ Explanation: The practice of law is broadly defined as the rendition of legal service or
performance of acts or the application of law, legal principles, and judgment, in or out of
court, with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person or a cause, and
pursuant to a lawyer-client relationship or other engagement governed by the CPRA. It
includes any activity, in or out of court, that requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. Specifically, "giving legal advice and
instructions to clients" and "preparation of documents requiring knowledge of legal
principles not possessed by ordinary laymen" constitute the practice of law. Therefore,
Congressman X's activities of advising clients and correcting pleadings of his assistants
do indeed fall within the scope of practicing law [Scenario].
●​ However, the crucial point lies in the constitutional restriction placed upon members of
Congress. Article VI, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that
"No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
and other administrative bodies".
●​ The sources indicate that members of the House of Representatives have a restricted
right to practice law, not a total prohibition. The restriction is specifically on personally
appearing as counsel in certain forums.
●​ Since the scenario states that Congressman X "no longer appears in court" but limits his
activities to advising clients and correcting pleadings [Scenario], his actions do not
violate the specific constitutional prohibition against personally appearing as counsel.
While he is engaged in the practice of law, he is doing so within the bounds permitted for
a member of Congress.
●​ Canon Referred: Article VI, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
BALE SEAT WORK NO. 9
1.​ Define privileged communication.

Privileged communication, also known as the confidentiality rule, dictates that an attorney is not
permitted to disclose communications made to them in their professional capacity by a client,
unless the client provides consent [Source 1, p. 553]. The Rule on Privileged Communication
under the Rules of Court specifies that an attorney, or someone the client reasonably believes to
be a licensed lawyer, cannot be examined regarding any communication made by the client or
advice given by the attorney in the course of professional employment, without the client's
consent [Source 1, p. 554]. This protection also extends to the attorney's secretary,
stenographer, clerk, or other assistants concerning information acquired in their capacity
[Source 1, p. 554, 557]. A communication is considered confidential if it is voluntarily disclosed
in confidence between attorney and client, and the client is unaware of it being disclosed to any
third person, except when necessary for transmission or the purpose of the information [Source
1, p. 555].

(Relevant Rule: REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Sec. 24(b))

2.​ What are the requisites for privileged communication?

For the Rule on Privileged Communication to apply, the following requisites must be met:

a.​ An attorney-client or prospective attorney-client relationship must exist, which is

the basis for the client making the communication [Source 1, p. 555].
b.​ The client must have made the communication in confidence [Source 1, p. 555].
c.​ The legal advice must have been sought from the attorney in their professional
capacity [Source 1, p. 555].

3.​ Does privileged communication apply even to prospective clients? Explain.

Yes, privileged communication applies even to prospective clients [Source 1, p. 169].

Information disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer is protected by this rule, even if the
lawyer is not ultimately retained or declines the employment [Source 1, p. 169, 564-565]. The
rationale for this is that a prospective client should be able to discuss matters freely with a
lawyer, without fear that the information shared will be divulged or used against them. Similarly,
the lawyer should be free to obtain information from the prospective client without such
concerns [Source 1, p. 169-170].

(Relevant Canon: Canon III, Sec. 17(b) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability (CPRA))

4.​ May a client at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place?. Explain.

Yes, a client has the absolute right to terminate the lawyer-client engagement at any time,
particularly upon a loss of trust and confidence [Source 1, p. 69, 263-264, 665]. This right is
inherent due to the highly confidential nature of the relationship [Source 1, p. 665]. Even if the
client dismisses the attorney, they are still obligated to fully pay all professional fees due to the
lawyer. If the engagement was in writing, the lawyer is entitled to the stipulated compensation,
unless a court deems it unconscionable or unreasonable [Source 1, p. 69, 264, 667-668].

For a valid substitution of counsel, a written request for substitution must be filed, accompanied
by the client's written consent and the written consent of the attorney being substituted. If the
substituted attorney's consent cannot be obtained, proof that the motion for substitution was
served on them is required [Source 1, p. 668-669]. However, the rules do not mandate the
former attorney's written consent for substitution; only notice to the adverse party is necessary
[Source 1, p. 670-671].

(Relevant Canon: Canon III, Sec. 54 of the CPRA; Relevant Rule: RULES OF COURT, Rule
138, Sec. 26)

5.​ May a lawyer at any time terminate his professional relationship with his client? Explain.

No, a lawyer does not possess an unqualified right to withdraw as counsel [Source 1, p. 666].
As an officer of the court, a lawyer's withdrawal must not cause injustice to the client or frustrate
the ends of justice [Source 1, p. 666]. A lawyer may withdraw with the client's written consent at
any time. Without such consent, withdrawal is permitted only for good cause and with
appropriate notice [Source 1, p. 666].

(Relevant Canon: Canon III, Sec. 53 of the CPRA; Relevant Rule: RULES OF COURT, Rule
138, Sec. 26)

6.​ Must there be a ground or grounds for a lawyer to terminate his professional relationship
with his client? Explain.

Must there be a ground or grounds for a lawyer to terminate his professional relationship
with his client? Explain. Yes, a lawyer must have a good cause to terminate the lawyer-client
engagement and must do so upon written notice [Source 1, p. 69, 262, 663]. The specific
grounds constituting good cause include:

●​ The client pursuing an illegal or immoral course of conduct related to the engagement
●​ The client insisting that the lawyer engage in conduct that violates the Canons and rules
●​ The lawyer's inability to effectively work with a co-counsel, which would not promote the
client's best interest
●​ The lawyer's moral predisposition or their mental or physical condition making it difficult
to carry out the engagement effectively
●​ The client deliberately failing to pay fees, failing to comply with the retainer agreement,
or being untraceable despite diligent efforts
●​ The lawyer being elected or appointed to public office
●​ Other similar cases

(Relevant Canon: Canon III, Sec. 53 of the CPRA)

7.​ Does the death of a lawyer terminate the professional relationship with his client?
Explain.

Yes, the death of either the lawyer or the client terminates the lawyer-client relationship [Source
1, p. 69, 283, 671-672]. However, if the deceased lawyer was part of a law firm, their death does
not extinguish the lawyer-client engagement between the firm and the client it handled [Source
1, p. 69, 283, 672]. Upon a party's death, their counsel's authority to appear ceases, except to
promptly inform the court of the death and to take steps to safeguard the deceased's interests,
unless new parties retain their services. It is the counsel's duty to provide the names and
addresses of the legal heirs and, if possible, the death certificate [Source 1, p. 283, 672-673].

(Relevant Canon: Canon III, Sec. 55 of the CPRA; Relevant Rule: RULES OF COURT, Rule
3, Sec. 16)

8.​ Define: a. vulnerable person; and indigent person.

a. Vulnerable Person: A vulnerable person is defined as someone who faces a higher risk of
harm than others [Source 1, p. 14, 331, 700]. This category includes, but is not limited to,
children, the elderly, the homeless, persons with disability, persons deprived of liberty, human
rights victims, victims of domestic violence, victims of armed conflict, those who are
socio-economically disadvantaged, those belonging to racial or ethnic minorities, or individuals
with debilitating physical or mental conditions [Source 1, p. 14, 331-333, 700-701]. Lawyers
dealing with vulnerable clients are required to adhere to a higher standard of service tailored to
their specific needs and advocate for their right to meaningful access to justice [Source 1, p. 14,
332, 700].

(Relevant Canon: Canon V, Sec. 2 of the CPRA)

b. Indigent Person: An indigent is any person who lacks sufficient money or property for their
and their family's basic necessities like food and shelter [Source 1, p. 337, 702]. More
specifically, an indigent litigant is an individual whose gross income, combined with that of their
immediate family, does not exceed double the monthly minimum wage of an employee, and who
does not own real property with a fair market value exceeding Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00) as per the current tax declaration [Source 1, p. 78, 337, 704]. A lawyer generally
cannot refuse to represent an indigent person, unless they are unable to effectively or
competently perform the work due to a justifiable cause, there is a conflict-of-interest situation,
or they are related to the potential adverse party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or to the adverse counsel within the fourth degree [Source 1, p. 78, 336-337, 701-702].

(Relevant Canon: Canon V, Sec. 3 of the CPRA; Relevant Rule: RULES OF COURT, Rule
141, Sec. 19)

9.​ What is the nature of disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer?

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are unique, or sui generis. They are neither purely civil
nor purely criminal in nature, but rather an investigation by the Supreme Court into the conduct
of one of its officers. These proceedings are not aimed at punishment or to deprive a lawyer of
their livelihood, but rather to determine if the lawyer is fit to continue exercising the legal
function, ensuring competence, honor, and reliability for the protection of the public and the
maintenance of confidence in the profession.

Key characteristics reflecting this nature, which are broadly covered under Canon VI
(Accountability) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), include:
 a.​ They are imprescriptible, meaning ordinary statutes of limitation do not apply
b.​ They are conducted confidentially until a final determination
c.​ The defense of "double jeopardy" is not applicable
d.​ The defense of in pari delicto (complainant also at fault) is immaterial
e.​ Monetary claims generally cannot be granted, with an exception for restitution
and the return of monies and properties given by the client during the
lawyer-client relationship
f.​ They can be initiated motu proprio (on the court's own initiative) by the Supreme
Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) (Section 2, Canon VI &
Section 30, Canon VI)

10.​In administrative cases against a lawyer, who has the burden of proof?

In administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers, the complainant has the burden of proof.
They must establish the allegations against the respondent with substantial evidence

Relevant Canon: Canon VI, Section 32 (Quantum and Burden of Proof)

11.​How are disbarment proceedings instituted?

Disbarment, suspension, or discipline proceedings against lawyers can be commenced in three

ways:

1.​ Supreme Court's Own Initiative: The Supreme Court may initiate proceedings motu
proprio
2.​ IBP Board of Governors: Upon the filing of a verified complaint by the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
3.​ Any Person: Upon the filing of a verified complaint by any person before the Supreme
Court or the IBP

Complaints against government lawyers seeking to discipline them as members of the Bar must
be filed only with the Supreme Court. Complaints against incumbent Justices of the Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and judges of lower courts, or lawyers in
judicial service, must be forwarded by the IBP to the Supreme Court for disposition under Rule
140.

●​ Relevant Canon: Canon VI, Section 2 (How Instituted) and Section 30 (Proceedings
Initiated Before the Supreme Court)

12.​What is the quantum of evidence necessary to discipline a lawyer in an administrative

case filed against him?
The quantum of evidence required to discipline a lawyer in an administrative case is
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as "that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"

Relevant Canon: Canon VI, Section 32 (Quantum and Burden of Proof)

13.​When does the sanction to discipline a lawyer take effect? Why?

The decision or resolution pronouncing a lawyer's administrative liability is immediately

executory The copies of the decision are furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the IBP
National Office and local chapter, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts While the provided sources do not explicitly state the "why" in a direct rule, the
immediate executory nature aligns with the protective purpose of disciplinary actions, which is to
safeguard the public, protect and preserve the legal profession, and ensure lawyers deal fairly
and honestly

Relevant Canon: Canon VI, Section 43 (Immediately Executory; Furnished Copies)

14.​Once a suspended lawyer has served his suspension, is he automatically reinstated?

Explain.

No, a suspended lawyer is not automatically reinstated upon the mere expiration of their
suspension period. To resume the practice of law, the lawyer must file a Sworn Statement with
the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant. This statement must affirm that,
during the suspension period, the lawyer:

●​ Did not appear before any court, tribunal, or government agency

●​ Did not sign or file any pleading or court submission
●​ Duly informed their clients, law firm, law school, or legal service organization about the
suspension
●​ Did not perform any act, directly or indirectly, that amounts to the practice of law

The Sworn Statement is considered proof of compliance, and the lawyer is allowed to resume
practice upon its filing. However, any false statement in this sworn declaration is a ground for a
new disbarment complaint.

Relevant Canon: Canon VI, Section 45 (Sworn Statement After Service of Suspension) and
Section 46 (Resumption of Practice of Law)

15.​Can a disbarred lawyer apply for reinstatement? If so, when and how?

Yes, a disbarred lawyer can apply for reinstatement by filing a verified petition for judicial
clemency. This petition can be filed after five (5) years from the receipt of the order, decision,
or resolution of disbarment.

The verified petition must allege:

 ●​ It was filed after the five-year period
●​ Full compliance with all prior disciplinary orders, including restitution
●​ Recognition of the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct, evidenced by
positive acts of reformation
●​ Reconciliation, or good faith attempts at reconciliation, with the wronged private offended
party (or a public apology if no private offended party)
●​ Possession of the requisite good moral character and competence despite past conduct

The Supreme Court conducts a preliminary evaluation, and if found meritorious, refers it for
investigation and recommendation. The decision is based on clear and convincing evidence,
primarily determining if the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated their conduct and character

Relevant Canon: Canon VI, Section 47 (Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys) , Section 48
(Petition for Judicial Clemency) , Section 49 (Preliminary Evaluation of Petition for Judicial
Clemency) , Section 50 (Investigation by the Office of the Bar Confidant or Other Fact-Finding
Body) , and Section 51 (Decision on the Petition for Judicial Clemency; Quantum of Evidence)

16.​What did the new Code of professional Responsibility and Accountability repeal and/or
modify?

The new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), identified as A.M. No.
22-09-01-SC, effectively superseded and modified the previous Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) . Many of the rules from the former CPR have been directly incorporated
into specific sections and canons of the CPRA, often with a note indicating that a particular rule
from the CPR is now integrated into a specific section of the CPRA . This signifies a
comprehensive update and restructuring of the ethical standards governing the legal profession.

Relevant Canon/Rule: The CPRA (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC) itself is the document that
superseded the CPR. This is an overarching legislative act of the Supreme Court, rather than a
specific Canon within the CPRA. Numerous "NB" notations throughout the sources confirm that
specific rules of the CPR have been incorporated and thus modified or superseded by
corresponding sections in the CPRA's various Canons (e.g., Canon II, Section 1 states "NB:
Rule 1.01, Canon I of the CPR is now Sec. 1, Canon II of the CPRA" ).
BALE SEAT WORK NO. 10
1.​ What is the effect of taking the Lawyer's Oath?

The Lawyer's Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality for practicing law; it is a significant
source of obligations for every lawyer. By taking this oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of
truth and the rule of law, serving as an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice.

The oath emphasizes that a lawyer accepts the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of
practicing law in the Philippines as an officer of the Court in the interest of the people. It requires
fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and a commitment to promote the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. Lawyers pledge to
conscientiously and courageously work for justice, safeguard the rights and freedoms of all
persons, identities, and communities, and ensure greater and equitable access to justice. A core
promise within the oath is to "do no falsehood nor...pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice
anyone," and to faithfully discharge duties with integrity and utmost civility.

Failure to honor the covenant made through the Lawyer's Oath makes a lawyer unfit to continue
practicing law and renders them accountable to society, the courts, the legal profession, and
their clients. A violation of the Lawyer's Oath is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other
disciplinary action.

Relevant Canon/Rule: Section 3, The Revised Lawyer's Oath and Canon VI:
Accountability.

2.​ How is disbarment proceedings instituted?

Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of lawyers can be commenced in

several ways:

1.​ Supreme Court's Own Initiative: The Supreme Court can initiate these proceedings
motu proprio (on its own motion).
2.​ Verified Complaint by IBP Board of Governors: The Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) may file a verified complaint.
3.​ Verified Complaint by Any Person: Any individual can file a verified complaint.

These complaints are filed either before the Supreme Court or the IBP. However, a verified
complaint against a government lawyer, when seeking to discipline them as a member of the
Bar, must only be filed in the Supreme Court.

A verified complaint filed with the Supreme Court may be referred to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation. If the complaint is filed directly by the IBP, it will be referred to the
Office of the Bar Confidant or another designated fact-finding body. Complaints against
incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and judges
of lower courts, or lawyers in judicial service, are forwarded by the IBP to the Supreme Court for
appropriate disposition under Rule 140, as amended.

The complaint itself must be in writing, clearly and concisely state the facts complained of, and
be supported by affidavits from persons with personal knowledge and/or substantiating
documents.
Relevant Canon/Rule: ACCOUNTABILITY (Canon VI), specifically Sec. 2 (How Instituted)
and Sec. 30 (Proceedings Initiated Before the Supreme Court).

3.​ When can a suspended lawyer resume his practice of law?

A suspended lawyer can resume the practice of law upon the expiration of their suspension
period by filing a Sworn Statement with the Supreme Court, submitted through the Office of the
Bar Confidant.

This Sworn Statement serves as proof of the lawyer's compliance with the suspension order and
must demonstrate that during the suspension period, the lawyer:

●​ Did not appear before any court, tribunal, or other government agency for current,
former, or prospective clients.
●​ Did not sign or file any pleading or other court submission.
●​ Duly informed their clients, law firm, law school (if teaching), legal clinic, or other legal
service organization about the suspension.
●​ Did not perform any other act, directly or indirectly, that constitutes the practice of law.

The Sworn Statement must also include the date the lawyer received the suspension order and
a list of all engagements affected by the suspension, specifying the relevant court, tribunal, or
agency. Copies of this statement must be furnished to the local IBP Chapter and the Executive
Judge of courts where the suspended lawyer has pending cases or has appeared as counsel.

Any false statement made in the Sworn Statement can be a ground for a new complaint for
disbarment.

Relevant Canon/Rule: ACCOUNTABILITY (Canon VI), particularly Sec. 45 (Sworn

Statement After Service of Suspension) and Sec. 46 (Resumption of Practice of Law).

4.​ Can a lawyer who has been disbarred reinstated as a lawyer? If so, how?

Yes, a lawyer who has been disbarred may be reinstated to the Roll of Attorneys by filing a
verified petition for judicial clemency.

This petition can be filed after a period of five (5) years from the receipt of the order, decision, or
resolution of disbarment.

The verified petition for judicial clemency must specifically allege the following:

●​ That it was filed after five years from the receipt of the disbarment order.
●​ That the disbarred lawyer has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior
disciplinary orders, including any orders for restitution.
●​ That the lawyer recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct for
which they were disbarred, supported by positive acts evidencing reformation.
●​ That the lawyer has reconciled, or attempted in good faith to reconcile, with the wronged
private offended party in the disbarment case. If reconciliation was not possible, an
explanation must be provided. If there was no private offended party, the plea for
clemency must include a public apology.
 ●​ That, notwithstanding the disciplined conduct, the disbarred lawyer now possesses the
requisite good moral character and competence.

The Supreme Court may deny the petition outright if it fails to show any prima facie merit. If it
proceeds, the Office of the Bar Confidant or another designated fact-finding body will conduct an
investigation and submit a report and recommendation to the Supreme Court within ninety (90)
calendar days. The Supreme Court will then decide the petition based on clear and convincing
evidence. The basic inquiry in such a petition is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated
themselves in conduct and character, requiring clear and convincing evidence of worthiness for
Bar membership.

Relevant Canon/Rule: 6. ACCOUNTABILITY (Canon VI), specifically Secs. 47-51 (Judicial

Clemency).

5.​ Atty. BB borrowed P30,000.00 from EG to be paid in six months. Despite reminders from
EG, Atty. BB failed to pay the loan on its due date, instead of suing in court, EG lodged
with an IBP chapter a complaint for failure to pay a just debt against Atty. BB. The
chapter secretary endorsed the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). A
Commissioner of the CBD issued an order directing Atty. BB to answer the complaint
against him but the latter ignored the order. Another order was issued for the parties to
appear before the Commissioner at a certain date and time but only EG showed up. A
third order submitting the case for resolution was likewise ignored by Atty. BB.

a.​ May disciplinary action be taken against Atty. BB for his failure to pay the loan?
Why?

Yes, disciplinary action may be taken against Atty. BB for his failure to pay the loan. While a
lawyer generally may not be disciplined for a simple failure to pay a loan, an exception exists
when there is a deliberate failure to pay just debts. The sources clarify that "just debts"
include claims where existence and justness are admitted by the debtor. In this scenario, Atty.
BB ignored reminders and orders, implying a deliberate refusal rather than a mere inability to
pay, which can be interpreted as an admission of the debt's justness.

Lawyers are held to high standards of moral character, honesty, and probity. They have a moral
duty and legal responsibility to settle their just debts when they fall due, as this reflects on their
fitness to practice law and their adherence to the values of the legal profession. A lawyer's
conduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, must demonstrate they are worthy to
continue as an officer of the court. Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes dishonest and
deceitful conduct, which is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability.

This falls under Canon II: Propriety, Sec. 1 (Proper Conduct), which prohibits unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The deliberate failure to pay just debts is cited as an
instance of gross misconduct and dishonest/deceitful conduct.

b.​ Was Atty. BB justified in ignoring the orders of the Commission on the ground
that the Commission had no power to discipline him for acts done in his private
capacity? Why?

No, Atty. BB was not justified in ignoring the orders of the Commission.
 1.​ Scope of Disciplinary Authority: A lawyer's conduct is "not confined to the
performance of his professional duties". A lawyer "may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity". The critical test is whether the
conduct, regardless of its professional or private nature, "shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court". Any wrongdoing, professional or
non-professional, indicating unfitness for the profession, justifies disciplinary action.
Therefore, acts done in his private capacity can indeed be grounds for disciplinary action
if they reflect poorly on his moral character and fitness to practice law.
2.​ Duty to Comply with Orders: Ignoring lawful orders from the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) is, in itself, a ground for disciplinary action. The CBD is an authorized
body to investigate disbarment complaints. "Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court" is explicitly a specific ground for suspension or disbarment. Furthermore,
"failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the IBP in relation to an administrative
case" is considered an aggravating factor in imposing sanctions. A lawyer, as an officer
of the court, is obliged to show respect to judicial processes.

This is primarily covered Canon II: Propriety, Sec. 1 (Proper Conduct) and Sec. 2 (Dignified
Conduct), and Canon VI: Accountability, which outlines the grounds and process for
discipline, including the duty to comply with orders.

6.​ Define Judicial Ethics.

Judicial Ethics is defined as "that branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper
conduct to be observed by all judges and magistrates in trying and deciding controversies
brought to them for adjudication which conduct must be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity,
competence, independence and freedom from improprieties".

7.​ What are the six (6) canons of the new Code of Judicial Conduct?

The six (6) canons of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary are:

a.​ Independence. Judicial Independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a

fundamental guarantee of a fair trial, and a judge must uphold and exemplify it in
both individual and institutional aspects.
b.​ Integrity. Integrity is essential not only for the proper discharge of judicial office
but also for the personal demeanor of judges.
c.​ Impartiality. Impartiality is crucial for the proper discharge of the judicial office,
applying to both the decision itself and the process by which it is made.
d.​ Propriety. Propriety and its appearance are essential in all activities of a judge.
e.​ Equality. Ensuring equality of treatment for all before the courts is vital for the
due performance of the judicial office.
f.​ Competence and Diligence. Competence and diligence are prerequisites for the
proper performance of judicial office.
 8.​ The Code of Professional Responsibility is to lawyers, as the Code of Judicial Conduct is
to members of the bench. How would you characterize the relationship between the
judge and a lawyer? Explain.

The relationship between a judge and a lawyer is characterized by mutual respect, courtesy,
and a shared commitment to the administration of justice.

For Lawyers: As officers of the court, lawyers have a principal obligation to protect the court's
integrity and assist in the administration of justice according to law. This involves upholding the
dignity and authority of the courts and respecting the law. Lawyers are expected to act with
courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the Bar. They must use
dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in all dealings, both personal and
professional, and avoid abusive, intemperate, offensive, or improper language [CPRA, Canon II,
Sec. 4]. They are specifically prohibited from misleading the court as to the existence or content
of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 8].
While lawyers have the right to criticize courts or judges, such criticism must be made in
respectful terms and through legitimate channels; insults hurled at the court, even after a case is
decided, cannot be justified. A lawyer's duty to their client is subordinate to their duty to the
court, and their conduct must always scrupulously observe law and ethics, avoiding unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 1]. The Lawyer's Oath itself
establishes a lawyer as a "guardian of the law and an indispensable instrument for the orderly
administration of justice". Lawyers are reminded to respect judicial independence [CPRA,
Canon I, Sec. 4].

For Judges: A judge, as the visible representation of the law and justice, must embody
competence, integrity, and independence. Judges are expected to be patient, attentive, and
courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced. The New Code of Judicial Conduct
emphasizes that judges must uphold and exemplify independence in both individual and
institutional aspects [NCJC, Canon 1]. They must maintain integrity, which is essential for the
proper discharge of their office and personal demeanor [NCJC, Canon 2]. Impartiality is crucial,
applying to both the decision and the process [NCJC, Canon 3]. Propriety and its appearance
are essential in all activities [NCJC, Canon 4]. Judges should carry out judicial duties with
appropriate consideration for all persons involved, including lawyers, without discrimination on
irrelevant grounds [NCJC, Canon 5, Sec. 3]. They must not only be impartial but also appear to
be impartial, as public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper
conduct. They should avoid discussions that might influence or undermine the integrity of the
court, and not convey any impression that anyone is in a special position to influence them
[NCJC, Canon 4, Sec. 8]. Finally, competence and diligence are prerequisites for the proper
performance of judicial office [NCJC, Canon 6].

In summary, both judges and lawyers are bound by high ethical standards—the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Accountability for lawyers and the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for judges—to ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice and maintain public
trust in the legal system.

9.​ A Judge of the Regional Trial Court, notwithstanding the fact that he was facing criminal
charges at the time he obtained his appointment, did not disclose the pendency of the
cases either to the President or to the Supreme Court. He claims that: (a) he enjoys
presumption of innocence in the pending criminal cases; (b) that the said cases even if
sustained after trial do not involve moral turpitude; and (c) before an administrative
complaint based on a criminal prosecution can be given due course there must be
 conviction by final judgment. May the Judge be considered as an undeserving appointee
and therefore be removed from his office?

Yes, the Judge may be considered an undeserving appointee and potentially removed from
office due to his non-disclosure, regardless of his claims.

1.​ Requirement of Good Moral Character and Disclosure for Legal and Judicial
Appointments:​

○​ Membership in the legal profession requires individuals to be "not only learned in

law, but also known to possess good moral character". This is a continuous
qualification.
○​ One of the requisites for admission to the practice of law is to produce
"satisfactory evidence of good moral character" and "that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines" [Sec. 2, Rule 138, ROC]. Judges are members of the Philippine Bar
and are held to these standards.
○​ The disclosure requirement is imposed to determine whether there is satisfactory
evidence of the applicant’s good moral character.
○​ The act of deliberate silence and non-revelation constitutes concealment.
Concealment of a charge or indictment for an alleged crime is a ground for
revocation of a lawyer's license to practice law. If a material fact is suppressed,
and this is discovered after the candidate has taken the oath as a lawyer, his or
her name will be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
○​ The sources explicitly state that "it is not the commission of the crime that makes
him morally unfit to become a lawyer, but it is the concealment that he committed.
In making the concealment, he perpetrated perjury". This act constitutes
dishonest and deceitful conduct and violates the lawyer's oath and Canon II,
Section 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA),
which states that a lawyer "shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct". Furthermore, the concealment of material information in an
application for admission to the Bar, if deliberately or knowingly made, is a
serious violation [CPRA, Canon II, Sec. 11].

2.​ Addressing the Judge's Claims:​

○​ (a) Claim of Presumption of Innocence: While an accused person enjoys the

presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, this legal principle applies to
the criminal prosecution itself, not to an administrative assessment of one's moral
fitness or suitability for public office. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis (a
class of their own) and are distinct from criminal cases. The disclosure
requirement for admission to the Bar (and implicitly for judicial appointment, as
judges are lawyers) is about transparency and demonstrating good moral
character at the time of application. The non-disclosure undermines this
fundamental assessment.
○​ (b) Claim that Cases Do Not Involve Moral Turpitude: Even if the underlying
criminal cases are ultimately proven to not involve moral turpitude, the act of
concealment itself is a serious ethical violation. The sources define "moral
turpitude" as "an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
 which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or
conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals". The deliberate
concealment and misrepresentation by the Judge constitute dishonest and
deceitful conduct, which are grounds for administrative liability regardless of the
nature of the criminal charges.
○​ (c) Claim that Conviction by Final Judgment is Required: Disbarment or
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers (including judges, as they are members
of the Bar) are sui generis and are distinct from and may proceed independently
of civil and criminal cases. A prior conviction by final judgment is not a
prerequisite for an administrative complaint to be given due course. The purpose
of such proceedings is not to punish the individual lawyer but to "safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the
misconduct of lawyers and to remove from the profession of law persons whose
disregard of their duties has proven them to be unfit to continue in the discharge
of their solemn responsibilities".

Conclusion on Removal: The Judge's non-disclosure of pending criminal charges, irrespective

of their nature or the presumption of innocence in the criminal context, is a significant ethical
breach. This act of dishonesty and lack of candor in the application process directly impacts his
fitness and good moral character, which are continuous qualifications for lawyers and judges.
The Supreme Court has administrative supervision and control over members of the Philippine
Bar and the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal. Therefore, the
non-disclosure is a sufficient basis for disciplinary action, potentially including removal from
office, as it reflects on his overall fitness to continue as an officer of the court.

10.​In a hearing before the Court of Tax Appeals, Atty. G was invited to appear as amicus
curiae. One of the Judges hearing the tax case is the father of Atty. G. The counsel for
the respondent moved for the inhibition of the judge in view of the father-son
relationship. Is there merit to the motion? Decide.

Yes, there is merit to the motion for the inhibition of the judge.

Judges are mandatorily disqualified from sitting in any case where they are related to either
party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of civil law. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary (NCJC) similarly states that a judge must disqualify themselves if they are
related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel
within the fourth civil degree [NCJC, Canon 3, Sec. 5]. A father-son relationship falls within the
first civil degree of consanguinity, thus clearly within the fourth degree for counsel.

While an amicus curiae is defined as a "friend of the court" invited to help in the disposition of
issues, and not strictly a "counsel" representing a party in an adversarial capacity, the
underlying principle of judicial ethics requires judges to maintain not only actual impartiality but
also the appearance of impartiality [NCJC, Canon 3]. Public confidence in the judiciary is
eroded by any irresponsible or improper conduct, and a judge must avoid all impropriety and the
appearance thereof. The close family relationship between the judge and Atty. G, who serves an
influential role in assisting the court, could reasonably create a perception of bias or improper
influence, regardless of actual intent. To preserve the dignity of the judicial office and ensure
public trust in the administration of justice, the judge should inhibit from the case [NCJC, Canon
4, Sec. 6].

11.​Judge Aficionado was among the several thousands of spectators watching a basketball
game at the Rizal Memorial Coliseum who saw the stabbing of referee Maykiling by
player Baracco in the course of the game. The criminal case correspondingly filed
against Baracco for the stabbing of Maykiling was raffled to the Regional Trial Court
branch presided over by Judge Aficionado. Should Judge Aficionado sit in judgment over
and try the case against Baracco? Explain.

No, Judge Aficionado should not sit in judgment over and try the case against Baracco.

Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are compelled to disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they have personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings [NCJC, Canon 3, Sec. 5]. As an eyewitness to
the stabbing incident, Judge Aficionado possesses personal knowledge of the facts central to
the criminal case.

For a judge to preside over a case where they are also a potential witness or possess
independent knowledge of the facts would create an irreconcilable conflict of roles and violate
the fundamental requirement of impartiality. A judge must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial to maintain public confidence in the judiciary [NCJC, Canon 3]. His direct
observation of the event would make it impossible for him to objectively evaluate the evidence
presented in court without his judgment being influenced by what he personally saw, thereby
compromising the fairness of the trial and eroding public trust in the judicial process.

12.​State, with a brief explanation, whether a judge may be sanctioned for deciding a case in
accordance with a Supreme Court ruling but adding that he does not agree with the
ruling.

Yes, a judge may be sanctioned for deciding a case in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling
but adding that he does not agree with the ruling.

While judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, this right is
circumscribed by their judicial office and their duty to preserve the dignity, impartiality, and
independence of the judiciary [NCJC, Canon 4, Sec. 6]. The Supreme Court's decisions
establish jurisprudence and doctrines, and lower courts, including trial courts, are bound to
follow them.

A judge publicly expressing disagreement with a Supreme Court ruling, even while applying it,
can undermine the authority of the High Court and erode public confidence in the entire judicial
system. Such conduct can be perceived as an act that "tarnishes the court's or tribunal's
integrity" or "imputes improper motives against any of its members" [NCJC, Canon II, Sec. 19
(b), (c)], and goes against the "traditional non-involvement of the judiciary in public discussion of
controversial issues". Judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the
public's faith in the legal profession and the justice system, and statements that could be seen
as disrespectful or questioning the legitimacy of higher court rulings are inconsistent with this
ethical duty.