Doctrines in Ethics

1
Case San Beda College of Law

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Digests
Legal Ethics
SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
PRACTICE OF LAW
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A PRIVILEGE BURDENED WITH CONDITIONS

Practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. This presupposes adherence to rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance
with the rules of the legal profession. [FELICITAS BERBANO vs. ATTY. WENCESLAO BARCELONA.
A.C. No. 6084. September 3, 2003]
DISHONESTY AND USE OF THE TITLE ATTORNEY

The title "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the
study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction. [IN RE: HARON S. MELING. Bar Matter No. 1154.
June 8, 2004]
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A LICENSE TO ENTER UPON THE

PRACTICE OF LAW
The nature of the office of an attorney requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good
moral character. Since this qualification is a condition precedent to a license to enter upon the
practice of law, the maintenance thereof is equally essential during the continuance of the practice
and the exercise of the privilege. [EMILIO GRANDE vs. ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA, A.C. No.
4838. July 29, 2003.]
PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A BUSINESS

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate
their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. [ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR. vs. ATTY.
RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO. A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003.]
PERSONS WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS BY PROFESSION MAY LITIGATE THEIR OWN CASE IN COURT
In appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding herself out
to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such services. Hence, she cannot
be said to be in the practice of law. [IMELDA Y. MADERADA vs. Judge ERNESTO H. MEDIODEA.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1459. October 14, 2003.]
NOTARY PUBLIC
DUTY OF A NOTARY PUBLIC TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON EXECUTING
THE DOCUMENT
A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The
party or parties who executed the instrument must be the ones to personally appear before the
LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND DIGEST POOL
CHAIRPERSON: Jackie Lou Bautista ASST. CHAIRPERSON: Catherine Jane Vanilla EDP: Amraphel Espiritu SUBJECT HEADS: Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Legal
Ethics), Mary Wendy Duran (Practical Exercises) DIGEST POOL: John Dale Balinan, Malou Barrios, Catherine Bool-Nuez, Melanie Caparas, Kristian
Cristobal,
Remegio Dayandayan, Jr., Gerald dela Cruz, Donna Dumpit, JB Roselle Gayona, Rhea Mangubat, Joyce Marie Marquez, Rowena Mutia, Maan Salada,
Melamy
Salvadora, Vin-Kristine Ventura
2
San Beda College of Law Case
Digest
Legal Ethics
Notary Public to acknowledge the document. [ALFREDO BON vs. ATTYS. VICTOR S. ZIGA and
ANTONIO A. ARCANGEL. A.C. No. 5436. May 27, 2004.]
DUTY OF A NOTARY PUBLIC TO REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE DOCUMENT HE
IS TO NOTARIZE
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are
the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to
attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the
deed making the acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious
document. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal deed.
[CABANILLA vs. CRISTAL-TENORIO. A.C. No. 6139. November 11, 2003.]
DUTY OF THE NOTARIAL OFFICER TO DEMAND THAT THE DOCUMENT BE PRESENTED TO HIM
FOR NOTARIZATION AND SHOULD BE SIGNED IN HIS PRESENCE
Where a lawyer as a notary makes it appear in the acknowledgment or jurat of a contract
that the affiant exhibited to him a residence certificate when in fact he did not, the notary is guilty
of misconduct. Such misrepresentation is unquestionably censurable and justifies disciplinary action
against him as a member of the bar and as a notary public. For he violated the mandate in his
attorneys oath to obey the law and do no falsehood. [OCTAVIO J. TRAYA, JR. vs. ATTY.
FRANCISCO M. VILLAMOR. A.C. No.4595. February 6, 2004]
ONLY THOSE WHO ARE QUALIFIED OR AUTHORIZED MAY ACT AS NOTARIES PUBLIC
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with such
substantial public interest, that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one, making it
admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Indeed, it creates real rights.
[DOUGLAS G. ZABALLERO vs. ATTY. MARIO J. MONTALVAN. A.C. No. 4370. May 25, 2004.]
FORUM SHOPPING
FORUM SHOPPING is committed by a party who institutes two or more suits in different
courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or
related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, on the supposition that one or
the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a
favorable decision or action. It is an act of malpractice for it trifles with the courts, abuses their
processes, degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court dockets.
[TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES, INC. vs. PAXTON DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AND BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION. G.R. NO. 151081, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003]
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 1: DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. [LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO vs. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO. A.C. No. 4762. June 28,
2004.]
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT

CHAIRPERSONS
Maricel Abarentos (Over-all Chairperson), Ronald Jalmanzar (Over-all Vice Chair), Yolanda Tolentino (VC-Acads), Jennifer Ang (VC-
Secretariat), Joy Inductivo (VC-Finance), Elaine Masukat (VC-EDP), Anna Margarita Eres (VC-Logistics) Jonathan Mangundayao
(Political Law), Francis Benedict Reotutar (Labor Law),
Romuald Padilla (Civil Law), Charmaine Torres (Taxation Law), Mark David Martinez (Criminal Law), Garny Luisa Alegre (Commercial Law),
Jinky Ann Uy (Remedial Law), Jackie Lou Bautista (Legal Ethics)
3
Digests
Legal Ethics
CANON 1, RULE 1.01: DUTY OF A LAWYER NOT TO ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL
OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT
The word "conduct" used in the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with
the performance of the lawyer's professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although
not connected with his professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. [PRISCILLA Z. ORBE vs.
ATTY. HENRY ADAZA. A.C. No. 5252. May 20, 2004.]
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional
or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, in probity and
good demeanor, thus rendering him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. [FLORENCE
TEVES MACARRUBO vs. ATTY. EDMUNDO L. MACARRUBO. A.C. No. 6148. February 27, 2004]
CANON 7, RULE 7.03: DUTY OF A LAWYER NOT TO BEHAVE IN A SCANDALOUS MANNER TO THE
DISCREDIT OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be
difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for
purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable
members of the community." [RAU SHENG MAO vs. ATTY. ANGELES A. VELASCO. A.C. No. 4881.
October 8, 2003.]
CANON 8: DUTY OF A LAWYER TO CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, lawyers must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly. [Atty. RAMON P. REYES vs. Atty. VICTORIANO T. CHIONG, JR. A.C. No.
5148. July 1, 2003.]
The obligations of a member of the bar include the observance of honorable, candid and
courteous dealing with other lawyers, fidelity to known and recognized customs and practices of
the profession, and performance of duties to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. [FEDERICO D.
RICAFORT vs. ATTY. EDDIE R. BANSIL, A.C. No. 6298. May 27, 2004.]
CANON 10: A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would
be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. [NATASHA
HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO, A.C. No. 5624, January 20,
2004]
CANON 11: DUTY OF A LAWYER TO OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist
on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, respondent has only succeeded
in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice. [PRESIDENT JOSEPH
EJERCITO ESTRADA vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R. Nos. 159486-88. November 25,
2003.]

Cristobal,
Melamy
4
Digest
Legal Ethics
CANON 11, RULE 11.03: A LAWYER SHALL ABSTAIN FROM SCANDALOUS, OFFENSIVE OR
MENACING LANGUAGE OR BEHAVIOR BEFORE THE COURT
A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts. It must be remembered that the language vehicle does not run short of expressions
which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
[JOHNNY K.H. UY vs. ATTYS. REYNALDO C. DEPASUCAT, WILLIAM O. SU, & CELSO DE LAS ALAS.
A.C. No. 5332. July 29, 2003]
CANON 12: LAWYERS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE
As an attorney, the respondent is sworn to do his level best and to observe full fidelity to
the courts and his clients. This means that in relation to his duty to his clients he should put his
maximum skills and full commitment to bear in representation of their causes. [REDENTOR S.
JARDIN vs. ATTY. DEOGRACIAS VILLAR, JR. A.C. No. 5474. August 28, 2003.]
CANON 15, RULE 15.03: DUTY OF A LAWYER NOT TO REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers
not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which
no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. [ROGELIO R. SANTOS, SR. vs. ATTY. RODOLFO
C. BELTRAN. A.C. NO. 5858. DEC. 11, 2003]
CANON 15, RULE 15.03: DUTY OF A LAWYER NOT TO REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS
A lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same
corporation's board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be
tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is prohibited by the Code of Professional
Responsibility. [BENEDICTO HORNILLA vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT. A.C. No. 5804. July 1,
2003.]
CANON 16: DUTY OF A LAWYER TO HOLD IN TRUST MONEY AND PROPERTY OF HIS CLIENT
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is the Filipino lawyer's principal source
of ethical rules, a lawyer must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that he may
come to possess. This commandment entails certain specific acts to be done by a lawyer such as
rendering an accounting of all money or property received for or from the client as well as delivery
of the funds or property to the client when due or upon demand. [DANIEL LEMOINE vs. ATTY.
AMADEO E. BALON, JR., A.C. No. 5829. October 28, 2003.]
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client.
[MILAGROS N. ALDOVINO vs. ATTY. PEDRO C. PUJALTE, JR., A.C. No. 5082. February 17, 2004]
CANON 17: FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT

The privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited
only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful
employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or
perpetration of a fraud. [WILLIAM ONG GENATO vs. ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN. A.C. No. 4078.
July 14, 2003.]

CHAIRPERSONS
5
Digests
Legal Ethics
Once he aggress to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
devotion. [TERESITA D. SANTECO vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE. A.C. NO.5834. DECEMBER 11,
2003]
As an attorney, respondent is sworn to do his level best and to observe full fidelity to the
court and his clients. [LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY. MARCELO G. FLORES. A.C. No. 4219.
December 8, 2003.]
CANON 18: DUTY OF A LAWYER TO SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Failure to file an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason deserves sanction.
Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should properly withdraw their appearance and
allow their client to retain another counsel. [EDUARDO T. ABAY vs. Atty. RAUL T. MONTESINO,
A.C. No. 5718. December 4, 2003.]
It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter, he is also required
to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work. A lawyer owes entire
devotion to the cause of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights,
and the exertion of his learning and utmost ability that nothing can be taken or withheld from his
client except in accordance with law. [NORA E. MIWA vs. ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA. A.C. No. 5854.
September 30, 2003.]
CANON 18, RULE 18.03: A LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED TO HIM
The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of an Officer of the
Court makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his clients and makes him
answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts, and the society.
[LUTHGARDA F. FERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. FIDEL M. CABRERA II. A.C. No. 5623. December 11,
2003.]
CANON 19: DUTY OF A LAWYER TO REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE LAW
A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law." He should exert
all efforts to avail of the remedies allowed under the law. [ARTEMIO ENDAYA vs. ATTY. WILFREDO
OCA. A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003]
CANON 20: COMPENSATION OF A LAWYER

Expiration of the retainer contract between the parties during the pendency of the labor
case does not extinguish the respondents right for attorneys fees. [CONCEPT PLACEMENT
RESOURCES, INC. vs. RICHARD FUNK. G.R. No. 137680. February 6, 2004]
Although Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility list several other factors in setting such fees, these are mere guides in ascertaining
the real value of the lawyers service. Courts are not bound to consider all these factors in fixing
attorneys fees. While a lawyer should charge only fair and reasonable fees, no hard and fast rule
maybe set in the determination of what a reasonable fee is, or what is not. That must be
established from the facts in each case. [DOY MERCANTILE, INC. vs. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
and ERNESTO RIOVEROS. G.R. No. 155311. March 31, 2004]

Cristobal,
Melamy
6
Digest
Legal Ethics
CANON 21: ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits
or acquiesces with the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind,
consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. [WILLIAM S. UY vs.
ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES. A.C. No. 5280. March 30, 2004]
DISBARMENT
IN DISBARMENT CASES, BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE COMPLAINANT

The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration
of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of
those frivolously or maliciously charged. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the
complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes
his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. [DANIEL S. AQUINO vs. ATTY. MARIA
LOURDES VILLAMAR-MANGAOANG. A.C. No. 4934. March 17, 2004]
POWER TO DISBAR MUST BE EXERCISED WITH GREAT CAUTION

The profession of an attorney is acquired after long and laborious study. It is a lifetime
profession. By years of patience, zeal and ability, the attorney may be able to amass considerable
means to support himself and his family, besides the honor and prestige that accompany his office
and profession. To deprive him of such honored station in life which would result in irreparable
injury must require proof of the highest degree. [TRIFONIA J. GAVIOLA vs. ATTY. ERASTO D.
SALCEDO. A.C. No. 3037. May 20, 2004.]
VIOLATION OF THE LAWYERS OATH IS A GROUND FOR SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT OR OTHER

DISCIPLINARY ACTION
The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action. The quantum of proof required to establish a
lawyer's misconduct in an administrative complaint is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but
substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [PERLITA AVANCENA vs. JUDGE RICARDO P. LIWANAG.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383. July 17, 2003.]
ANY GROSS MISCONDUCT IS A GROUND FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION
OR DISBARMENT
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private capacity is a ground for the
imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment as provided for in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the
practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege. [SPOUSES JENELINE DONATO and MARIO
DONATO vs. ATTY. ISAIAH B. ASUNCION, SR. A.C. No. 4914. March 3, 2004]
ANY GROSS MISCONDUCT IS A GROUND FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION
OR DISBARMENT
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity which shows him
unfit to manage the affairs of others, is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or
disbarment because good character is an essential qualification for the admission of an attorney
and for the continuance of such privilege. [SPOUSES STEVEN and NORA WHITSON vs. ATTY.
JUANITO C. ATIENZA. A.C. No. 5535. August 28, 2003.]

CHAIRPERSONS
7
Digests
Legal Ethics
SUPREME PENALTY OF DISBARMENT IS METED OUT ONLY IN CLEAR CASES OF MISCONDUCT

The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While we will
not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the
evidence calls for it, we will likewise not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to
accomplish the desired end. [HEINZ R. HECK vs. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS. A.M. No. RTJ-01-
1657. February 23, 2004]
GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF AN ATTORNEY

A lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as government official is of such
a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground. [DAN JOEL V. LIM and RICHARD C. TAN vs.
ATTY. EDILBERTO BARCELONA. A.C. No. 5438. March 10, 2004]
REQUIREMENT OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO SUSPENSION

Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the
outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the case.
If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the
matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to
the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an opportunity
to be heard. [MERCEDES NAVA vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SORSOGON. A.C. No. 5442. January 26,
2004]
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
A JUDGE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A SYMBOL OF RECTITUDE AND PROPRIETY

A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a
manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. [MYRA M. ALINTANA DE PACETE vs.
JUDGE JOSEFINO A. GARILLO. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1473. August 20, 2003.]
CANON 1, RULE 1.01: A JUDGE SHOULD BE THE EMBODIMENT OF COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY AND
INDEPENDENCE
When the law is sufficiently basic or elementary, no to know it or act as if one does not
know it constitute gross ignorance of the law. [THELMA C. BALDADO vs. Judge ARNULFO O.
BUGTAS. A.M. No. RTJ-00-1586. October 24, 2003]
INDEPENDENCE
When the law is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of
Court on search warrant issuance, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes
gross ignorance of the law. [CH vs. TAMIN. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1786. August 28, 2003.]
INDEPENDENCE
Bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party.
To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders,
assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position
unbearable. [FRANCISCO GALMAN CRUZ vs. JUSTICE PORTIA ALIO-HORMACHUELOS, JUDGE
VICTORIA FERNANDEZ-BERNARDO, JUDGE CAESAR A. CASANOVA, JUDGE RENATO C. FRANCISCO,

Cristobal,
Melamy
8
Digest
Legal Ethics
JUDGE MANUEL D. J. SYCIANGCO and JUDGE ESTER R. CHUA-YU. A.M. No. CA-04-38. March 31,
2004]
CANON 1, RULE 1.02: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE WITHOUT DELAY
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge must dispose of the court's business
promptly and to act on cases pending before him within the prescribed periods therefor. A judge's
failure to observe time prescriptions for the rendition of judgments in derogation of an otherwise
speedy administration of justice constitutes a ground for administrative sanction. [DE JOYA vs.
JUDGE DIAZ. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1450. September 23, 2003.]
CANON 1, RULE 1.03: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO RESIST ANY PRESSURE FROM WHATEVER SOURCE
The Code of Judicial Conduct commands that a judge must not succumb to attempts to
influence his judgment and must resist any pressure from whatever source in order to uphold the
integrity and independence of the Judiciary. The Code projects that a judge is an embodiment of
incorruptibility and non-subservience. The future of any society, to a great extent, depends upon
the maintenance of justice pure and unsullied. [EMILIANA M. GARCIA vs. JUDGE FLORENCIO P.
BUESER. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1792. March 10, 2004]
CANON 2, RULE 2.01: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BEHAVE AT ALL TIMES AS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY
A judge must conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for reproach. This exacting
standard of decorum is demanded from judges to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. [SPO4 DOMINGO B. MANAOIS vs. JUDGE LAVEZARES C. LEOMO. A.M.
No. MTJ-03-1492. August 26, 2003.]
A judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. From him, the people may
draw their will and awareness to obey the law. He should therefore be studiously careful and
prudent not only in his judicial functions but also in his personal behavior most especially, in the
defense of himself. [ILUMINADA SANTILLAN VDA. DE NEPOMUCENO vs. JUDGE NICASIO V.
BARTOLOME. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1482. July 25, 2003.]
Judges should be extremely careful so as not to be misunderstood, and they must refrain
from making comments, remarks or suggestions that could lead to even the slightest suspicion that
he is thereby unduly assisting a party or counsel. [VERNETTE UMALI-PACO, ET. AL. vs. REINATO
G. QUILALA. A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1699, OCTOBER 15, 2003]
JUDGES SHOULD NOT ONLY BE IMPARTIAL BUT HE MUST ALSO APPEAR TO BE IMPARTIAL
A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial.
Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this image. [GEORGE L. KAW vs. JUDGE ADRIANO R. OSORIO,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1801]
JUDGES SHOULD NOT ONLY BE IMPARTIAL BUT HE MUST ALSO APPEAR TO BE IMPARTIAL
Unlike the appellate court justices, lower court judges are the so-called "front-liners" who
give human face to the judicial branch at the "grassroots" level in their interaction with litigants
and those who do business with the courts. [CHAN vs. MAJADUCON. A.M. No. RTJ-02-1697.
October 15, 2003.]

CHAIRPERSONS
9
Digests
Legal Ethics
CANON 3, RULE 3.01: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE LAW AND MAINTAIN
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
The very delicate function of administering justice demands that a judge should conduct
himself at all times in a manner which would reasonably merit the respect and confidence of the
people, for he is the visible representation of the law. The irresponsible or improper conduct of
judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary; as such, a judge must avoid all impropriety and
the appearance thereof. [SALVADOR SISON vs. JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR. A.M. No. RTJ-03-
1771. May 27, 2004.]
Judges should be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence." Only by
diligent and conscientious effort in keeping abreast with developments in our legal system can
respondent judge live up to his duties. [DR. JOHN M.W. GRIEVE vs. JUDGE CORNELIO T. JACA,
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1351. January 27, 2004.]
A judge should be the epitome of competence, integrity and independence to be able to
render justice and uphold public confidence in the legal system. He must be conversant with basic
legal principles and well-settled doctrines. He should strive for excellence and seek the truth with
passion. [RODOLFO RAMA RIO vs. JUDGE ALFONSO R. CAWALING. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391. June
7, 2004.]
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

The rule is that when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not
know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. [ANTONIO GAMAS and FLORENCIO SOBRIO vs.
JUDGE ORLANDO A. OCO. A.M. No. MTJ-99-1231. March 17, 2004]
As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, he is expected to keep

abreast with and be proficient in the application and interpretation of the law. When the law is
sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be
gross ignorance of the law. [JUDGE ELIEZER R. DE LOS SANTOS vs. JUDGE MARVIN B. MANGINO,
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1496. July 10, 2003.]
When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, he
erodes the public confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is ignorance of the law. [DR.
FRANCISCA T. YOINGCO and ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO vs. HON. CONCEPCION V. GONZAGA. A.M.
No. MTJ-03-1489. March 31, 2004]
CANON 3, RULE 3.04: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE PATIENT, ATTENTIVE AND COURTEOUS TO

PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE HIS COURT
A judge should be patient, attentive and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid
unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of
the courts for the litigants. [ATTY. ALBERTO P. QUINTO vs. JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS. A.M. No.
MTJ-04-1551. May 21, 2004.]

Cristobal,
Melamy
10
Digest
Legal Ethics
CANON 3, RULE 3.04: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE PATIENT, ATTENTIVE AND COURTEOUS TO

PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE HIS COURT
A judge should be courteous both in his conduct and in his language especially to those
appearing before him. He should refrain from conduct that demeans his office and remember
always that courtesy begets courtesy. [THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE IBP BAGUIO-
BENGUET CHAPTER vs. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN. A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691, January 16,
2004]
IN RELATION TO THOSE WHO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT, JUDGES MUST BE PATIENT AND
COURTEOUS
The role of a judge in relation to those who appear before his court must be one of
temperance, patience and courtesy. A judge who is commanded at all times to be mindful of his
high calling and his mission as a dispassionate and impartial arbiter of justice is expected to be "a
cerebral man who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences which
he shares with his fellow mortals." [CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY vs.
JUDGE JOSE A. BERSALES. A.M. No. MTJ-04-1522. June 9, 2004.]
CANON 3, RULE 3.05: JUDGES SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE COURTS BUSINESS PROMPTLY
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to dispose of the
courts business promptly and decide cases within required periods. Furthermore, the Rule of
Court mandates a judge to rule on every offer of testimonial and documentary evidence. The
reasonable time of doing so must not extend beyond the ninety-day reglementary period from the
date of submission of the formal offer of evidence. [ATTY.PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR. vs. Judge
MAXIMO G. PADERANGA. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1747. July 31, 2003.]
CANON 3, RULE 3.05: JUDGES SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE COURTS BUSINESS PROMPTLY
Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the
institution of justice, lowers its standards and brings them into disrepute. Every judge must
cultivate a capacity for quick decision; he must not delay the judgment which a party justly
deserves. The public trust reposed in a judges office imposes upon him the highest degree of
responsibility to promptly administer justice. [ROMERO TEODOSIO, ROLANDO RICO vs. HON.
JUDGE ARTURO R. CARPIO. A. M. No. MTJ-02-1416. February 27, 2004]
UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING AN ORDER

The noble office of a judge is to render justice not only impartially, but expeditiously as
well, for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the
judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. [ESTERLINA ACUZAR vs. JUDGE
GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO, MUNICIPAL COURT, TUPI SOUTH COTABATO. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1396.
March 15, 2004]
CANON 3, RULE 3.05: JUDGES SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE COURTS BUSINESS WITHIN THE
REQUIRED PERIODS
A trial judge is a frontline official of the judiciary and should at all times act with
efficiency and with probity. [TRINIDAD CABAHUG vs. JUDGE JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY. A.M. No.
MTJ-03-1480. September 10, 2003.]
CANON 3, RULE 3.05: A JUDGE OUGHT TO KNOW THE CASES SUBMITTED TO HIM FOR DECISION
As a judge, he has the bounden duty to maintain proper monitoring of cases submitted for
his decision or resolution. A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or
CHAIRPERSONS
11
Digests
Legal Ethics
resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them promptly. It
is his duty to take note of the cases submitted for his decision or resolution and see to it that they
are decided within the prescribed period. [UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK VS. JOSE F. CAOIBES,
JR., ET. AL. A.M. NO. RTJ-03-1745, AUGUST 20. 2003]
CANON 3, RULE 3.09: JUDGES SHOULD ORGANIZE AND SUPERVISE COURT PERSONNEL TO
ENSURE THE PROMPT AND EFFICIENT DISPATCH OF BUSINESS
Rule 3.09 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics charges judges with administrative responsibility
of organizing and supervising the court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
Rule 3.10 of the Canons even imposes upon them the duty to initiate appropriate disciplinary
measures against court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which he may have become aware.
[HELEN GAMBOA-MIJARES vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509
September 23, 2003]
CANON 3, RULE 3.09: JUDGES SHOULD ORGANIZE AND SUPERVISE COURT PERSONNEL TO
ENSURE THE PROMPT AND EFFICIENT DISPATCH OF BUSINESS
A judge is obliged to properly supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and
efficient dispatch of business and to require at all times the observance of high standards of fidelity
to duty. A judge is the master of her own domain, and she must assume the responsibility that goes
with it. [ARNEL V. MANZON vs. JUDGE NORMA C. PERELLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1686. May 7,
2004.]
CANON 3, RULE 3.12: JUDGES INHIBITION

Bias and partiality cannot be presumed, for in administrative proceedings no less than
substantial proof is required. Apart from bare allegations, there must be convincing evidence to
show that respondent Judge is indeed biased and partial. In administrative proceedings, the burden
of proof that respondent Judge committed the act complained of rests on the complainant.
[WILFREDO M. TALAG vs. JUDGE AMOR A. REYES. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1852 June 3, 2004]
CANON 3, RULE 3.12: A JUDGE SHOULD NOT TAKE PART IN A PROCEEDING WHERE HIS
IMPARTIALITY MAY BE QUESTIONED
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances
appear that will induce doubt to his honest actuations and probity in favor of either party, or incite
such state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion
in a way that the people's faith in the Courts of Justice is not impaired. [NANCY L. TY vs. BANCO
FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, ET AL., G.R. Nos. 149797-98. February 13, 2004]
CANON 4: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE STUDIOUS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW

In order to render substantial justice and to maintain public confidence in the legal system,
judges are expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence, consistent with the
standard that magistrates must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
[JUDGE JOSE GODOFREDO M. NAUI, RTC vs. JUDGE MARCIANO C. MAURICIO, SR., A.M. No. MTJ-
01-1368. October 23, 2003.]
CANON 5, RULE 5.06: FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

As a general rule, judges cannot serve as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other
fiduciary, except if he acts in a fiduciary capacity for the estate, trust or person of a member of his
immediate family. [ROGELIO R. RAMOS vs. JUDGE EUSEBIO M. BAROT, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1338.
January 21, 2004]
Cristobal,
Melamy
12
Digest
Legal Ethics
A JUDGE IS THE VISIBLE REPRESENTATION OF THE LAW AND OF JUSTICE

A judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice, the citizenry expects his
official conduct as well as his personal behavior to always be beyond reproach. [MARIA CRISTINA
OLONDRIZ PERTIERRA vs. JUDGE ALBERTO L. LERMA. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799. September 12,
2003.]
A JUDGE MUST BE PERCEIVED AS ONE WHO DISPENSES JUSTICE UNDER THE SANCTION OF THE
RULE OF LAW
The assumption of office by a judge places upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his
exalted position. He must be perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as one who
dispenses justice under the sanction of the rule of law. [SY and CATO vs. HON. FINEZA. A.M. No.
RTJ-03-1808. October 15, 2003.]
ACTS OF A JUDGE IN HIS JUDICIAL CAPACITY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
A judge cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal or administrative for any of his
official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In such a case, the remedy
of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate
the error to the higher court for review and correction. [EDGARDO D. BALSAMO vs. JUDGE PEDRO
L. SUAN. A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656. September 17, 2003.]
ACTS OF A JUDGE IN HIS JUDICIAL CAPACITY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in
good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of the judge can be had only if "there by a final
declaration by a competent court in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust
character of the challenged judgment or order, and also evidence of malice or bad faith. [RUDY T.
SALCEDO VS. JUDGE AMADO S. CAGUIOA. A.M. NO. MTJ-00-1328, FEBRUARY 11, 2004]
DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BEHAVE AT ALL TIMES AS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

It is the duty of a judge to so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. He should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. [PETER BEJARASCO, JR., ET AL. vs. ALFREDO D. BUENCONSEJO, et
al. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1417. May 27, 2004.]
A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AT ALL TIMES

Even if there is no direct and hard evidence showing that the respondent judge made
personal use of the cash bond, his wifes issuance of the check for the cash bond implies it so. This
placed the integrity of the judge in serious doubt. Code of judicial Conduct dictates that a Judge
should avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety at all times. [RUFINO CASIMIRO vs. Judge
OCTAVIO FERNANDEZ. A.M. No. MTJ-04-1525. January 29, 2004]
BIAS AND PARTIALITY CANNOT BE PRESUMED

Judges ruling against complainant in several cases file before his sala would npt per se
amount to partiality against her nor intended to oppress her; bias and partiality cannot be
presumed. [FELICIDAD B. DADIZON vs. JUDGE ENRIQUE C. ASIS. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1760. January
15, 2004]
DELAY IN THE DISPOSITION OF CASES ERODES THE FAITH OF OUR PEOPLE IN THE JUDICIARY

CHAIRPERSONS
13
Digests
Legal Ethics
The noble office of a judge as not merely to render justice impartially but expeditiously as
well, for "delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the
judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. [FELICITAS M. HIMALIN vs. JUDGE
ISAURO M. BALDERIAN. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1504. August 26, 2003.]
A JUDGE MUST HOLD HIMSELF ABOVE REPROACH AND SUSPICION
A presiding judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties-litigants. He
must hold himself above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust in
his actions, whether well-grounded or not, the judge has no other alternative but to inhibit himself
from the case. That way, he avoids being misunderstood; his reputation for probity and objectivity
is preserved. [AVELINA MADULA vs. JUDGE RUTH CRUZ SANTOS. A.M. No. RTJ-02-1742.
September 11, 2003.]
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS

No position in the government service exacts a greater demand for personal honesty and
integrity than a seat in the judiciary. He must not sacrifice for expediency's sake the fundamental
requirements of due process or to forget that he must conscientiously endeavor each time to seek
the truth, to know and correctly apply the law, and to dispose of controversies objectively and
impartially to the end that justice is done to every party. [P/C Supt. LUCAS M. MANAGUELOD
vs. Judge FERNANDO M. PACLIBON, JR. A.M. No. RTJ-02-1726. December 12, 2003.]
POWER OF CONTEMPT
A judge should never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in
the performance of his duties. He should always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish
for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is intended
as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise. [THE SENATE
BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE vs. HON. JOSE B. MADUCON. G.R. NOS. 138378 & 136760]
DESISTANCE OF COMPLAINANT
Withdrawal of a complaint or subsequent desistance by the complainant in an
administrative case does not necessarily warrant its dismissal. Administrative actions cannot
depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what
may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a
matter relating to its disciplinary power. To be sure, public interest is at stake in the conduct and
actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary. And the program and efforts of this Court in
improving the delivery of justice to the people should not be frustrated and put to naught by
private arrangements between the parties. [ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA vs. JUDGE BENEDICTO A.
PAZ, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1638. December 8, 2003.]

Cristobal,
Melamy

Doctrines in Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrines in Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Case San Beda College of Law

PRACTICE OF LAW IS A PRIVILEGE BURDENED WITH CONDITIONS

DISHONESTY AND USE OF THE TITLE ATTORNEY

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A LICENSE TO ENTER UPON THE

PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A BUSINESS

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT

LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND DIGEST POOL

CANON 17: FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT

CANON 20: COMPENSATION OF A LAWYER

LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND DIGEST POOL

IN DISBARMENT CASES, BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE COMPLAINANT

POWER TO DISBAR MUST BE EXERCISED WITH GREAT CAUTION

VIOLATION OF THE LAWYERS OATH IS A GROUND FOR SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT OR OTHER

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT

SUPREME PENALTY OF DISBARMENT IS METED OUT ONLY IN CLEAR CASES OF MISCONDUCT

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF AN ATTORNEY

REQUIREMENT OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO SUSPENSION

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

A JUDGE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A SYMBOL OF RECTITUDE AND PROPRIETY

LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND DIGEST POOL

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT

GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, he is expected to keep

CANON 3, RULE 3.04: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE PATIENT, ATTENTIVE AND COURTEOUS TO

LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND DIGEST POOL

CANON 3, RULE 3.04: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE PATIENT, ATTENTIVE AND COURTEOUS TO

UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING AN ORDER

CANON 3, RULE 3.12: JUDGES INHIBITION

CANON 4: DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BE STUDIOUS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW

CANON 5, RULE 5.06: FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

A JUDGE IS THE VISIBLE REPRESENTATION OF THE LAW AND OF JUSTICE

DUTY OF A JUDGE TO BEHAVE AT ALL TIMES AS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AT ALL TIMES

BIAS AND PARTIALITY CANNOT BE PRESUMED

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND SUBJECT

REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS

LEGAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND DIGEST POOL

You might also like