1. What is Legal Ethics?

Legal Ethics
It is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his
colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral, law and special laws (Justice
George Malcolm).

2. What are the Sources of ethical standards in the Philippine Judiciary?

1. Primary
a. Bar
i. Code of Professional Responsibility
ii. Constitution
iii. Rules of Court
b. Bench
i. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
ii. Rules of Court
c. Other personnel – Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
2. Secondary
a. Decisions/Resolutions of the Supreme Court
b. Supreme Court Circulars
c. Order/Resolution of other courts
d. IBP Issuances
e. Treatises and Publications

3. What constitute Practice of law?

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113,
September 3, 1991).
The following acts constitute practice of law:
a. Giving of advice or rendering any kind of service that involves legal knowledge;
b. Appearance in court and conduct of cases in court;
c. Preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions as well as drawing of
deeds and instruments of conveyance; and
d. Notarial acts.
 Cayetano v Monsod
G.R. No. 100113
September 3, 1991

Facts:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on
April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess
the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s
nomination, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections be declared null and void because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having
practiced law for the last ten years.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent posses the required qualifications of having engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

HELD:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to
be in the practice of law when he: “. . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of
advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears
in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any
court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity,
engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged
performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the
practice of law.”

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations
of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees
as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor, verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
4. Distinguish between Bar and Bench?

BAR
Refers to the whole body of attorneys and counselors. Collectively, the members of the legal
profession.

BENCH
Refers to the whole body of judges and justices.

5. Who is an amicus curiae?

Amicus Curiae
An experienced and impartial attorney invited by the court to appear and help in the
disposition of the issues submitted to it. An amicus curiae appears in court not to represent any
particular party but only to assist the court (plural: Amici Curiae).

6. Distinguish between attorney-at-law and attorney in fact.

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
Class of persons who are licensed officers of the court empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend, and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as
consequence.

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Simply an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument appointing him. His
authority is provided in a special power of attorney or general power of attorney or letter of
attorney. He is not necessarily a lawyer.

7. What is pro se?

Pro Se
A party to a lawsuit who represents himself, is appearing in the case "pro se."

8. Distinguish between counsel de officio and counsel de parte?

Counsel de oficio
An attorney appointed by the court to defend an indigent defendant in a criminal action.

Counsel de parte
A private counsel of a party secured by him, without intervention from the government.
9. “practice of law is a profesion not a business” explain

The legal profession is not a business. It is not a money-making trade similar to that of a
businessman employing a strategy for the purpose of monetary gain. It is a sacred profession
imbued with public interest whose primary objective is public service, as it is an essential part in
the administration of justice and a profession in pursuit of which pecuniary reward is
considered merely incidental.

10. What constitute practice of law?

The following acts constitute practice of law:

a. Giving of advice or rendering any kind of service that involves legal knowledge;
b. Appearance in court and conduct of cases in court;
c. Preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions as well as drawing of deeds and
instruments of conveyance; and
d. Notarial acts.
11. Practice under detention (People vs Maceda, Gr Nos., 89591-96, Jan. 24, 2000)

PEOPLE V. MACEDA
G.R. Nos. 89591-96
January 24, 2000

FACTS: This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration of
our August 13, 1990 decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed
no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private
respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del
Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason
was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s
order specifically provided for private respondent’s detention at the residence of Atty. del
Rosario. However, private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to
be held as detention prisoner in said residence. However, it was found that the order was not
strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario.
He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in the practice
of law.

ISSUE: Whether the private respondent engaged in an unauthorized practice of law.

HELD: Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases
against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court
gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana with the
obligation “to hold and detain” him in Atty. del Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as the
clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he
ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court
must be deemed the custodian under the same undertaking.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed
placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during
the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on
bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive
detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business
or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention.
12. Private Practice

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. ATTY. LADAGA

A.M. No. P-99-1287
350 SCRA 326
January 26, 2001

FACTS: Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as pro bono counsel for a relative in a
criminal case, without the previous authority from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as
required by the Administrative Code. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga
for practicing law without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as required by law. Atty.
Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely gave a free legal assistance to a relative and that
he was on an approved leave of absence during his appearances as such counsel. Moreover, the
presiding judge of the court to which he is assigned knew his appearances as such counsel.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ladaga’s appearances as a pro bono counsel for a relative constitutes
practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative Code.

HELD: No. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute should be customarily or
habitually holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer and demanding payment for such
services. It does not pertain to isolated court appearances as in this case. Nevertheless, for his
failure to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as required by law,
respondent was reprimanded.
13. Admission to Bar

IN RE: ALMACEN
R. Nos. L-27654
31 SCRA 562
February 18, 1970

FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate of
Title” to the Supreme Court as a sign of his protest as against to what he calls a tribunal
“peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for justice…”. He also expressed strong
words as against the judiciary like “justice… is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” . The
petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his motion in the
trial court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a
petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a minute resolution.
With the disappointments, he thought of this sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to
surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title again as soon as he regained
confidence in the justice system.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts.

HELD: YES. Indefinite suspension imposed.

RATIO: It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty.
Almacen himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so
noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged injustices, so as not to condemn the sinners but the
sin, it has already caused enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular
case is sui generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases
were cited as benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was
imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty. Almacen may
be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of law.
14. Can the legislature enact laws to regulate the practice of law?

Legislature is not allowed to regulate the practice of law

The 1987 Constitution no longer provides for the power of the legislature to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court regulating the practice of law.

15. Requirements for admission to the Bar

Under Sections 2, 5 and 6 of Rule 138, the applicant must be:

1. a Citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 21 years of age;
3. Of Good moral character;
4. a Resident of the Philippines;
5. Must produce before the SC satisfactory Evidence of good moral character;
6. No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 138, RRC)
7. Must have complied with the Academic requirements;
8. Must Pass the bar examinations;
9. Take the lawyer’s Oath; and
10. Sign the Roll of Attorneys.

16. Philippine Shari’a Bar

Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling,

B.M. No. 1154,
June 8, 2004).
Facts: Atty. Melendrez filed a petition to disqualify Meling from taking the bar exams and to
impose disciplinary penalty as a member of the Shari'a Bar. He alleged that in his application to
take the bar, Meling failed to disclose the fact that he has 3 pending criminal cases. Also, Meling
has been using the title “Attorney" in his communications as secretary to the Mayor. Should
Issue: Meling be disqualified from being admitted to the Bar.
Held: YES. Meling's deliberate silence and non-revelation of his pending criminal cases
constitute concealment. The disclosure requirement is imposed to determine whether there is
satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. By concealing the existence of
such cases, the applicant flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven
unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
Further, it was highly improper for Meling, as member of the Shari'a Bar, to use the title
"Attorney". Only members of the Philippine Bar, who have obtained the necessary degree in
the study of law and successfully passed the bar exams, been admitted to the IBP and remain
members in good standing are authorized to practice law and thus use the title
17. Who may be called “attorney”? Alawi v. Alauya
A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P
February 4, 1997
Facts: Mike Adelantado disclosed in his petition to take the 2003 bar examinations that there
were two civil cases pending against him for nullification of contract and damages. He was
conditionally allowed to take the bar, and subsequently placed third in the said exams. In 2004,
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
Adelantado filed his petition to take the bar, he had two other civil cases pending against him,
as well as a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22; the other letter alleged that Adelantado, as
Sangguniang Kabataan Chairperson, had been signing the attendance sheets of SK meetings as
“Atty. Mike Adelantado.”

Issue: Having passed the Bar, can Mike already use the appellation “attorney”?
Held: NO. Passing the Bar examination is not sufficient for admission of a person to the
Philippine Bar. He still has to take the oath of office and sign the Attorney’s Roll as prerequisites
to admission. Only those who have been admitted to the Philippine Bar can be called
“Attorney." Further, he should not be allowed to take his oath and sign the Attorney’s Roll. Rule
7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “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
Aguirre vs. Rana
403 SCRA 342
2003
Facts: Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled
mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of
Admission to the Bar.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the
scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. Complainant alleges that
respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in an election.

Issue: Having passed the Bar and took his can Rana already use the appellation “attorney”?
Ruling: A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has
passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a
license.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However,
it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact
that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
18. What are the obligations of a newly constituted lawyer?

He must Member himself to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

19. Good moral character is a continuing requirement

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 (Grande v. Atty. De Silva, A.C. No. 4838, July 29, 2003).

20. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS

Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear and handle cases in court.
Exceptions:
1. Law student practice;
2. Non-lawyers in court can appear for a party in MTC; and
NOTE: Section 34, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly allows pro se practice or the
right of a non-member of the bar to engage in limited practice of law (Antiquiera, 1992).
3. Non-lawyers can represent parties in administrative tribunals such as NLRC, DARAB, and
Cadastral Courts.