Rule 7.

01 -
No False Statement
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
In re Diao, 7 SCRA 475 (1963)
Rule 7.02 –
Not to Support Unqualified Bar
Applicant
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known
by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.
· Rule 7.03 –
No Conduct Adversely Affecting the
Profession
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, AC No. 10868, Jan. 26, 2016
Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, 398 SCRA 659 (2003)
Tan v. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)
Tapucar v. Tapucar, 293 SCRA 331 (1998)
Guevara v. Eala, 517 SCRA 600 (2007)
Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 604 (2007)
Tiong v. Florendo, 662 SCRA 1 (2011)
Canon 8 -
Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards
Professional Colleagues
A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Bugarin v. Espanol, 349 SCRA 687 (2001)
Reyes v. Chiong, 405 SCRA 212 (2003)
Rule 8.01 -
No Abusive and Improper Language
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, 474 SCRA 1 (2005)
• a lawyer who hurled invectives at a Clerk of Court
• Members of the bar must at all times comfort themselves in a manner
befitting their noble profession.
• Respondent Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President
of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. On 5 May 2003, respondent went to
complainants office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil
Case No. 784, entitled Sps. Crispino Castillano v. Sps. Federico S.
Castillano and Felicidad Aberin, had already been remanded to the
court of origin, MCTC Dupax del Norte, Alfonso Castaned, Nueva
Vizcaya. It must be noted that respondent was not the counsel of
record of either party in Civil Case No. 784.
Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, 474 SCRA 1 (2005)
• Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the decision
of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to the court of origin.
To this respondent retorted scornfully, Who will certify the Court of Appeals Decision, the Court of Appeals? You mean to
say, I would still have to go to Manila to get a certified true copy? Surprised at this outburst, complainant replied, Sir, its in
the Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be representing. Respondent then replied, Then
you should have notified me of the said requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been frequenting your office
since then, but you never bothered to notify me. Complainant replied, It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the said
requirement.
• Respondent then answered, You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the record of the case? Complainant
responded, No, Sir, I mean, its not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy of the Court of Appeals decision.
Respondent angrily declared in Ilocano, Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay? (You mean to say you dont
care anymore? Is that the way it is?) He then turned and left the office, banging the door on his way out to show his anger.
The banging of the door was so loud it was heard by the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was taking
place.
• After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at complainant and shouted,
Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah! (Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill
feelings against my client, dont turn your ire on me!) Complainant was shocked at respondents words but still managed to
reply, I dont even know your client, Sir. Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainants window, he again
shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your mother, you woman!)
• Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office of which she was, and still is, the
head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished and diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability
to command full respect from her staff.
Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, 474 SCRA 1 (2005)
• At the onset, it should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784.
Had he been counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to present the required certified true
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified
true copy of the decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a
duplicate original or certified true copy of its decision.
• His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted
to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from
either the parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
• Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 8.02A 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. Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of
Civil Case No. 784, respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of
record of that case. It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.
• Moreover, in the course of his questionable activities relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent acted
rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk of court and uttered at her the
most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did
all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.
Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, 474 SCRA 1 (2005)
• As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public
behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect
for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01, to wit:
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law,
now shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
•  Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound
to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards
each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times.
• As correctly evaluated by the Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not categorically deny the
charges in the complaint. Instead, he gave a lengthy narration of the prefatory facts of the case as
well as of the incident on 5 May 2003.
 Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, 474 SCRA 1 (2005)
• Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that
respondent had apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is
not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People
are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent
afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered
cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.
• The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren.
This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or
contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting interest. It
emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable
performance of professional duty.
• FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that any
similar infraction with be dealt with more severely.
 Alcantara v. Pefianco, 393 SCRA 247 (2002)
• for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper and
offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant.
• The complainant is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public
Attorneys Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that on May 18, 2000, while
Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached
them. Complainant saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group
and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking
place in another room. At this point, respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who
was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client,
saying, Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para
mahibal-an na anang sala. (Why do you settle that case? Have your client
imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.)
 Alcantara v. Pefianco, 393 SCRA 247 (2002)
• for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper and
offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant.
• The complainant is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public
Attorneys Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that on May 18, 2000, while
Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorneys
Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached
them. Complainant saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group
and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking
place in another room. At this point, respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who
was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client,
saying, Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para
mahibal-an na anang sala. (Why do you settle that case? Have your client
imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.)
 Alcantara v. Pefianco, 393 SCRA 247 (2002)
• The evidence on record indeed shows that it was respondent Pefianco who provoked
the incident in question. The affidavits of several disinterested persons confirm
complainants allegation that respondent Pefianco shouted and hurled invectives at
him and Atty. Salvani and even attempted to lay hands on him (complainant). Canon
8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers
are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves
without reproach at all times.
• In this case, respondents meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so
caused the untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty.
Salvani why the case of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty.
Salvani in fact tried to explain the matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his
view about the case.
 Alcantara v. Pefianco, 393 SCRA 247 (2002)
• Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been
murdered as she was pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the
money. Be that as it may, respondent should realize that what he thought was righteous
did not give him the right to demand that Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the
accused in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow. Even when he was being
pacified, respondent did not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those who tried to
calm him down. Two of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez, who went
to the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the commotion, and two guards at the
Hall of Justice, who had been summoned, failed to stop respondent from his verbal
rampage. Respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only
bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for
it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent had was negated by the way he chose to
express his indignation. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.
• GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and,
considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of P1,000.00 and
REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be sanctioned more
severely.
 Barandos, Jr. v. Ferrer, 616 SCRA 529 (2010)
• This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled
invectives upon another lawyer and filed a baseless suit against him.
• IBP-CBD recommended the suspension for 2 years of for violation of Canons
8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he (1) attributed
to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiffs
affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been
falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a party to it; and (2) uttered the
threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court
personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing. [Laban kung laban, patayan
kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na
abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur,
umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.]
 Barandos, Jr. v. Ferrer, 616 SCRA 529 (2010)
• Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow
lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule
8.01, the Code provides: Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
• Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that
he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the
plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he had
no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon
authored the same.
• Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper
forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer.
 Barandos, Jr. v. Ferrer, 616 SCRA 529 (2010)
• The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their
pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. Atty. Ferrer had likewise
violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to
uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Rule 7.03 of the
Code provides: Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
• Several disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrers drunken invectives at Atty.
Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing. Atty. Ferrer did not present
convincing evidence to support his denial of this particular charge. He merely
presented a certification from the police that its blotter for the day did not report the
threat he supposedly made. Atty. Barandon presented, however, the police blotter
on a subsequent date that recorded his complaint against Atty. Ferrer.
 Barandos, Jr. v. Ferrer, 616 SCRA 529 (2010)
• Atty. Ferrer said, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na
palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur,
umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito. Evidently, he uttered these with intent to annoy,
humiliate, incriminate, and discredit Atty. Barandon in the presence of lawyers, court personnel, and
litigants waiting for the start of hearing in court. These language is unbecoming a member of the
legal profession. The Court cannot countenance it. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and
emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession.
The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.
Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal
profession in the public estimation and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty.
Ferrer had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation.
• Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. The
essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of ones defense.[18] So long as the parties are given the
opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.[19]
 Barandos, Jr. v. Ferrer, 616 SCRA 529 (2010)
• All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who
are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must
conduct themselves honorably and fairly.[20] Atty. Ferrers display of improper
attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his
duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court,
was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
• he suspension from the practice of law for one year
Sanchez v. Aguilos, AC No. 10543, March 16, 2016
• Misconduct for refusal to return the P70,000.00 complainant paid for R’s
supposed professional services despite his not having performed the
contemplated professional services.
• “Hence, respondent accordingly treated the said letter demand for refund
dated 15 August 2005 as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed
by her counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ, who unskillfully relied on an
unverified information furnished him, to the urinal project of the MMDA
where it may serve its rightful purpose.
• The respondent's statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez
should be treated "as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by
her counsel x x x to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may service its
rightful purpose" constituted simple misconduct that this Court cannot
tolerate.
Rule 8.02 -
Not to Encroach on Professional
Employment
Rule 8.02 - 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.
Camacho v. Pangulayan, 328 SCRA 631 (2000)
• respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate occasions,
without C’s knowledge, compromise agreements with four of his clients in the aforementioned
civil case which, in effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had
against AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings filed against it.
• Complainant averred that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the
legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
• It would appear that when the individual letters of apology and Re-Admission Agreements were
formalized, complainant was by then already the retained counsel for plaintiff students in the
civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact. Although aware that the
students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to
negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter to
their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This
failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable violation of
the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague.
Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
 Canon 9-
Unauthorized Practice of Law
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
 Spouses Suarez v. Salazar, 315 SCRA 502 (1999)
• Considering respondents Motion to expunge All Pleadings Filed by Atty.
Filemon A. Manangan with Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court and to
Dismiss the Petition and said Atty. Manangans admission at the hearing this
morning, September 29, 1999, that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice law in
the Philippines, and that he is the same Filemon A. Manangan who was found
by this Court G.R. No. 82760 (Filemon Manangan v. Court of First Instance of
Nueva Viscaya, Branch 28) decided on August 30, 1990, to be in reality Andres
Culanag who is not a member of the Philippine Bar, but despite these facts he
has continued to misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-law and has
appeared as counsel for petitioners in this case, Atty. Filemon A. Manangan,
who is in reality Andres Culanag, is hereby declared guilty of indirect contempt
of this Court. Wherefore, he is hereby sentenced to three (3) months
imprisonment to be served at the Headquarters of the National Bureau of
Investigation, Taft Avenue, Manila, until further orders from this Court.
Aguirre v. Rana, 403 SCRA 342 (2003)
Alawi v. Alauya, 268 SCRA 639 (1997)
Exception: Rules of Court, Rule 138-A
Rule 9.01 –
Not to Delegate Work
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 –
Not to Divide Legal Fees
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 profitable sharing arrangement.
Halili v. CIR, 136 SCRA 113 (1985)
Lijuaico v. Terrado, 500 SCRA 301 (2006)
 CHAPTER III.
THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
Canon 10 -
Observe Candor, Fairness and Good
Faith
A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
CHAPTER II.
LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
 CHAPTER III.
THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
Canon 10 -
Observe Candor, Fairness and Good
Faith
A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.