LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

U.P. LAW BOC

Q1: What is prevaricacion and what is its corresponding penalty?

A1: A lawyer’s violation of Article 209 of the RPC or prevaricacion (betrayal of trust) includes:
1. Causing prejudice to the client through malicious breach of professional duty or inexcusable
negligence. There must be damage to the client. Examples: Failure to pay the appeal fee or to file an
Answer or to submit a Formal Offer of Evidence;
2. Revealing the Secrets of a Client learned by him in his professional duty. (Note: This is the second
offense involving disclosure of secrets). Secrets are to be construed as including the lawyer’s advice;
papers, documents and objects delivered by the client; the lawyer’s impressions of the client;
3. Representing the opposing party without the client’s consent.

Last August 2017, Congress enacted RA 10951 which amended the RPC’s penalties of fine to: prisión correccional
in its minimum period or a fine ranging from ₱40,000 to ₱200,000 or both imprisonment and fine.

Q2: A’s client mortgaged a real estate property to a bank. Client sought the help of A and his wife and asked
if they can shoulder a part of the purchase price to redeem the property after it was foreclosed. A’s wife ended
up paying not just part of the purchase price but almost all of it, through monthly installments. Can the clients
file a disbarment case against A for buying a client's property as prohibited by Article 1491 of the Civil Code?
A2: A lawyer is disqualified by Article 1491 from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation because
of his fiduciary relationship with such property and rights, as well as with the client. Article 1491 does not apply
where the property purchased was not involved in litigation. The prohibition which rests on considerations of public
policy and interests is intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his
fiduciary and confidential relationship with him. The lawyer’s acquisition of the property here was a valid
consequence of a business deal, and not by reason of a lawyer-client relationship, for which he could not be
penalized by the Court. The lawyer and his wife are very well allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and
their conduct in this regard was not borne out to have been attended by any undue influence, deceit, or
misrepresentation [Manuel Enrique L. Zalamea and Manuel Jose L. Zalamea vs. Atty. Rodolfo P. De Guzman, Jr. A.C.
7387 (2016)].

Q3: May a party engage a foreign counsel to represent him in International and Domestic Commercial
Arbitrations in the Philippines? How about non-lawyers?
A3: A party may engage a foreign counsel or even a non-lawyer. A party may be represented by any person of his
choice in such domestic or international commercial arbitrations conducted in the Philippines, except when such
representative shall appear as counsel in any Philippine court or any other quasi-judicial body, whether or not such
appearance is in relation to the arbitration in which he appears, in which case he needs to be a member of the
Philippine bar [Sections 22 and 33, RA 9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004].

Q4: Ferdinand filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal case for
Grave Threats where his father was the complainant. Describing himself as a third year law student, he
justified his appearance as private prosecutor on the basis of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. But
the MeTC denied his request because of the inadequacy of his compliance with Circular 19 governing limited
law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A. Was the Court’s denial proper?
A4: No, given the simplicity of the issues and procedures in inferior courts, Section 34 of Rule 138 allows
Ferdinand’s appearance for his father. Section 34 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-
lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student.

Q5: Vice Mayor Lita was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and sought her lawyer
cumpadre, Henry, himself a member of the sangguniang bayan, to represent her in the Regional Trial Court.
Atty. Roman moved to have Henry disqualified. Rule on the motion.
A5: The judge should deny the motion. Henry is prohibited from appearing as counsel only in a criminal case where
the national or local government official to be represented is accused of an offense committed in relation to his
office. Reckless imprudence is not one of those offenses [Section 90, (b) (2), Local Government Code].

Q6: Atty. Anselmo filed a notice of appeal before the RTC, an Appellants’ brief before the CA, and a separate
Injunction Petition before the RTC, indicating only his MCLE compliance number without indicating the date
of issue. This prompted Virgilio to inquire from the MCLE Office that led to his discovery that Atty. Anselmo
had no MCLE compliance for the first two compliance periods. Both the IBP and the Supreme Court separately
directed him to comment on Virgilio’s complaint but he ignored both directives. Should he be disbarred?
2 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A6: His act of not complying with his MCLE duties for two periods; submitting in court false MCLE numbers in
pleadings; and disregarding the directives from the IBP and the SC taken together, constitute serious cases that
merits disbarment [Mapalad vs. Atty. Echanez; A.C. 10911 (2017)].

Q7: Distinguish between gross and simple immorality.

A7: Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to
the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. The
distinction is relevant because to merit the supreme penalty of disbarment, it must be shown that the lawyer’s
immorality is gross and not just a simple one [Garrido vs. Attys. Garrido and Valencia, A.C. 6593 (2012)].

Q8: Which of the following are ethical advertisements?

• Full page Ad on a newspaper congratulating Lawyer Z for winning an important case for a client -
Depends. If the ad was sponsored by a client, then it is not within the self- prohibition because it is self-
laudatory. If the source of the ad is the law firm of Lawyer Z, then it is not an ethical advertisement.
• Tarpaulin Ad alerting the public about Atty. X as Regional distributor of Tupperware Philippines —
Ethical. Although X may be incidentally a lawyer, the purpose of the advertisement is not to promote his
legal services but to inform the public as to business matters. The advertisement must still be dignified
as a lawyer’s conduct even in private matters must not bring dishonor to the profession.
• The website of ABC Law Office enumerating all the lawyers of the firm and its practice areas – Ethical.
At present, there is no particular circular regulating online and social media advertisements. The
guidelines in Ulep vs. Legal Clinic refer to print mediums—reputable law lists and simple professional
cards. But since the website only refers to “practice areas” and does not claim to be “experts” in specific
fields, then they do not violate the prohibition.

Q9: Representing a client in a medical malpractice suit he filed against Dr. Vicky Belo, Atty. Argee wrote a
series of posts in his Facebook account, calling her a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan.” Other posts were downright sexist, vulgar and disrespectful of women.
He claimed that the complaint filed violates his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that
the posts that Dr. Belo quoted were private remarks on his private Facebook account meant to be shared only
with his circle of friends of which Belo is not. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his
freedom of speech. Is he justified?
A9: NO. Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long as their
misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for
the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional
Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's
behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any
misconduct, which—albeit unrelated to the actual practice of their profession—would show them to be unfit for
the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them." [Belo vs. Guevarra, A.C.
11394 (2016)].

Q10: A complaint was filed against Lawyer X who was an Undersecretary for failure to evaluate CSC records
and other documentary evidence presented to her office in the CSC as well as for non-service of CSC
Resolutions, claiming that such constituted misconduct in the discharge of her official duties as a government
lawyer. Which has administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over the complaint? The IBP or the Office of the
Ombudsman?
A10: The Ombudsman. The IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative
offenses involving their official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall under the disciplinary authority of
either their superior or the Ombudsman. An anomalous situation will arise if the IBP asserts jurisdiction and
decides against a government lawyer, while the disciplinary authority finds in favor of the government lawyer.
(Spouses Buffe vs. Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, et al., A.C. 8168, 21 October 2016, and Eduardo R. Alicias Jr. vs. Atty.
Myrna V. Macatangay, et al., A.C. 7478, 11 January 2017, Both by J. Carpio); But, if such misconduct as a government
official also constitutes a violation of the Oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility, then the
Supreme Court may motu propio assume jurisdiction and subject the lawyer to disciplinary sanction [Liang Fuji vs.
Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz, A.C. 11043 (2017) By J. Leonen].
3 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Q11: Explain the sui generis character of disbarment proceedings.

A11:
• It is imprescriptible.
• It is neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding. Thus, concepts such as double jeopardy and pari delicto do
not apply. A previous disbarment is not a bar to a subsequent disbarment (Fernandez vs. Grecia, 17 June
1993).
• A complainant is not required. The Supreme Court can initiate and conduct such motu propio. The
complainant is reduced to a witness whose affidavit of desistance has no effect on the continuation of the
proceedings.
• The Rules of Evidence find no strict application. Thus, a lawyer can be disbarred based on the application
of the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
• It is highly-confidential.

Q12: The trial court convicted Atty. Gwen for BP 22 violation upon Riza’s complaint. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and also ordered her suspension for one year after it became
convinced that Gwen was wanting in the required moral qualification. The decision became final and
executory. Gwen protested because she received no disciplinary complaint. Is the decision to suspend her
valid?
A12: YES. Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, ROC, a member of bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A violation of BP
22 is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Q13: Atty. Rodrigo became qualified to practice law in Porto Novo, Republic of Benin. Rodrigo’s neighbor in
Porto Novo brought home a wild myna. Infuriated one fine day, he accidentally killed his neighbor’s bird for
which he was assessed damages heavily and got eventually disbarred as a lawyer. He became compelled to
return to Manila and resume his law practice. Alfredo, discovered his disbarment in Porto Novo and quickly
capitalized on this to disqualify him in handling their case. He sued to have him disbarred for the same cause.
Should Rodrigo be disbarred?
A13: NO. The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his
disbarment or suspension in the Philippines only if the basis of such action includes any of the grounds for
disbarment under Philippine law as enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 (In re: Maquera, B.M. 793 (2004). These
are: (1) deceit, (2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office (3) grossly immoral conduct, (4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, (5) violation of oath of office, (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, (7) corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without an authority to do so.

Q14: What is the effect of a lawyer’s failure to disclose the required information for MCLE Compliance or
Exemption?
A14: Failure to disclose the required information would no longer result in the dismissal or expunction of the
pleadings from the records. Instead, such failure would subject counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary
action, namely:
• The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense
and P4,000.00 for the third offense;
• In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar pursuant to Section 2,
Rule 13 of Bar Matter No. 850 and its implementing rules and regulations; and
• The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client/s shall be allowed to secure
the services of a new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the return of fees already paid to the
non-compliant lawyer.
But, lawyers who just passed the bar or were reinstated as a lawyer within four months from the deadline of the
compliance period, are no longer required to take the MCLE for that compliance period [14 January 2014 SC
Resolution, amending Bar Matter 1922].

Q15: In a civil case where it was proven that a Deed of Sale was forged, Atty. Baby as the supposed notary
public for the document, does not remember recording acknowledging such but could not explain how the
Deed ended up in his notarial register. Can her notarial commission be revoked? Should she be disbarred?
4 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

A15: Her commission can be revoked but only suspension, not disbarment is warranted. While there may be
reasons to give her the benefit of the doubt as to who signed the Deed, the Court does not and cannot lose sight
of the fact that she still failed in ensuring that only documents which he had personally signed and sealed with
her notarial seal, after satisfying herself with the completeness of the same and the identities of the parties who
affixed their signatures therein, would be included in the notarial register. This also means that she failed to
properly store and secure the notarial equipment in order to prevent other people from notarizing documents by
forging her signature and affixing her notarial seal, and recording such documents in her notarial books, without
her knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence [Orlando S. Castelo, et al. vs. Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching,
A.C. 11165 (2017)].

Q16: Atty. C moved to Spain. Subsequently, she denounced her Philippine citizenship and became a
naturalized Spanish citizen. After 10 years, she decided to return to the Philippines and re-acquire her
Philippine citizenship. Upon re-acquiring her Philippine citizenship, does she also re-acquire her membership
in the Philippine Bar?
A16: Yes. Under R.A. 9225, once she re-acquired Philippine citizenship, she remains to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. However, she cannot automatically resume in the practice of law because the same law provides
that she must first apply with the proper authority (i.e. the OBC in the SC) for a license or permit to engage in such
practice.

Q17: May a disbarred lawyer represent himself in litigation?

A17: Yes. Pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 138, ROC, a party may conduct his litigation in person. A lawyer who has been
disbarred or otherwise disqualified to practice law can validly prosecute or defend his own litigation as much as
that of a layman.

Q18: Who may be appointed as counsel de officio? May a lawyer decline to act as counsel de officio?
A18: The following may appointed as counsel de officio:
1. A member of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently
defend the accused;
2. In localities without lawyers:
a. Any person resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability [Sec. 7, Rule 116,
ROC];
b. A municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch, subdivision or instrumentality of the
government within the province [Sec. 1, PD 543].

A lawyer may decline to act as counsel de oficio only for serious and sufficient cause (Rule 14.02, CPR)

Q19: Grounds for suspension and disbarment under the Rules of Court
A19:
The grounds are given in Sec. 27, Rule 138
1. Deceit
2. Malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office –any malfeasance or dereliction of
3. Duty committed by a lawyer
4. Grossly immoral conduct
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
6. Violation of oath of office
7. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court
8. Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to case without an authority to do so

Q20: Lawyer’s Oath

A20:
I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
5 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same;

I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and

I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

So help me God.

Q21: Mr. AA, through his counsel Atty. BB, filed a collection suit. When Mr. AA retained Atty. BB, they did not
have an agreement as to Atty. BB’s compensation. However, they agreed that Atty. BB would be paid 10% of
whatever would be awarded to Mr. AA. However, Mr. AA lost the suit. Atty. BB is now asking Mr. AA for
payment of his attorney’s fees. Mr. AA refuses to pay, saying that because he lost the suit and no award was
given him, Atty. BB is not entitled to any compensation. Atty. BB countered that he is entitled to compensation
on a quantum meruit basis. Who is correct?
A21: Mr. AA is correct. The parties entered into a contingency agreement wherein the manner by which the
attorney is paid is based on a contingent fee that is conditioned upon the securing of a favorable judgment and
recovery of money or property and the amount of which may be on a percentage basis. While contingent fee
contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be protected from
unjust charges, it is a valid agreement [Masmud vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385 (2009)].

Q22: What are the requisites for the rule on privileged communication to apply between an attorney and a
client?
A22:
1. The person to whom information is given is a lawyer.
2. There is a legal relationship existing, except in cases of prospective clients
3. Legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity with respect to
communications relating to that purpose
4. The client must intend the communication be confidential.

Q23: Is the identity of a client covered by the rule on privileged communication?

A23: In general, NO. As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Thus, a
lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of this client.

However, client identity is privileged in the following instance:

1. Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice.
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability

Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client’s name,
the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual
of a crime [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 105938 (1996)]

Q24: Charging Lien vs. Retaining Lien

A24:
Charging lien gives the lawyer the right to charge a judgment for money and its execution with his fees for services
rendered.

Retaining lien gives the lawyer the right to retain a client’s money, property and documents which have legally
come into his possession until the attorney has been paid all his fees for all his services.

Q25: MCLE Hours

A25: Members of the IBP shall complete, every three years, at least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities approved by the MCLE Committee.

These activities include:

6 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Participatory
1. Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house
education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion;
2. Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker,
moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities;
3. Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class; [Sec. 2, Rule 2, B.M. 850]

Non-participatory
1. Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the
form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the author
member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the member’s practice or employment;
2. Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter. [Sec. 3, Rule 5, B.M. 850]

Other activities, such as rendering mandatory legal aid services pursuant to Sec. 8, B.M. 2012, may be credited as
MCLE activities.

Q26: Persons exempted from complying with MCLE

A26:
1. The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of
Executives Departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the
judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the
Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of
the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten years
accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures of the
Philippine Judicial Academy;
12. Governors and Mayors.
13. Those who are not in law practice, private or public; and
14. Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule
7, B.M. 850]

Q27: Can a lawyer request for exemption from compliance with the requirements of MCLE?
A27: Yes. A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (e.g., physical disability,
illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law) from compliance with or modification of any of the
requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by
the MCLE Committee. [Sec. 3, Rule 7, B.M. 850]

Q28: Prosecutor B was the ex-officio vice-chairman of the City Board of Canvassers for an election. Several
irregularities, including vote tampering and manipulations of the election returns, accompanied the
canvassing. Despite the obvious irregularities, Prosecutor B still certified the resulting Statement of Votes.
Mr. Z, a candidate in the said election, filed a disbarment complaint against Prosecutor B. May Prosecutor B
be disciplined as a lawyer?
A28: Yes. While generally a lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the
bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official, if the misconduct also constitutes a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath, he may be disciplined as a member of the
bar for the misconduct. In this case, Prosecutor B violated Rule 1.01 and the duty in the lawyer’s oath to commit
no falsehood. [Pimentel v. Llorente, A.C. No. 4680 (2000)]
7 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Q29: Qualifications of a Notary Public

A29:
1. Must be a Filipino citizen;
2. Must be over 21 years old;
3. Must be a resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year;
4. Must maintain a regular place of work or business in the city or province where com-mission is to be
issued;
5. Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing, with clearances from: The Office of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court, and the IBP;
6. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude [Sec. 1, Rule III,
Notarial Rules]

Q30: Notarial Acts

A30:
Basic Definition Common Requisites
Represents to the notary public that the (1) Appears in person before the notary
signature was voluntarily affixed for the public and presents an integrally
Acknowledgment purposes stated in the instrument and complete instrument or document;
declares that instrument was executed as a
free and voluntary act (2) Is attested to be personally known to
Avows under penalty of law to the whole the notary public or identified by the
Oath or Affirmation notary public through competent
truth [Sec. 2 (c), Rule II]
Sign the instrument and take an oath or evidence of identity as defined by the
Jurat affirmation before the notary public as to Notarial Rules
such instrument [Sec. 6 (c), (d), Rule II]
Signs the instrument in the presence of the
Signature witnessing
notary public [Sec. 14 (c), Rule II]

Q31: Guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency of disbarred lawyers

A31:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These include testimonials of credible institutions and
personalities;
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation;
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself;
4. There must be a showing of promise (e.g., intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal scholarship), and
potential for public service;
5. Other relevant factors to justify clemency [Re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (2007)].

Q32: Quantum of Proof for Discipline of Lawyers

A32: The evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence as opposed to preponderance of evidence is more in
keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case law
elucidates, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. [Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560 (2016)]

Q33: Acknowledgment v. Jurat

A33: A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him. It
is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made. The jurat in the
petition in the case also begins with the words "subscribed and sworn to me." To subscribe literally means to write
underneath, as one's name; to sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath
the truth of a pleading, etc. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take
his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths. [Gamido v. New Bilibid Prison
Officials, G.R. No. 114829 (1995)]. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before
some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. [Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, G.R. No. 129416
(2004)]
8 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT (TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT)

Republic of the Philippines )
City of ____________ ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________], personally
appeared:
NAME TYPE OF I.D AND I.D NO. DATE/PLACE ISSUED
__________________________________ _____________________________ ___________________________________
__________________________________ _____________________________ ___________________________________

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and who
acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place
written.

(Sgd.)
NOTARY
PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

JURAT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY of _______________] on this
___ day of [MONTH, YEAR], affiant exhibiting before me his Government Issued ID no. _______________ issued
on [DATE OF ISSUANCE] at [PLACE OF ISSUANCE] and valid until [DATE OF EXPIRY].

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

Q34: Mr. Z executed a will. He, together with 3 witnesses, went to a notary public to have it acknowledged.
He presented his Community Tax Certificate as proof of his identity, but the notary public refused accept it as
such. Is the notary public correct?
A34: YES. A Community Tax Certificate has been deleted as among the accepted proof of identity because of its
inherent unreliability [Advance Paper Corporation v. Arma Traders Corporation, G.R. No. 176897 (2013)].

Q35: Automatic Conversion of Administrative Cases to Disciplinary Proceedings

A35: Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, administrative cases against justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, judges of regular and special courts, and court officials who are lawyers, shall also be considered
a disciplinary action against them, if they are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary
action of members of the bar for:
a. Violation of the Lawyer's Oath;
b. Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility;
c. Violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics; or
d. Such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline
of lawyers.
9 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Q36: Guidelines for Quitclaims and Releases

A36: In EDI-Staffbuilders v. NLRC [G.R. No. 145587 (2007)] the Court set forth the following guidelines for
quitclaims and releases:

1. A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;

2. The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up
in consideration of the fixed compromise amount;
3. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect
(language) known to the employees that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing
their right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law; and
4. A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the
contents of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, duress,
intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person.

It is advisable that the stipulations be made in English and Tagalog or in the dialect (language) known to the
employee. There should be two (2) witnesses to the execution of the quitclaim who must also sign the quitclaim.
The document should be subscribed and sworn to under oath preferably before any administering official of the
Department of Labor and Employment or its regional office, the Bureau of Labor Relations, the NLRC or a labor
attaché in a foreign country.

Q37: Non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification vs. Non-compliance with
the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
A37:
Verification Non-Forum Shopping
Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike
not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
The Court may order its submission or correction or act there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
on the pleading if the attending circumstances are substantial compliance or presence of special
such that strict compliance with the Rule may be circumstances or compelling reasons.
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be
served thereby.
Verification is deemed substantially complied with The certification against forum shopping must be
when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the parties to the case.
petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share
a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, the signature of only one of them in
the certification against forum shopping substantially
complies with the Rule.

If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the

plaintiff is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to
sign on his behalf.

[Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr., G.R. No. 191906 (2014)]

Q38: May a Judge be disciplined for his refusal to wear the judicial robe during court session?
A38: YES. Wearing of the judicial robe during court sessions is mandatory under Administrative Circular 25 of 9
June 1989. A violation of this is considered a less serious charge [Jocelyn Mclaren, et al. vs. Hon. Jacinto C. Gonzales,
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1876 (2017)].
10 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Q39: Administrative Liability of Judges [A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC (2001)]

A39:
Serious Charges Less Serious Charges Light Charges
Grounds 1. Undue delay in
1. Bribery, direct or indirect; rendering a decision or
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti- order, or in
Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. transmitting the
No. 3019); records of a case; 1. Vulgar and
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations 2. Frequently and unbecoming
of the Code of Judicial Conduct; unjustified absences conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust without leave or 2. Gambling in
judgment or order as determined by a habitual tardiness; public;
competent court in an appropriate 3. Unauthorized practice 3. Fraternizing with
proceeding; of law; lawyers and
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral 4. Violation of Supreme litigants with
turpitude; Court rules, directives, pending
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; and circulars; case/cases in his
7. Borrowing money or property from 5. Receiving additional or court; and
lawyers and litigants in a case pending double compensation 4. Undue delay in the
before the court; unless specifically submission of
8. Immorality; authorized by law; monthly reports.
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; 6. Untruthful statements
10. Partisan political activities; and in the certificate of
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits [Sec. service; and
8]. 7. Simple misconduct
[Sec. 9]
Sanctions 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
[Sec. 11] all or part of the benefits as the Court
1. Suspension from office 1. A fine of not less
may determine, and disqualification
without salary and than P1,000.00
from reinstatement or appointment to
other benefits for not but not exceeding
any public office, including government-
less than one nor more P10,000.00;
owned or controlled corporations.
than three months; or and/or
Forfeiture of benefits does not include
2. A fine of more than 2. Censure;
accrued leave credits;
P10,000.00 but not 3. Reprimand;
2. Suspension from office without salary
exceeding 4. Admonition with
and other benefits for more than three
P20,000.00 warning.
but not exceeding six months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00

Q40: Compulsory disqualification of judges to hear cases

A40: No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case, without the written consent of all parties in interest and
entered upon the record, in which:
a. He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; or
b. He is related to either party within the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the 4th
degree, computed according to the rules of civil law;
c. He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or
d. He has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review [Par. 1, Sec. 1, Rule
137].

Q41: Doctrine of Pro Hac Vice

A41: It means the ruling is not a precedent for the other cases.

Q42: Is pari delicto available as a defense in disciplinary cases against lawyers?

A42: NO. The doctrine of in pari delicto has no application in disciplinary cases against lawyers [Pimentel, Jr. v.
Llorente, A.C. No. 4680 (2000); Ramos v. Ramos, A.M. No. CA-07-22-P (2008)]
11 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Q43: Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Disciplinary Cases

A43: Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose its authority upon erring judges
whose actuations, on their face, would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or misconduct. [In Re:
Undated Letter of Biraogo, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC (2009)]

Q44: Right to use the title “Justice” or “Judge”

A44: The use of titles such as Justice is reserved to incumbent and retired members of the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan and may not be used by any other official of the Republic, including
those given the rank of Justice. The title Judge should be reserved only to judges, incumbent and retired, and not
to those who were dishonorably discharged from the service. The right to retain and use said title applies only to
the aforementioned members of the bench and no other, and certainly not to those who were removed or
dismissed from the judiciary, such as respondent. [San Jose Homeowners Asssociation, Inc. v. Romanillos, A.M. No.
5580 (2005)]

Q45: Double and Multiple Disbarment

A45: In Philippine jurisdiction, there is no double or multiple disbarment [Yuchico v. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 8391 (2010);
Santos v. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11149 (2017)]

Q46: Affidavit of Change of Name

A46:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF NAME

I, [NAME], with residence at [ADDRESS] after being duly sworn, do hereby depose and state that:

1. I am seeking the change of my first name in my Certificate of Live Birth hereto attached as “ANNEX A”

2. [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES OF BIRTH (WHERE, WHEN, TO WHOM etc.)

3. My first name is reflected as [NAME IN BIRTH CERTIFICATE] in the attached Certificate of Live Birth

4. I am executing this affidavit to change the name reflected in my Certificate of Live Birth to [“DESIRED
NAME”]

5. I am changing my first name for the following reasons: [STATE REASONS; NOTE THE REASONS IN R.A.
9048 AS AMENDED]

6. I am submitting the following documents to support this petition: [LIST DOCUMENTS; NOTE THE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER R.A. 9048 AS AMENDED]

7. I have not filed any other similar petition before any Local Civil Registry Office, any court in the Philippines
or in any Philippine consulate or embassy

8. I have no pending criminal, civil or administrative case in any court or quasi-judicial body

9. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing for the purposes of changing my name
in accordance with R.A. 9048 as amended and its Implementing Rules and Regulations

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

[PLUS JURAT]
12 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Q47: Affidavit of Loss

A47:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

I, [NAME], with residence at [ADDRESS] after being duly sworn, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the owner/holder of [LOST PROPERTY]

2. [STATE CIRCUMSTANCES OF LOSS – DATE, PLACE, TIME]

3. That I undertook earnest efforts to retrieve the [LOST PROPERTY] to no avail

4. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing [AND IF APPLICABLE OTHER
PURPOSES, e.g. “to request for a copy of the document” or “to request for a new identification card”
etc.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant
[PLUS JURAT]

Q48: Contract of Lease

A48:
CONTRACT OF LEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Agreement made and entered into at [PLACE] this ____ day of [MONTH, YEAR] by and between [NAME
OF LESSOR], of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], (LESSOR) and resident of [ADDRESS],
and [NAME OF LESSEE], of legal age, single and resident of [ADDRESS] (LESSEE), WITNESSETH that:

1. In consideration of a monthly rental of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx) and the covenants
made below, the LESSOR hereby LEASES to the LESSEE a(n) [PROPERTY] located at [ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
TO BE LEASED] covered by [TCT/TAX DEC. NO.] for a period of TWELVE (12) MONTHS from signing of this contract.

2. The LESSEE covenants, as follows:

2.1. To pay the rentals on or before the fifth day of each month, without need of demand at the residence of
LESSOR;

2.2. To keep the premises in good and habitable condition, making the necessary repairs inside and outside
the house;

2.3. Not to make major alterations and improvements without the written consent of the LESSOR and in the
event of such unauthorized major alterations and improvements, surrendering ownership over such
improvements and alterations to the LESSOR upon expiration of this lease;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on the date and the place first mentioned.

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF LESSOR] [NAME OF LESSEE]
LESSOR LESSEE

[If Lessor is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

13 | LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF LESSOR]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]