Atty. Phil Juris

A lawyer shall not share, split, or divide, or stipulate to divide, directly or indirectly, a fee for legal services with persons or organizations not licensed or authorized to practice law. – Supreme Court reminds lawyers. T an Tek Beng v. David  (1983) By ATTY. PHIL JURIS  June 17, 2025 Manila, Philippines —  The Supreme Court has once again underscored a fundamental ethical rule in the legal profession: lawyers are strictly prohibited from sharing, splitting, or dividing legal fees with individuals or organizations not licensed or authorized to practice law. This reminder draws from the landmark case of  Tan Tek Beng v. David (1983) , where the Court reprimanded a lawyer for entering into a fee-sharing agreement with a non-lawyer intermediary, declaring such arrangements void and unethical. The Court emphasized that the prohibition is rooted in public policy and the need to protect the integrity of the legal profession. Allowing non-lawyers to profit from legal se...

  Supreme Court Acquits Man of Usurpation for Pretending to Be a Lawyer High Court rules that a lawyer is not a “person in authority” under criminal law By ATTY. PHIL JURIS  June 17, 2025 MANILA, Philippines — In a decision promulgated on August 7, 2024 , the Supreme Court acquitted a man of usurpation of authority after he impersonated a lawyer, finding that such impersonation does not qualify as usurpation under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reversed the conviction of Pedro Pequero y Nollora for usurpation of authority. Pequero, who introduced himself under the name “Atty. Epafrodito Nollora,” had been found guilty by the lower courts for using a fictitious name, using an illegal alias, and for falsely representing himself as a lawyer. While his convictions for the use of fictitious name and alias were upheld, the Supreme Court ruled that usurpation of authority was improperly applied in this case. “A lawyer is not considered a ‘person in authority’...

Duterte Allies in Senate Should Inhibit VP Sara’s Impeachment Trial By Atty. Phil Juris June 16, 2025 With the Senate now convened as an impeachment court to try Vice President Sara Duterte, one thing must be said plainly: senators closely allied with the Duterte family should voluntarily inhibit themselves from the trial. This is not about political rivalry or personal attacks. This is about protecting constitutional integrity and ensuring public accountability —both of which are at the very heart of what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they gave the Senate the power to try impeachment cases. The Constitution is clear. “Public office is a public trust.” (Article XI, Section 1). Public officers—senators included—are expected to be accountable to the people at all times, to act with responsibility, integrity, and justice. In an impeachment trial, those values matter more than ever. Senator-judges are not acting as legislators in this context. They are judges. And...

  Supreme Court Clarifies One-Year Bar Rule in Impeachment Proceedings Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459 | February 15, 2011 By Atty. Phil Juris  Published: June 12, 2025 MANILA, Philippines — In a landmark ruling that has since become a cornerstone in constitutional law and bar examinations, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of "initiation" in impeachment proceedings under the 1987 Constitution, settling a critical issue in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice (G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011). At the center of the case was then-Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, who in 2010 faced two impeachment complaints filed just months apart before the House of Representatives. She sought to halt the second complaint, citing the constitutional prohibition against initiating more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a one-year period. Gutierrez argued that the first complain...

In the wake of renewed public interest in the impeachment process, questions have emerged regarding the scope of the Senate’s authority once the House of Representatives transmits the Articles of Impeachment. Specifically, some have asked: Can the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, vote to refer the Articles of Impeachment back to the House for amendment, correction, or further action? A careful reading of the 1987 Constitution and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence yields a clear answer: once the House of Representatives transmits the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate’s constitutional duty is to try and decide the case. There is no constitutional provision or controlling case law that allows the Senate to refer the Articles back to the House. Constitutional Framework The Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Once a verified complaint is filed and the required vote is secured, the House adopts the Article...

If you have lost a loved one and are now facing the challenge of settling their estate, there is good news for Filipino families: the government has extended the Estate Tax Amnesty until June 14, 2025 . This is a rare chance to settle unpaid estate taxes with less hassle, lower costs, and even immunity from penalties and legal cases. What is Estate Tax and Why Does It Matter? Estate tax is a government fee paid when a person passes away and leaves behind properties, money, or other assets. Before heirs can legally transfer these assets to their names, the estate tax must be paid. Failing to do so can lead to penalties, interest, and even legal trouble. What is the Estate Tax Amnesty? The Estate Tax Amnesty is a special program by the government that allows families to pay their estate taxes at a much lower rate, without penalties or interest. It also protects them from civil, criminal, and administrative cases related to unpaid estate taxes for deaths that happened on or before May...

 The Supreme Court Draws the Line: Legal Fees Must Be Just, Not Opportunistic A Closer Look at Notarial Fees in the Philippines By Atty. Phil Juris Introduction In the legal profession, fees are not just a matter of compensation—they are a reflection of justice, fairness, and public trust. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has repeatedly emphasized that legal fees, including notarial fees, must be just and reasonable, not a means for opportunism or exploitation. This principle is especially relevant today, as the demand for notarial services grows alongside the digitalization of legal processes. The Legal Framework: Regulating Notarial Fees The Supreme Court, through the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice , has set clear guidelines on the imposition of notarial fees. Notaries public are required to charge only up to the maximum fees prescribed by the Supreme Court, to issue official receipts, and to post a schedule of fees in a conspicuous place in their offices. The recent ...

  Facts:  Engr. Alex Cueto engaged Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. as a notary public for a construction agreement. After notarization, Atty. Jimenez demanded a notarial fee of P50,000. Cueto paid P30,000 in cash and issued a check for the P20,000 balance. The check was later dishonored for insufficient funds. Despite Cueto’s request not to deposit the check due to lack of funds (and because he himself had not been paid by the other party), Atty. Jimenez deposited it and, upon dishonor, filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) against Cueto. In response, Cueto filed an administrative complaint against Jimenez for unethical conduct.   Issues:   Is it proper for a lawyer or notary public to file a criminal case to recover unpaid attorney’s or notarial fees? Did Atty. Jimenez violate the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a BP 22 case to collect his notarial fee? Ruling and Reasoning: The Supreme Court found Atty. Jimenez guilty of...

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking to nullify Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 20. The circular directs prosecutors to determine whether there is “reasonable certainty of conviction” before filing charges after preliminary investigation—effectively raising the evidentiary threshold beyond the established standard of probable cause. According to the petitioner, this new requirement unlawfully expands the DOJ’s authority and encroaches on judicial functions. The Constitution assigns to the courts the power to determine guilt, while preliminary investigation is limited to establishing whether there is sufficient ground to proceed to trial. By requiring prosecutors to assess the likelihood of conviction, the DOJ is seen as preempting the trial process and exercising a function reserved for the judiciary. SPONSORED : Personalized Custom Desk Name |  The petition also warns that the circular could restrict access to justice. Complainants wi...