CANON

1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the Also, in spite of the deficient SPA from Rogelio’s father, respondent allowed
land and promote respect for law and legal processes. many years to pass without probing him regarding the sale of the land. He
did not exert any effort to communicate with Rogelio. He continued to
Valin v. Ruiz ignore the reality that Rogelio was precluded to sell the subject land without
A.C. No. 10564, 7 November 2017 the SPA of his parents.

FACTS: The complainants averred that they are two of the surviving children As a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of the requisites for the legality of
of their deceased parents. Their father, Pedro F. Valin was the original deed of sale and its registration. Instead of assailing its validity, respondent
registered owner of a parcel of land. Pedro died while he was in Hawaii. continuously and completely utilized to his benefits the subject land
Several years later, complainant Honorio discovered that the land was obtained through the falsified deed. He even mortgaged the subject land to
conveyed to Atty. Ruiz, the godson of Pedro, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute PNB as a security for a loan.
Sale, and executed purportedly by Pedro with the alleged consent of his
spouse, Cecilia. Complainants alleged that the subject deed was falsified and The Court is convinced that respondent was the author or, at the very least,
the signatures therein of Pedro and Cecilia were forgeries because Pedro has connived with the author of the subject deed and Pedro’s CTC for his
was already dead and Cecilia was in Hawaii at that time. The complainants personal benefits. Respondent incessantly closed his eyes until he became
pointed to respondent as the author of the falsifications and forgeries blind to the anomalies surrounding the sale of the subject land.
because he was the one who benefited from the same. Respondent denied
having knowledge regarding the execution of the document, and that he Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
neither falsified the said deed nor forged the signatures of Pedro and Cecilia. deceitful conduct.

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Ruiz is unfit to be a lawyer for being a beneficiary of a Valin v. Ruiz
falsified deed. A.C. No. 10564, 7 November 2017

HELD: Yes. Atty. Ruiz is unfit for the practice of law for violating the CPR and Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
the Lawyer’s Oath. Rule 1.01 of the CPR states that “a lawyer shall not of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Further, the
lawyer’s oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but Donton v. Atty. Tansingco
also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from A.C. No. 6057, 27 June 2006
consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to
the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts FACTS: Peter Donton filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification
as well as to his clients. of a public document against Stier, Maggay and Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco,
as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement. Donton
As a lawyer, he knows that “when a sale of a piece of land or any interest averred that respondent’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement,
therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own
otherwise, the sale shall be void.” Respondent was aware that the sale of real property in his name constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate
the subject land without proper authorization was null and void. violation of the CPR. The IBP Commissioner found respondent liable for
taking part in a “scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against
foreign ownership of land in the Philippines.” The Commissioner remedies to protect the interest of his client, his other actions belie his claim
recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for 2 years of good faith. Respondent filed a civil case for damages with the RTC of
and the cancellation of his commission as Notary Public. Mauban, Quezon in what was clearly a case of forum-shopping. Moreover,
respondent filed 3 Motions to Inhibit against the 3 judges hearing these
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct. cases, and even a motion to cite the sheriff in contempt of court who was
simply carrying out his duty to execute the decision.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of
the CPR. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives
in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against Sevilla v. Millo
the lawyer. Respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified March 25, 2019
from owning real property. He prepared the Occupancy Agreement that
would guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual owner of the property FACTS: Complainant alleged that he is the publisher of Pampango
despite its transfer in complainant’s name. In effect, respondent advised and Footprints. On April 2014, he issued a statement of account in the amount
aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign of P33,120 to Sps. Manalo as fee for the foreclosure of mortgage, which was
ownership of lands by preparing said documents. The court ruled that he is published in 3 consecutive issues of Pampango. Claiming that the
suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. publication fee was “exorbitant and shocking,” respondent, as Sps. Manalo’s
counsel, refused to settle the account and threatened the complainant for
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, Pampango’s disqualification. Consequently, complainant filed this
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. administrative complaint against respondent.

Salabao v. Villaruel During the pendency of this complaint, Sps. Manalo negotiated for a
A.C. No. 8084, 24 August 2015 discount of 50%, to which complainant agreed. Yet, respondent intervened
and forbade his clients to pay. For this reason, complainant called
FACTS: In 1995, Patrocinia Salabao filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for respondent, but instead of explaining his side, respondent shouted, “I am
his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her real property in Taguig City busy, I don’t want to talk to you!” and banged his cellphone.
in which respondent is the counsel. After hearing, the RTC rendered
judgment in her favor. From then on, complainant alleged that the ISSUE: W/N respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts
respondent had made her suffer because of his abuse of processes and complained thereof.
disregard for her rights as a litigant. After the judgment became final and
executory, respondent, however, proceeded to file no less than 12 motions HELD: YES. It is well to stress that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their
and cases in various courts subsequent to the Entry of Judgment. clients and are expected to serve the latter with competence and diligence.
Consequently, lawyers are entitled to employ every honorable means to
HELD: The Court ruled that from the nature and sheer number of motions defend the cause of their clients and secure what is due them. However,
and cases filed, it is clear that respondent’s intention was to delay the professional rules set limits on a lawyer’s zeal and hedge it with necessary
execution of the final judgment. But even assuming for the sake of argument restrictions and qualifications. In this regard, Canon 1 of the CPR provides
that respondent was only doing his duty as a lawyer to exhaust all legal that lawyers “shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for laws and of legal processes.” In furtherance thereto, Ompong, who was discovered to be actually not a member of the bar; that
Rule 1.04 of the CPR mandates lawyers to “encourage their clients to avoid, he was denied due process as he was deprived of his right to be defended
end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.” by a person authorized to practice law, through no fault of his own; and that
such deprivation should result in his acquittal. OSG argues that
CANON 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient notwithstanding the fact that appellant’s counsel during trial was not a
and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and member of the bar, appellant was afforded due process since he has been
effectiveness of the profession. given an opportunity to be heard.

Garrido v. Quisumbing ISSUE: W/N Santocildes was denied due process as he was deprived of his
right to counsel during trial.
FACTS: Petitioners Joaquin G. Garrido, Carlos Uy, Jr. and Francisco R.
Achacoso seek either the disbarment or the suspension of Atty. Norberto HELD: YES. The right to counsel is enshrined in the Constitution. This is
Quisumbing, upon the ground that he filed a civil case before the CFI of reflected in Rule 115, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Manila, as counsel for the plaintiffs therein, including among them one L.
Garcia Pastor, who had not, in fact, authorized respondent to institute said Where the interplay of basic rights of the individual may collide with the
action on his behalf. Respondent alleged that he filed the complaint at the awesome forces of the state, what is needed is a professional: 1) learned in
request of one of the plaintiffs therein, namely, Julio Muñoz, who claimed the law; and 2) ethically-committed to defend the accused by all means fair
to have authority to act on behalf of L. Garcia Pastor. and reasonable. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill
in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure. Without counsel,
HELD: Although Garcia Pastor had not personally authorized respondent he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know
herein to file said case on his behalf, respondent had no reason to doubt the how to establish his innocence.
veracity of the information furnished by Muñoz regarding his power to grant
such authority, in representation of Garcia Pastor. A lawyer’s appearance for In the case at bar, since accused was not duly represented by a member of
a party without the authority of the latter must be willful, corrupt or the Philippine Bar during trial, the trial court’s judgment should be set aside,
contumacious in order that he may be held administratively liable therefore. and the case be remanded for new trial.
But if he has acted in good faith, the complaint for suspension will fall.
Rule 2.02 – In such case, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall
Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
the defenseless or the oppressed. extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.

People v. Santocildes Arambulo v. CA
G.R. No. 109149 G.R. No. 105818, 17 September 1993

FACTS: Santocildes was charged with the crime of rape of a girl less than 9 FACTS: Private Respondent Engr. Danilo Ferreras, as the contractor for the
years old. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty. RTC found construction of a dormitory building, filed an action before the RTC against
Santocildes guilty as charged. The accused filed a Notice of Appeal alleging petitioners to claim the balance of the contract price and the increase in the
that during trial, he was represented by a person named Gualberto C. construction cost. At the pre-trial, the defendants were represented by Atty.
Jose Jimenez, Jr. who submitted a SPA wherein he was designated as their besides being a Member of the Board of the municipality of Ilagan, Isabela.
attorney. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent. He also stated that he would be willing to render his legal services to the
people who have not contracted any other lawyer’s services. Respondent’s
The Arambulos appealed. However, on Feb. 12, 1991, Atty. Jimenez filed a service is based on the registration of land titles and charge people P3.00 for
Withdrawal of Appearance with the express conformity of the defendants, every registration.
while Atty. Pineda entered his Appearance as their new counsel. The CA sent
Atty. Jimenez a letter requiring him to pay the docketing fee of P400 and the ISSUE: W/N the suspension of Luis Tagords is meritorious under the CPR by
additional amount of P20. No such letter or any notice to pay the aforesaid advertising and soliciting legal work by distributing pamphlets.
amounts was sent to Atty. Pineda. Hence, in view of the failure of the
appellants to perfect their appeal, the appeal was considered abandoned HELD: The respondent was suspended for 1 month under the Rule 2.03 of
and dismissed. the CPR because it is stated in the rule that “a lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.” Practice of
HELD: The rule is that every pleading subsequent to the complaint, every law is not a trade or business. It is a profession in which duty to public
written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every service, not money, is the primary consideration.
written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers
shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected thereby; Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
however, service upon a party represented by counsel shall be made on his prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
attorneys or one of them, unless service upon said party himself is ordered
by the court. Notice to counsel is notice to the client. BAR QUESTION 2015

In the instant case, it is not disputed that the Withdrawal of Appearance of Q: A businessman is looking for a new retainer. He approached you and
Atty. Jimenez, Jr. was filed with the trial court. Since the withdrawal was asked for your schedule of fess or charges. He informed you of the
with the client’s consent, no approval thereof by the trial court was required professional fees he is presently paying his retainer, which is actually lower
because a court approval is indispensable only if the withdrawal is without than your rates. He said that if rates are lower, he would engage your
the client’s consent. services. Will you lower your rates in order to get the client? Explain.

Rule 2.03 – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed A: No, I would not. Rule 2.04 of the CPR provides that “a lawyer shall not
primarily to solicit legal business. charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless circumstances
so warrant.” This is aimed against the practice of “cutthroat competition”
In Re: Tagorda which is not in keeping with the principle that the practice of law is a noble
G.R. No. 32329, 23 March 1929 profession and not a trade. Moreover, if he agrees, he would be encroaching
on the employment of a fellow lawyer, which is prohibited by Rule 8.02 of
FACTS: Luis Tagorda, a practicing attorney and a member of the provincial the CPR.
board of Isabela, made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano and
distributed it to their municipality so he could render legal service to them. CANON 3 – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
Respondent also admitted having written a letter in Ilocano addressed to a honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
lieutenant in his home municipality in Echague, Isabela in which he stated
his continued exercise of his profession as a lawyer and a notary public,
 Paas v. Almarvez a public office to enhance a lawyer’s prestige. It violates Canons 3, 10, 13,
and 15 of the CPR.
FACTS: MTC Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged Almarvez, a Court
Aide/Utility Worker, with discourtesy to his fellow employees, neglect in Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive
performing duties, and solicitation of money from prisoners before serving address that had no purpose other than to try to impress either the court in
them their Release Orders, and from litigants by offering to divulge which his cases are lodged, or his client, that he has close ties to a member
confidential information in advance of its unauthorized release. of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Canon 10, Rule 10.01,
Canon 13, Canon 15, and Rule 15.06.
The Court found that the charges were not supported by evidence since
those who filed affidavits as evidence against Alvarez were not presented at The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer’s case, instead of banking of
the hearings. The only offense which Alvarez was found to commit was his relationship with a member of the bench which tends to influence or
inefficiency in the discharge of his duties. He was suspended for 3 months. gives the appearance of influencing the court, cannot be overemphasized. It
is unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least, to misuse a public office
Almarvez had filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to to enhance a lawyer’s prestige.
undergo a drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative
complaint against him. The Court held that this is just an act of fishing for Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
more evidence to support the administrative case she already filed against misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
Almarvez. This was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
the judiciary.
Paas v. Almarvez
In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was found
that Judge Paas’ husband, Atty. Paas, who is a private practitioner, was using Rule 3.02 – In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed
his wife’s office address in his law practice, particularly in a criminal case he name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
was handling which was docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. This was admitted is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications
by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done only to ensure and facilitate that said partner is deceased.
the delivery of those notices.


Dacanay v. Baker & Mckenzie
ISSUE: W/N Judge Paas and Atty. Paas should be penalized for allowing the
G.R. No. L-41862, 7 February 1992
latter to use the office of the former as his return address in his private

practice.
FACTS: A case is filed by complainant Adriano E. Dacanay against Juan G.

Collas Jr. and nine other lawyers engaging the practice of law under the firm
HELD: Yes. Using the Judge’s address is a subtle way of sending a message
name Baker & Mckenzie. In November 16, 1979, one of the respondent
that Atty. Paas is the husband of a judge in the same building and should be
lawyers, Vicente A. Torres sent a letter using the Baker & Mckenzie
given special treatment by other judges or court personnel.
letterhead to Rosie Clurman, a client of herein complainant, demanding the

release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a
Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in
client of herein respondents. Complainant’s response to the letter denied
all activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the
any liability of Clurman to respondent’s client. He also questioned
private interests of others. It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse
respondent’s use of a letterhead belonging to a different law office. Not
receiving a reply, complainant filed the instant case assailing the On Sept. 7, 2015, and upon the request from the OCA, a Certification was
respondent’s use of a foreign law office name. issued by the MeTC of QC stating that respondent has been appearing
before it as an Assistant City Prosecutor since September 2014 up to the
ISSUE: W/N herein respondents violated Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the CPR. present. OCA indorsed the matter to the OBC for appropriate action. The
OBC recommended suspension for 6 months.
HELD: YES, the use of a foreign law office name is misleading towards the
public and the clients. Rule 3.02 of the CPR states that, “in the choice of a ISSUE: W/N a lawyer suspended from the practice of law be suspended in
firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The his government position.
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is HELD: YES. Sec. 9 of RA 10071 or the Prosecution Service Act of 2010
deceased.” The respondents, being associates of the firm Baker & Mckenzie provides for the powers and functions of the provincial or city prosecutor. A
are not authorized to use the said firm’s name which may tend to mislead plain reading of the provision evidently shows that the government office of
clients. Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a the Assistant City Prosecutor requires its holder to be authorized to practice
representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal law. Hence, respondent's continuous discharge of his functions as such
services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and constitutes practice of law, and thus, a clear defiance of the Court's order of
others engaged in foreign trade and investment." This is unethical because suspension against him.
Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law here.
Under Sec. 27 Rule 138 ROC, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a
Rule 3.03 – Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from superior court and willfully appearing as an attorney without authority to do
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law so – acts which respondent is guilty of in this case – are grounds for
allows him to practice law concurrently. disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

Eustaquio v. Navales Rule 3.04 – A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to
A.C. No. 10465, 8 June 2016 representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
FACTS: Sps. Eustaquio are the owners of an apartment in Quezon City. They
entered into a Contract of Lease with Atty. Navales but the latter violated Director v. Bayot
the terms and conditions of the contract when he failed to pay monthly A.C. No. L-1117, 20 March 1994
rentals and to vacate the premises despite repeated demands. This
prompted complainants to refer the matter to Barangay Conciliation where FACTS: The case involves respondent Estanislao Bayot, an attorney-at-law,
the parties agreed on an amicable settlement where respondent promised who is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in
to pay the complainants and to vacate the premises but he reneged on his the Sunday Tribune, regarding marriage arrangement; to wit:
obligations. Thus, complainants filed an ejectment case against him. They
also filed this instant case before the IBP-CBD. MeTC ruled in favor of “Marriage
complainants. During the pendency of the case, Atty. Navaro was appointed
as an Assistant City Public Prosecutor of Quezon City. Atty. Navaro was “license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay
found administratively liable and was suspended. or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of
 parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor. Everything the payment of filing, docket, and other fees to IBP’s indigent clients similar
confidential. to the exemption given to clients of the Public Attorneys’ Office

“Legal assistance service ISSUE: W/N the IBP’s indigent clients should be exempted from the payment
12 Escolta, Manila, Room 105 of filing, docket, and other fees.
Tel. 2-41-60.”
HELD: YES. Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is not simply an
ISSUE: W/N respondent’s act is in violation of the legal profession. ideal in our society. Its existence is essential in a democracy and in the rule
of law. The Court recognizes the right of access to justice as the most
HELD: YES. It is undeniable that the advertisement was a flagrant violation important pillar of legal empowerment of the marginalized sectors of our
by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solication society.
of business from public.
The IBP, pursuant to its general objectives to improve the administration of
That pursuant to Section 25 of Rule 127, “the practice of soliciting cases at justice and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more
law for the purpose of gain constitutes malpractice.” It is settled that it is effectively, assists the Supreme Court in providing the poor access to justice.
highly unethical for lawyers to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant In particular, it renders free legal aid under the supervision of the NCLA.
advertises his wares. Law is a profession not a trade.
In promulgating Resolution No. 24, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP
“The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young has effectively performed its duty to “participate in the development of the
lawyer, *** is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be administration of justice.”
the outcome of character and conduct.”
Hence, the request of the Misamis Oriental Chapter for the exemption from
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the development of the legal the payment of filing, docket, and other fees of the clients of the legal aid
system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the offices of the various IBP chapters is granted.
improvement of the administration of justice.
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate
Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high
standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students
FACTS: On 23 September 2008, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) promulgated Resolution No. 24, jurisprudence.
series of 2008. The resolution requested the IBP’s National Committee on
Legal Aid (“NCLA”) to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing, Bumactao v. Fano
docket, and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices. A.C. No. 10826, 7 April 2014

The Supreme Court noted Resolution No. 24, series of 2008 and required the FACTS: Complainant alleged that Atty. Restito F. Fano indicated an MCLE
IBP, through the NCLA, to comment thereon. Subsequently, the IBP through compliance number despite his failure to comply with the third MCLE
the NCLA issued its comment recommending the grant of exemption from compliance period. He was charged with gross misconduct for having made
a false representation in a pleading that he filed with the DOLE. Atty. Fano investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat employees. Furthermore,
explained that he merely relied on the representation of the MCLE providers complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and
(PLM/QC) whose MCLE seminars he had attended and asserted that he was even harassed and threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an
belatedly informed that he had yet to complete 2 units of Legal Ethics and 2 affidavit to support the complaint.
units of Trial Procedure. He likewise attributed the indication of the false
MCLE number to his secretary by reason of an honest mistake because of As to the second charge, complainant contends that respondent is guilty of
the pressure of his many duties. engaging in the private practice of law while working as government
prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Fano should be held responsible for falsely indicating his received P10,000 as retainer’s fee for the months of January and February
MCLE number. 1995, another P10,000 for the months of April and May 1995, and P5,000
for the month of April 1996.
HELD: YES. Bar Matter No. 1922 requires “practicing members of the bar to
indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the ISSUE: W/N being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts with respondent’s role
number and date of issue of their MCLE certificate of compliance or as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.
certificate of exemption, as may be applicable.” It further provides that
“failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of HELD: The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule
the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.” 15.03 of the CPR. However, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR against unlawful conduct. Respondent
At the very least, respondent was negligent in failing to monitor his own committed unlawful conduct when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code
MCLE compliance. This is a sort of negligence that is hardly excusable. As of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or
member of the legal profession, respondent ought to have known that non- Republic Act No. 6713 (“RA 6713”).
compliance would have resulted in the rendering inutile of any pleading he
may file before any tribunal. Canon 6 provides that the Code “shall apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official duties.” A government lawyer is thus
CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in bound by the prohibition “not [to] represent conflicting interests.” However,
the discharge of their official tasks. this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent
conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when
Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Sagucio a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts
A.C. No. 6705, 31 March 2006 or when no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover, considering
the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of
FACTS: Ruthie Lim-Santiago charges Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio with violating the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition
Rule 15.03 of the CPR, and engaging in the private practice of law while of the administrative penalty.
working as a government prosecutor.
Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in
As to the first charge, complainant contends that respondent is guilty of “unlawful x x x conduct.” Unlawful conduct includes violation of the
representing conflicting interests. Respondent, being the former Personnel statutory prohibition on a government employee to “engage in the private
Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
very well. Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing,
provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his] Rule 6.01— The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
official functions.” 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
Rule 6.01 – The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
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 The above duty is well founded on the instruction of the U.S. Supreme Court
accused is highly reprehensible and is caused for disciplinary action. in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) that prosecutors represent a
sovereign ‘whose obligation to govern impartially is compelling as its
Cuenca v. CA obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal
G.R. No. 109870, 1 December 1995 prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.

FACTS: After his petition for review of the CA’s judgment affirming his Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
conviction for violation of the “Trust Receipts Law” was denied, petitioner position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
filed a pleading entitled “Substitution of Counsel with Motion for Leave to to interfere with his public duties.
File Motion for New Trial.” The Court granted the substitution but denied
the motion for leave to file motion for new trial on the ground that the Facturan v. Barcelona
petition have already been denied previously. A.C. No. 11069, 8 June 2016

Notwithstanding, petitioner filed a “Motion to Admit Attached Motion for FACTS: The complainant alleged that on June 4, 2004, he filed a complaint
New Trial,” and a “Manifestation and Second Motion to Admit.” The Court for qualified theft against Pilar Mendoza and 4 others. The complaint was
thereafter required the Solicitor General to comment on said motion and forwarded to herein respondent prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona for
manifestation within 10 days from notice. In the comment filed, the Solicitor approval. However, he failed to take necessary action on the complaint.
General recommends that petitioner be entitled to a new trial, proceeding Instead, he removed the case records from the office of the Provincial
from the same impression that a certain Rodolfo Cuenca’s (petitioner’s Prosecutor and brought them to his residence. Later, it was found out that
brother sworn statement is an admission against interest which may one of the accused was his relative.
ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal liability.
ISSUE: W/N prosecutor Barcelona has violated the CPR.
ISSUE: W/N new trial should be granted.
HELD: YES. Prosecutor Barcelona violated Rule 6.02 of the CPR which
HELD: YES. Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional provides that, “a lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
Responsibility, prosecutors who represent the People of the Philippines in a position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
criminal case are not duty bound to seek conviction of the accused but to interfere with his public duties.”
see that justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 states:
Respondent’s actions and omissions in this case, appear to have been
Canon 6—These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the committed for the benefit of and to safeguard private interests. As a lawyer
discharge of their official tasks. who is also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the
strict demands and high standards of the legal profession. It bears stressing
that a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the The IBP-CBD found and held the respondent guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of
citizenry in government, he must also uphold the dignity of the legal the CPR, recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law and
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair as a member of the Bar for 1 month.
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, ISSUE: W/N the respondent lawyer is guilty for violating the CPR.
perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.
HELD: YES. To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the CPR, the respondent
Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept must be show to have accepted the engagement or employment in relation
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he to a matter that, by virtue of his judicial office, he had previously exercised
had intervened while in said service. power to influence the outcome of the proceedings. That showing was
sufficiently made herein. His act of presiding constituted intervention within
Pasok v. Zapatos the meaning of the rule. He not only exercised the power to influence the
A.C. No. 7388, 19 October 2016 outcome of the proceedings but also had a direct hand in bringing about the
result of the case by virtue of his having the power to rule on it.
FACTS: Respondent Felipe G. Zapatos was the Presiding Judge of the MTC in
Tangub City where he presided over a forcible entry case, Rupinta v. Sps. The restriction extended to engagement or employment. The respondent
Conol. Complainant Atty. Rutillo Pasok was the counsel of Rupinta. Another could not accept work or employment from anyone that would involve or
civil complaint was filed by Rupinta against Sps. Conol where complainant relate to any matter in which he had intervened as a judge except on behalf
represented the plaintiffs. of the body or authority that he served during his public employment.
Accordingly, the fact that he was already retired from the Bench, or that he
Later on, respondent was appointed Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 35 in was already in private practice of law when he was engaged for the case was
Ozamis City. Complainant was surprised that the defendants are now inconsequential.
represented by respondent, the former judge who once presided over the
aforesaid case. In any case, his representing the defendants in the civil cases was not the
only way by which he could improve his dire financial situation. It would not
Since the case was later on dismissed, complainant appealed to the RTC. He be difficult for him, being a lawyer and a former member of the Bench, to
also alleged that the appearance of respondent is highly illegal, immoral, accept clients whom he could ethically represent in a professional capacity.
unethical and adverse to the interest of the public, respondent, being the His taking on of the defendants' civil cases despite his previous direct
previous presiding judge, continued on with his appearance for the intervention thereon while still a member of the Bench was impermissible.
appellees.

Respondent raised as his defense that he cannot be charged nor penalized
of any violation because when he rendered the first judgment in the forcible
entry case, he believes he was completely in absolute neutrality. This was
his reason why he engaged in the private practice of law. Respondent
persisted in his representation of the defendants in the said civil case.
Hence, the complainant commenced this administrative case.