The Lawyer

THE LAWYER’S OATH

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT PREAMBLE chan robles virtual law library An honorable competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people. CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAR chan robles virtual law library RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended to influence the performance of official functions.

CANON 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.chan robles virtual law library RULE 2.02 - A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory. RULE 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or

other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. RULE 2.04 - A judge should refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.

CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful maintain professional competence.

to

the

law

and

RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. RULE 3.03 - A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court. RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into attitude of mind that the litigants are made for courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

and to the the the

RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

RULE 3.06 - While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of truth. RULE 3.07 - A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 3.08 A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions or other judges and court personnel. RULE 3.09 personnel business, standards

- A judge should organize and supervise the court to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of and require at all times the observance of high of public service and fidelity.

RULE 3.10 - A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. RULE 3.11 A judge should appoint commissioners, receivers, trustees, guardians, administrators and others strictly on the basis of merit and qualifications, avoiding nepotism and favoritism. Unless otherwise allowed by law, the same criteria should be observed in recommending appointment of court personnel. Where the payment of compensation is allowed, it should be reasonable and commensurate with the fair value of services rendered. DISQUALIFICATION . RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where: (a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; (c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review; (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree; (e) the judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. In every instance, the reason for inhibition.

judge

shall

indicate

the

legal

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION RULE 3.13 - A judge disqualified by the terms of rule 3.12 may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. If, bases on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of judge's participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

CANON 5 A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES

ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities provided that they do not interfere with the performance of judicial duties or detract from the dignity of the court: (a) write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects; (b) engage in the arts, recreational activities;

sports,

and

other

special

(c) participate in civic and charitable activities; (d) serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a non-profit or non-political educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.

FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES RULE 5.02 - A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing that tend to reflect adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualifications. RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but should not serve as officer, director, manager or advisor, or

employee of any business except as director of a family business of the judge. RULE 5.04 - A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift, bequest, factor or loan from any one except as may be allowed by law. RULE 5.05 - No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be sued or disclosed by a judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to judicial activities.

FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.06 - A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trusts, or person of a member of the immediate family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. "Member of immediate family" shall be limited to the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. As a family, a judge shall not: (a) serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said judge; or (b) act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.

PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION

RULE 5.07 - A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of any other profession provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

RULE 5.08 - A judge shall make full financial disclosure as required by law. RULE 5.09 - A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES RULE 5.10 - A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT All judges shall strictly comply with this Code. DATE OF EFFECTIVITY This Code, promulgated on effect on 20 October 1989

5

September

1989,

shall

take

DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS Rule 137 Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.chan robles virtual law library . Sec. 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and effect. - If it be claimed that an official is disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his competency may, in writing, file with the official his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed with the trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the question of his disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own competency, until after final judgment in the case.chan robles virtual law li

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. 2200 July 19, 1990 BASILIO C. GUTIERREZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. LEONARDO N. ZULUETA respondent. RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM: This case pertains to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the herein complainant Basilio C. Gutierrez against the herein respondent Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta. On October 13, 1980, the complainant filed with this Court a sworn lettercomplaint dated October 11, 1980 seeking the disbarment of the respondent lawyer on the grounds of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. The complainant alleges that the respondent lawyer was his counsel in two cases, namely, a workmen's compensation case and a civil case filed with the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga Del Sur. The complaint concerns the latter case. The complainant filed the said civil case against his former employer, the Singer Sewing Machine Company. The trial court ruled in his favor. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said appellate court. reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of the company. It is categorically stated in the said decision that the complainant did not file a brief. Thus, he maintains that the case was resolved against him primarily because his lawyer, the herein respondent, did not file the required brief with the appellate court and such omission is attributable to the dishonesty of the respondent lawyer. In support of his contention, the complainant alleges that sometime in August 1976, the respondent lawyer, who was then in Manila, wired him to send the amount of P400.00 to cover the expenses in relation to the preparation and printing of the appellee's brief, and upon receipt of the message, he sent the said amount to the respondent lawyer through the Philippine National Bank. He also alleges that he sent a telegram to

the respondent lawyer for the purpose of informing the latter that the P400.00 can be obtained at the Sampaloc, Manila branch office of the same bank.i•t•caüsl It appears that sometime thereafter, the respondent lawyer assured the complainant that the brief had already been filed in court and that a copy thereof will be made available to the latter in due time. It also appears that immediately after the complainant received a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, he reported the matter to the provincial governor inasmuch as the respondent lawyer is the provincial legal counsel. An investigation ensued but the same failed to settle the problem. As stated earlier, the complainant eventually brought the matter to the attention of this Court. On April 20, 1981, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. In the investigation that ensued, the respondent lawyer testified that he received the amount of P400.00 from the complainant for the purpose of preparing the said brief and that he gave the said amount to his secretary to cover the expenses to be incurred in such preparation. He also testified that he had to leave for Pagadian City at that time and that he instructed his secretary to attend to the filing of the brief. He likewise stated that sometime thereafter, his secretary assured him that the brief had been filed already. He also said that he could not furnish the complainant with a copy of the brief inasmuch as his secretary, for undisclosed reasons, left the office, taking with her his records and his typewriter. The respondent lawyer admits that he received the additional amount of P100.00 from the complainant for the purpose of securing a copy of the brief for the latter. 1

In due time, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its report recommending therein that the respondent lawyer be found guilty of not having exercised the due diligence required of a member of the legal profession in connection with his duties to his clients and accordingly impose upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. 2 The record of the case undoubtedly discloses that the respondent lawyer failed to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of his client, the herein complainant. The failure of the respondent lawyer to undertake the necessary measures to submit the required brief certainly caused material prejudice to the complainant inasmuch as the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court which was in favor of the latter.

The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the effect that the failure is attributable to the negligence of his secretary is devoid of merit. A responsible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office with respect to all the pleadings to be filed in court and he should not delegate this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his office secretary. If it were otherwise, irresponsible members of the legal profession can avoid appropriate disciplinary action by simply disavowing liability and attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of the office secretary. Such situation will not be countenanced by this Court. In sum, therefore, this Court is of the well-considered opinion that the respondent lawyer failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal profession. His suspension from the practice of law is in order. WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective from the date of his receipt of this resolution. He is advised to henceforth exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards his clients. This decision is immediately executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration will be entertained. Let copies of this resolution be attached to his personal record and circulated among the different courts. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.