Legal ethics

Preliminary
Sources of Legal Ethics
 Canons of Professional Ethics
 Canons were framed by the American Bar Association in 1908 and the Revised Canons were
adopted in the Philippines in 1946.
 Supreme Court Decisions
 Statutes
 Sources of legal ethics in Civil Code (Art 1491 (5), Art 2208), RPC Art 209.
 Constitution
 Promulgate rules on the Admission to the Bar Art. VIII Section 5(5) of the Constitution.
 Treatises and publications
 Cited by courts as Standards and guidelines on the right conduct in the practice of law.

Definition and Forms
 LEGAL ETHICS
It is the branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an
attorney owes to the court to his client as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of
Court, The Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics,
Jurisprudence, moral law and special laws.
 BAR ADMISSION
Act by which one is licensed to practice before courts of a particular
state or jurisdiction after satisfying certain requirements such as bar examinations,
period or residency or admission on grounds of reciprocity after period of years as
member of bar of another jurisdiction.
 PRACTICE OF LAW
Any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law
is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use
in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210).

 ATTORNEY-AT-LAW/COUNSEL-AT-LAW/ATTORNEY/COUNSEL/ ABOGADO/BOCEROS:
That class of persons who are licensed officers of the courts, empowered to
appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and
liabilities are developed by law as a consequence (Cui v. Cui, 120 Phil. 729).
 ATTORNEY IN FACT
An agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument appointing him,
however, he may do things not mentioned in his appointment but are necessary to the
performance of the duties specifically required of him by the power of attorney appointing
him, such authority being necessarily implied. He is not necessarily a lawyer.
 COUNSEL DE OFICIO
A counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among members of the Bar in
good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, may adequately defend the
accused.
Note: In localities where members of the Bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person, resident of the province and good repute for probity and ability, to defend the
accused. Sec. 7, Rule 116, Rules of Court.

 ATTORNEY AD HOC
Person named and appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant in the suit in
which the appointment is made (Bienvenu v. Factor’s of Traders Insurance Cp., 33 La.Ann.209)
 ATTORNEY OF RECORD
One who has filed a notice of appearance and who hence is formally mentioned in court
records as the official attorney of the party. Person whom the client has named as his agent upon
whom service of papers may be made. (Reynolds v. Reynolds, Cal.2d580).
 OF COUNSEL
To distinguish them from attorneys of record, associate attorneys are referred to
as “of counsel” (5 Am. Jur. 261).
 LEAD COUNSEL
The counsel on their side of a litigated action who is charged with the principal
management and direction of a party’s case.

 TITULO DE ABOGADO
It means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but
membership in the Bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law.
 AMICUS CURIAE
An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a
party to a case and may or may not have been solicited by a party and who assists a court by offering
information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case; and is typically
presented in the form of a brief. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the
discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.
 INTEGRATION OF THE 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 Attorney of the Supreme Court.

What is the importance of legal profession?
The legal professionals make a significant
contribution to the preservation of these rights
and duties, and thereby act as social engineers.
The primary allegiance of the lawyer is to the
Court, where his duty is to assist the Court in
justice dispensation.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED
PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST,
GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY
SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND
TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

R.A 6713
 Section 2. Declaration of Policies. — It is the
policy of the State to promote a high standard
of ethics in public service. Public officials and
employees shall at all times be accountable to
the people and shall discharge their duties with
utmost responsibility, integrity, competence,
and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice,
lead modest lives, and uphold public interest
over personal interest.

R.A 6713
Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and
Employees. — (A) Every public official and employee shall
observe the following as standards of personal conduct in
the discharge and execution of official duties:
a) Commitment to public interest
b) Professionalism
c) Justness and sincerity
d) Political neutrality
e) Responsiveness to the public
f) Nationalism and patriotism
g) Commitment to democracy
h) Simple living

R.A 6713
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition
to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions
of any public official and employee and are hereby declared
to be unlawful:
a) Financial and material interest
b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto
c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information
d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts

R.A 6713
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress
consents to:
a) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of nominal value
tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
b) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of a scholarship or
fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
c) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or expenses for travel
taking place entirely outside the Philippine (such as allowances, transportation, food, and
lodging) of more than nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with
the interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to
which he belongs.
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose
of this subsection, including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.

Correlation of R.A 6713 with R.A 6770
 R.A 6770 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL
ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Under R.A 6770 Section 15
Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions and duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint
by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of
this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency
of Government, the investigation of such cases;

 Under R.A 6713
Section 8. Statements and Disclosure
All public officials and employees required under this
section to file the aforestated documents shall also execute,
within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of
office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to
obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their
assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests
and financial connections in previous years, including, if
possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the
Government.

The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections
shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the
national office of the Ombudsman;
(2) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy
Ombudsman in their respective regions;
(3) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those
below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their
respective regions;

Correlation of R.A 6713 with Civil
Service Commission
Executive Order No. 292
INSTITUTING THE “ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987”

Correlation of R.A 6713 with
Executive Order No. 292
Under E.O No. 292
SECTION 35. Ethics in Government.—All public
officers and employees shall be bound by a Code
of Ethics to be promulgated by the Civil Service
Commission.

Related Provision of R.A 6713 and the
Civil Service Commission
 Under R.A 6713
 Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees
(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote
(1) Observance of these standards including the dissemination of information
programs and workshops authorizing merit increases beyond regular
progression steps, to a limited number of employees recognized by their
office colleagues to be outstanding in their observance of ethical
standards; and
(2) Continuing research and experimentation on measures which provide
positive motivation to public officials and employees in raising the general
level of observance of these standards.

Civil Service Commission
 Under R.A 6713
 Section 8. Statements and Disclosure
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in
Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service
Commission. (B) Identification and disclosure of relatives.
— It shall be the duty of every public official or employee
to identify and disclose, to the best of his knowledge and
information, his relatives in the Government in the form,
manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service
Commission.

Revise Penal Code
 Under R.A 6713
 Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees
(c) Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and employees shall remain
true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity
and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the
underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and
shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.
They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to
their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to
appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential
or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with
theirs.

Revise Penal Code
 Under R.A 6713
 Section 11. Penalties
(a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or
employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity,
committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the
equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal
depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate
body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he
shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act
shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not
exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of
competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

Revise Penal Code
 Under R.A 6713
 Section 11. Penalties
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is
instituted against him.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories,
with public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal
liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.
(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or
uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such
action is brought may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed
twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00). If another sanction hereunder or under any other
law is heavier, the latter shall apply.

Latest Jurisprudence
LEGAL ETHICS

PRACTICE OF LAW
It is clear that when Atty. Lozada appeared for and in behalf of her
husband and actively participated in the proceedings therein within the
two (2)-year suspension, she, therefore, engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law. Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty,
but this Court recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino culture
that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a
helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse.
Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law
profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve
the nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court
has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of
proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to
frustrate its preservative principle. ALVIN S. FELICIANO vs. ATTY.
CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA, A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LAWYER
Atty. Paguia filed a complaint for dishonesty with the IBP against
Atty. Molina for giving erroneous legal advice. Atty. Molina alleged that
the complaint does not specify the offense charged. The Court, siding
with Atty. Molina stated that bare allegations in the complaint do not
suffice the holding of administrative liability. The presumption of good
faith still applies absent any evidentiary proof otherwise. ATTY. ALAN F.
PAGUIA vs. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014, C.J.
Sereno

SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF
LAWYERS
Atty. Ramos is the counsel of Quiachon in a labor case. Atty. Ramos failed
to notify Quiachon of the status of the case as well as to appeal the adverse
ruling of the RTC. Quiachon filed then a disbarment case but subsequently
withdrew it. The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to
the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.
There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is
whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of
a member of the bar. Public interest is the primary objective. ADELIA V.
QUIACHON vs. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR A. RAMOS, A.C. No. 9317, June 4, 2014,
C.J. Sereno

NOTARIAL PRACTICE
Atty. Felipe was administratively charged for violation of
notarial Law. The court ruled that while seemingly appearing to
be a harmless incident, Atty Felipe’s act of notarizing documents
in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his
notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification. FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR. vs. ATTY. MARCELO B.
SUERTE-FELIPE, A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014, J.
PerlasBernabe

CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Cristobal engaged in the services of Atty. Renta. However, the
latter has failed to file petition to the court because such was
misplaced. The court ruled that once a lawyer agrees to handle a
case, it is that lawyer’s duty to serve the client with competence
and diligence.
Here, it is beyond doubt that Atty. Renta breached his duty to
serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him. He himself admits that the petition for
recognition was not filed, seeks forgiveness from the Court and
promises not to repeat his mistake. MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL vs.
ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA, A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014, J.
Villarama Jr.

Case Digest
(1) FIO, Office of the ombudsman vs Alvaro (G.R No. 212994, Feb 2015)
(2) Carabeo vs CA (G.R No. 07300) and 078003, December 04, 2009
(3) Navarro vs Ombudsman, GR 210128 Aug 17, 2016
(4) Ombudsman vs Raneho, Jan 31, 2011
(5) Rep of the Phil vs Serrano GR no. 237424(28), May 11, 201 (Quo Warranto
Proceeding against C.J Serrano)

Facts
Divina Patacsil Alvaro (respondent) was a revenue Officer III of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Revenue District Officer (FIO), Office of
the Ombudsman (petitioner) charged respondent with violation of Section
8 in relation to Section 11 of RA 6713 and for Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of
Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The
charges stemmed from the alleged failure of respondent to file her
statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) corresponding to the
years 1996 and 2003 as gathered from the certifications issued by
Cordillera administrative Division, Revenue Region 2 of the BIR, the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and the Integrated Records
Management Office (IRMO) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Case Digest
FIO, Office of the ombudsman vs Alvaro
(G.R No. 212994, Feb 2015)

Facts
Respondent denied the charges claiming that the certification issued by
the BIR Revenue Region 2 did not categorically state that she did not file
her SALN. Moreover, she did not receive any call-up order in accordance
with the standard operating procedure in case a government personnel
fails to file a SALN for a particular year.
Case Digest
(G.R No. 212994, Feb 2015)

Issue
Whether or not respondent Divina Patacsil is guilty of violation of
section 8 in relation to section 11 of R.A 6713.
Case Digest
(G.R No. 212994, Feb 2015)

Ruling of the Court
No, Under CSC Resolution no. 1300174 “Heads of agencies/offices who
fail to comply with the provisions of CSC Resolution No. 06-231 dated Feb
1, 2006, as amended shall be liable for Simple Neglect of Duty, which shall
be punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six
months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second
offense, Issue a compliance order. It is only when petitioner fails to comply
with the order of her superior to submit the required SALN that she be
issued a show cause order to which she could comment or submit her SALN
for the years in question
Case Digest
(G.R No. 212994, Feb 2015)

Ruling of the Court
She should have been given the opportunity to submit the same.
Consequently, in the absence of the compliance order, the charge filed
against petitioner is considered premature.
The fact that CSC Resolution became effective several years after
respondent already failed to file her SALN for 1996 and 2003 is not
material. What is significant is that there is yet no compliance/show cause
order when complaint was filed in May 20, 2008.
Case Digest
(G.R No. 212994, Feb 2015)

Case Digest
Carabeo vs CA (G.R No. 07300) and 078003, December 04, 2009
Facts
On 8 July 2005, the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection
Service (DOF-RIPS), composed of private respondents Troy Francis Pizarro, Joel
Apolonio, Reynalito L. Lazaro, Ismael Leonor, and Melchor Piol, filed a complaint
with the Office of the Ombudsman against Carabeo, Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of
the Office of the Treasurer of Parañaque City. The complaint pertinently alleged:
Failure to disclose his and his spouse's ownership of the foregoing Tagaytay
property and vehicles in the pertinent SALNs amounts to a violation of Section 7
of RA 3019 and Section 8(A) of RA 6713 requiring him to file under oath the true
and detailed statement of his assets as well as those of his spouse.

Case Digest
Carabeo vs CA (G.R No. 07300) and 078003,
December 04, 2009
Facts
The DOF-RIPS prayed that the Office of the Ombudsman issue an order:
(a) filing the appropriate criminal informations against Carabeo for violation of
Republic Act (RA) Nos. 3019,5 6713,6 and 13797 and the Revised Penal Code;
(b) instituting the appropriate administrative cases against Carabeo for the same
violations, for dishonesty and grave misconduct;
(c) commencing forfeiture proceedings against Carabeo's unlawfully acquired
properties including those illegally obtained in the names of his spouse, children,
relatives and agents; and
(d) placing Carabeo under preventive suspension pursuant to Section 24 of RA
6770.8

Case Digest
December 04, 2009
Issue
Whether or not Carabeo committed grave abuse of discretion for not proper filing of
his SALN tantamount to the violation of Section 10 of RA 6713 which entitles Carabeo
to be informed beforehand and to take the necessary corrective action.

Case Digest
December 04, 2009
The ruling of this court
Yes Carabeo committed grave abuse of discretion for not proper filing of his SALN it
was gleaned from the evidence on record, the deliberate failure of respondent Carabeo
to disclose all of his supposed properties in his SALN, particularly the vehicles which are
registered in his name involves dishonesty which, if proven, warrant his corresponding
removal from the government service. The same is true with respect to the 1,000 square
meter residential lot located at Tagaytay City which he failed to disclose in his SALN for
2001 and 2002, respectively.

Case Digest
Navarro vs Ombudsman, GR 210128 Aug 17, 2016
Facts
In 1980, CPA-lawyer Navarro began his employment at the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) as Revenue Examiner I with an annual gross salary of P11,904.00. He then
became the Revenue District Officer (RDO) of Baguio City and was later designated as
Chief Revenue Officer IV (CRO IV) with an annual salary of P246,876.00.
The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), a
division of the Department of Finance (DOF) tasked to conduct investigations on
allegations of corrupt practices of officials and employees of offices attached to or
supervised by the DOF, received a complaint against Navarro. Acting thereon, the DOF-
RIPS investigated Navarro and opined that based on his Statement of Assets, Liabilities
and Networth (SALN), he had been steadily amassing landholdings in Baguio City since his
appointment as the RDO there and had constructed three (3) structures on some of the
parcels of land.

Case Digest
Facts
The DOF-RIPS, filed their Joint Complaint-Affidavit before the Ombudsman against
Navarro, for acts and omissions that are deemed illegal, unjust, improper, and/or
otherwise irregular or immoral.8 It was averred hi the said complaint that Navarro did
not properly declare his assets in his SALNs; that Navarro did not own any real property
prior to his employment with the BIR in 1980; that he acquired his real properties,
including a resort and commercial buildings, in Baguio City and La Union;
That, even assuming they were declared under "Improvements," the amounts declared in
his SALN were miniscule, as the improvements constructed were two (2) multi-storey
buildings and a two-storey building;9 and that he overstated his liabilities to decrease his
networth and failed to disclose his engagement in other forms of businesses. For said
reason, it was the conclusion of the DOF-RIPS that "his substantial real property
ownership is manifestly out of proportion to his lawful income."

Case Digest
Issue
Whether or not Navarro guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and violation of R.A. No. 6713
and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service with its accessory penalties.

Case Digest
Ruling of the court
No, Navarro did not committed any violation under R.A 6713 The Court has
once emphasized that a mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically
amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly
disproportionate to the income or other sources of income of the public
officer/employee and he fails to properly account or explain his other sources of
income, does he become susceptible to dishonesty.
Although there appeared to have a prima facie evidence giving rise to the
presumption of accumulation of wealth disproportionate to his income, Navarro
was able to overcome such presumption by coming out with documentary
evidence to prove his financial capacity to make the subject acquisitions and to
prove that the amounts he stated in his SALNs were true. It should be
understood that the laws on SALN aim to curtail the acquisition of unexplained
wealth. Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted
for, then it is "explained wealth" which the law does not penalize.

Case Digest
Office of the Ombudsman vs Nieto A. Racho, Jan 31, 2011
G.R. No. 185685
Facts
The April 1, 2005 Joint Order of the Ombudsman found respondent Nieto
A. Racho (Racho) guilty of dishonesty and ordered him dismissed from the
service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification from public
office. The assailed CA Decision, however, found Racho guilty of negligence only
and reduced the penalty to suspension from office for six months, without pay.
From the records, it appears that DYHP Balita Action Team (DYHP), in a
letter dated November 9, 2001, reported to Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas,
Primo Miro, a concerned citizen’s complaint regarding the alleged unexplained
wealth of Racho, then Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR), Cebu City.5 To support the allegation, the complainant
attached copies of bank certifications, all issued in June of 1999, by Metrobank
Cebu (Tabunok Branch),6 BPI Cebu (Mango Branch),7 and PCI Bank (Magallanes
Branch).8 In total, Racho appeared to have an aggregate bank deposit of
₱5,798,801.39.

Case Digest
G.R. No. 185685
Facts
Acting on the letter, the Ombudsman launched a fact-finding
investigation and directed the BIR to submit Racho’s Statements of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) from 1995 to 1999. BIR complied with the order
and gave copies of Racho’s SALN. Soon, the Ombudsman found that Racho did
not declare the bank deposits in his SALN, as mentioned in the DYHP’s letter.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman filed a Complaint for Falsification of Public
Document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (OMB-V-C-02-0240-E) and
Dishonesty (OMB-V-A-02-0214E) against Racho.
Racho appealed the said order of dismissal to the CA. On January 26,
2004, the CA reversed the Ombudsman’s ruling and ordered the reinvestigation
of the case.15

Case Digest
G.R. No. 185685
Facts
In the appreciation of the said documents, the Ombudsman and the CA
took opposing views. The Ombudsman did not give weight to the SPA due to some
questionable entries therein. The CA, on the other hand, recognized the fact
that Racho never denied the existence of the bank accounts and accepted his
explanation. Accordingly, the CA decreed that although Racho was remiss in fully
declaring the said bank deposits in his SALN, the intent to make a false
statement, as would constitute dishonesty, was clearly absent.

Case Digest
G.R. No. 185685
Issue
Whether or not Racho’s non-disclosure of the bank deposits in his SALN
constitutes dishonesty.

Case Digest
G.R. No. 185685
Rulings
Yes, the SC rule in favor of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 7
and Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 explain the nature and importance of
accomplishing a true, detailed and sworn SALN.
Complimentary to the above-mentioned provisions, Section 2 of R.A.
1379 states that "whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during
his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to
his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and
the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed
prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired."

Case Digest
G.R. No. 185685
Rulings
By mandate of law, every public official or government employee is
required to make a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in
order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth because the latter
usually results from non-disclosure of such matters. Hence, a public official or
employee who has acquired money or property manifestly disproportionate to his
salary or his other lawful income shall be prima facie presumed to have illegally
acquired it

Case Digest
G.R. No. 185685
Rulings
It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to
perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public
officer or employee.53 Section 52 (A)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in Civil Service treats dishonesty as a grave offense the
penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction.

Case Digest
Rep of the Phil vs Serrano GR no. 237424(28), May 11, 2018
(Quo Warranto Proceeding against C.J Serrano)
Facts
From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served as a member of the faculty of the University of the
Philippines-College of Law. While being employed at the UP Law, or from October 2003 to
2006, Sereno was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international
arbitrations known as the PIATCO cases, and a Deputy Commissioner of the Commissioner on
Human Rights.
The Human Resources Development Office of UP (UP HRDO) certified that there was no record
on Sereno’s file of any permission to engage in limited practice of profession. Moreover, out of
her 20 years of employment, only nine (9) Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN) were on the records of UP HRDO. In a manifestation, she attached a copy of a tenth
SALN, which she supposedly sourced from the “filing cabinets” or “drawers of UP”. The
Ombudsman likewise had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno. The JBC has certified to the
existence of one SALN. In sum, for 20 years of service, 11 SALNs were recovered.

Case Digest
Facts
On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice. On 2012, the position of
Chief Justice was declared vacant, and the JBC directed the applicants to submit documents,
among which are “all previous SALNs up to December 31, 2011” for those in the government
and “SALN as of December 31, 2011” for those from the private sector. The JBC announcement
further provided that “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements
will not be interviewed or considered for nomination.”
Sereno expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP Law on 2006 and
became a private practitioner, she was treated as coming from the private sector and only
submitted three (3) SALNs or her SALNs from the time she became an Associate Justice. Sereno
likewise added that “considering that most of her government records in the academe are
more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files,”
and that the clearance issued by UP HRDO and CSC should be taken in her favor. There was no
record that the letter was deliberated upon. Despite this, on a report to the JBC, Sereno was
said to have “complete requirements.” On August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.

Case Digest
Facts
On August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon
against Sereno, alleging that Sereno failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs.
The House of Representatives proceeded to hear the case for determination of
probable cause, and it was said that Justice Peralta, the chairman of the JBC then,
was not made aware of the incomplete SALNs of Sereno.
Other findings were made: such as pieces of jewelry amounting to P15,000,
that were not declared on her 1990 SALN, but was declared in prior years’ and
subsequent years’ SALNs, failure of her husband to sign one SALN, execution of the
1998 SALN only in 2003

Case Digest
Issue
Whether or not Sereno chronically failed to file her SALNs and thus violated the
Constitution, the law, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Case Digest
Ruling of the Court
In Sereno’s 20 years of government service in UP Law, only 11 SALNs have been filed.
Sereno could have easily dispelled doubts as to the filing or non-filing of the unaccounted
SALNs by presenting them before the Court. Yet, Sereno opted to withhold such information or
such evidence, if at all, for no clear reason. The Doblada case, invoked by Sereno, cannot be
applied, because in the Doblada case, there was a letter of the head of the personnel of the
branch of the court that the missing SALN exists and was duly transmitted and received by the
OCA as the repository agency.
In Sereno’s case, the missing SALNs are neither proven to be in the records of nor was
proven to have been sent to and duly received by the Ombudsman as the repository agency.
The existence of these SALNs and the fact of filing thereof were neither established by direct
proof constituting substantial evidence nor by mere inference. Moreover, the statement of the
Ombudsman is categorical: “based on records on file, there is no SALN filed by [Sereno] for
calendar years 1999 to 2009 except SALN ending December 1998.” This leads the Court to
conclude that Sereno did not indeed file her SALN.

Case Digest
Ruling of the Court
For this reason, the Republic was able to discharge its burden of proof with the
certification from UP HRDO and Ombudsman, and thus it becomes incumbent upon
Sereno to discharge her burden of evidence. Further, the burden of proof in a quo
warranto proceeding is different when it is filed by the State in that the burden rests
upon the respondent.
In addition, contrary to what Sereno contends, being on leave does not exempt
her from filing her SALN because it is not tantamount to separation from government
service. The fact that Sereno did not receive any pay for the periods she was on leave
does not make her a government worker “serving in an honorary capacity” to be
exempted from the SALN laws on RA 6713.

Case Digest
Ruling of the Court
Neither can the clearance and certification of UP HRDO be taken in favor of
Sereno. During the period when Sereno was a professor in UP, concerned authorized
official/s of the Office of the President or the Ombudsman had not yet established
compliance procedures for the review of SALNs filed by officials and employees of
State Colleges and Universities, like U.P. The ministerial duty of the head of office to
issue compliance order came about only on 2006 from the CSC.
As such, the U.P. HRDO could not have been expected to perform its
ministerial duty of issuing compliance orders to Sereno when such rule was not yet in
existence at that time. Moreover, the clearance are not substitutes for SALNs. The
import of said clearance is limited only to clearing Sereno of her academic and
administrative responsibilities, money and property accountabilities and from
administrative charges as of the date of her resignation.

Case Digest
Ruling of the Court
Neither can Sereno’s inclusion in the matrix of candidates with complete
requirements and in the shortlist nominated by the JBC confirm or ratify her
compliance with the SALN requirement. Her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for
the position of Chief Justice does not negate, nor supply her with the requisite proof
of integrity. She should have been disqualified at the outset.
Moreover, the JBC En Banc cannot be deemed to have considered Sereno
eligible because it does not appear that Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs was
squarely addressed by the body. Her inclusion in the shortlist of nominees and
subsequent appointment to the position do not estop the Republic or this Court from
looking into her qualifications. Verily, no estoppel arises where the representation or
conduct of the party sought to be estopped is due to ignorance founded upon an
innocent mistake

Legal ethics

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Legal ethics

Similar to Legal ethics (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Legal ethics