3.

To the Courts (Canons 10-13)

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

He is an officer of the court exercising a privilege, which is indispensable in the administration of justice. If he were to
act other than candidly, fairly and truthfully, the administration of justice will suffer as a result thereby.
(Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 53.)

Q: DISTINGUISH CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FROM DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS.

A:
1. A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in Court is designed to vindicate THE AUTHORITY OF THE Court; on the
other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceedings is to deal with the fitness of the Court’s officer to continue in that
office , to preserve and protect the Court and the public from the official ministrations of persons unfir or unworthy to
hold such office.

2. The PRINCIPAL PURPOSE of the exercise of the power to cite contempt is to safeguard the functions of the Court
and should be used sparingly on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle.

The principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority by the Supreme Court is to assure respect to the orders
of such court by attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice.

3. Contemp of court is governed by thye procedure laid down under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas
disciplinary actions in the practice of law are governed by Rule 138 and 139 thereof.

(Rodriguez and Tulali v. Hon. Bienvenido Blancaflor, G.R. No. 190171, March 14, 2011)

RULE 10.01 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO ANY FALSEHOOD, NOR CONSENT TO THE DOING OF ANY IN COURT; NOR SHALL
HE MISLEAD, OR ALLOW THE COURT TO BE MISLEAD BY ANY ARTIFICE.

A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the court, nor mislead the court in any manner, no matter how demanding
his duties to his clients may be. His duties to his client should yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court. For no
client is entitled to receive from the lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts.
(Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 53.)

RULE 10.02 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT KNOWINGLY MISQUOTE OR MISREPRESENT THE CONTENTS OF A PAPER, THE
LANGUAGE OR THE ARGUMENT OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, OR THE TEXT OF A DECISION OR AUTHORITY, OR
KNOWINGLY CITE AS LAW A PROVISION ALREADY RENDERED INOPERATIVE BY REPEAL OR AMENDMENT,
OR ASSERT AS A FACT THAT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED.

A lawyer should always bear in mind that he is an officer in the temple of justice whose high vocation is to correctly
inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct
conclusions.
(Pangan v. Ramos, 93 SCRA 87 (1979))

RULE 10.03 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND SHALL NOT MISUSE THEM TO DEFEAT THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.

He [a lawyer] should not forget that he is an officer of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. He should not misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice or
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of final judgments or misuse court processes.
(Etemal Gardens Memorial Part Corp. v. CA, 293 SCRA 622 (1998))

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.

This canon should constantly remind lawyers that second only to the duty of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the land is the duty of all attorneys to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. The faithful performance of this duty is
necessary for the stability of democratic institutions.
(Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316 (1988))

A lawyer violates Canon 11 of the Code when he threatens the judge with the filing of an administrative charge if his
motion is not granted.
 A lawyer who openly defied the temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals is guilty of disrespect to
the court.

RULE 11.01 — A LAWYER SHALL APPEAR IN COURT PROPERLY ATTIRED.

Q: WHAT IS THE PROPER ATTIRE?

A:
For male lawyers it should be either a barong tagalog or the suit with tie. For lady lawyers, the appropriate business
attire would be proper. In general, the proper attire would be the contemporary business suit. A lawyer who is not
wearing the proper attire may be held in contempt of court. The lawyer must be clean, neat and well groomed.

RULE 11.02 — A LAWYER SHALL PUNCTUALLY APPEAR AT COURT HEARINGS.

Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing may not only subject the lawyer to
disciplinary action (De Gracia v. Warden of Makati, 69 SCRA 4 (1976)), but may also prejudice his client who, as a
consequence thereof, may be non-suited, declared in default or adjudged liable ex parte, as the case may be.

RULE 11.03 — A LAWYER SHALL ABSTAIN FROM SCANDALOUS, OFFENSIVE OR MENACING LANGUAGE OR BEHAVIOR
BEFORE THE COURTS.

A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession. (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 (1970); Rheem of
the Phil. v. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441 (1967); In re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 (1974))

It must not, however, be forgotten that a lawyer pleads; he does not dictate. (Rodil v. Garcia, 104 SCRA 362 (1981))

He should be courageous, fair, and circumspect, not petulant or combative or bellicose in his dealings with the court.
(Baja v. Macandog, 158 SCRA 391 (1988))

The prosecution or defense of the client’s cause does not permit a lawyer to cross the line between liberty and
license. (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 (1970); In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970))

A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays the weakness of his client’s cause,
shows disrespect to the court, disgraces the bar and invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power.
(Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, supra', In re Almacen, supra.)

RULE 11.04 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT ATTRIBUTE TO A JUDGE MOTIVES NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD OR HAVING
NO MATERIALITY TO THE CASE.

Q: ARE LAWYERS PROHIBITED FROM CRITICIZING JUDICIAL CONDUCT?

A: The rule does not preclude a lawyer from criticizing judicial conduct. The rule allows such criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or is material to the case. His right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in a proper and
respectful way and through legitimate channels is well recognized. (In re Ades, 6 F. Supp. 487, quoted in In re
Almacen, supra)

RULE 11.05 — A LAWYER SHALL SUBMIT GRIEVANCES AGAINST A JUDGE TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES ONLY.

The filing on behalf of disgruntled litigants of unfounded or frivolous charges against judges and the use of offensive
and intemperate language as a means of harassing the judge whose decisions have not been to their liking will subject
them to appropriate disciplinary action as officers of the court. (Urbina v. Maceren, 57 SCRA 403 (1974))

A lawyer may not file administrative complaint against a judge, which arises from his judicial acts, until the lawyer
shall have exhausted judicial remedies which result in a finding that the judge has gravely erred. If the lawyer does so
without exhausting such judicial remedies or awaiting the result thereof, he may be administrative held to account
therefor. (Flores v. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302 (1997))

For any unfounded or groundless accusation against a judge may undermine the people’s faith in the judicial edifice.
And as an officer of the court, it is the lawyer’s legal and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that
high esteem and regard toward the court which is essential to the administration of justice. (People v. Carillo, 77 Phil.
572 (1946); Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 (1970); Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 87 SCRA
67 (1978))
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

His duties to the court are more significant than those which he owes to his client. His first duty is not to his client but
the administration of justice; to that end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics of the profession. (City Sheriff, Iligan City v. Fortunato, 288
SCRA 190 (1998), citing Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed., p. 110)

RULE 12.01 — 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.

The duty of a lawyer to appear on the dates of hearing adequately prepared is an obligation which he owes to the
court as well as to his client.

RULE 12.02 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT FILE MULTIPLE ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE SAME CAUSE.

He is prohibited from filing a petition with Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court where a similar petition has
been filed or pending with the Supreme Court, and vice versa. By so doing, he will make a mockery of the judicial
process to defeat the ends of justice and open himself to disciplinary action. (Millare v. Montero, 246 SCRA 1 (1995))

Forum shopping is the improper practice of going from one court to another in the hope of securing a favorable relief
in one court which another court has denied or the filing of repetitious suits or proceedings in different courts
concerning substantially the same subject matter. There is also forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum, other than appeal or certiorari. The
principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in
courts while administrative proceeding is pending, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of
an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. (Buan v. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 (1986); Minister of
Natural Resources v. Heirs of Huges, 155 SCRA 566 (1987); Pacquing v. Court of Appeals, 115 SCRA 117 (1982);
Villanueva v. Adre, 172 SCRA 876 (L989); Crisostomo v. SEC, 179 SCRA 146 (1989).)

The dismissal of the complaint or initiatory pleading for violation of the rule against forum shopping is understood to
be without prejudice, unless the order dismissing it specifically states that it is with prejudice. (Sto. Domingo-David v.
Guerrero, 296 SCRA 277 (1998))

RULE 12.03 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT, AFTER OBTAINING EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE PLEADINGS, MEMORANDA OR
BRIEFS, LET THE PERIOD LAPSE WITHOUT SUBMITTING THE SAME OR OFFERING AN EXPLANATION FOR
HIS FAILURE TO DO SO.

Where a lawyer’s motion for extension of time to file a pleading, memorandum or brief has remained unacted by the
court, the least that is expected of him is to file it within the period asked for. And if for some reason he failed to file
the same within the period, he should nonetheless file it with a motion for leave to admit the same, explaining therein
the reasons for the delay. He should not wait until an adverse decision is rendered or until he is required to show
cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for such negligence. (Achacoso v. Court of Appeals, 57
SCRA 724 (1973); People v. Aguilar, 7 SCRA 468 (1963); Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 252 (1987))

RULE 12.04 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT UNDULY DELAY A CASE, IMPEDE THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT OR MISUSE
COURT PROCESSES.

A lawyer should not induce a court to act contrary to the dictates of justice and equity or deliberately employ
procedural maneuvers to deprive the adverse party of every opportunity to properly defend himself against a claim.
Neither should he befuddle the issues. These and similar ploys are not only unethical and degrading to the profession,
they also almost always betray the inherent weakness of the client’s cause. (Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425
(1975); Ledesma Overseas Shipping Corp. v. Avelino, 82 SCRA 396 (1978))

RULE 12.05 — A LAWYER SHALL REFRAIN FROM TALKING TO HIS WITNESS DURING A BREAK OR RECESS IN THE TRIAL,
WHILE THE WITNESS IS STILL UNDER EXAMINATION.

The purpose of the rule is to avoid any suspicion that he is coaching the witness what to say during the resumption of
the examination.

Q: DOES RULE 12.05 PROHIBITS WITNESS PREPARATION?

 A: No. What this rule intends to prevent is the coaching of a witness under examination. Witness preparation is
different from Witness Coaching. Witness preparation should occur before the testimony and counsel is allowed.
Coaching the witness during a deposition or during a break in sworn testimony is not proper and not allowed.

RULE 12.06 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT KNOWINGLY ASSIST A WITNESS TO MISREPRESENT HIMSELF OR TO IMPERSONATE
ANOTHER.

A lawyer who presents a witness whom he knows will give a false testimony may be subjected to disciplinary action.

RULE 12.07 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT ABUSE, BROWBEAT OR HARASS A WITNESS NOR NEEDLESSLY INCONVENIENCE
HIM.

The client cannot be made the keeper of the lawyer’s conscience in professional matters. He has no right to demand
that his counsel abuse the opposite party or indulge in offensive personalities. Improper speech is not excusable on
the ground that it is what the client would say if speaking in his own behalf.

RULE 12.08 — A LAWYER SHALL AVOID TESTIFYING IN BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, EXCEPT:

A) ON FORMAL MATTERS, SUCH AS THE MAILING, AUTHENTICATION OR CUSTODY OF AN INSTRUMENT, AND THE
LIKE; OR

B) ON SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS, IN CASES WHERE HIS TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IN WHICH
EVENT HE MUST, DURING HIS TESTIMONY, ENTRUST THE TRIAL OF THE CASE TO ANOTHER COUNSEL.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH
TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

Courts as impartial administrators of justice are entitled to dispose of their business in an orderly manner, free from
outside interference obstructive of their functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice, just as
litigants are entitled to have their causes tried fairly by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication, public
clamor, bias, prejudice or sympathies. (Nestle Phil., Inc. v. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 (1987))

RULE 13.01 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT EXTEND EXTRAORDINARY ATTENTION OR HOSPITALITY TO, NOR SEEK
OPPORTUNITY FOR, CULTIVATING FAMILIARITY WITH JUDGES.

The unusual attention and hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge may subject both the judge and the lawyer to
suspicion. For this reason, the common practice of some lawyers making judges and prosecutors godfathers of their
children to enhance their influence and their law practice should be avoided by judges and lawyers alike. (Comments
of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 70.)

It is not, however, incumbent on a lawyer to refuse professional employment in a case because it may be heard by a
judge who is his relative, compadre or former colleague in office. The responsibility is on the judge not to sit in a case
unless he is both free from bias and from the appearance thereof. (A.B.A. Op. 200 (January 27, 1940); Bautista v.
Rebueno, 81 SCRA 535 (1978))

RULE 13.02 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN THE MEDIA REGARDING A PENDING CASE TENDING
TO AROUSE PUBLIC OPINION FOR OR AGAINST A PARTY.

Q: DOES THE RESTRICTION PROHIBIT ISSUANCE OF STATEMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY
OF PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING ACTIONS IN COURT?

A: NO. However, such statements should avoid any statement of fact likely to create an adverse attitude in the public
mind respecting the alleged actions of the defendants to the pending proceedings.

The Sub judice rule.

Sub judice – refers to matters under or before a judge or court; under judicial consideration.

(Lejano v. People and People v. Webb, G.R. No. 176389/176864):

 In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and discloses pertaining to pending judicial
proceedings. The restriction applies not only to participants in the pending case xxx but also to the
public in general, which necessarily includes the media. Although the Rules of Court does not contain a
specific provision imposing the sub judice rule, it supports the observance of the restriction by
punishing its violation as indirect contempt under S ection 3(d) of Rule 71:

Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. X x x a person guilty of any of the
following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

xxx

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration
of justice.

Persons facing charges for indirect contempt for violation of the sub judice rule often invoke as a defense their right to
free speech and the claim that the citation for contempt constitutes a form of impermissible subsequent punishment.

We have long recognized in this jurisdiction that the freedom of speech under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution
is not absolute. Xxx While the sub judice rule may be considered as a curtailment of the right to free speech, it is
necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice and the right of the accused to a fair trial. Both these latter
concerns are equally paramount and cannot lightly be disregarded.

RULE 13.03 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT BROOK OR INVITE INTERFERENCE BY ANOTHER BRANCH OR AGENCY OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

The reason is that a lawyer who brooks or invites interference by another branch or agency of government in the
normal course of judicial proceedings endangers the independence of the judiciary.
4. To the clients

THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

An attorney is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence
reposed on him by his client. Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and
duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate, exacting and
confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason of necessity
and public interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which
is fatal to the administration of justice. (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938; September 20, 1996)

Rule 14.01 Provides that a Lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter’s:
a. Race
b. Sex
c. Creed
d. Status of life
e. Lawyer’s opinion regarding the guilt of said person

Q: CAN A LAWYER DECLINE AN APPONTMENT AS COUNSEL DE OFICIO OR AS AMICUS CURIAE OR A REQUEST FROM THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES OR ANY OF ITS CHAPTER FOR RENDITION OF FREE LEGAL AID?

A:
GR: A lawyer shall not decline an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae or a request from the integrated
bar of the philippines or any of its chapter for rendition of free legal aid.

EXPN: Only for serious and sufficient cause such that he cannot handle the matter efficiently or there is a conflict of
interest. It has also been held by the Court that when a lawyer has to spend from his own pocket transportation
expenses just to attend the hearings or undue financial burden on the part of the lawyer, may be considered a valid
cause to decline the appointment as counsel de oficio.

Counsel de oficio are equally liable as a paid lawyer – A Counsel de oficio may be held liable for negligence in the same
way and degree as a lawyer who gets paid. (In Re: Robles Lahesa, 4 Phil. 298)

Amicus curae- means a friend of the court; experienced and impartial lawyers who has the expertise in the field and
usually called upon to help the Court in resolving cases or in the disposition of issues submitted to it.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH
HIS CLIENT.

It is the duty of a lawyer to disclose and explain to a prospective client all circumstances of his relations to the parties
and any interest in or connection with the controversy, which in his honest judgment might influence the client in the
selection of counsel.

Note: A lawyer should decline professional employment even though how attractive the fee offered may be if its
acceptance will involve a violation of any of the rules of the legal profession, examples:

a. After giving professional advice to a plaintiff concerning the latter’s claim, a lawyer may not thereafter accept
retainer from defendant to defeat that claim.
b. He may not accept employment from another in a matter adversely affecting any interest of his former client with
respect to which confidence has been reposed.
c. He may not handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared.
d. It is his duty to decline employment in any of these and similar matters in view of the rule prohibiting
representation of conflicting interests.
e. A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter in which he had intervened while in the
government service.
f. Having once held public office or having been in the public employ, a lawyer should not after his retirement accept
employment in connection with any matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in such office.
 Note: An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him but also after the
relation of attorney and client has terminated. The Supreme Court held in Nombrado v. Hernandez that the termination
of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of the former client.

Note: A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client only when the subject matter
of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he
appeared for the former client.

Note: No conflict of interests exists, where the clients knowingly consent to the dual representation or where no true
attorney-client relationship is attendant, the prohibition does not apply.

Note: Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged communication even if
the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines the employment. Rule 15.02 of the
Code makes the lawyer “bound by the rule on privileged communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.” The reason for the rule is to make the prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the
lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will not be divulged nor used against him, and for the lawyer to be
equally free to obtain information from the prospective client. (Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 81)

Q: MAY A LAWYER ACT AS MEDIATOR, CONCILIATOR OR ARBITRATOR IN SETTLING DISPUTES?

A: Yes. Provided that there is a written consent of all concerned.

Note: A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the
client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.

As officers of the court, counsel are under obligation to advice their clients against making untenable and inconsistent
claims. Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must unquestionably do the bidding of the client, however
unreasonable this may be when tested by their own expert appreciation of the facts and applicable law and
jurisprudence. Counsel must counsel. (Periquet v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 724 (1990))

Note: The practice of law does not include influence-peddling. A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. (Rule 15.06) Influence peddling is highly unethical and may
constitute violation of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Note: The lawyer’s duty of entire devotion to his client’s cause must, however, be performed within the bounds of law.
For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires him to “impress upon his client compliance with the laws and principles
of fairness.” He should also impress upon his client that his duty is to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings
only as appear to him to be just, and raise such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law, and
to secure for the client, through honorable means, only what is justly due him.

Note: A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear
to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. (Rule 15.08)

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.

Duties of a Lawyer who hold in trust all monies and properties of his client that may come into his possession:
1. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. (Rule 16.01)
2. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. (Rule
16.02)
3. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien
over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. (Rule 16.03)
4. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. (Rule 16.04)

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Note: The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainant’s case and subsequently
failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.