1 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Part I.

I. Relevant Rules in the Practice of Law

a) 1987 Constitution:

i. Section 11, Article III, Bill of Rights:

Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
ii. Section 5(5), Article VIII:

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,

pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

iii. Section 17(3), Article XIII

Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection

b) Rules of Court:

i. Rule 138: Attorneys and Admission to Bar

ii. Rule 138-A: LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
iii. Rule 139-A: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
iv. Rule 139-B: Disbarment And Discipline Of Attorneys
v. Bar Matter No. 1960
vi. Rule 141: Legal Fees As Revised In 2004
vii. Code Of Judicial Conduct
viii. Code Of Professional Responsibility
ix. Canons Of Professional Ethics
c) Jurisprudence
d) Supreme Court Issuances
2 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

e) Orders/Resolution of Courts
f) IBP Issuances
g) Treaties and Publication
h) Legal Education Board
II. Practice of Law ( Rule 138 of the Rules of Court)

A. Cayetano vs. Monsod (G.R. NO. 100113, September 3, 1991)

TICKLER: PRACTICE of LAW NEW DEFINITION

Title: RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, G.R. NO. 100113, Paras J., Second
Division, September 3, 1991

Facts:

1. Renato Cayetano filed a disqualification case against the appointment of Christian Monsod as the
Chairman of Commission on election on the basis that he is not qualified according to the
constitutional requirements for the said position;

2. According to Section l(l), Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution which similarly provides:

There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and eight

Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a majority
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

3. The Supreme Court do not have a jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a legal
qualification to an appointive office.

4. It was known to us that Monsod, after graduating from the College of Law and having hurdled the
bar, worked in his father’s law office. After then, he worked as operations officer in the World Bank
Group (1963-1970). Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked with the Meralco Group as a Chief
Executive Officer, and subsequently rendered services to various companies either as legal and
economic consultant or chief executive officer. He also served as former Secretary-General (1986)
and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL, as a member of the Constitutional Commission
(1986-1987) and Davide Commission (1990), and as Chairman of Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers.
3 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Issue:

1. Whether the background of Christian Monsod is qualified for the practice of law which will
qualify him for the position of the Chairman of the COMELEC.

Ruling:

Yes, the background of Christian Monsod qualifies for the practice of law.

There were quite a number of definition to the practice of law, one of which is the tautologous or
the traditional sense of practice of law, and the other is the definition of Black’s dictionary as, “ The
rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique
to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising
and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients
and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice
of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing
himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about
pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate.”
For Monsod, he is an active member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, because he is a
graduate of Law and passed the bar and later practiced in his father’s law office. His work as an
Operations officer of the World Bank group requires his expertise as a lawyer for the loan agreement
as much as the debt restructuring programs.

Monsod then worked with the Meralco Group as a Chief Executive Officer, which requires the
expertise of a corporate lawyer because such a task needs the in depth understanding of the corporate
finance law.

He later moved to his advocacy as he became the Secretary General of the NAMFREL, and later
elected as its Chairman, the expertise of an election lawyer.

Then, later selected to become part of the Constitutional Commission and of Davide
Commission which needs his in depth understanding of constitutional law.

Chairman of Committee on Accountability of Public Officers where he practiced his expertise in

Civil, and Legal & Judicial Ethics.
4 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Wherefore, Christian Monsod with all the basis of evidence submitted doling the public
hearings on his confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as
required by law. The petition is denied.

B. Paguia vs. Office of the President ( G.R. No. 176278, June 25, 2010)

Title: ALAN F. PAGUIA vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, G.R. No. 176278, CARPIO, J.,
EN BANC, June 25, 2010

Facts:

1. Alan Paguia filed a Writ of Certiorari to invalidate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s

nomination of respondent former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (respondent Davide) as
Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN) for violation of Section 23 of Republic Act No.
7157 (RA 7157), the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991. Petitioner argues that respondent
Davide’s age at that time of his nomination in March 2006, 70, disqualifies him from holding his
post. Petitioner grounds his argument on Section 23 of RA 7157 pegging the mandatory retirement
age of all officers and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at 65.3 Petitioner
theorizes that Section 23 imposes an absolute rule for all DFA employees, career or non-career; thus,
respondent Davide’s entry into the DFA ranks discriminates against the rest of the DFA officials and
employees.

2. Department of Foreign Affairs questions the legal standing of Alan Paguis because he is
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law as decided in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil.
135 (2003).

Issue:

Whether Alan Paguia is eligible to bring legal action as a citizen after his indefinite suspension
in Practice of Law.

Ruling:

No, Alan Paguia can not perform and activity which requires practice law after his indefinite
suspension.

In Section 15, of Rule 139-B, states:

Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. — After receipt of respondent's answer

or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the
5 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may suspend an
attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138,
Section 27, during the pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the
Supreme Court.

In this case applying the amended rule mentioned, Alan Paguia until the Supreme Court lifts his
suspension can not practice law, as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, inside and out side
of the Halls of Justice.

Wherefore, Alan Paguia’s petition is ineligible to file this petition due to his indefinite
suspension.

C. Qualifications

1. For Admission to the Bar ( Section 2,5, and 6, Rules 138 of the Rules of Court)

a) Section 2, Rule 138:

Section 2: Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at
least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines;
and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed
or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

 Citizen of the Philippines;

 At least 21 years of age;
 Of good moral character ;
(Note: This is a continuing requirements.)
 Resident of the Philippines;
 Must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral character;
 No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending
in any court in the Phil.
b) Section 5: Must have complied with the academic requirements Pass the bar
examinations.

Section 5, Rule 138: Additional requirements for other applicants. — All

applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section
shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have
6 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed
courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the
Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate
from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and
further evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has
satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly
recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal
law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation,
medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
c) Section 6, Rule 138: In case the law student fails to fulfill the required number of units
they may take their deficiencies.

 8 units of English
 18 units of Social
Sciences,
 6 units of
Mathematics
 12 units of English
 9 units of History/Economics,
 9 units of any of the following
Philosophy, Political Science,
Psychology or Sociology
 3 units of Rizal course.
7 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Section 6: Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be

admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that,
before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the
completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of
concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics.

2. For Practicing Law:

Section 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court. Who may practice law. — Any person
heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.

Requirements Before A Candidate Can Engage In The Practice Of Law

 He must have been admitted to the Bar

 Furnishing satisfactory proof of educational, moral and other qualification;
 Passing the bar
 Taking the Lawyer’s Oath before the SC
A lawyer’s oath signifies that the lawyer in taking such an oath accepts and affirms his
ethical obligations in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and signifies likewise his
awareness of his responsibilities that he assumes by his admission to the legal profession.
I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice and will conduct myself
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

 Signing the Attorney’s Roll and receiving from the Clerk of Court of the SC a
Certificate of the license to practice
8 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

 After his admission to the bar, a lawyer must remain in good and regular standing, which is a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. He must:
 Remain a member of the IBP (membership therein by every attorney is made
compulsory);
 Regularly pay all IBP membership dues and other lawful assessments, as well as the
annual privilege tax;
 Faithfully observe the rules and ethics of the legal profession; and
 Be continually subject to judicial disciplinary control.
 Attend the Continuing Legal Education: Bar Matter 850: Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE). Requirements of Completion of MCLE Members of the IBP, unless
exempted under Rule 7, shall complete every three (3) years at least 36 hours of continuing
legal education activities.

The 36 hours shall be divided as follows:

 6 hours – legal Ethics
 4 hours – trial and pretrial skills
 5 hours – alternative dispute esolution
 9 hours – updates on substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence
 4 hours – writing and oral advocacy
 2 hours – international law and international conventions
 6 hours – such other subjects as may be prescribed by the Committee on MCLE
Parties Exempted from the MCLE

1) The President, Vice-President, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of executive

departments;
2) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the SC, incumbent and retired justices of the
judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers
covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy Program of continuing legal education;
4) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
5) The Solicitor-General and the Assistant Solicitor-General;
6) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7) The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
8) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
9) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
9 Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

10) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least
10 years in accredited law schools;
11) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professional Lecturers of the
Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12) Governors and Mayors
Other Exempted Parties
13) Those who are not in law practice, private or public
14) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors
Good Cause for Exemption from or modification of requirement:

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

Proof of exemption: Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE

requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.

Consequences of Non-Compliance:

A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the 60-day period shall be listed as
delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon recommendation of the Committee on
MCLE.

The listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature but shall be made with notice and
hearing by the Committee on MCLE.

D. Criteria for the Practice of Law

1. Attorney-client relationship

 Canon 14 - a lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.

 Canon 15 - a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
 Canon 16 - a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his profession.
 Canon 17 - a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
10Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

 Canon 18 - a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
 Canon 19 - a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
 Canon 20 - a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
 Canon 21 - a lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the
attorney-client relation is terminated.
 Canon 22 - a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.

Section 20 : Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or
with his knowledge and approval;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the
end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. — An
attorney who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue
representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in the
appellate court.

2. Application of Law
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used.
The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
currently.
11Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons
specified in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer;
or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

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

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered
case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP
chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from
the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
12Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled
to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client,
accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone
other than the client.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.
Section 24, Rule 138, Rule of Court: Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An
attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be
bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may
disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written
contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.
4. Habituality
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE,
INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
13Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or
the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to
render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless
the circumstances so warrant.
Canon 4 - a lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice.
Canon 5 - a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but
to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable
of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for
disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote
or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a
material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.
14Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor,
to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
counsel.
E. Duties of a Lawyer

a) Duty to Society

1. Malcampo-Sin vs. Sin, G.R. No. 13759, March 26, 2001

Title: FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN vs. PHILIPP T. SIN, G.R. No. 137590, FIRST
DIVISION, PARDO, J., March 26, 2001

Facts:

1. This case is an appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the
RTC dismissing the annulment of marriage filed by here in respondent due to inefficiency of
evidence.

2. The Solicitor General nor the Fiscal Jose Danilo C. Jabson failed to actively participate in the
case, although a the fiscal herein mentioned filed a manifestation dated November 16, 1994, since
then no other pleadings had been filed for the petitioner.The presiding judge as well did not take any
step to encourage the fiscal to contribute in the proceedings.

3. The Family Code mandates:

"ARTICLE 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the
Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the
State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is
not fabricated or suppressed (italics ours).
15Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

"In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a
stipulation of facts or confession of judgment."
Issue:
1. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals valid.
2. Is the fiscal liable for failure to observe code of professional responsibility.
Ruling:
1. No, the Court of Appeals decision lacks merit.
In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Erlinda Matias Dagdag, the court ruled against the
premature ruling of the court for failure of the petitioner to comply with the evidenciary requisites.
In the same manner, on this case, the court can not render a decision as it will be too premature
since the fiscal for the petitioner failed to actively participate as much as the court’s lack of
encouragement by calling the attention of the fiscal.

2. Yes, lawyers both as a private and in the government sector should always observe code of
professional responsibility.

In this case the following applies:

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order
of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison
with the copies.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The fiscal on this case only filed a manifestation on November 16, 1994, other than this he
failed to participate actively as a case related to Family Code is a a matter of interest of state, which
requires attention and active participation
Wherefore, for failure of the fiscal to actively take part on the matter of this case to ensure
equal protection of law, the decision in this case is prematurely held. The decision on this case is set
aside, and remanded. The fiscal on this case is hereby warned, that future occurrence will result to a
disciplinary action of this court.

2. Donton vs. Atty. Tansincp, A.C. 6057, June 27, 2006

16Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Title: Peter t. Donton vs. Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, THIRD DIVISION,
CARPIO, J., June 27, 2006

Facts:

1. This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco ("respondent")

for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility ("Code").

2. The petitioner on this case filed a complaint due to repondent’s act of preparing the Occupancy
Agreement despite knowing that his client, Mr. Duane O. Stier, is a foreign national, therefore he
can not own any property in the Philippines.

Issue:

Whether respondent is liable for failure to observe Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

Yes, the respondent should never counsel or provide service that is in anyway contrary to law.

The Code specifically provides the conduct that should always be observed among lawyers:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
In this case Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco should have known the basics of land ownership in
the Philippines, and as such can not be altered by means of affidavit or any agreement.

Wherefore, for failure to uphold the constitution, and for the act of notarizing and counseling
the same to cover the foreign ownership of his client, Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco is hereby
suspended for six months effective upon the finality of this decision.

b) Duty to the Legal Profession

i. In Re: Climaco, A.C. No. 134-L, January 21, 1974

17Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Title: The Hon. Rafael C. Climaco, Judge Of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,
Branch I, Silay City., A.C. No. 134-J, Resolution, En Banc, Antonio, J., January 21, 1974
Facts:
1. Complaint filed on October 15, 1968 by Acting City Fiscal Norberto L. Zulueta, of Cadiz, Negros
Occidental, and Eva Mabug-at, widow of the deceased Norberto Tongoy, respondent is charged with
gross malfeasance in office, gross ignorance of the law, and for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment.
2. The Supreme Court do not find any failure on the part of the Honorable Presiding Judge Climaco.
3. But there is a problem with the language used by the petitioner Fiscal Norberto L. Zulueta
Xxx About one and a half (1-½) months thereafter, or at about 3:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of Sunday, 11 August 1968, respondent judge made a secret ocular inspection
of the Poblacion of the City of Cadiz. Without anybody to guide him, he visited the
places which he thought erroneously were the scene of the robbery where the Chief of
Police was killed by the Montemayor gang at about 11:00 o'clock of the dark night of
December 31, 1967. It should be noted that Cadiz City is 65 kms. away from Bacolod
City, the capital of the province. Because of that undeniably biased ocular inspection, the
honorable trial judge, who is reputed to be brilliant, issued a reckless, extremely
senseless and stupid order dated 5 September 1968, to wit: xxx
xxx which Order, as any student of law would tell you, is null and void, and illegal per
se. Why respondent Honorable Judge went out of his way to gather those immaterial and
"fabricated" evidence in favor of the accused is shocking to the conscience. To say the
least, it is gross ignorance of the law. Why did respondent judge show his hand
unnecessarily and prematurely? Perhaps, a psychologist or a psychiatrist would explain
that the Order of September 5th is that of an anguished mind; an Order issued by a Judge
who for the first time had to violate his oath of office; by a judge who, due to political
pressure and against his will and better judgment, had to acquit councilor Carlos
Caramonte of the municipality of Bantayan, province of Cebu. Like an amateur murderer
respondent judge left telltale clues all around. A murderer, however, may have a strong
motive. But what of a judge who knowingly commits a "revolting injustice" or through
gross ignorance of the law?xxx
Issue:
18Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

Whether Acting City Fiscal Norberto L. Zulueta, of Cadiz, Negros Occidental,use in

pleadings of language disrespectful to the court or containing offensive personalities constitutes
direct contempt?
Ruling:
Yes, the petitioner on this case is liable for failure to observe conduct in petitions and
pleadings submitted to the court.
Section 20 (f) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, states that, “To abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness,
unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged.”
On this case, the language used by the acting fiscal is with flare of anger while mouthing
the accused instead of professional focus on the case. Such act is against the professional
conducted expected from a lawyers and fiscals.
Wherefore, with the petition and manifestation as an evidence the Acting City Fiscal
Norberto L. Zulueta, of Cadiz, Negros Occidental is censured for his use of offensive and
abusive language in the complaint and other pleadings filed with this Court, with a warning that
repetition of the same may constrain Us to impose a more
severe sanction.

ii. Barandon Vs. Ferrer, A.C. 5768, March 26, 2010

Title: Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. vs. Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No. 5768, Second
Division, Abad, J., March 26, 2010
Facts:
1. In October 2000, Atty. Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to falsify the daily time record of his son who
worked with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems, Department of Justice. When Atty.
Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with inflammatory language.
2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon in Civil Case 7040 for alleged
falsification of public document when the document allegedly falsified was a notarized document
executed on February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer nor was
assigned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a signatory to the document.

3. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiff’s counsel in Civil Case 7040, filed a reply with
opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive, and improper language which
insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court.
19Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

4. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Daet before the start of
hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, "Laban kung laban,
patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa
Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines
Sur, hindi kayo the accident to the authorities.

5. On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD
submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The
Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s violation of
Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

6. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Committees report with
only one year of suspension from practice of the respondent, Atty. Ferrer filed Motion for
Reconsideration to but the case has been endorsed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in
finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him; and
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.
Ruling:
1. No, the decision of IBP of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner are well founded.
Practice of law is a privilege which requires a continuous observance of high standard of legal
proficiency and morality, in the Code of Professional conduct, it states that:
Canon 8- of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
Rule 8.01. – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Ferrer’s action violated this observed and well established conduct among practicing
lawyers, for filing a case of falsification of public document against Atty. Barandon for a request
that is equally not allowed in lawful the administration of office when he requested the
falsification of his son’s DTR. More so, the filed case against the petitioner is also not
well-founded, his use of language in the petition:
That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable misrepresentation and
"FALSIFICATION" of documents, committed to mislead this Honorable Court, but with
20Reviewer: Legal Profession | MB Licudine

concomitant grave responsibility of counsel for Defendants, for distortion and serious
misrepresentation to the court, for presenting a grossly "FALSIFIED" document, in
violation of his oath of office as a government employee and as member of the Bar, for
the reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA PALATOLON, has never executed the "SALAYSAY
AFFIDAVIT", wherein her fingerprint has been falsified, in view whereof, hereby
DENY the same including the affirmative defenses, there being no knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the same, from pars. (1) to par. (15)
which are all lies and mere fabrications, sufficient ground for "DISBARMENT" of the
one responsible for said falsification and distortions."
The defendant-lawyer was also not able o observe the rules in Canon 7.3, which states, “A
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.”
Even when Atty. Ferrer denied the allegation for misbehaving shortly before the trial began,
Atty. Barandon presented a blotter report to the police of the incident, where he threatened the
lawyer while drunk. Such language and unbecoming a member of legal profession, which the
court can not countenance.
2. Yes, the penalty imposed to the defendant is justified.
The decision on this case of the IBP of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner
are well founded, and can not merely decide without administrative discipline imposed to the
liable counsel for misconduct. In Section 1, Rule 139-B of Rules of Court, “ The IBP Board of
Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of
Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys including those in the government service…”
Wherefore, after careful consideration of the evidence the decision of IBP of Governors
and the IBP Investigating Commissioner is hereby affirmed, Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer is hereby
suspended for a year from practice of law, let the copy of this decision be entered into his
personal record as an Attorney.