Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Ethics I. Preliminaries: Practice of Law
Legal Ethics I. Preliminaries: Practice of Law
I. PRELIMINARIES
PRACTICE OF LAW
Practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. (Case: Cayetano vs. Monsod)
A privilege, but also a right practice of law is a privilege (extended/withheld in the
exercise of sound judicial discretion) BUT it is also a right in the sense that it
cannot be capriciously taken away w/o due process
Other cases:
1. Lim-Santiago vs. Sagucio
(a) The act of being a legal consultant is a practice of law; to engage in the practice
of law is to do any of those acts that are characteristic of the legal profession
(b) "Private practice of law" contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer
2. In re: Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez, & Castillo the practice of law is
intimately and peculiarly related to the administration of justice and should not be
considered like an ordinary "money-making trade"
What sets practice of law apart from a business?
(a) Duty of public service of w/c emolument is a mere by-product
(b) Relation as officer of the court to the administration of justice
(c) Relation to client in the highest degree fiduciary
(d) Relation to colleagues characterized by candor & fairness
Constitutional provisions re: practice of law
1. SCs rule-making power (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]): the SC has the power to promulgate
rules concerning admission to the practice of law & the Integrated Bar
2. Only Filipino lawyers can practice law in PH (Art. XII, Sec. 14, par. 2): the
practice of ALL professions in PH is limited to Filipino citizens (XPN: where the law
otherwise provides [to date, there are no rules allowing foreigners to practice
law in PH])
3. Existing rules/laws re: practice of law, not abrogated by the 1987 Constitution;
power to repeal same remains in SC (Art. XVIII, Sec. 10)
APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
GR:
Only lawyers may appear & handle cases in court
XPN: 1. R138-A (student practice rule)
2. Non-lawyers authorized by SC: (R138 S34; R116 S7, RoC)
(a) MTC
- Civil: personally, or through a friend
- Criminal: remote municipalities, no lawyer available judge may appoint
(b) RTC in civil cases only
(c) Small claims
3. Others
(a) Cadastral courts (Sec. 9, Act 2259)
(b) NLRC (Art. 222, LC)
Sanctions for practice/appearance w/o authority
1. Lawyers w/o authority
(a) Constitutes malpractice & violation of Lawyers Oath
(b) May be suspended or disbarred
2. Non-lawyers may be cited in contempt
(b) R6.03, CPR re: any matter intervened in while in service (Case: PCGG vs. SB)
(c) RA 910 (Judiciary Retirement Act) cannot appear as counsel in cases
(civil/criminal/admin.) where govt = adverse party!
2. Public officers who cannot practice law (or w/ restrictions)
(a) Prohibited
- President
- Department secretaries
- Judges & justices
- SolGen & members of OSG
- Ombudsman & her deputies
- Members of constitutional commissions
- Governors
- Mayors
- Persons prohibited by special law
(b) Allowed to practice but subject to restrictions
- Senators
- Representatives
- Vice-governors
- Vice mayors
- Members of the Sangguinians
(c) Approval of dept head required
- Civil service EEs (Case: Catu vs. Rellosa)
- Government prosecutors
GR:
PROHIBITED! (Case: Lim-Santiago vs. Sagucio)
XPN: Isolated appearances private practice
Also, where permission of SOJ has been obtained
(Case: People vs. Villanueva)
R138 S33, RoC (lawyers authorized to appear for the government)
1. OSG
2. State Prosecutors of the DOJ
3. OGCC
4. Officers authorized by law
5. Private lawyers retained by govt entities
Re: GOCCs
GR:
OGCC
XPN: Private counsel, if:
1. Necessary (i.e. in exceptional cases), &
2. W/ written consent of OSG/OGCC & COA secured by the officers responsible
for the hiring of private lawyers absent such consent: said officials are
personally liable (Cases: Vargas vs. Ignes, Laguesma vs. COA)
BM 850 (2000)
Rule 11.05
In re: Climaco
In re: Almacen
CANON 2: INTEGRITY
Rule 2.01
Rule 2.02
Rule 2.03
Rule 2.04
Dr. Alfonso vs. Judge Juanson
Castillo vs. Judge Calanog
In re: Sotto
CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY
Rule 3.01
Rule 3.02
Rule 3.03
Rule 3.04
Rule 3.05
Rule 3.06
Rule 3.07
Rule 3.08
Rule 3.09
Rule 3.10
Rule 3.11
Rule 3.12
Rule 3.13
In re: Aguas
Cabulisan vs. Judge Lagalilauan,
Paredes vs. Judge Men Abad,
Aparicio vs. Andal
Gandionco vs. Penaranda
Lorenzo vs. Judge Marquez
CANON 4: PROPRIETY
Section 1: Avoidance of impropriety
Talens-Dabon vs. Judge Arceo
Section 2: Dignity
Liwanag vs. Judge Lustre
Section 3: Relations with lawyers
People vs. Sanz Maceda
Section 4: Family associated with case
Javier vs. Judge De Guzman
Section 5: Use of residence
Section 6: Free expression
Section 7: Fiduciary interests
Section 8: Advancing private interests
Aquino vs. Luntok
Section 9: Confidential information
Umale vs. Villaluz
CANON 5: EQUALITY
Sections 1-5: Equality of treatment
People vs. Ibasan