A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD AT ALL TIMES THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE

ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

It is an official national body composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 1, Rule 139-A, RRC)

The Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population, and this requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court (Pineda,1999).

To elevate the standards of the legal profession; Improve the administration of justice; and Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. (Sec. 2, Rule 139-A, RRC)

[t]he practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege clothed with public interest. Hence, it is far and just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities. Given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar. (In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22, Jan. 9, 1973)

The Integrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of Governors. (Sec. 6, Rule 139-A, RRC); Nine Governors shall be elected by the House of Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. The President and the Executive Vice President, if chosen by the Governors from outside of themselves as provided in section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso facto become members of the Board. (Sec. 6, Rule 139-A, RRC)

The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified. No person may be a Governor for more than two terms. (Sec. 6, Rule 139-A, RRC) The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date and at such time and place as it shall designate. A majority of all the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business. Special meetings may be called by the president or by five members of the Board. (Sec. 6, Rule 139-A, RRC) The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of this Rule. (Sec. 6, Rule 139-A, RRC)

OFFICERS: President Executive Vice President who shall be chosen by the Governors immediately after the latters election either from among themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least five Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board shall be ex officio Vice President for the Region which he represents. Secretary Treasurer Such other officers and employees as may be required by the Board of Governors, to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such term as it may fix. Said officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar. (Sec. 7, Rule 139-A, RRC)

The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors shall have duly qualified. The Executive Vice President shall automatically become the President for the next succeeding full term. The Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all the nine Regions in such order of rotation as the Board of Governors shall prescribe. No persons shall be President or Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar for more than one term. (Sec. 7, Rule 139-A, RRC)

He is a member in good standing of the IBP He is included in the voters list of his chapter or he is not disqualified by the Integration Rule, by the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar, or by the ByLaws of the Chapter to which he belongs He does not belong to a chapter from which a regional governor has already been elected, unless the election is the start of a new season or cycle He is not in the government service. (In Re: Petition to disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052, Dec. 11, 2003)

Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign materials; Distribution, on election day, of election campaign materials other than a statement of the bio data of the candidate on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper; or causing the distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections; Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof;

Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates as well as the advertising thereof; and For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate:
Payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; Giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar consideration to any person; or Making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made, offered or promise to any person. (Sec. 4, IBP By-Laws; In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 491, October 6, 1989)

The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

 Garcia

A.C.
A

v. De Vera, 6052, December

11,2003

lawyer does not automatically become a member of the IBP chapter where he resides or works after becoming a full-fledged member of the Bar. He has the discretion to choose the IBP Chapter he wants to join.

3/6/2014

As of January 2004, the records of the Supreme Court showed that 49,711 lawyers were admitted to the Bar since 1900, and they are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) which was created by the Supreme Court pursuant to its Resolution of 9 January 1973 and constituted into a corporate body by Presidential Decree No 181 on 4 May 1973. Membership in the IBP is compulsory and default in the payment of annual dues for one year is a ground for the removal of the name of the defaulting member from the Roll of Attorneys. Among its projects is the Legal Aid Project carried out by the National Committee on Legal Aid and the legal aid officers in the 78 chapters.

Section 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof. *on or before the last day (June 30) of the immediately preceding fiscal year.

Section 10. Effect of nonpayment of dues. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

 The

Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted a resolution recommending to the court the removal of the name Marcial A. Edillon, a duly licensed practicing attorney, from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues to the IBP since its constitution, notwithstanding due notice. Is Edillon correct in his objection that the court is without power to compel him to become a member of the IBP, hence, Sec. 1 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court is unconstitutional for it impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to associate)?
3/6/2014

No. To compel a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar Examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member. Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State.

3/6/2014

 Atty.

Llamas, for a number of years, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. He only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. Atty. Llamas averred that he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and under R.A. 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption, is the payment of membership dues. Is Atty. Llamas correct?
3/6/2014

Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquents name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not Atty. Llamas is only engaged in limited practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by Atty. Llamas does not include exemption from payment of membership or association dues.

3/6/2014

 The

exemption granted by R.A. 7432 to senior citizens from paying individual income tax does not exempt lawyers who are likewise senior citizens from paying IBP dues and privilege tax. (Ibid) As regards dues, they are not entitled to 20% discount. (Pineda, 1999)

3/6/2014

Atty. Arevalo sought exemption from payment of IBP dues for the alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. Healleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of ones profession while in government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA. Is Atty. Arevalo entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law?

3/6/2014

No. The Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in. There is nothing in the law or rules which allow exemption from payment of membership dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.

3/6/2014

1. If the false statement or suppression of material fact is discovered before the candidate could take the bar examinations, he will be denied permission to take the examinations. 2. If the false statement or suppression of material fact was discovered after the candidate had passed the examinations but before having been taken his oath, he will not be allowed to take his oath as a lawyer. 3. If the discovery was made after the candidate had taken his oath as a lawyer, his name will be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

3/6/2014

The concealment or withholding from the court of the fact than an applicant has been charged with or indicted for an alleged crime is a ground for disqualification of the applicant to take the bar examination, or for revocation of the license to practice if he has already been admitted to the bar. If what was concealed is a crime not involving moral turpitude, the concealment and not the commission itself makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer.

It is not only determined only by the specific qualification for admission into the bar but encompasses practically all aspects of a lawyers public or private life that could actually or potentially tarnish the integrity and dignity of the legal profession

1. To practice law during good behavior before any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative agency;
2. First one to sit in judgment on every case, to set the judicial machinery in motion; 3. Enjoys the presumption of regularity in the discharge of his duty; 4. He is immune, in the performance of his obligations to his client, from liability to third persons, insofar as he does not

materially depart from his character as a quasi-judicial

5. His statements, if relevant, pertinent or material to the

6. 1st grade civil service eligibility for any position in the classified service in the government the duties of which require knowledge of law; and

7. 2nd grade civil service eligibility for any other governmental position, which does not prescribe proficiency in law as a qualification.

 1.

To maintain Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines; 2. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or Delay any mans cause, from any corrupt motive or interest; 3. To counsel and maintain such Actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;

 4.

To observe and maintain the Respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers; 5. To Employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; 6. To maintain inviolate the Confidence and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets in connection with his client and to accept no compensation in connection with his clients business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;

 7.

To abstain from all Offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged; 8. Never to Reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; and 9. In the Defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and reasonable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits to the end that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, but by due process of law. (Sec. 20, Rule 138, RRC)

 Categorizes

the SC decision as false, erroneous and illegal (Suo v. Cloribel, A.M. No. 01-1-15-RTC, July 10, 2003)
April 24, 2000- Rolando R. Mijares charged Judge Emilio B. Legaspi with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Incompetence, Falsification and Corruption.

Complainant alleged that Judge Legaspi failed to resolve more than 200 cases submitted for decision assigned to him;

He rendered judgment in favor of a multi-millionaire Chinese businessman in consideration of five hundred thousand to one million pesos and a Mercedes Benz vehicle He erroneously entertained an appeal and reversed the order of the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Antique which denied[2] the execution of the judgment by compromise therein.

February 19, 2001, the Urgent Appeal/Petition was dismissed for lack of merit and complainant was ordered to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for wasting the time of the judiciary

February 6, 2002, Justice Magtolis: recommended that Judge Legaspi be exonerated of the charges against him for lack of a showing of malice or bad faith.[12] OCA: recommended that the Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension and Dismissal filed against Judge Legaspi be dismissed for lack of merit, but that complainant Rolando R. Mijares be found guilty of indirect contempt and fined in the amount of P1,000.00. SC: agree with the Court Administrator Petition for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, falsification and corruption, is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Mijares is found guilty of indirect contempt and is FINED in the amount of P1,000.00 with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

 sitting-pretty

ineptitude padrino Judge Legaspi have someone up there to protect and coddle him?

Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

Attributing to the SC acts of dismissing judges without rhyme and reason and disbarring lawyers without due process (Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, Feb. 1, 1989)

Zaldivar: Governor of Antique; charged: Anti Graft and Corruption violation before the Sandiganbayan Gonzales: Tanodbayan Ombudsman Zaldivar filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution Supreme Court: issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar

Gonzales:

proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar; newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation that the rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course.

Zaldivar: Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez

 Supreme

his side. Gonzalez: stated that the statements in the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.

Court: ordered Gonzalez to explain

RULING: Gonzalez: constitute CONTEMPT and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the country.

 Calling

an adverse counsel as bobo or using the word ay que bobo in reference to the manner of offering evidence. (Castillo v. Padilla Jr., A.M. No. 2339, Feb. 1984)

Castillo: counsel of defendant Padilla: Counsel of complainant

 RULING:
Padilla

was reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is directed to observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely

 At

their hearing, while complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard respondent say "bobo." When complainant turned toward respondent, he saw the latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Padilla: admitted the utterance but denied having directed the same at Castillo, claiming that what he said was "Ay, que bobo", referring to "the manner complainant was trying to inject wholly irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record" while in the process of making an offer of evidence.

A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTCS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

 1.

A lawyer may properly interview any witness or prospective witness or prospective witness for the opposing side in any civil or criminal action without the consent of opposing counsel or party. 2. Any person who seeks relief against an unfaithful or neglectful lawyer may approach another lawyer for proper advice and assistance. Any advice or assistance extended after proper verification is not encroaching upon the business of another lawyer for such act is justified under the circumstances.

 -A

LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.

 1.

Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate to persons specified in the agreement;(Rule 9.02,second par., Canon 9,CPR) or Note: This exception is in the nature of a bequest. It is still in substance, payment to the deceased lawyer. His estate and/or assignee could not claim entitlement to the money in their own right but only by representation. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)

 2.

Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; (Rule 9.02 ,third par., Canon 9,CPR) or Note: The first and second exceptions represent compensation for legal services of the deceased lawyers. The estate or the heir cannot be made a member of the partnership with the surviving partners. The legal fees in this case, no longer represent compensation for past services.

 3.

Where a lawyer or law firm includes a nonlawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.(Rule 9.02, fourth par., Canon 9,CPR) Note: This is not a division of legal fees but a pension representing deferred wages for the employees past services. This exception is an implicit recognition of the incontestable fact that lawyers need to, and in fact, depend on non-lawyers for the administrative support functions necessary to allow lawyers to discharge their legal functions more efficiently. (CPR Annotated,

 CANON

10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rationale:

The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel.

 Atty.

Florido demanded that the custody of their children be surrendered to him by showing his spouse Hueysuwan-Florido a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the CA which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody. His spouse refused to surrender the custody. Hence, Atty. Florido filed a verified petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged CAs resolution. Hueysuwan obtained a certification from the CA stating that no such resolution had been issued. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint.

 Yes.

Atty. Floridos actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined.

GARCIA

VS. FRANCISCO Adm. Case no. 3923, March 30,1993 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice.

Dr. Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the Air Force filed an action for damages against several military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as a counsel. During the hearing of the case, Atty. Doronilla says that he and Dr. Maligaya had an agreement that if the opposing party withdraws the case against him, Dr. Maligaya will also withdraw all the cases. However, Dr. Maligaya swore that he never entered into any agreement to withdraw his lawsuits. Atty. Doronillo admitted that there was, in fact, no such agreement. He pointed out that his main concern was to settle the case amicably. Dr. Maligaya filed a case against Atty. Doronilla charging him of unethical conduct for having uttered falsehood in court.

 Yes.

Atty. Doronilla violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the CPR. Not only that, he also violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

1. A lawyer shall not suppress material and vital facts which bear on the merit or lack of merit of complaint or petition. 2. A lawyer shall volunteer to the court any development of the case which has rendered the issue raised moot and academic.

3. Disclosure to the court of any decision adverse to his position of which opposing counsel is apparently ignorant and which court should consider in deciding a case. 4. He shall not represent himself as a lawyer for a client, appear in court and present pleadings in the latters behalf only to claim later that he was not authorized to do so.

Monterey

v. Arayata Per. Rec. Nos 3527, 3408, August 23, 1935 Lawyers making it appear that a person, long dead, executed a deed of sale, in his favor.

 BERENGUER

VS. CARRANZA A.C. No. 716, January 30, 1969

presenting falsified documents in court wich he knows to be false.

A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. The rules of procedure are intended to facilitate the delivery of justice to those to whom it is due without it is due without unnecessary expense and waste of time for truly justice delayed is justice denied.

lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed. Neither should he use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility. For while he owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of justice.

 CANON A

11, CPR

LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Attorney Paguia, asserts that the inhibition of the members of the Supreme Court from hearing the petition is called for under the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity. According to him, the justices have violated the said rule by attending the 'EDSA 2 Rally' and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency. The subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (G.R. Nos. 146710-15, Mar. 2, 2001 and G.R. Nos. 146710-15, April 3, 2001) is a patent mockery of justice and due process. He went on to state that the act of the public officer, if lawful, is the act of the public office. But the act of the public officer, if unlawful, is not the act of the public office. Consequently, the act of the justices, if lawful, is the act of the Supreme Court. But the act of the justices, if unlawful, is not the act of the Supreme Court. It is submittedthat the decision in Estrada v. Arroyo being patently unlawful in view of the Code of Judicial Conduct, is not the act of the Supreme Court but is merely the wrong of those individual Justices who falsely spoke and acted in the name of the Supreme Court (Urbano v. Chavez, G.R. No. 87977, March 19, 1990).

No. Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome for, if well-founded, and such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595.) The ruling in Estrada v. Arroyo, being a final judgment, has long put to end any question pertaining to the legality of the ascension of Arroyo into the presidency. By reviving the issue on the validity of the assumption of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency, Attorney Paguia is vainly seeking to breathe life into the carcass of a long dead issue. Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his client's case within the judicial forum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both broadcast and print media.

 The

Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.

 Canon

11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.

General Rule: Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Exception: The fact that a person is a lawyer does not deprive him of the right, as enjoyed by every citizen, to comment on and criticize the actuations of a judge

Members of the faculty of the UP College of Law published a statement on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Courts decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The authors directly accused the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort women said case. The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of polluted sources, the Courts alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.

While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The court must insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.

The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the facultys less than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Courts honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort womens claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Their actions likewise constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

NATURE OF THE CASE WHERE TO FILE If administrative in nature It shall be filed with the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court If criminal and not purely It shall be filed with the administrative Office of the Ombudsman If it involves a Justice of It must be coursed through the House of Representative the Supreme Court based and the Senate in on impeachable offenses accordance with the rules on impeachment.

1. The fact that a person is a lawyer does not deprive him of the rights, enjoyed by every citizen, to comment on and criticize the actuations of a judge subject to ethical standard. 2. The court, in a pending litigation; must be shielded from embarrassment or influence in its all-important duty of deciding the case. Once litigation is concluded, the judge who decided it is subject to the same criticisms as any other public official because his ruling becomes public property and is thrown open to public consumption.

3. It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety (Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, April 7, 1993).

4. The duty of the bar to support the judge against unjust criticism and clamor does not, however, preclude a lawyer from filing administrative complaints against erring judges or from acting as counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances against them. But the lawyer should file charges against the judge before the proper authorities only and only after the proper circumspection and without the use of disrespectful language and offensive personalities so as not to unduly burden the court in the discharge of its function.

A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Jardin engaged the services of Atty. Villar Jr. to represent him in a collection case. The case went its course, but later despite several extensions of time given by the trial court, Atty. Villar Jr. failed to file his formal offer of exhibits. The dismissal of the collection case prompted Jardin to file a verified affidavit-complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Villar Jr. with the Court, wherein he alleged that after the dismissal of the collection case, he terminated the services of Atty. Villar Jr. as his counsel; that Atty. Villar Jr. failed to return the originals of the documentary exhibits entrusted to him; and that Atty. Villar Jr. finally handed over the documents only as an aftermath of a heated argument he had with the Jardin's wife. Was Atty. Villar Jr. remiss in his duties as counsel when he failed to file his formal offer of exhibit?

Yes. The record clearly shows that Atty. Villar Jr. has been languid in the performance of his duties as counsel for the complainant. He was given by the trial court several extensions of time. Therefore, Atty. Villar Jr. had three (3) months and nine (9) days within which to file the formal offer of exhibits. Atty. Villar Jr. did not bother to give an explanation even in mitigation or extenuation of his inaction. Manifestly, Atty. Villar Jr. has fallen short of the competence and diligence required of every member of the law. It is indeed dismaying to note Atty. Villar Jr.s patent violation of his duty as a lawyer. He committed a serious transgression when he failed to exert his utmost learning and ability and to give entire devotion to his client's cause. His client had relied on him to file the formal offer of exhibits among other things. But he failed him. Resulting as it did in the dismissal of the case, his failure constitutes inexcusable default.

While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of the client and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they are also officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. They should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. The facts and the law should advise them that a case such as this should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.

 Judgment

was rendered against Eternal Gardens ordering it to reconvey the cemetery to the rightful owners. Despite the final decision of the SC, Eternal Gardens was able to prevent the execution for 17 years, rendering the judgment ineffectual. They filed several petitions and motions for reconsideration with the trial court and the CA despite the fact that it would never prosper as the trial courts decision had long become final before the said petitions were filed. Did the lawyers violate Canon 12 of the CPR?

A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its preference. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.

Villasis v. CA G.R. Nos. L-36874-76, Sept. 30, 1974

newly hired counsel who appears in a case in the midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover.