ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONSCHOOL OF LAW

LAW 1. LEGAL ETHICS Second Semester AY 2011-2012

Lecturer:

Noel T. Canlas, B.S., Ll. B.Phone: 0917-8172485 (mobile); 0922-8619750 (mobile) 045-8881685 (office)E-mail: ntcanlas@yahoo.com; noel.t.canlas@up.edu.ph

Course Meeting Information:Mondays: 7:30pm-9:30pmConsultation Hours by Appointment

Primary Sources: Constitution; Rules of Court; Code of Professional Responsibility, New Code of Judicial Conduct; Supreme Court Decisions

Secondary Sources: Treatises, Casebooks, Law Review Articles, and Committee Reports.

Reference: Agpalo, Ruben, Legal and Judicial Ethics (2009, 8th Edition)

SYLLABUS

I. LEGAL PROFESSION

A. State Regulation

Supreme Court – Constitution Art. VIII sec 5 (5)Congress – Constitution Art XII Sec 14 (2)Art. XVIII sec.10

B. What Constitutes Practice of Law

1. Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)2. Ruthie Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio, AC No. 6705, March 31, 2006

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

A. Legal Education

B. Educational QualificationsPre-Law: Rule 138 sec. 6, Rules of CourtLaw Proper: Rule 138 sec. 5, Rules of Court

C. CitizenshipConstitution, Art. XII sec. 14(2)

D. Bar ExaminationsRules of Court 138 secs. 7-16

3. Aguirre vs Rana, BM 1036, June 10, 2003

E. Good Moral Character

4. Father Ranhilio C. Aquino et al vs. Atty. Edwin Pascua A.C. No.5095, November 28, 2007

5. In re: Judge Jaime V. Quitain, JBC No.013, August 22, 20076. Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, Adm Case No.2984, August 31, 20077. Velez vs. Atty. De Vera A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006

F. Law Student Practice RuleRule 138-A. Rules of Court

8. Cruz vs. Mina, GR No. 154207, April 27, 2007

G. The Lawyer’s Oath

H. Membership in the IBP

9. In re: Atty. Marcial Edillion, AM 1928, August 3, 1978

III. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Maclver, The Social Significance of Professional Ethics

Canon 1 Promote and Respect Law and Legal Process

2004 Rules on National Practice

10. Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 79690, 166 SCRA 316 (1988)11. Spouses Santuyo v. Hidalgo 448 SCRA 282 (2005)12. Sicat v. Ariola 456 SCRA 93 (2005)

No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct – Rule 1.01

13. Ui v. Bonifacio, Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 200014. Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 276 SCRA 445 (1997)15. Barrios v. Martines, AC No. 4585 442 SCRA 324 (2004)

No Counseling to Defy Law – Rule 1.02

16. Donton vs. Dr. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006 17. Velez vs. Atty. De Vera A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006 (supra)18. In re Terell 2 Phil 266 (1903)19. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 416 SCRA 465 (2003)

Not to Encourage Lawsuit or Proceedings – Rule 1.03

20. Saburnido v. Madrono, AC No. 4497, 366 SCRA 1 (2001)21. Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, AC No. 6672, September 4, 2009

Encourage Client to Avoid Controversy – Rule 1.04

22. Ysasi III vs NLRC, GR No. 104599, March 11, 1994 23. Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L-28546, 65 SCRA 505 (1975)

2

Canon 2 Provide Efficient and Convenient Legal Services

Not to Reject The Cause of the Defenseless or Oppressed – Rule 2.01

IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid Office, Art. 1 sec 1

Not to Refuse to Give Legal Advice – Rule 2.02

24. Santiago vs. Atty. Rafanan, AC No. 6252, October 5, 2004

No Solicitation -- Rule 2.03Rule 138 sec. 27, Rules of Court

25. Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, (supra)

No Rates Lower Than Customarily Charged – Rule 2.04

Canon 3 Information on Legal Services that is True, Honest, Fair, Dignified and Objective

No False or Unfair Claim re: Qualifications – Rule 3.01

26. Khan v. Simbillo, AC 5299, 409 SCRA 299 (2003)27. Ulep v. Legal Clinic, BM NO. 553, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

No False of Misleading Firm Name – Rule 3.02

28. Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie 136 SCRA 349 (1985)29. In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name – Ozaeta

Romulo, de Leon, etc. and Petition for Authority to Continue Use of Firm Name – Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano etc. 92 SCRA 1 (1979)

Partners Assuming Public Office – Rule 3.03Constitution Art. 6 sec. 14; Art. 7 sec 13; Art. 9 sec. 2

30. Samonte v. Gatdula, AM No. P-99-1292, 303 SCRA 756 (1999)

Not Use Media to Attract Legal Business – Rule 3.04

Canon 4 Participate in Development: Support Legal Reforms and Administration of Justice

Canon 5 Participate in Legal Education Program

Bar Matter 850 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

Canon 6 Canons Apply to Lawyers in Government Service

RA 6713 sec. 4

31. Collantes v. Renomeron, AC No. 3056, 200 SCRA 584 (1991)32. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, AC No. 6788, August23, 2007

Primary Duty: That Justice is Done – Rule 6.01

3

33. Cuenca vs CA, GR No. 109870, December 1, 1995

Not to Use Public Position for Private Interest – Rule 6.02

34. Ali vs Atty. Bubong, AC No. 4018, March 8, 200535. Olazo vs. Justice Tinga, AM No. 10-5-7-SC, December 07, 2010

Not to Accept Employment After Government Service – Rule 6.03

RA 6713 sec. 7(b)RA3019 sec. 3 (d)

36. Gisela Huyssen vs Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707, March24, 200637. PNB v. Cedo, AC No. 3701, 243 SCRA 1 (1995)

THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Canon 7 Uphold Dignity and Integrity of the Profession

38. In re 1989 Elections of the IBP 178 SCRA 398 (1989)39. Santos v. Llamas 322 SCRA 529 (2000)40. Re: 2003 Bar Examinations BM 1222, Feb. 4, 200441. Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo BM 1370 May 9, 2005

No False Statement – Rule 7.01

Not to Support Unqualified Bar Applicant – Rule 7.02

No Conduct Adversely Affecting the Profession – Rule 7.03

42. Zaguirre v. Castillo 389 SCRA 659 (2003)

Canon 8 Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards Professional Colleagues

43. Que vs. Atty. Revilla Jr. AC No. 7054, December 4, 200944. Camacho v. Pagulayan 328 SCRA 631 (2000)

No Abusive and Improper Language – Rule 8.01

Not to Encroach on Professional Employment – Rule 8.02

45. L insangan vs . At t y . To lent ino (supra)

Canon 9 Unauthorized Practice of Law

46. PP vs. Hon. Maceda, GR No. 89591-96, January 24, 200047. Zeta vs. Malinao, AM No. P-220, December 20, 1978 48. Tan and Pagayokan vs. Balajadia, GR No. 169517, March 14,200649. Aguirre v. Rana 403 SCRA 342 (2003)

Not to Delegate Work – Rule 9.01

Not to Divide Legal Fees – Rule 9.02

50. Lijauco vs. Atty. Terrado AC No. 6317, August 31, 2006 51. Plus Builders Inc. vs. Atty. Revilla Jr. AC No. 7056, September 13, 2006

4

THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

Canon 10 Observe Candor, Fairness and Good Faith

Truthfulness Towards the Court – Rules 10.01Canon 32 ,CPE

52. Maligaya vs Atty. Donorilla Jr. AC No. 6198, September 15,200653. Manuel S. Sebastian vs Atty. Amily A. Bajar, AC No. 3731,September 7, 200754. Young v. Batuegas 403 SCRA 123 (2003)

Not to Misquote or Misrepresent Contents of Paper – Rule 10.02

55. Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association 37 SCRA 7 (1970)

Observe Rules of Procedure - Rule 10.03Rule 138, sec.20 (d) Rules of Court

Canon 11 Respect Courts and Judicial Officers

Proper Attire – Rule 11.01

Punctuality – Rule 11.02

Proper Language and Behavior – Rule 11.03

56. Atty. Barandon Jr. vs. Atty. Ferrer Sr. AC No. 5768, March 26, 2010 57. Ng vs. Atty. Alar, AC No. 7252, November 22, 2006 58. Sangalang v. IAC 177 Phil 87 (1989)59. In the matter of proceedings for disciplinary action against Atty. Almacen In, GR No.

27654, February 18, 1970

Not to Attribute to Judge Motives – Rule 11.04

60. Asean Pacific Planners et al vs. City of Urdaneta et al, GR No.162525, September 23, 2008

Grievances Against Judge – Rule 11.05Constitution Art VII sec. 6

61. Judge Lacurom vs Atty. Jacoba, AC No. 5921, March 10, 200662. In the matter of proceedings for disciplinary action against Atty.Almacen In, GR No.

27654, February 18, 1970

Canon 12 Assist in Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice

Rule 138 sec. 20 (g) Rules of Court

Adequate Preparation – Rule 12.01 and Rule 18.02

63. De Espino vs Atty. Presquito, AM No. AC 4762, June 28, 2004

Forum Shopping – Rule 12.02

5

Not to Delay Case – Rule 12.03

64. Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa vs. Atty. Paguinto, AC No. 6273, March 15, 2010

Court Process – Rule 12.04

65. Bugaring and RBBI vs Hon Espanol, GR No. 133090, January19, 200166. Manila Pest Control v. WCC 25 SCRA 700 (1968)67. Malonzo v. Principe 447 SCRA 1 (2004)

Proper Behavior – Rule 12. 05 – Rule 12.07

68. Sambajon et al. vs Atty. Suing, AC No 7062, September 26, 2006

PD 1829 Penalizing Obstruction of Justice

Not to Testify on Behalf of Client – Rule 12.08

69. PNB v. Uy Teng Piao 57 SCRA 337 (1932)

Canon 13 Refrain from Act Giving Appearance of Influence

70. Nestle Phil. V. Sanchez 154 SCRA 542 (1987)71. In re deVera 385 SCRA 285 (2003)

No Extraordinary Attention – Rule 13.01

No Public Statements to Media – Rule 13.0272. Cruz v. Salva 105 Phil 1151 (1959)73. Martelino v. Alejandro 32 SCRA 106 (1970)74. In re Request Radio TV Coverage 360 SCRA 248 (2001)75. Foodsphere, Inc vs Atty. Mauricio Jr., AC No. 7199, July 22,2009

Not to Invite Outside Interference – Rule 13.03

76. Maglasang v. People 190 SCRA 306 (1990)

THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

Canon 14 Service to the Needy

Availability of Services Regardless of Status – Rule 14.01Rule 138 sec 20 Rules of Court

77. Francisco vs. Atty. Portugal, AC No. 6155, March 14, 2006

Providing Counsel de Oficio – Rule 14.02Rule 138 sec31, 20 (h) Rule of CourtRule 116 sec 6-8Rule 124 sec 2PD 543

78. In Re: Atty. Adriano, GR No. L-26868, February 27, 1969

6

Valid Ground for Refusal – Rule 14.03

79. Perez vs. Atty. Dela Torre, AC 6160, March 30, 200680. Canoy vs. Atty. Ortiz, AC No. 5485, March 16, 2005

Same Standard of Conduct for Paying and Non-Paying Clients – Rule 14.0481.  In Re: Atty. Adriano (supra)

RA 6003, RA6043, RA6035

Canon 15 Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty

Rule 138 sec 3, Rules of Court

Conflict of Interest – Rule 15.01 and Rule 15.03

82. Atty. Jalandoni vs. Atty. Villarosa, AC No. 5303, June 15, 200683. Hornilla vs. Atty. Salunat, AC No. 5804, July 01, 200384. Gonzales vs. Atty. Cabucana, AC No. 6836, January 23, 200685. San Jose Homeowners v. Romanillo AC No. 5580 July 15,2005

Privileged Communication – Rule 15.02

86. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang (supra) 87. Ma. Luisa Hadjula vs. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda, AC No. 6711, July 03, 2007

Mediator, Conciliator or Arbitrator -- Rule 15.04

88. Atty. Jalandoni vs. Atty. Villarosa (supra)

Candid, Honest Advice – Rule 15.05

89. Rollon vs Atty. Naraval, AC No. 6424, March 04, 200590. Yu vs. Bondal, AC No. 5534, January 17, 2005

Not State or Imply Influence – Rule 15.06

91. Reddi vs. Atty. Sebrio Jr. AC No. 7027, January 30, 2009

Impress Compliance with Laws – Rule 15.07

92. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. vs. Atty. Florido, AC No. 5736, June18, 2010

Dual Profession – Rule 15.08

93. Dr. Gamilla et al vs. Atty. Mariño Jr. AC No. 4763, March 20,2003

Canon 16 Hold in Trust Client’s Moneys and Properties

Art 1491, Civil Code

Account – Rule 16.01

94. Atty. Salomon Jr. vs. Atty. Frial, AC No. 7820, September 12,2008

7

95. Almandarez Jr. vs. Atty. Langit, AC No.7057, July 25, 200696. Chua and Hsia vs. Atty. Mesina Jr. AC No. 4904, August 12,2004

Keep Client’s Fund Separate – Rule 16.02

97. Hernandez v. Go 450 SCRA 1 (2005)98. Tarog vs. Atty. Ricafort, AC No. 8253, March 15, 2011

Delivery of Funds; Lawyer’s Lien – Rule 16.03

99. Businos v. Ricafort 283 SCRA 40 (1997)100. Quilban v. Robinol 171 SCRA 786 (1989)

No Borrowing, Lending – Rule 16.04

101. Barnachea v. Quicho 399 SCRA 1 (2003)102. Rubias v. Batiller 51 SCRA 120 (1973)

Canon 17 Trust and Confidence

103. Cantiller v. Potenciano 180 SCRA 246 (1968)104. Alisbo v. Jalandon 199 SCRA 321 (1991)105. Ngayan v. Tugade 193 SCRA 779 (1991)106. In re: Suspension of Atty Maquera from the Practice of Law BM 793 July 30,

2004

Canon 18 Competence and Diligence

107. Pariñas vs. Atty. Paguinto, AC No. 6297, July 13, 2004

Client Consent with Collaborating Counsel – Rule 18.01

108. De Juan vs. Atty. Baria III, AC No. 5817, May 27, 2004109. Rollon vs Atty. Naraval (supra)

Adequate Preparation – Rule 18.02

110. Fernandez vs. Atty. Novero Jr. AC No. 5394, December 02,2002

Not to Neglect Legal Matters – Rule 18.03

111. Barbuco vs. Atty. Beltran, AC No. 5092, August 11, 2004112. Endaya v. Oca 410 SCRA 344 (2003)113. Dalisay v. Mauricio AC No. 5655 April 22, 2005

Inform Client on Status of Case – Rule 18.04

114. Ruiz vs. Santos, GR No. 166386, January 27, 2009115. Sps. Soriano vs. Atty. Reyes, AC No. 4676, May 04, 2006116. Somosot vs. Atty. Lara, AC No. 7024, January 20, 2009

Canon 19 Representation with Zeal

117. Sambajon et al vs Atty. Suing (supra)

8

Fair and Honest – Rule 19.01Rule 138 sec 20 (d)

118. Pena vs. Atty. Aparicio, AC No. 7298, June 25, 2007119. Que vs. Atty. Revilla Jr (supra)

Rectify Client’s Fraud – Rule 19.02

120. Pena vs. Atty. Aparicio (Supra)121.  Dalisay vs. Atty. Mauricio Jr (supra) 122. Donton vs. Dr. Tansingco (supra)

Control Proceedings – Rule 19.03

123. Atty. Solidon vs. Atty. Macalalad, AC No. 8158, February 24,2010

Canon 20 Attorney’s Fees

RA 5185 sec 6Rule 138 sec 24; 32 Rules of Court

124. Masmud vs. NLRC, GR No. 183385, February 13, 2009125. Atty. Orocio vs. Angulan et al, GR No. 179892-93, January 30,2009126. Quirante v. IAC 169 SCRA 769 (1989)127. Metrobank v CA 181 SCRA 367 (1981)128. Research Services v. CA 266 SCRA 731 (1997)

Fee Guide – Rue 20.01

Client’s Consent of Fees for Referral – Rule 20.02

129. Urban Bank v. Pena 364 SCRA 597 (2001)

Client’s Consent of Acceptance of Fee – Rule 20.03Rule 138 sec20 (e)

Avod Compensation Controversy with Client – Rule 20.04Rule 138 sec 24, 32 Rules of Court

130. Ramos vs. Atty. Ngaseo, AC No. 6210, December 9, 2004

Canon 21 Preserve Client’s Confidence

Rule 138 sec 20(e) Rules of CourtRule 130 sec21 (b)Art. 208 Revised Penal Code

131. Hilado v David 83 Phil 569 (1949)132. Bun Siong Yao vs. Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio, AC No. 7023, March 30, 2006133. Genato v Silapan 406 SCRA 75 (2003)134. Junio vs. Atty. Grupo, AC No. 5020, December 18, 2001

Revelations of Confidence and Secrets Allowed – Rule 21.01

Use of Information Received in Course of Employment Allowed – Rule 21.02

9

135. Uy vs. Atty. Gonzales, AC No. 5280, March 30, 2004

Prohibition to Giving Information to Outside Agency – rule 21.03

Protection from Disclosure – Rule 21.04 – 21.05

Prohibition of Indiscreet Conversation – Rule 21.06

Not to Reveal that Lawyer was Consulted – Rule 21.07Cf Rule 15.01, Rule 14.03

Canon 22 Withdrawal of Services For Good Cause

Good causes for Withdrawal of Services – Rule 22.01136. Domingo v Aquino 38 SCRA 472 (1971)137. Felicisimo M. Montano vs. IBP and Atty. Juan S. Dealca, AC No. 4215, May 21,

2001138. Elisa V. Venterez et al vs. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme, AC No.7421, October 10,

2007139. In Re: Atty. David Briones, AC No. 5486, August 15, 2001140. Lim Jr vs. Atty. Villarosa (supra)

Duties of Lawyer Who Withdraws – Rule 22.02

141. Obando v. Figueras 322 SCRA 148 (2000)

I V . N E W   C O D E O F   J U D I C I A L C O N D U C T

1 . C A N O N   1   –   I N D E P E N D E N C E

1.01 Independent Judgment

142. Ramirez v. Macandog, 144 SCRA 634

1.02 Independence from Colleagues – Rule 1.02

143. Tahil v. Eisma, 64 SCRA 378

1 . 0 3 R e f r a i n f r o m I n f l u e n c i n g O u t c o m e o f L i t i g a t i o n

144. Contreras v. Solis, 260 SCRA 572

1.04 Not to Allow Social Relations to Influence Judgment

145. Romero v. Valle, 147 SCRA 197

1 . 0 5 N o   I n a p p r o p r i a t e C o n n e c t i o n s W i t h   O t h e r B r a n c h e s o f G o v e r n m e n t

146. Galman v. SB, 144 SCRA 43

1 . 0 6 I n d e p e n d e n t i n R e l a t i o n t o P a r t i e s148. Lorenzo v. Marquez, 162 SCRA 546

10

1.07 Safeguards for Discharge of Judicial Duties

147. Salud v. Alumbres, 404 SCRA 411

2 . C A N O N   2   –   I N T E G R I T Y

2.01. Conduct Above Reproach; Perception

148. Alfonso v. Juanson, 228 SCRA 239

2 . 0 2 R e a f f i r m   P e o p l e ' s F a i t h   i n   J u d i c i a r y

149. Castillo v. Calanog, 199 SCRA 75

2.03In i t ia te D isc ip l inary Act ion Against Er r ing Lawyers

150. In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595

3 . C A N O N   3   –   I M P A R T I A L I T Y

3.01 Without Fear or Factor 

151. In re Aguas, 1 Phil. 1

3.02 Enhances Confidence of the Public

153. Cabulisan v. Pagalilauan, 297 SCRA 593

3.03 Min imize  Occas ions   for  D isqual i f i ca t ion

152. Paredes v. Abad, 56 SCRA 522

3.04 Comments on Proceedings 

153. Facundo v. Berjamen, 180 SCRA 235

3 . 0 5 D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n

154. Aparicio v. Andal, 175 SCRA 569 155. Gandioncov. P0aranda, 155 SCRA 725

3 . 0 6 D i s c l o s u r e

156. Lorenzo v. Marquez, 162 SCRA 546

CANON 4 – PROPRIETY

4 . 0 1 A v o i d a n c e o f I m p r o p r i e t y

157. Talens v. Arceo, 259 SCRA 354

4 . 0 2 D i g n i t y

158. Liwanag v. Lustre, 306 SCRA 55

4.03 Relations with Lawyers

11

159. People v. Maceda, 188 SCRA 532

4.04 Family Associated with Case

160. Javier v. de Guzman, 192 SCRA 434

4 . 0 5 U s e o f R e s i d e n c e

4 . 0 6 F r e e E x p r e s s i o n

161. OCA v. Judge Floro, 486 SCRA 66

4 . 0 7 F i d u c i a r y I n t e r e s t s

4.08 Advancing Private Interests

162. Aquino v . Lontok, 184 SCRA177

4.09 Confidential Information

163. Umale v. Villaluz, 51 SCRA 84

4 . 1 0 O t h e r   A c t i v i t i e s

164. In re Manzano, 166 SCRA 246

4 . 1 1 P r a c t i c e   o f   L a w

165. Tuazon v. Purugganan, 370 SCRA 511 

4.12 Form Associations

4 . 1 3 - 4 . 1 5 G i f t s   a n d   F a v o r s

1 6 6 . Ompoc v. Torres, 178 SCRA 14

C A N O N   5   –   E Q U A L I T Y

5 . 0 1 - 5 . 0 5 E q u a l i t y   o f   T r e a t m e n t

1 6 7 . People v. lbasan, 129 SCRA 695

C A N O N   6   –   C O M P E T E N C E   A N D   D I L I G E N C E

6.01 Precedence of Duties

168. OCA v. Lansang, 186 SCRA 646

6 . 0 2 J u d i c i a l   D u t i e s

169. Longboan v. Polig, 186 SCRA 547

6.03 Keeping up with Developments

170. People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163

12

6 . 0 4 I n t e r n a t i o n a l   L a w

171. Enriquez v. Caminade, 485 SCRA 98

6.05 Efficient and Prompt Delivery

172. Sangguniang Panlalawigan v. Albano, 260 SCRA 561

6.06 Order and Decorum

173. Romero v. Valle, 147 SCRA 197

6.07 Incompatible Conduct 

GRADING PLAN –

A. Examinations

Mid-Term Exam – 30% Final Exam - 40%

There will be no “make up exams”. If an exam is missed, the student’s score for the missed exam will be O.

B. Case Digest Logbook– 15%

C. Class Participation & Attendance – 15%

13