Legal Advice

1) Lawyer X was approached by Mr. A who is charged with Robbery of a water pump of A,
engine worth P50,000.00. But he got the water pump because it was actually his but made
a collateral for a loan of P30,000.00. Subsequently, he went to steal the pump but the
police found it in his possession. The client requested the lawyer to remedy the situation
and the lawyer instructed the client to talk to 2 or 3 of his best friends to testify that they
were together in Cagayan at the time the alleged theft happened. The client was very
happy and give the lawyer an advance fee.

Make 500 words comment to the action of the lawyer, who believed that a lawyer must
defend its client in any way he can, and that what will be legal.

Ans.: The action and advise of the lawyer is absolutely improper, and an outright insult
and mockery to the legal profession.

It has been pronounced, time and again, that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed
on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and
morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform a four-fold
duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the
values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer, not just to obey the laws of the land, but also to
refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any
in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity to the courts, as well as to his clients. All lawyers are servants of the
law, and have to observe and maintain the rule of law, as well as be exemplars worthy of
emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that the CPR
emphatically reiterates the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to act with complete candor. They may not
resort to the use of deception, not just in some, but in all their dealings. The CPR bars
lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood, or from misleading or allowing
the court to be misled by any artifice or guile in finding the truth. Needless to say,
complete and absolute honesty is expected of lawyers when they appear and plead before
the courts. Any act that obstructs or impedes the administration of justice constitutes
misconduct which merits disciplinary action on lawyers.

Concededly, a lawyer must represent his clients with utmost zeal, provided however, that
is should be done within the bounds of the law. As mentioned earlier, it is not only to his
clients that a lawyer is duty bound, but also to the legal profession, to the courts, and to
the society.

It is clear as the bright blue sky that the advice of Lawyer X is an absolute falsehood, and
merely concocted to exculpate his client in the crime charged against the latter. Even with
the little amount of facts provided above, it is evident that the crime of robbery did not
take place as at least one of its essential elements, i.e. “the taking is with violence against
or intimidation of persons or with force upon things” is not present.

In fact, it has not been shown that the water pump was given to the creditor at the time
the loan was secured. It has been a common practice that while a property is being made
as a security for a loan, its possession remains with the debtor. Here, we can even say that
there was animus lucrandi as the water pump, being used as security for the contract of
loan is merely an accessory contract. In fact, the ownership thereof is still retained by the
 debtor, Mr. A. Therefore, the crime thus charged and whatever other crime necessarily
included therein was not committed.

With this, it shows the incompetence of the Lawyer X, and a penalty of suspension is in
order.

2) A woman went to lawyer X and said her husband came home from Saudi Arabia and
having been apprised of rumors from relatives that she is sleeping together in a hotel with
a handsome athlete in basketball, the charge is adultery. But the woman told the lawyer
she has no money, would that be okay? And the lawyer said it depends. And he
insinuated “if you like me too, there will be no need of any payment”. And the woman
said “you look handsome to me, so I will follow you when you need me.”

The husband of the woman, with adequate evidence against the lawyer, would like to file
a disbarment case against the lawyer for immorality.

React in 1000 words whether the disbarment case must push through. And why? Give the
decision that you want to be given whether a penalty of removal from the list of lawyers
or just a suspension for some time because the husband who filed the disbarment case
later on forgave the wife and the lawyer paramour. And made an affidavit of desistance
withdrawing the case of disbarment.

What do you think of the decision of the Supreme Court would be?
-research cases of disbarment, cite a jurisprudence.

Ans: The lawyer should be suspended from the practice of law and the Affidavit of
Desistance executed by the offended spouse does not have any bearing as a case for
disbarment is sui generis and the Office of the Bar Confidant may even conduct a motu
proprio investigation.

Indeed, the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.

In the present case, the lawyer had known from the beginning that the prospective client
is already married. In fact, it was the very same reason why she sought the assistance of
Lawyer X, as the prospective client had engaged into an illicit relationship with a man
other than her husband.

When the woman intimated her financial incapacity to pay for the legal services of the
Lawyer, the latter should have referred the former to the Public Attorney’s Office or to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Legal Aid Service, which both requires no financial
commitments in exchange for legal service. If the client insisted to be represented by the
Lawyer albeit having admitted that she had no means to give monetary consideration, the
Lawyer could have made payment arrangements, i.e. installment basis, or other properties
of value.

The insinuation made by the laywer demonstrates depravity which makes him unfit to
continue becoming a part of the legal profession. However, the instant case is nothing
more than an unconsummated mutual attraction between the lawyer and the client.

In the case of Vitug v. Roncal (A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006), the Supreme Court
held:

“One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant

must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a
continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice,
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
 character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading
lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.
The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly
immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act that shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community.

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual
relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant
administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect
to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-
marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

Here, there was no indication that the lawyer and the client, notwithstanding their
manifestation of mutual affection, had ever engaged in nocturnal lumbar activities nor
had carnal knowledge with each other. However, the fact that the client is already married
and still the lawyer expressed his attraction to the former, in my humble submission, is
immoral as it created a void in the fidelity of the client to her marital vows. It further
constitutes the possibility of their relationship into a more intimate level which would
then be classified as grossly immoral, sufficient to warrant the penalty of dismissal.
However, since such is not the case, the lesser penalty of suspension is in order.

The case may even be similarly situated as the Vitug case where the court ruled: that
“[r]espondent's numerous visits and regular calls to complainant do not necessarily prove
that he took advantage of her. At best, it proves that he courted her despite being a
married man, precisely the fact on which the finding of immorality is rooted.”

Needless to say, Lawyer X’s misconduct is of considerable gravity. There is a string of

cases where the Supreme Court meted out the extreme penalty of disbarment on the
ground of gross immorality where the respondent contracted a bigamous marriage, (see
Tucay v. Atty. Tucay, 376 Phil. 336 (1999); Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313 (1957),
abandoned his family to cohabit with his paramour, (see Obusan v. Obusan, Jr., 213 Phil.
437 (1984); Toledo v. Toledo, 117 SCRA 768 (1963), cohabited with a married woman,
(see Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865 (1963) lured an innocent woman into marriage,
(see Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 15 September 2004, 438 SCRA 306) or was
found to be a womanizer. (see Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, 22 September 2004, 438
SCRA 582.) The instant case can be easily differentiated from the foregoing cases. It is
just but proper to heed the stern injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser
penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. (see In re
Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February 1970, 31 SCRA 562, 600.) In Zaguirre v. Castillo,
(A.C. No. 4921, 6 March 2003, 398 SCRA 658.) respondent was found to have sired a
child with another woman who knew he was married. He therein sought understanding
from the Court pointing out the polygamous nature of men and that the illicit relationship
was a product of mutual lust and desire. Appalled at his reprehensible and amoral
attitude, the Court suspended him indefinitely. However, in Fr. Sinnott v. Judge Barte,
(423 Phil. 522 (2001)) where respondent judge consorted with a woman not his wife, but
there was no conclusive evidence that he sired a child with her, he was fined P10,000.00
for his conduct unbecoming a magistrate despite his retirement during the pendency of
the case.
With respect to the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the husband of the client, the
same is explicitly provided under Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which
states that, "No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same.”

Complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate respondent

or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment may
proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is
whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the
purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to
practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer
of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the
attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.