PALE Course Outline

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALE)

COURSE OUTLINEJustice Francisco P. Acosta

Prescribed Text:Funa, Dennis B., Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2009 EditionAgpalo, Ruben E., Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2009 Edition

PART ONE - INTRODUCTION

1. The law is not a trade nor a craft but a profession.

Director of Legal Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil. 749 (1944)

Cantiller v. Potenciano AC No. 3195, Dec. 18, 1989

In Re Sycip, July 30, 1979

2. Legal Ethics, defined.

3. Sources of Legal Ethics

Rules of Court (RoC)

Controlling decisions of the Supreme Court

Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

Canons of Professional Ethics (adopted by the Philippine Bar Association from the American Bar Association) superseded by CPR

PART TWO – PRACTICE OF LAW

1. Practice of law, defined.

Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc. 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

See Rule 7, Sec. 5, RoC

Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)

Versus Notary Public – Tenoso v. Atty. Echavez, AC No. 8384, April 11, 2013

2. Privilege, not a right, to practice.

In Re: Al c. Argosino, BM No. 712, July 13, 1995, 246 SCRA 14

In Re: Juan T. Publico, 102 SCRA 722

Abella v. Barrios, Jr., Ac No. 7332, June 18, 2013

3. Power to regulate practice of law.

Judicial Power:

a. See Const. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)

b. In Re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954)

Legislative Power:

a. In Re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 (1978)

b. In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953, March 18, 1954

Executive Power:

a. In Re Garcia, August 15, 1961

Prescribing Standards for Law School

a. See Const., Art. XIV, Sec. 4(1)

b. See Act No. 2706, as amended

c. See Rule 138, Secs. 5 & 6, RoC

3. Admission to the Bar

Who may practice:

a. See Rule 138, Sec. 1, RoC

Requirements for admission:

a. See Rule 138, Secs. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18 & 19

b. In Re: Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling, BM No. 1154, June 8, 2004

c. RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)

d. Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay, BM No. 1678, Dec. 17, 2007

e. In Re Integration of the Phil. Bar, Jan. 9, 1973

Bar Examinations:

Bar Scandals

a. People v. Romuladez & Mabunay, G.R. No. 31012, Sept. 10, 1932

b. In Re Lanuevo, AC No. 1162, Aug. 29, 1965

c. Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, BM No. 1222, Feb. 4, 2004

Versus Shari'a Bar Examinations

a. Alawi v. Alauya, AM No. SDO-97-2-P, Feb. 24, 1997

Practice without admission:

a. See Rule 138, Sec. 34, RoC

Public officials' disability to practice

a. Correlate with Rule 3.03

b. See Rule 138, Sec. 35, RoC

c. See Const., Art. VII, Sec. 13

d. See Const. Art. IX(A), Sec. 2

e. See Const. Art. VI, Sec. 14

f. See Const., Art. IX, Sec. 8

g. See R.A. 7160, Sec. 90

PART THREE – LAWYER'S DUTIES

1. TO SOCIETY

Canon 1 – Duty to Uphold the Constitution and the Laws

Lawyer's Oath


Donton v. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006

Rule 1.01. Duty of Honesty and Morality

Moral Turpitude:

IRRI v. NLRC 221 SCRA 760

Gross Immorality:

Tolosa v. Cargo AM No. 2385, March 8, 1989

Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, AC No. 2884, Jan. 28, 1998

Paras v. Paras, AC No. 5333, Oct. 18, 2000

Narag v. Narag, AC No. 3405, June 29, 1998

Guevarra v. Eala, AC No. 7136, Aug. 1, 2007

Arciga v. Maniwang, AC No. 1608, Aug. 14, 1981

Misconduct:

Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, AC No. 4256, Feb. 13, 2004

Gonzalez v. Alcaraz, AC No. 5321, Sept. 27, 2006

Gonzaga v. Realubin, AC No. 1955, March 14, 1995

Rule 1.02. Duty to Obey the Laws and to Support the Legal System

Defiance of law:

Chua v. Mesina, AC No. 4904, Aug. 12, 2004

Rule 1.03. Duty Against Barratry and Duty Not to Delay Any Man's Cause

Barratry, defined

Delay man's cause:

Reyes v. Gaa, AM No. 1048, July 14, 1995

Rule 1.04. Duty to Promote Amicable Settlement

Authority of lawyer to compromise:

Melendrez v. Decena, AC No. 2104, Aug. 24, 1989


Canon 2 – Duty to be an Efficient Lawyer

In Re Soriano, G.R. No. L-24114, June 30, 1970

Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113, March 25, 1975

Rule 2.01. Duty to the Defenseless and the Oppressed

Rule 2.02. Duty to Give Legal Advice on the Rights of the Defenseless and the Oppressed

Rule 2.03. Duty to Shun Vulgar Solicitation

Solicitation:

Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, supraCorrelate with Rule 138, Sec. 27, RoCTan Tek Beng v. David, 126 SCRA 389, 1983

Advertising:

Permissible advertising - Ulep v. Legal Clinic, supra

Khan, Jr. v. Simbillo, AC No. 5299, Aug. 19, 2003

Ambulance Chasing, defined

Rule 2.04. Duty to Shun Cut-Throat Rates

Canon 3 – Duty of Honest and Dignified Pronouncement of Legal Services

Rule 3.01. Duty Not to Use Fraudulent or Misleading Pronouncement of His Qualifications

See Ethical Consideration 208, 1978, Model Code of Professional Responsibility, ABA

Rule 3.02. Duty of Honesty in the Firm Name

In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue to Use firm name Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillop, July 30, 1979

Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie, AC No. 2131, May 10, 1985

Rule 3.03. Duty of a Law Partner to Withdraw from the Firm When He Accepts Public Office

Rule 3.04. Duty Not to Pay Media for Publicity

Canon 4 – Duty to Support the Improvement of the Legal System

Canon 5 – Duty to Keep Abreast of Legal Developments

Rabanal v. Tugalde, AC No. 1372, June 27, 2002

Williams v. Entiquez, AC No. 6353, Feb. 27, 2006

MCLE, Bar Matter No. 850

Canon 6 – The Same Duties Apply to Lawyers in Government Service

Dinsay v. Cioco, AC No. 2995, Nov. 27, 1996

Santiago v. Sagucio, AC No. 6705, March 30, 2006

Huysen v. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707, March 29, 2006

Rule 6.01. Duty of a Public Prosecutor to See That Justice is Done

Rule 6.02. Duty to Separate Public Duties from Private Interests

Rule 6.03. Duty to Avoid Conflict of Interest After Leaving Government Service

Congruent interest – PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 151809-12, April 12, 2005

“Matter”; “intervention” defined - PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, et al., supra

2. TO LEGAL PROFESSION

Canon 7 – Duty to Uphold the Dignity of the Legal Profession

Samala v. Palana, AC No. 6595, April 15, 2005

Integrated bar, defined:

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Edillon, AC No. 1928, Aug. 3, 1978

Rule 7.01. Duty to be Honest in Applying for Admission to the Bar

Leda v. Tabang, AC No. 2505, Feb. 21, 1992

Rule 7.02. Duty to Support Only Those Qualified to be Admitted to the Bar

Rule 7.03. Duty to be Professional and Dignified

Canon 8 – Duty of Professional Courtesy

Camacho v. Panguluyan, AC No. 4807, March 22, 2000

Castillo v. Padilla, Jr. AC No. 2339, Feb. 24, 1984

Rule 8.01. Duty to be Professional in Language

Offensive Language:

Andres v. Cabrera, AC No. 585, Dec. 14, 1979

Privileged Communication:

Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010, 1 SCRA 396

In Re Laureta, March 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 382

Rule 8.02. Duty to Refrain from Professional Encroachment

Canon 9 – Duty to Shun Unauthorized Practice of Law

Yap Tan v. Sabandal, BM No. 44, Nov. 29, 1983

Punishable as Indirect Contempt. - See Rule 71, Sec. 3, RoC

Shyster, defined.

Public policy as basis:

Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, July 14, 2004

Rule 9.01. Duty to Keep a Lawyer's Work Limited to Lawyers of Good Standing

Republic v. Kenrick Development Corp., 529 Phil. 876 (2006)

See Rule 138-A, RoC (The Law Student Practice Rule)

Correlate with Article 222 of the Labor Code

In propria persona or self-representation:

Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008

Rule 9.02. Duty to Maintain the Integrity of the Lawyer's Fees

Five J. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 11474, Aug. 22, 1994

3. TO THE COURTS

Canon 10 – Duty of Candor to the Courts

Rule 10.01. Duty of Fidelity to the Courts

Director of Lands v. Adorable, No. 8197, Oct. 2, 1946

See Rule 138, Sec. 27 and Sec. 20 (d)

Florido v. Florido, AC No. 5624, Jan. 20, 2004

Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-71177, Oct. 28, 1988

Rule 10.02. Duty to Give Accurate Citations

Rule 10.03. Duty of Fidelity to the Rules of Procedure

Correlate with Rule 12.04

Gavida v. Sales, Jr. G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997

MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. G.R. No. 170633, Oct. 17, 2007

Canon 11 – Duty to give Respect to the Courts

Bagasing v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090, Jan. 19, 2001

Ang v. Castro, G.R. No. 66371, May 15, 1985

Correlate with Rule 71, RoC

Rheem of the Phils. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967

Rule 11.01. Duty to be Properly Attired

Rule 11.02. Duty to be Punctual at Hearings

Rule 11.03. Duty of Proper Language and Behavior

Ceniza v. Sebastian, G.R. No. L-39914, July 2, 1984

Rule 11.04. Duty Not to Attribute Unfounded Ill-Motives to a Judge

Rule 11.05. Duty to Observe the Proper Grievance Mechanism

Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001

Angeles v. Desierto, G.R. No. 133077, Sept. 8, 2006

Canon 12 – Duty to Assist in the Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice

Rule 12.01. Duty to be Prepared for Trial

In Re Clemente Soriano, G.R. No. L-24114, June 30, 1970

Rule 12.02. Duty Not to Engage in Forum Shopping

Correlate with Rule 7, Sec. 5, RoC

Laxina v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 153155, Sept. 30, 2005

Rule 12.03. Duty to File Pleadings Seasonably

Diman v. Alumbres, 299 SCRA 459 (1998)

Rule 12.04. Duty Against Dilatory Moves and Misuse of Court Processes

Rule 12.05. Duty Not to Coach a Witness Under Examination

Rule 12.06. Duty Not to Present a False Witness

Rule 12.07. Duty to Respect Witnesses


Rule 12.08. Duty Not to be a Witness and Counsel at the Same Time

Canon 13 – Duty Not to Influence Judges

Rule 13.01. Duty of Non-Fraternization with Judges

Rule 13.02. Duty Not to Resort to the Bar of Public Opinion During Pendency of a Case

Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, AC No. 7006, Oct. 9, 2007

Subjudice, defined – P/Supt. Hansel Marantan v. Atty. Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 205956, Feb. 12, 2014

Principle of open justice

In Re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970

Rule 13.03. Duty to Respect Judicial Independence from the Other Branches of Government

Judicial independence, defined

Correlate with Const., Art. VIII, Secs. 3, 10, & 11

Cabansag v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974, Oct. 18, 1957

4. TO THE CLIENT

Standard of duty in criminal actions:People v. Nadera, Jr. 324 SCRA 490, 2000People v. Espina, 45 SCRA 614, 1972

Canon 14 – Duty to Render Legal Service to the Needy

Rule 14.01. Duty Not to be Prejudiced in Accepting Clients

Francisco v. Portugal, AC No. 6155, March 14, 2006

Rule 14.02. Duty to Accept Appointment as Counsel de Oficio or Amicus Curiae and Duty to Render Free Legal Aid

Correlate with Rule 138, Sec. 31 & 32, RoC

Correlate with Rule 116, Secs, 6, 7, & 8, RoC

Amicus curiae, defined; correlate with Rule 138, Sec. 36, RoC

Rule 14.03. Duty to Render Legal Service to the Indigent

Indigent party, defined

Rule 14.04. Duty to Treat Paying and Non-Paying Clients with the Same Standard

Villafuerte v. Cortez, G.R. No. 3455, April 14, 1998

Canon 15 – Duty of Candor to the Client

Cruz v. Jacinto, AC No. 5235, March 22, 2000


Rule 15.01. Duty to Ascertain Conflict of Interests as Soon as Practicable

Rule 15.02. Duty of Confidentiality

Rule 15.03. Duty to Avoid Conflict of Interests

Conflict of interest, defined – Dagohoy v. Atty. Artemio San Juan, AC No. 7944, June 4, 2013

Ylya v. Atty. Gacott, AC No. 6475, Jan. 30, 2013

Lim v. Villasosa, AC No. 5303, June 15, 2006

PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, supra

Quiambao v. Bamba, AC No. 6708, Aug. 25, 2005

Samala v. Valencia, AC No. 5339, January 22, 2007

Pomento v. Ponteverde, AC No. 5128, March 31, 2005

Artezuela v. Maderazo, AC No. 4354, April 22, 2002

Abaqueta v. Florido, AC No. 5948, Jan. 22, 2003

Gonzales v. Cabucana, AC No. 6836, Jan. 23, 2006

Frias v. Lozada, AC No. 6656, Dec. 13, 2005

Reyes v. Vitan, AC No. 5835, April 15, 2005

Fiduciary obligation of loyalty – Perez v. De la Torre, AC No. 6160, March 30, 2006

Rules in case of conflict of interest – Buted et al. v. Atty. Hernando, AC No. 1359, Oct. 17, 1991

Rule 15.04. Duty to Act as Mediator or Conciliator When Given Written Consent By All Concerned

Rule 15.05. Duty of Candor in Advising the Client

Rule 15.06. Duty to Not to Engage in Influence Peddling

Influence peddling – Berbano v. Barcelona, AC No. 6084, Sept. 3, 2003

Rule 15.07. Duty to Advice the Client on the Rule of Law

Rule 15.08. Duty to Make Clear with the Client his Capacity as a Lawyer when the Lawyer is also Engaged in Business or Another Profession

Canon 16 – Duty to be a Trustee of Client's Moneys and Properties

Business transactions with clients – Nakpil v. Valdez, 186 SCRA 758, 1998

Rule 16.01. Duty of Accountability

Espiritu v. Ulep, AC No. 5808, May 4, 2005


Adrimisin v. Javier, AC No. 2591, Sept. 8, 2006

Angeles v. Uy, Jr., AC No. 5019, April 6, 2000

Celaje v. Soriano, AC No. 7418, October 9, 2007

Rule 16.02. Duty Not to Commingle Funds and Properties

Rule 16.03. Duty to Deliver Funds and Property Upon Demand; Retaining Lien; Attorney's Lien

Marquez v. Meneses, Jr. 321 SCRA 1, 1999

Rule 16.04. Duty to Avoid the Debtor-Creditor Relationship with the Client

Navarro v. Atty. Solidum, Jr., AC No. 9872, Jan. 28, 2014

Frias v. Lozada, AC No. 6656, Dec. 13, 2005

Canon 17 – Duty of Fidelity to the Cause of the Client

Yao v. Aurelio, AC No. 7203, March 30, 2006


Correlate with Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e), RoC

Regala, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, Sept. 30, 1996

Restrictions against buying client's property: Correlate with Art. 1491 of the Civil Code; Correlate with Bautista v. Gonzales, AM No. 1625, Feb. 12, 1990

Correlate with Guevarra v. Calalang, 117 SCRA 7, 1982

Correlate with In Re Ruste, 70 Phil. 243, 1940

Canon 18 – Duty to Serve with Due Diligence

Mattus v. Atty. Villasecay, AC No. 7922, Oct. 1, 2013

Ferrer v. Tebelin, AC No. 6590, June 27, 2005

Baldado v. Atty. Mejica, AC No. 9120, March 11, 2013

Tan v. Lapak, G.R. No. 93707, Jan. 23, 2001

Correlate with Rule 138, Secs. 21 and 22, RoC

Negligence of counsel binds client, exceptions:

Antonio v. CA, G.R. No. L-77656, Aug. 31, 1987

Salonga v. CA, 269 SCRA 534

San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma, 236 SCRA 595

Rule 18.01. Duty to Know His Professional Limitations

Rule 18.02. Duty to be Prepared for Any Legal Matter

Rule 18.03. Duty Not to be Negligent

Pitcher v. Atty. Gagate, AC No. 9352, Oct. 8, 2013

Roldan v. Panganiban, AC No. 4552, Dec. 14, 2004

Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 100643, Oct. 30, 1992

Liability of lawyers:

Civil liability of lawyers – See Arts. 1170, 1171 and 2201 of the Civil Code

Criminal liability of lawyers – See Arts. 209, 172 of the Revised Penal Code

Contempt of Court

Rule 18.04. Duty to Keep Client Informed

Ong v. Grijaldo, AC No. 4724, April 30, 2003

Macarilay v. Serina, AC No. 6591, May 4, 2005

Republic v. Arro, G.R. No. L-48241, June 11, 1987

Canon 19 – Duty to Serve Only within the Bounds of the Law

Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union v. Lo Bu, G.R. No. L-30136, March 25, 1975

Choa v. Chiongson, 329 Phil. 270, August 9, 1996

Rule 19.01. Duty to Serve Only Thru Fair and Honest Means

Rule 19.02. Duty Not to Condone a Client's Fraud

Rule 19.03. Duty to Take the Lead in Handling a Case

Mobil Oil Phil. Inc. v. CFI of Rizal, G.R. No. 40457, May 8, 1992

Canon 20 – Duty to Charge Only Fair and Reasonable Fees

Quantum meruit, defined – Sesbreno v. CA, G.R. No. 117438, June 8, 1995

Correlate with Art. 2208 of the Civil Code


Research and Services Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124074, Jan. 27, 1997

Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices, G.R. No. 160334, Sept. 11, 2006

Cortes v. CA, 443 Phil. 42

Champerty (litigation financing), defined; maintenance, defined

Bautista v. Gonzales, AM No. 1625, Feb. 12, 1990

Conjugal Partnership of Spouses Cadavedo v. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, Jan. 15, 2014

Rule 20.01. Duty to Comply with the Guidelines in Determining Lawyer's Fees


Doy Mercantile, Inc. v. AMA Computer College, G.R. No. 155311, March 31, 2004

Rule 20.02. Duty to Divide Fees in Proportion to Work Done

Rule 20.03. Duty Not to Accept Any Compensation in Relation to a Client's Case Except From the Client Himself

Rule 20.04. Duty to Avoid Disputes with Client Over Fees

Retuya v. Gorduiz, AC No. 1388, March 28, 1980

Assumpsit, defined


Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC, 336 Phil. 705

Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013

Concept of attorney's fees: Traders Royal Bank Employees Union v. NLRC, 336 Phil. 705

Contingent fees:

Contingent fee contract, defined

Sesbreno v. CA, 245 SCRA 30, 1995

Correlate with Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code

Fabillo v. IAC, 195 SCRA 28, 1991

Tanhueco v. de Dumo, AC NO. 1437, April 25, 1989

Schulz v. Flores, AC No. 4219, Dec. 8, 2003

See Rule 138, Sec. 37

Rillaroza et al. v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils. Inc. G.R. No. 104600, July 2, 1999

Pollosco v. Gangan, G.R. No. 140563, July 14, 2000

Retaining fee, defined

General retainer and special retainer, defined

Alberto et al. v. CA, G.R. No. 119088, June 30, 2000

Acceptance fee, defined

Canlas v. CA, G.R. No. L-77691, August 8, 1988

Canon 21 – Duty to Preserve the Client's Confidence and Secrets

Duration of duty – Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569, 1949

Rule 21.01. Duty Not to Reveal the Client's Secrets Except when Allowed by the Rule

Burbe v. Magulta, 432 Phil. 840 (2002)

Hadjula v. Maidnada, AC No. 6711, July 3, 2007

Aro v. Nanawa, 137 Phil. 745

Attorney-client privilege, defined

Elements of attorney-client privilege

Geneto v. Silapan, AC No. 4078, July 14, 2003

Mercado v. Vitriolo, AC No. 5108, May 2, 2005

People v. Sandiganbayan, 275 SCRA 505, 1997

Rule 21.02. Duty Not to Misuse information Acquired from Client

Rule 21.03. Duty to Obtain the Written Consent of the Client Prior to Disbursement of Certain Information

Rule 21.04. Duty Not to Disclose Information to Members of the Firm When Prohibited by the Client

Rule 21.05. Duty to Prevent Leakages of Client's Confidences and Secrets

Rule 21.06. Duty to Prevent Indiscreet Conversations About a Client's Affairs

Rule 21.07. Duty Not to Reveal the Fact of Consultation

Correlate with Art. 209 of the Revised Penal Code

Canon 22 – Duty to Withdraw Legal Services Only for Good Cause and Upon Notice

Rule 22.01. Duty to Withdraw Legal Services Only when Allowed by the Rule

Montano v. IBP, AC No. 4215, May 21, 2001

Correlate with Rule 20.04


Orcino v. Gaspar, 279 SCRA 379

In Re Atty. David Briones, AC No. 5486, Aug. 15, 2001

Briones v. Zapanta, AC No. 6266, November 16, 2006

People v. Williams, CA GR No. 00375-76, Feb. 28, 1963

Rule 22.02. Duty to Effect an Orderly Turn-Over After Withdrawal or Discharge

Retainer lien, defined


Charging lien, defined

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. CA, 181 SCRA 367

PART FOUR – DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS

Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court

Sec. 1

Grounds for disbarment – See Rule 138, Sec. 27

Velez v. De Vera, AC No. 6697, July 25, 2006

Andres v. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802

Disbarment proceedings, sui generis – Pena v. Aparicio, AC No. 7298, June 25, 2007

In Re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970)

Geeslin v. Navarro, AC No. 2033, May 9, 1990

De los Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653

Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, supra

Dinsay v. Cioco, AC No. 2995, Nov. 27, 1996

Basilia v. Becamon AM No. MTJ-02-1404, Dec. 14, 2004

In Re Brillantes AC No. 1245, March 2, 1977

Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente, AC No. 4680, Aug. 29, 2000

Proceedings in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Secs. 2-12)

Gatmaytan, Jr. v. Ilao, AC No. 6086, Jan. 26, 2005

Cruz v. Cabrera, AC No. 6737, Oct. 25, 2004

Proceedings in the Supreme Court (Secs. 13-14)

Manubay v. Garcia, AC No. 4700, April 12, 2000

Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, GR. Nos. 79690-707

Investment and Management Services Corp. v. Roxas, AC No. 1417, April 17, 1996

Common Provisions (Secs. 15-20)

In Re Vinzon, AC No. 561, April 27, 1967

Dumayag v. Lumaya, AC No. 2614, June 29, 2000

Murillo v. Superable, AC No. 341, March 23, 1960

In Re Rusiana, AC No. 270, March 29, 1974

Cui v. Cui, 11 SCRA 755

PART FIVE – JUDICIAL ETHICS

A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC “Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary”

CANON 1 - Independence

Two concepts of judicial independence:

In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Macasaet (A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, August 8, 2008)

Sec. 1 – Individual judicial independence

Sec. 2 – Individual independence from judicial colleagues

Sec. 3 – Duty against meddling with another court or administrative agency

Marces v. Judge Arcangel (A.M. No. RTJ-91-712, July 9, 1996)

Sec. 4 – Individual independence from private interests

Mandatory inhibition – Jurtado v. Judalena, G.R. No. L-40603, July 13, 1978

Sec. 5 – Independence from executive and legislative

Alfonso v. Alonzo-Legasto (A.M. No. MTJ-94-995, September 5, 2002)

Sec. 6 – Independence from society and litigants

Tan v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, September 4, 2004

Sec. 7 – Duty to uphold safeguards

Sec. 8 – Duty of high standards in judicial conduct

Dimatulac v. Villon, G.R. No. 127107, October 12, 1998

CANON 2 - Integrity

Duty to disclose to appointing authority and JBC

OCA v. Judge Estacion, Jr. A.M. No. RTJ-87-104

Sec. 1 – Duty to be above reproach

Sec. 2 – Duty of Public Conduct

Junio v. Rivera, Jr., 225 SCRA 688, August 30, 1993

In re Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, A.M. No. 97-253-RTC, July 6, 2001

City of Tagbilaran v. Hontanosas, a.M. No. MTJ-98-1169, November 29, 2002

Sec. 3 – Duty to instill discipline among lawyers and court personnel

CANON 3 - Impartiality

Duty to be impartial

Castillo v. Juan (G.R. No. L-39516, January 28, 1975)

Dimo Realty & Dev. Inc. v. Dimaculangan, G.R. No. 130991, March 11, 2004

Sec. 1 – Duty to be free from bias

Sec. 2 – Duty to appear impartial

Sison v. Judge Caoibes, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1771, May 27, 2004

Sec. 3 – Duty not to give cause for disqualification

Pimentel v. Salanga, G.R. No. 27934, September 18, 1967

See Sections 1 and 2, Rule 137 of RoC

Sec. 4 – Duty to refrain from undue comments on a case

Cacatian v. Liwanag, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1418, December 10, 2003

Sec. 5 – Instances of mandatory inhibition

Austria v. Masaquel, No. L-22536, August 31, 1967

Umale v. Villaluz, No. L-33508, May 25, 1973

Villaluz v. Mijares, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1402, April 3, 1998

Aparicio v. Andal, G.R. No. 86587, July 25, 1989

Sec. 6 – Grounds for inhibition may be waived by the parties

CANON 4 - Impropriety

Sec. 1 – Duty to avoid improprieties and appearance of improprieties

OCA v. Judge Floro, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31, 2006

Francisco v. Cosico, A.M. No. CA-04-37, March 16, 2004

Sec. 2 – Personal restrictions in the conduct of judges

Vedana v. Valencia, 295 SCRA 1

Liwanag v. Judge Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1168, April 21, 1999

Sec. 3 – Duty to restrict relations with lawyers

Sec. 4 – Restrictions involving judge's family

Garcia v. De la Pena, A.M. No. MTJ-92-687

Sec. 5 – Restrictions in the use of judge's residence

Sec. 6 – Exercise of constitutional rights should not impinge judicial independence

In re Judge Acuna, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005

Seludo v. Judge Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864, December 16m 2004

Sec. 7 – Duty of financial transparency

Sec. 8 – Duty not to use judicial influence

Vidal v. Judge Dojillo, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591, July 14, 2005

Sec. 9 – Duty of confidentiality

Access to court records – Hilado v. Uudge Reyes, G.r. No. 163155, July 21, 2006

Sec. 10 – Allowable judicial activities

Sec. 11 – Duty not to practice law

OCA v. Judge Floro, supra

Sec. 12 – Involvement in judicial organizations

Sec. 13 – Duty against soliciting

Haw Tay v. Singayao, 154 SCRA 107

Sec. 14 – Duty of court staff against soliciting

Sec. 15 – Acceptable financial or material gains

CANON 5 - Equality

Sec. 1 – Duty to be aware of social diversities

Sec. 2 – Duty against bias and prejudice

Sec. 3 – Duty to give due consideration

In re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr., A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA, September 9, 2008

Sec. 4 – Duty to ensure equal treatment by court staff

Sec. 5 – Duty to ensure lawyers are not biased or prejudiced

CANON 6 – Competence and Diligence

Sec. 1 – Primacy of judicial duties

Sec. 2 – Coverage of judicial duties

Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court Joboco, A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC, August 12, 1998

Sec. 3 – Duty of professional development

Torcende v. Judge Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239, January 24, 2003

Sec. 4 – Duty to be informed in international law and human rights

Correlate with Const., Article II, Sec. 2

Sec. 5 – Duty to be efficient, fair and prompt

OCA v. Judge Floro, supra

Sec. 6 – Duty to maintain order in court proceedings

Re: Request for Radio-TV coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-?SC, June 29, 2001

Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008

Sec. 7 – Conduct compatible with diligent discharge of judicial duties

OTHER NOTES

Quantum of evidence to hold a judge administratively liable – Lachica v. Flordeliza, 254 SCRA 278

Judge's accountability as a lawyer – NBI v. Judge Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120, February 21, 2000

Preventive suspension of judges – Re: Payment of Backwages and other economic benefits of Judge Itturalde, A.M. No. 01-10-12-0, March 29, 2005

Exhaustion of judicial remedies before resort to administrative charge against Judge – Hilado v. Judge Reyes, G.R. No. 163155, July 21, 2006

Documents

PALE Course Outline