ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

PROBLEM AREAS IN
LEGAL ETHICS

Atty. David L. Ballesteros

TOPICS

• The lawyer and the law firm

• Doctrine of privileged
communications in pleadings and
privileged speech in Congress
• Government lawyers and practice of
law

GROUP
• 4
•
Bagunu, Maika Ros
Canaria, Rhoda
Milan, Maria Bernice
Panti, Angelo Brian
Villanueva, Kristine Joy

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS [S.Y. 2020-2021 2ND SEMESTER]

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Lawyer and The Law Firm

Who is a Lawyer?............................................................ 1
Requirements for Applicants to the Bar……………….. 1
What is a Law Firm?....................................................... 1
Choice of Firm Name………………………………….. 2
Partner in Public Office………………………………... 2
Negligence of Clerks in a Law Firm…………………... 2
Law Firm Represents Client…………………………… 2
Duties of Departing Lawyers………………………….. 3
Foreign Law Firms…………………………………….. 3

Doctrine of Privileged Communications in Pleadings and

Privileged Speech in Congress

Doctrine……………………………………………….. 4
Confidential Information……………………………… 4
Test of Relevancy…………………………………….. 4
Scope of Attorney-client privilege……………………. 5
Who can claim the privilege?......................................... 5
Preparation of Pleadings……………………………… 6
Publication Degrading the Court……………………… 6
Misleading the Court or Obstructing Justice…………. 6
Vicious or Disrespectful Language…………………… 6
Defamation of Lawyers………………………………. 7
Privileged Communications…………………………... 7
Privileged Speech in Congress………………………... 8
Exemption from Liability in Libel or Slander………… 9
Privileged Matters…………………………………….. 10
Liability of Partners Signing the Pleading……………. 11
Balancing Act…………………………………………. 12
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Government Lawyers and Practice of Law

Restrictions and Prohibitions…………………………. 12

Persons Authorized to Represent Government……….. 12
Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law…………... 12
Public Officials with Restriction in Practice Law…….. 13
Applicability of Code of Professional Responsibility… 13
Primary Duty………………………………………….. 13
Suppression of Facts and Concealment of Witnesses… 14
Promotion or Advancement of Private Interests……… 14
Former Government Lawyers………………………… 15
Purpose for Prohibition……………………………….. 15
The term Intervene as Used in the Code of
Professional Responsibility…………………………… 15
Policy Considerations…………………………………. 16
Substantial Responsibility…………………………….. 16
Preparation of Single Legal Document……………….. 16
Lawyers in Public Office and Dealings of
Lawyers with the Government………………………… 17
Prohibition Under the Constitution…………………… 17
Practice of Profession in Local Government Units…… 18
 THE LAWYER AND THE LAW FIRM

Who is a lawyer?

• General term for a person trained in the law and authorized to advise or represent others in legal
matters.1
• As provided in the Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 1: “Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule,
and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.”2
• Trial Lawyer – A lawyer who personally handles cases in court, administrative agencies or boards
which means engaging in actual trial work either for the prosecution or for the defense of cases of
clients.3
• Practising Lawyer – one engaged in the practice of law. “Practice of law means any activity, in
our out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of
the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill” 4.

What are the requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar?

“Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least
twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.”5

What is a Law firm?

An association of lawyers who practice law together, usually sharing clients and profits, in a business
organized traditionally as a partnership but often today as either a professional corporation or a
limited-liability company. Many law firms have a hierarchical structure in which the partners (or
shareholders) supervise junior lawyers known as “associates,” who are usually employed on a track to
partnership.6

In the formation of such partnership, no person should be admitted or held out as a member who is not
a lawyer. Nor may a group of lawyers hold themselves out as partners when, in fact, they are not or
when no partnership actually exists.7

CANON 3 – A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE

ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

1
Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed, p. 4.
2
Rule 138, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court
3
Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed, p. 4.
4
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210
5
Rule 138, Sec. 2
6
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
7
Agpalo (2009). The Lawyer’s Duties to the Legal Profession, p.129

1
CANON 9 – A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing.

Rule 9.02 – A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.

Choice of Firm Name

Rule 3.02 – In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
its communications that said partner is deceased.

The reason for allowing the continued use of the name of a deceased partner is that all of the partners
by their joint efforts over a period of years contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm name, and
this goodwill is disturbed by a change in firm name every time a partner dies. The name of a law firm
may not necessarily identify the individual members of the firm, and consequently, the continued use
of the firm name after the death of one or more partners is not a deception.8

A partner who accepts public office should withdraw from the firm; Exception.

Rule 3.03 – Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his name
shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent the law firm from using his name to attract legal business and to
avoid suspicion of undue influence.9

Negligence of Clerks in a Law Firm

The rule is settled that negligence of counsel binds the client. Time and again the Court has
admonished law firms to adopt a system of distributing pleadings and notices, whereby lawyers
working therein receive promptly notices and pleadings intended for them, so that they will always be
informed of the status of their cases. Court has also often repeated that the negligence of clerks which
adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers, is binding upon the latter.10

Law Firm represents the clients

Rule 21.04 – A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof
unless prohibited by the client.

8
Agpalo (2009). The Lawyer’s Duties to the Legal Profession, p.129
9
Ibid.
10
B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-41862 [1992]

2
Duties of a Departing Lawyers from the Firm

1. Ethical Obligation to Communicate to Certain Clients - The departing lawyer and responsible
members of the law firm who remain have an ethical obligation to assure that prompt notice is
given to clients on whose active matters she currently is working (i.e. tell “their” clients that they
are leaving).

2. Trust Account Monies - Clients that have given the firm an advance fee or advance cost deposit
take the money with them (less earned fees and costs), if they go with the departing lawyer. While
simple in theory, application sometimes can be problematic. The “old” firm should write a check,
consistent with the written instructions of the client, to either the client or to the trust account for
the departed lawyer’s new firm.

3. Fee Divisions in General – In contingent fee cases where some or much of the work was
performed at the existing firm, but the case is going with the departing lawyer, the firm and
lawyer must agree how the contingent fee will be apportioned among them, based upon their
respective contributions to the case (i.e., quantum meruit) or based upon terms in the partnership
agreement. A lawyer may be entitled to only his partnership portion of the fees earned on a case,
even if he performed most of the work after the dissolution of the firm. Nevertheless, some courts
will find that when a lawyer leaves a firm and takes a case with him, he may be entitled to the
quantum meruit value of the work he performed.

4. Files - Client’s interests not be prejudiced when the attorney/client relationship is terminated.
Lawyers and firms shall not hostage client’s physical nor electronic files, even if the client that is
leaving with the lawyer owes the current firm money. Rules require that the client’s interests not
be prejudiced when the attorney/client relationship is terminated. Have the client or a runner from
the departed lawyer’s new firm sign for the file, if it is going to the new firm. Also, it is
appropriate to request in a litigation matter that the departed lawyer file a substitution of counsel
or at least notification of address change with the court, to assure that the old firm is still not listed
as counsel of record. When a client asks for their file, you must give them both the paper and the
electronic documents – including emails. And remember that the client file is client property, so
you cannot charge the client for the cost of downloading everything to disks

5. Phones – The preferred method of advising firm clients about the impending departure of an
attorney is a joint letter from the firm and departing lawyer to all clients with whom the lawyer
had significant personal contacts. A departing lawyer who has had “significant personal contacts”
with the client, should inform the client that the lawyer is leaving the firm. It is ethically
inappropriate to have the receptionist tell callers who are looking for a lawyer who recently left
the firm “we don’t know where he is.” That game is not professional and not acceptable. Assure
that all staff are instructed to provide the departed lawyer’s phone number and mailing address.
Also, assign a partner to answer any client inquiries. Moreover, mail should be forwarded to the
departed lawyer.

Foreign Law Firms cannot practice law in the Philippines.

In Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie, the Supreme Court ruled “that Baker & McKenzie being an alien
law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949
in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside
from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name Guerrero & Torres, are
members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.

“As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie
constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could render legal services of the

3
highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and
investment (p. 3, respondents’ memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized
to practice here.”11

DOCTRINE OF PRIVELEGED COMMUNICATIONS IN

PLEADINGS AND PRIVILEGED SPEECH IN CONGRESS

What is the doctrine of privileged communications in pleadings?

The generally accepted rule is that lawyers are exempted from liability for libel or slander for words
otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided that the statements are
connected with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, the cause in hand or the subject of inquiry.

Pleadings should contain but plain and concise statements of the material facts, and if the pleader goes
beyond the requirements of the law and alleges irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his
privilege.12

Confidential information

A confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure13

between attorney and client in confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses
the information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the
information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.

What is the test of relevancy?

What is relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer, and the words are not
to be scrutinized with microscopic intensity.

• The matter to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to
the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and
propriety.
• In order that the matter alleged in a pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case
material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related
thereto or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of
inquiry in the course of the trial.
• In case of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of its relevancy or pertinence, and for
the purpose of relevancy the court will assume the alleged slanderous charges to be true,
however false they may have been in fact.14

REQUIREMENT OF MATERIALITY AND RELEVANCY— The requirement of materiality and

relevancy is imposed so that the protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient
administration of justice may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be
gratified.

A pleading must meet the test of relevancy to avoid being considered libelous.

11
Ibid
12
Tolentino v. Baylosis, supra.; Gutierrez v. Abila, 111 SCRA 658 (1982)
13
People v. Sleeepr, 46 Phil. 625 (1924); Barton v. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co., 46 Phil. 988 (1924)
14
Ibid.

4
As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make alleged defamatory matters privileged,
the courts favor a liberal rule. The matter to which the privileged does not extend must be so palpably
wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its
irrelevancy and impropriety.

In order that matter alleged in pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case material to the
issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to
the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.15

All doubts should be resolved in favor of its relevancy or pertinency, and for the purposes of
relevancy the court will assume the alleged slanderous charges to be true, however false they may
have been in fact.16

Scope of Attorney-client privilege

All of the elements inherent in the rule must concur to make the communication privileged against
disclosure. This is known as the evidentiary privilege. The factors essential to establish the existence
of the privilege are as follows:

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought

(2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such,
(3) the communications relating to that purpose,
(4) made in confidence
(5) by the client,
(6) are at his instance permanently protected
(7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor,
(8) except the protection be waived.

Who can claim the privilege?

1. The lawyer;
2. attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk - who acquired confidential communication in such
capacity;17
3. an interpreter, a messenger or any other agent of transmitting the communication - originating
from the client’s agent and made to the attorney
4. attorney’s agent - from the attorney’s agent to the attorney because the attorney’s agent is also
the client’s subagent and is acting as such for the client.18
5. an accountant, a scientist, an engineer or a physician - who has been hired either by a client
or an attorney for effective consultation or communication between attorney and client in the
course of his employment;19
6. assignee of the client’s interest - may assert the privilege as far as the communication affects
the realization of the assigned interest. After the death, the latter’s heir or legal representative-
as against a stranger to the estate.20

15
Smith, Bell & Co. vs. Ellis, G.R. No. 24690 (1925)
16
Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010 (1961).
17
Rule 130, Sec. 21(b), Rules of Court
18
“San Francisco v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 37 Cal2d 227, 231 P2d 26, 25 ALR2d 1418 (1951);
Hilary v. Minneapolis Street R. Co., 116 NW 933 (1908); Cold Menthol Process Co. v. Aluminum Co. of
America, 7 FRD 694 (1947).
19
“United States v. Kovel, 296 F2d 918, ALR2d 116 (1961); Lewis v. United Air Lines Transp. Corp., 32 F
Supv 21 (1940); Hilson v. Superior Court of California, 307 P2d 37 (1957); State ex rel. State Highway Dept. v.
Acres of Land, 193 A2d 79 (1963)
20
Ibid.

5
Preparation of pleadings

In his memorandum or brief, for instance, he should thoroughly discuss the issues raised, for a skimpy
discussion betrays want of industry in the discharge of his duties to the client and to the court.21

He should refrain from using abrasive and offensive language,22 for it merely weakens rather than
strengthens the force of legal reasoning23 and detracts from its persuasiveness24.

Pleadings filed in court are privileged, and lawyers are exempt from liability for libelous statements
therein contained, provided that they are material, relevant or pertinent to the cause or subject of
inquiry. The purpose of the privilege is to enable lawyers to freely speak their minds and exercise
their functions in the prosecution or defense of their clients’ causes without incurring the risk of a
criminal prosecution or an action for damages.

Publication tending to degrade the court; disrespectful language in pleadings

Derogatory language of a lawyer in a pleading filed in a case against a judge before whom the case is
pending is direct contempt. However, the use of disrespectful or contemptuous language against a
particular judge in pleadings presented in another court or proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt
as it is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt
the administration of justice.25

Misleading the court or obstructing justice

Making false allegations in a pleading,26 offering false evidence or presenting perjured witness,27
misleading the court and obstructing justice constitute contempt of court. Thus, a lawyer may be held
liable for contempt for attributing to a court a finding of facts in a reckless disregard of what in truth
is its version as to what actually transpired28 or for misquoting a decision except when the
misquotation is merely the result of a typographical error that does not substantially change the
decision quoted.29

Using vicious or disrespectful language

The use by a lawyer of vicious, intemperate, abrasive, threatening or disrespectful language against
the judge constitutes direct contempt as well as a violation of the lawyer’s oath and a transgression of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. 30 It serves no other purpose than to gratify the spite of the
irate lawyer, attract public attention and bring the court into disrepute.31 He may not only be
summarily punished for such misbehavior in the face of the court but may likewise be held
administratively liable for misconduct as an officer of the court. The court may moreover order the

21
GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA (1998).
22
Yangson v. Salandanan, 68 SCRA 42 (1975); Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724 (1935); In re Almacen, 31
SCRA 562 (1970), Montecillo v. Gica, 60 SCRA 34 (1974); Rheem of the Phil. v. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441 (1967).
23
Perkins v. Perkins, 57 Phil. 223 1932.
24
Lagumbay v. Commission on Elections, 16 SCRA 175 (1966).
25
Guerrero v. Villamor, 179 SCRA 355 (1989).
26
Occena v. Marquez, 60 SCRA 38 (1974).
27
In re: De Lara, 27 Phil. 176 (1914); Agdoma v. Celestino, 6 SCRA 637 (1962).
28
Munoz v. People, 53 SCRA 190 (1973)
29
The Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Ass’n. v. Insular Life Assurance Co., 37 SCRA 244 (1971); Del
Rosario v. Chingcuangco, 18 SCRA 1150 (1966).
30
In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970)
31
In re Almacen, supra.; In re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 (1974); People v. Manobo, 18 SCRA 30 (1966)

6
striking off from the record of defamatory or vicious remarks in line with its duty to keep judicial
records clear and free from unwarranted statements.32

Defamatory words are to be taken in the ordinary meaning attached to them by impartial observers.
The lawyer’s intent will be determined by a fair interpretation of the language employed by him. In
short, lack of intention provides no excuse from liability. At best, it only extenuates responsibility. 33

Neither is the circumstance that the words used are justified by the facts a valid excuse for the
employment of intemperate, abusive or disrespectful language. Where words are abrasive or insulting,
evidence that the language employed is justified by the facts is not admissible as a defense. Respect
for the judicial office should always be observed and enforced.34 Nor does the fact that the lawyer
apologized to the judge and the latter expressed satisfaction thereto erase the poisonous effects of the
defamatory words used.

A lawyer who heaps ridicule on the judge and brings him into disrepute without justification puts in
jeopardy the good name of and confidence in the court over which he presides.35

Defaming fellow lawyers

It is unethical for a lawyer to use improper and objectionable language against another lawyer or to
accuse him wantonly and maliciously of a serious misconduct in the absence of reasonable cause.36
He may be disciplined for such misconduct that shows him to be morally unfit to practice law. Thus, a
lawyer who interrupted opposing counsel while addressing the court by saying “bobo” or “ay, que
bobo” is admonished for exhibiting lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court.37
However, strongly worded statements by a lawyer against opposing counsel, if justified by the
records, may not justify disciplinary action against him.38 And the fact that a lawyer did not act with
malice or bad faith in making certain statements prejudicial to another lawyer furnishes no basis for
charging him with unethical practices.39

Privileged communications

In a complaint for disbarment by the adverse party in a case or by a third person against a lawyer
based on charges that he made false statements in court or untruthful allegations in a pleading, the
lawyer may properly plead the doctrine of absolute privilege as a defense.

The rule is that statements which are relevant, pertinent and material to the cause, made in the course
of judicial proceedings, are absolutely privileged, which insulates the lawyer from liability therefor.
Even if the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness
and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of the privilege still covers the mistake of the lawyer.
However, the doctrine of privileged communication may not excuse a lawyer from responsibility for
using intemperate, disrespectful, abusive or threatening language against the judge or against the
opposing counsel in a case.40

32
Dietrict v. Freeman, 18 Phil. 341 (1911); Asturias Sugar Central v. Pure Cane Mollasses Co., 57 Phil. (1932);
Reyes v. Rodriguez, 62 Phil. 771 (1936).
33
Rheem of the Phil. v. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441 (1967).
34
Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724 (1935).
35
People v. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572 (1946).
36
Re Macy, 109 January 1, 196 P. 1095, 14 ALR 848 (1921); Asturias Sugar Central v. Pure Cane Mollasses
Co., 57 Phil. 517 (1932).
37
Re Macy, supra; Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010 (1961).
38
Phil. Surety & Ins. Co. v. Royal Oil Product, 102 Phil. 306 (1957)
39
Laput v. Remotigue, 6 SCRA 45 (1962)
40
Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010 (1961); People v. Sesbreno, 130 SCRA 465 (1984).

7
Privilege Speech in Congress

Privilege speech is a parliamentary privilege enjoyed by a Member of Congress provided for in

Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution. 41

Sec. 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses be punishable by
not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress
or in any committee thereof.

Parliamentary Immunity

Members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for any words spoken in debate or in connection with
voting or used in written reports or with things generally done in a session of either House in relation
to the business before it. This protection is extended to them during the session on the occasion of the
exercise of their functions either in their respective chambers or in joint assembly, or in committees or
commission.

Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in

every legislative assembly of the democratic world. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any
other forum outside of the Congressional hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before
the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or
unbecoming to a member thereof.42

What is the purpose of the privilege?

The purpose of this privilege of speech or debate is not to protect the members against prosecutions
for their own benefit but to enable them as representatives of the people to execute the functions of
their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal.

Whether there is a ground for Sen. Defensor-Santiago to be disbarred or subjected to disciplinary

action by the Court for her questioned speech.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the Senate floor:

x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I

am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living
my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice
Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the
position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another
environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.

Case against Senator Defensor-Santiago dismissed. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable
criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. In this case, the lady senator
clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.43

41
Term of office and Privileges - Senate of the Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2021, from
https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/senators/terms.asp.
42
Osmeña v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, (1960)
43
Pobre vs. Sen. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, (2009)

8
Counsel, Parties or Witnesses Exempted From Liability in Libel or Slander

It is the generally accepted rule that counsel, parties or witnesses are exempted from liability in libel
or slander for words otherwise defamatory published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided
that the statements are connected with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, the cause in hand or
subject of inquiry.44

Case of Cuenco vs. Cuenco

Miguel Cuenco a member of the bar and a member of the House of Representatives, filed a complaint
against the publisher of "The Republic Daily", a newspaper published in Cebu City. The complaint
alleged that defendants caused the publication of a newspaper article which carried the following
headlines: "Rep. Miguel Cuenco was yesterday sued by the Bisaya Land Transportation Company
Inc., for alleged illegal and unlawful collections made by him on the company, amounting to
thousands of pesos.” That the publication is false, untrue, and malicious and newspaper article was
made for the purpose putting Cuenco’s reputation in a bad light and to impeach his honesty and
integrity.

Although the published article consisted of the gist and a verbatim copy of the complaint, it
impeached the virtue and reputation of the plaintiff, who was then a prominent member of the House
of Representatives, by picturing him as having violated with impunity the very constitution he was
sworn to uphold and defend. It also paints him as one who has cheated his client, the Bisaya
Corporation, by illegally collecting attorney’s fees for his own personal benefit.

Defense: by publishing the same, "he acted in good faith pursuant to his understanding of his duty as a
newspaperman to report to his readers events and occurrences of general interest."

Are the said article and headlines privileged? Yes. Three reasons for the rule that pleadings in
judicial proceedings are considered privileged: (1) pleadings have become part of public record open
to the public to scrutinize, (2) pleadings presumably contain allegations and assertions lawful and
legal in nature, appropriate to the disposition of issues brought before the courts for the proper
administration of justice and, therefore, of general public concern, (3) Moreover, pleadings are
presumed to contain allegations substantially true because they can be supported by evidence
presented in good faith, the contents of which would be under the scrutiny of courts and, therefore,
subject to be purged of all improprieties and illegal statements contained therein.45

I. Coverage of Privileged Communication

The correct rule with respect to the publication of judicial proceedings should be that a fair and true
report of the complaint filed in court without remarks nor comments even before an answer is filed or
a decision promulgated should be covered by the privilege.

II. Author Cannot Be Held Liable for Publication in Case at Bar

The published complaint although considered libelous "per se" would fall under the protective mantle
of privileged communication. It follows that its author cannot be held for its publication. While the
doctrine of privileged communication is liable to be abused, and its abuse may lead to great hardships,
yet to give legal sanction to such suits as the present would, we think, give rise to far greater
hardships.

44
Tupas vs. Parrenño, et al., G.R. No. L-12545, April 30, 1959
45
Cuenco v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-29560 (1976)

9
Effect of Privileged Matters

Although every defamatory imputations is presumed to be malicious, the presumption does not exist
in matters considered privileged. In fine, the privilege destroys the presumption.46 The absolute
privilege of an attorney to make statements in pleadings regardless of their truth or the existence of
actual malice on the part of the attorney so long as the statements were relevant and pertinent to the
pleadings.47

Privileged Matters. Absolute or Qualified

Absolutely privileged – matters not actionable regardless of the existence of malice in fact. In
absolutely privileged communications, the mala or bona fides of the author is of no moment as the
occasion provides an absolute bar to the action. Examples of these are speeches or debates made by
Congress or Senators in the Congress or in any of its committees.

Qualifiedly or Conditionally privileged communications – the freedom from liability for an otherwise
defamatory utterance is conditioned on the absence of express malice or malice in fact. To this genre
belongs “private communications” and “fair and true report without any comments or remarks”
falling under and described as exceptions in Article 354 of the RPC. 48

Public Policy

The doctrine of privileged communication rests upon public policy, which look to the free and
unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental result in some instances afford an
immunity to the evil disposed and malignant slanderer.49

All Forms of Communications are Privileged

The privileged is not confined to verbal or written communications made by the client to his attorney
but extends as well to information communicated by the client to the attorney by other means.50

Professional Discipline May Still Apply

Although the privilege is absolute where it applies, we consider it to be a privilege narrowed closely
by the “relevancy” and “pertinence” requirements, and we note that while the privilege will prohibit
an attorney from being subject to litigation it will not make him immune from professional discipline,
when it is appropriate.51

It makes a lawyer liable for false allegations in a pleading since the rule states that a lawyer’s
signature on a pleading constitutes a certificate by him that to the best of his knowledge, there is good
ground to support the pleading.52

Restriction to the Privilege

The Courts defined the restriction to the privilege enjoyed by pleadings thus; The pleadings should
contain but the plain and concise statements of the material facts and not the evidence by which they

46
GMA Network, Inc. vs. Bustos, G.R. No. 146848 (2006)
47
Mauney v. Millar, 203 S.W. 10, 134 Ark. 15 (1918)
48
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, G.R. No. 146848 (2006)
49
People v. Atty. Sesbreno, G.R. No. L-62449 (1984)
50
People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 115439-41 (1997)
51
Selby v. Burgess, 712 SW 2d 898 (1986)
52
Pogue v. Cooper, 680 SW 2d 698 (1984)

10
are to be proved. If the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant
matter which is libelous, he loses his privilege. The requirement of materiality and relevancy is
imposed so that the protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of
justice may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be gratified.53

Example of Slanderous Matters in a Pleading

Repeated litigations between the same parties might indeed be tiresome, even nettlesome but this
alone is not sufficient cause for calling another “dirty-minded”, and of a “limited mind”, “twisted
mind” or to characterize his act as a “devise of wickedness as earmarks of plaintiff’s traits.”

It is noted that far from being isolated statements, these slanderous matters pervade the entire
dimension of the defendants’ answer, with almost every paragraph thereof scathing with spiteful
imputations against the plaintiff. These imputations constitute a grave reflection upon the mental and
moral character and reputation of the plaintiff, and they certainly achieve no purpose except to gratify
the defendants’ rancor and ill-will.

The aforementioned personal opinion of the defendants, expressed in vituperative and intemperate
language, are palpably devoid of any relation whatever to the subject of inquiry and have no place in
pleadings.54

Admonition to Lawyers

While indeed lawyers should be allowed some latitude of remark or comment in the furtherance of the
causes they uphold such remarks or comments should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and
propriety. Besides, the language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.55

Partners Who Signed the Pleadings are Liable

In view of the derogatory implications of that observation, which was couched in intemperate
indecorous and vicious language and which was baseless, since it was belied by the resolution itself
that stated the reason for requiring the Solicitor General to proceed with the investigation of the
disbarment case, the Court in that aforementioned October 1 resolution required Attys. Salandanan
and Linato, who signed the motion under the firm name of “E.M. Salandanan, Aguilar, Linato and
Associates” to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt of court.”56

Libelous Remarks

Against said order, Atty. Sesbreno filed a motion seeking reconsideration with a counter-motion for
contempt against the appellant for reneging on his commitment to reimburse appellee’s clients and for
resorting to dilatory tactics. To that, Atty. Ceniza, filed his “Opposition to Motion for
Reconsideration, Etc.” charging Sesbreno with misrepresentation, prevarication, and “telling a
barefaced and documented lie.” Replying to these remarks, Sesbreno then filed his “REPLY” – Atty.
Ramon Ceniza is “an irresponsible person, cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and irresponsible
childish prankster.” – Subject matter in Ceniza’s libel suit.

PERSONALITIES BETWEEN COUNSEL SHOULD BE AVOIDED. — Clients, not lawyers, are

litigants. Whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients, it should not be allowed to

53
Gutierrez vs. Abila, G.R. No. L-59161 (1982)
54
Gutierrez vs. Abila, G.R. No. L-59161 (1982)
55
Ibid.
56
Yangson vs. Salandanan, A.C. No. 1347 (1975)

11
influence counsel in their conduct and demeanor toward each other or toward suitors in the case.
Lawyers owe respect not only to the courts and their clients, but also to other members of the Bar. 57

Balancing Act

While the doctrine is liable to be abused and its abuse may lead to great hardships, yet to give legal
action to such libel suits would give rise to greater hardships. Lawyers, most especially, should be
allowed a great latitude of pertinent comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold, and for the
felicity of their clients, they may be pardoned some infelicities of language.58

GOVERNMENT LAWYERS AND PRACTICE OF LAW

Restrictions and Prohibitions in the Practice of Law of Government Lawyers

CANON 6 – THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

Rule 6.01 – The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is 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 accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.

Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.

Persons authorized to represent the government.

Any official or other person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the
Government of the Philippines or any of its officials shall have all the rights of a duly authorized
member of the bar to appear in any case in which the government has an interest, direct or indirect, or
in which such official is charged in his official capacity.59 In this rule are the Solicitor General,
assistant solicitors general, solicitors and trial attorneys,60 state prosecutors or special counsel in the
Department of Justice, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants and other attorneys in other
legal offices of the government. The common qualification of these public officials is membership in
the bar.

Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law in the Philippines

1. Judges and other officials or employees of the superior court

2. Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General
3. Government Prosecutors
4. President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants
5. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions
6. Ombudsman and his deputies

57
People v. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 121764 (1999)
58
People v. Atty. Sesbreno, G.R. No. L-62449 (1984)
59
Rule 138, Sec. 33, Rules of Court.
60
Presidential Decree Nos. 478 and 1347.

12
 7. Governors, city and municipal mayors
8. Those who, by special law are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their legal
profession

Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law

1. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives

2. Members of the Sanggunian
3. Retired Justice or Judge
4. Civil Service officers oremployees without permit from their respective department heads

Applicability of Code of Professional Responsibility to Government Lawyers

The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has
joined the government service. In fact, by the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules
governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks.” Thus, where a lawyer’s misconduct as a government official is of such nature as
to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such grounds.61

Although the general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for infractions he committed as a government official, he may, however, be
disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the legal
profession.62 If the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
or the lawyer's oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral
delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such
misconduct.63

Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than
lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer
who holds a responsible public office. Phrased differently, a lawyer in government service is a keeper
of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than his
brethren in private practice. It bears stressing that government lawyers who are public servants owe
fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more sensitive to
their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public
eye.64

Primary Duty

By the provision of Canon 6, Rule 6.01, the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
not to convict but to see that justice is done. Membership in the bar is in the category of a mandate of
public service of the highest order. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is
clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the
advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. 65The
profession is a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere money-making trade.66

61
Reyes v. Atty. Salvador M. Gaa, A.C. No. 1048 (1995).
62
Ali v. Atty. Bubong, A.C. No. 4018 (2005).
63
Pimentel, Jr. v. Attys. Llorente and Salayon, A.C. no. 4680 (2000).
64
Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 6707 (2006)
65
Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, “Apostasy in the Legal profession,” 64 SCRA 784,790 (May to June 1975).
66
Canon 12, Canons of Professional Ethics; Jayme v. Baulan, 58 Phil. 422

13
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. He is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall
win a case but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the
servant of the law, the two-told aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.67

Suppression of Facts and Concealment of Witnesses [Rule 6.01]

The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.The rule is a reiteration of the
fundamental principle in public law, which is that a public office is a public trust and a public servant
owes utmost fidelity to the public service.68He owes the state, the court and the accused the duty to
lay before the court the pertinent facts at his disposal with methodical and meticulous attention,
clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in his evidence to the end that the court’s
mind may not be tortured by doubts, the innocent may not suffer, and the guilty may not escape
unpunished.69

A public prosecutor should not hesitate to recommend to the court the accused’s acquittal if the
evidence in his possession shows that the accused is innocent. If on appeal by the accused from a
conviction by the trial court he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction, he should not also
hesitate to recommend that the accused be acquitted.For “his finest hour is not when he wins a case
with the conviction of the accused. His finest hour is still when, overcoming the advocate’s natural
obsession for victory, he stands up before the court and pleads not for the conviction of the
accusedbut for his acquittal. For indeed, his noble task is to prosecute only the guilty and to protect
the innocent.”70

Promotion or Advancement of Private Interests[Rule 6.02]

A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. The above provision prohibits a
lawyer from using his or her public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private
interests; or (3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. These restriction
extends to all government lawyers who use their public offices to promote their private interests.71

Promotion of private interest to include soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his or her office, or may be affected by the functions of his or her
office.72 It is not limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing the interest of relatives. When a
person uses the office and his or her knowledge of the intricacies of the law to benefit relatives, then
private interest interferes with public duty.73

Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service

1. Retirement
2. Resignation
3. Expiration of the term of office
4. Dismissal

67
Suarez v. Platon, 69 Phil. 556, 564-565 (1940); Jose v. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 257 (1976).
68
Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 30.
69
Trieste v. Sandiganbayan, 145 SCRA 508 (1986).
70
People v. Madera, 57 SCRA 349, 356 (1974).
71
Olazo v. Justice Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC (2010)
72
Huyssen v. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 244, 258.
73
Ali v. Bubong, A.C. No. 4018, March 8, 2005, 453 SCRA 1, 14.

14
5. Abandonment

Former Government Lawyers and The Revolving Door Theory

An area of concern involving ethical considerations applicable to former government lawyers is called
the "revolving door” – the process by which lawyers temporarily enter government service from
private life then leave it for large fees in private practice, where they can exploit information,
contacts, and influence garnered in government service and then leave it for large fees in private
practice, where they can exploit information, contacts, and influence garnered in government service.
To address this, the disqualification of a former government lawyer who has entered private practice
may be sought based either on "adverse-interest conflict" or "congruent-interest representation
conflict."74

I. “Adverse-interest conflicts”

"Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter in which the former government lawyer represents
a client in private practice is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while
employed by the government and the interests of the current and former are adverse. In the “adverse-
interest conflict” a former government lawyer is enjoined from representing a client in private practice
when the matter is substantially related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed by the
government and if the interests of the current and former clients are adverse.

It must be observed that the “adverse-interest conflict” applies to all lawyers in that they are generally
disqualified from accepting employment in a subsequent representation if the interests of the former
client and the present client are adverse and the matters involved are the same or substantially related.

II. “Congruent-interest conflict”

In “congruent-interest conflict”, the disqualification does not really involve a conflict at all, because it
prohibits the lawyer from representing a private practice client even if the interests of the former
government client and the new client are entirely parallel. The “congruent-interest representation
conflict”, unlike the “adverse-interest conflict”, is unique to former government lawyers.

Purpose of the Law for Prohibition

It may be well to say that the prohibition was intended to avoid any impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety which may occur in any transaction between the retired government employee and his
former colleagues, subordinates or superiors brought about by familiarity, moral ascendancy or undue
influence, as the case may be.

The Term “Intervene” as used in the Code of Professional Responsibility [Rule 6.03]

The term "intervene" is interpreted to include an act of a person who has the power to influence the
proceedings. Otherwise stated, to fall within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a matter which, by
virtue of his public office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the
proceedings.75

74
PCCG v. Sandiganbayan and Tan, G.R. Nos. 151809-12 (April 12, 2005)
75
Olazo v. Justice Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC (2010)

15
Policy Considerations in the Disqualification of Former Government Lawyers

The strict application of Rule 6.03 would have a "chilling effect on the right of government to recruit
competent counsel to defend its interests. If service with the government will tend to sterilize an
attorney in too large an area of law for too long a time, or will prevent him from engaging in practice
of the very specialty for which the government sought his service — and if that sterilization will
spread to the firm with which he becomes associated — the sacrifices of entering government service
will be too great for most men to make. As for those men willing to make these sacrifices, not only
will they and their firms suffer a restricted practice thereafter, but clients will find it difficult to obtain
counsel, particularly in those specialties and suits dealing with the government.76

On the other hand, policy considerations which militate toward disqualification include the treachery
of switching sides; the safeguarding of confidential governmental information from future use against
the government; the need to discourage government lawyers from handling particular assignments in
such a way as to encourage their own future employment in regard to those particular matters after
leaving government service; and the professional benefit derived from avoiding the appearance of
evil.77

Substantial Responsibility

With competing policy considerations, the intention of the requirement of prohibition of a former
government attorney from accepting private employment is intended to avoid conflict of loyalties. In
fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. Therefore, consideration for the
prohibited employment, are matters in which he had "substantial responsibility" while working for the
government. According to the American Bar Association, a "substantial responsibility" is "a
responsibility requiring the official to become personally involved to an important, material degree, in
the investigative or deliberative processes regarding the transactions or facts in question."78

Clerk of Court, status after separation from government

A clerk of court can already engage in the practice of law immediately after her separation from the
service and without any period limitation that applies to other prohibitions under Section 7 of R.A.
No. 6713. The clerk of court’s limitation is that she cannot practice her profession within one year
before the office where he or she used to work with.

In a comparison between a resigned, retired or separated official or employee, on the one hand, and an
incumbent official or employee, on the other, the former has the advantage because the limitation is
only with respect to the office he or she used to work with and only for a period of one year. The
incumbent cannot practice at all, save only where specifically allowed by the Constitution and the law
and only in areas where no conflict of interests exists.

Preparation of a single legal document

When at face value, the legal service rendered was limited only in the preparation of a single
document it does not fall under practice of law. The Court in the case of Olazo v. Justice Tinga,
specifically described private practice of law as one that contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer. In any event, even
granting that the act fell within the definition of practice of law, when the available pieces of evidence
are insufficient to show that the legal representation was made.

76
US v.Russell White BROTHERS, Jr., G. Thomas Nebel, and Thomas White Brothers 856 F.Supp. 370 (1992)
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.

16
Lawyers in Public Office and Dealings of Lawyers with the Government

Rule 3.03 – Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall
be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.

Rule 13.03 – A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.

Rule 15.06 – A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal
or legislative body.

Partner who accepts public office. Rule and Exception. [Rule 3.03]

The general rule under Rule 3.03 is that, where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal
from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name, unless the law allows him to
practice law concurrently. By way of exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of
his or her profession under the following conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by the
Constitution or by the law; and second, the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her
official functions.79The purpose of the rule is to prevent the law firm from using his name to attract
legal business and to avoid suspicion of undue influence.80 Lawyers in government service cannot
handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their
respective offices.81

The 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 provides for several public
offices which does not allow for a concurrent practice of law. In the instance that a partner shall
accept a position for one of these public offices, they must therefore withdraw from their firm.

Public office which does not allow for concurrent practice of law under the Constitution

The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.82

No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or
control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he
be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege
granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-ownedor controlled corporations or theirsubsidiaries.83

The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of
their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and members of
the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately
preceding election. The Ombudsman must have, for ten years or more, been a judge or engaged in the

79
Olazo v. Justice Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC (2010).
80
Comments of IBP committee that drafted the Code, p. 16.
81
Ramos v. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, A.C. no. 6788 (2007).
82
Const. (1987), Art. VII, Sec. 13 (Phil.)
83
Const. (1987), Art. IX.A, Sec. 2 (Phil.)

17
practice of law in the Philippines. During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same
disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.84

No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for
his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.85

Practice of Profession in Local Government Units [Republic Act 7160, Section 90]

(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or
engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools except during session hours: Provided, That Sanggunian members who are also
members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or
local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when the Sanggunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the government.86

Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees [RA 6713, Rule X]

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute
prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:x x x (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not: x xx (2) Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict
or tend to conflict with their official functions; or x xx

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or
separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be
with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.87

Code of Conduct for Court Personnel [Canon 3, Section 5]

Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it complies with all of the
following requirements:

(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that practices law before the courts or
conducts business with the Judiciary; (b) The outside employment can be performed outside of

84
Const. (1987), Art. XI, Sec. 8 (Phil.)
85
Const. (1987), Art. IV, Sec. 14 (Phil.)
86
Local Government Code of 1991, Section 90, Rep. Act No. 7160 (Phil.).
87
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Rule X, Sec. 7, R.A. No. 6713.

18
normal working hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the court personnel’s duties
and responsibilities; (c) That outside employment does not require the practice of law; Provided,
however, that court personnel may render services as professor, lecturer, or resource person in law
schools, review or continuing education centers or similar institutions. 88

Inclusion of Name in Business Card

Lawyers in government service must refrain from using business cards, since inclusion of name in a
business card is “private practice of law,” and while he may not be actually and directly employed
with the firm, the fact that his name appears on the calling card as a partner gives the impression that
he is connected therein and may constitute an act of solicitation and private practice.89

“Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,

Dimailig and Celera" with office
at Rm. 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717
Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City

Interference by Another Branch or Agency of Government

Adm. Case No. 8108

DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE, vs.
ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR
and
Adm. Case No. 10299
ATTY. OLIVER O. LOZANO, vs.
ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR
July 15, 2014

Doctrine:
Canon 13 states that "a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court." Other
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not
limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for the
rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.

The Case:
Atty. Verano is the lawyer of Brodett and Tecson also known as the “Alabang Boys” on which they
were involved in an illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs case. During a Congressional hearing of
such case, it was revealed that respondent had prepared the release order for his three clients using the
letterhead of the DOJ and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales when the PDEA refused to
issue the release order of his clients. Jimenez and Vizconde, as founders of VACC, sent a letter of
complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to drafting the
release order and thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act. Respondent alludes to the
Joint Inquest Resolution dropping the charges against his clients for lack of probable cause, arguing
that the resolution also ordered the immediate release of Brodett and Tecson. PDEA still refused to
release his clients, and he was afraid that they would spend Christmas in jail. He helped the families
by preparing the draft release order on official DOJ stationery despite being unauthorized to do so.
Respondent was held liable under Canon 13 of Code of Professional Responsibility. It was admitted
during the Congressional Hearing that the respondent personally approached the DOJ Secretary

88
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Canon III, Section 5, AM No. 03-06-13-SC (Phil.)
89
Samonte v. Atty. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)

19
despite the fact the case was still pending. He also caused the preparation of the draft release order on
official DOJ stationery despite being unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of “expediting the
case”. The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and
consideration from a government agency. The court further held that, the primary duty of lawyers is
not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients’ success is wholly
subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant
of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer,
even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.90

Lawyers Shall Not Undertake Influence on Governmental Bodies [Rule 15.06]

This reminds lawyers and clients alike that influence- peddling is highly unethical and may constitute
violation of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Members of the Bench are
tasked with ensuring that the ends of justice are served. Such negative imputations against them and
the collegial bodies of the Judiciary on the part of the lawyer tended to erode the trust and confidence
of the people in our judicial system.

90
La Jimenez v. Atty. Verano, AM No. 8108, Atty.Lozano v. Atty. Verano, AM No. 10299 (2014)

20