KIKAY
Summary: Legal Ethics, Assignment 1
Abraham Pleads for Sodom
Genesis 18: 16-32
God reveals to Abraham about this plan of
visiting Sodom, to see if the sins there were
grievous Abraham knew that the city would be
indeed grievous so he begins to plead with the
Lord. He started to ask, would you sweep away
the righteous with the wicked? Suppose that
there are 50 righteous people in the city would
you sweep it away and not spare the place for
the sake of the 50 righteous people in it? God
answered that if he will find 50 righteous people
in the City he will spare it from being
doomed.Abraham then asked if he will still show
mercy if they find 45 righteous people , then
God affirmed that he will not. Abraham
continued to boldly plead to God by asking, the
same question lowering the number of righteous
men, from 45, he asked for 40 to 30 to 20 and
lastly he asked God if he find 10 righteous men,
will he still do the same? God replied, he will
still spare the city for the sake of 10 righteous
men, and then the Lord went on his way.
- On the Gospel of Luke when Lot ( the nephew
of Abraham) with her daughters left Sodom, the
city was rained with fire and sulfur.
- Better that 10 guilty person escape, than one
that suffer.
Why we read this?
- as a future lawyer we must not prejudice those
who have sin, being a lawyer, you are not
selective to whom you will cater and practicing
law is not just like any other profession, you are
to plead and bargain just like what Abraham did,
despite the severity of the sin you must see the
goodness of a person and always believe in that
good.
St. Thomas More
Thomas More was born in London in 1478, he is
the son of John More, who was a lawyer and a
judge who rose prominence during the reign of
Edward Vl. More married his first wife in 1505,
named Jane Colt having four children before her
death on 1511, shortly after that year he got
married to his second wife Alice Harper
Middleton. They have no child together but
Alice had a daughter from her first marriage.
Thomas was a lawyer and a member of the
Parliament. Because of his brilliance King Henry
VIII took liking at him and he rose from being a
Legal Ethics
Privy Counselor (1514) to being knighted and
made as Under-treasurer of the Exchequer, to
being the Lord Chancellor of England.(1529)
What really happened? (BEEF!!)
It started when King Henry VIII, desired to
divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boylen. More
refused to sign a letter to the Pope requesting an
annulment, this was More’s first time crossing
Henry. Their relationship become more strained
when seeking to isolate Thomas, King Henry
purged many clergy who supported the Pope. It
was clear that King Henry was prepared to break
away from the Church in Rome, something that
Thomas More could not tolerate. Thomas More
resigned from his post and eventually King
Henry further decided to separate the Church of
England from the Church of Rome. He ordered
the parliament to pen Oath of Supremacy which
allows him to assume the position, the head of
Church of England. Henry demanded that all the
bishops in England and the entire government
sign the oath but More refused because he knew
that the pope was the only successor of St. Peter.
Moreover during the coronation of Anne Boyle
as the queen, more did not attend and just sent a
congratulatory message, that King Henry had
taken negatively, More’s absence was deemed
by the king as a disrespect to the New Queen.
Thomas was arrested and imprisoned in the
Tower of London for 15 months. He faced trial
and was convicted by the court 15 minutes
despite having brilliant defense of himself and
having persuasive testimony. He was found
guilty of treason against the king and was
sentenced to death. He died on June 6, 1535 and
canonized in 1935.
- he was a “the king’s good servant, but God’s
first.”
- Real Truth vs. Judicial truth
Why we read this?
St. Thomas More is a man of integrity, as a
future lawyer, one must possess strong moral
principle, and must always stand firm to their
ground. He knew that he would be in trouble for
not going with the King’s decision, but he still
choose to be morally right, and he even left his
position because King Henry’s principles are
way opposite than what is righteous.
Your Heart above your Head.
Your Humility over your Pride
KIKAY
Abraham Lincoln (Cass v Snow Brothers)
An elderly man named Cass sold a prairie
team to the Snow Brothers under a
negotiation made through a signed note.
This team consists of a heavy-duty plow and
a team of oxen to pull it. But when it was
due, the Snow Brothers refused to pay what
they owe to Cass and so Cass seek for
Lincoln’s legal assistance. The lawyers
defending the Snows interposed a plea of
infancy. At the trial, it was admitted that the
brothers signed the note, but the defense
called a witness to testify that they were
both under the age of 21.
Lincoln gave a rousing final argument which
convinced the jury to ignore the law and find
for the plaintiff in spite of the fact that the
boys were not legally obligated to pay the
note.
- The plea of infancy is raised to
defeat an action upon a contract
made when the person was a minor.
- These poor innocent boys would
never have attempted this low
villainy had it not been for the advice
of these men [their lawyers].
- It was bad advice in morals and in
law. The law never sanctions
cheating, and a lawyer must be very
smart indeed to twist the law so that
it will sanction fraud.
Moral: Competence
Mahatma Gandhi (Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi)
He was a preeminent leader of Indian
nationalism and prophet of nonviolence in
the 20th century. He began his activism as
an Indian immigrant in South Africa in the
early 1900s, and in the years following
World War I became the leading figure in
India’s struggle to gain independence from
Great Britain. He was known for being seen
often dressed only in a loincloth and shawl–
and devout Hindu faith, Gandhi was
imprisoned several times during his pursuit
of non-cooperation, and undertook a number
of hunger strikes to protest the oppression of
India’s poorest classes, among other
injustices.
Moral: there is no room for violence
Legal Ethics
Jose W. Diokno
Jose Diokno was appointed Justice Secretary
by President Diosdado Macapagal and for
the next years, Diokno was invited by the
Nacionalistas to run for the Senate, and he
agreed. He won, and would serve two terms.
But when Marcos suspended the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus, Diokno resigned
from the Nacionalista Party in protest. When
Marcos declared martial law on Sept. 21,
1972, Diokno was among those first
enemies of the State arrested by the military
in the early morning hours of September 23.
Five or six carloads of armed soldiers
arrived to “invite” Sen. Diokno to join them.
They had no warrant and had cut the
Dioknos’ phone line. To avoid any more
trouble for his family, Diokno changed from
his pajamas and went with the soldiers to
Camp Crame, and he was later moved to
Fort Bonifacio. After almost two years since
he was illegally detained, Diokno was
released from prison. He had never been
charged with anything.
Diokno provided legal help to political
detainees and other martial-law victims. He
set up the Free Legal Assistance Group and
his concerns soon expanded to other causes
and constituencies including tribal groups
threatened by exploitation and military
atrocities, peasants, social workers, and
other activists.
- “No cause is more worthy than the
cause of human rights. They are
what makes a man human. Deny
them and you deny man’s
humanity,”
- “And so law in the land died. I
grieve for it but I do not despair over
it. I know, with a certainty no
argument can turn, no wind can
shake, that from its dust will rise a
new and better law; more just, more
human and more humane. When that
will happen, I know not. That it will
happen, I know.”
Moral: compassion
Your Heart above your Head.
Your Humility over your Pride
KIKAY
Requirements for the admission to the
practice of law
According to Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, Section 2. Requirements for all
applicants for admission to the bar. — Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least
twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and resident of the Philippines;
and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines.
- Article IV of the 1987 Constitution,
Citizen of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973,
of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority;
(4) Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law.
- Resident of the Philippines: a person
who is legally living or working in a
particular locality. Residency is a
permit that allows an individual to
reside in a specific country with
conditions that must be adhered to.
Residency can be either temporary or
permanent.
- Moral turpitude:
In re Cunanan
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission
to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of
1946 to 1953
FACTS: Congress passed RA No. 972 or the
Bar Flunkers Act in 1952. In accordance
with the said law, the Supreme Court then
passed and admitted to the bar those
candidates who had obtained an average of
72% by raising it to 75%. After its approval,
many of the unsuccessful candidates like
Albino Cunanan filed petitions for
admission to the bar invoking its provisions,
while others invoked the aforesaid law as an
additional ground for admission. There are
also others who have sought simply the
reconsideration of their grades without
invoking the law in question.
Legal Ethics
Under the Rules of Court governing
admission to the bar, "in order that a
candidate may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have
obtained a general average of 75% in all
subjects, without falling below 50% in any
subject."(Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court).
The Bar Flunkers went to Congress
believing that they qualified to practice law
and secured Senate Bill 12, with Section 1
which reduces the passing marks from 75%
to 70% in 1946-1951, 71% in 1952, 72% in
1953, 73% in 1954, and 74% in 1955.
Provided that there shall have no grade
lower than 50% Section 2 provided that a bar
candidate with a grade of 75% in any subject is
deemed to have passed that subject and such
grade shall be included in computation of the
general average that said candidate may
obtain in any subsequent examinations he
may take.
ISSUE: Whether or not, R.A. No. 972 is
constitutional.
RULING: The admission, suspension,
disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneys at
law in the practice of the profession and
their supervision have been indisputably a
judicial function and responsibility. On this
matter, the legislative department should not
have the permissible authority to fix the
conditions for the admission.
Republic Act Number 972 was therefore
held to be unconstitutional.
- Lawyers are vested with the
responsibility concerning public
interest, which demands adequate
preparation and efficiency.
- Lawyers are entrusted with the life,
liberty and property of the public
- The practice of law is a privilege, not
a right.
- RA 972 admitted 1,094 bar flunkers
Renato Cayetano v Christian Monsod
September 3, 1991
FACTS: Christian Monsod was nominated
by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC in
a letter received by the Secretariat of the
Commission on Appointments. COA
confirmed Monsod’s nomination. Cayetano
opposed and challenged the nomination and
Your Heart above your Head.
Your Humility over your Pride
KIKAY
the subsequent confirmation of the
Commission because allegedly Monsod does
not possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.
Atty. Monsod is a member of the Philippine
Bar, having passed the bar examinations of
1960 with the grade of 86.55%. He has been
a dues-paying member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. After passing the Bar, he
worked in his father’s law office, then he
worked as an operations officer for World
Bank Group, and upon his return to the
Philippines, he worked as Chief Executive
officer of Meralco Group, and subsequently
rendered service to various company either
as legal and economic consultant or as chief
executive officer.
ISSUE: Petitioner opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not possess
the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
RULING: The Supreme Court held that the
practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court; it embraces
any activity in or out of court which requires
the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience.
- Only where such grave abuse of
discretion is clearly shown shall the
Court interfere with the
Commission's judgment. In the
instant case, there is no occasion for
the exercise of the Court's corrective
power, since no abuse, much less a
grave abuse of discretion, that would
amount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
- One significant legal maxim is: "We
must interpret not by the letter that
killeth, but by the spirit that giveth
life."
Al C. Argosino
In the Matter of the Admission to the Bar
and Oath-taking of Successful Bar Applicant
Al C. Argosino, Bar Matter No. 712, July
13, 1995
FACTS: Al Argosino, together with 13
others, was charged with the crime of
homicide involved with hazing which
caused the death of Raul Camaligan during
Legal Ethics
fraternity initiation rites. The accused were
consequently sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for a period ranging from 2
years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4 years. Mr.
Argosino and his colleagues filed an
application for probation with the lower
court and it was granted so the period of
probation was set at 2 years. Less than a
month later, Argosino filed a petition to take
the bar exam. He was allowed and he passed
the exam, but was not allowed to take the
lawyer's oath of office. Argosino filed a
petition to allow him to take the attorney's
oath and be admitted to the practice of law.
The Court issued a resolution requiring the
petitioner to submit evidence that he is
regarded to have good moral character. In
compliance, the petitioner submitted at least
15 certifications and letters executed by
senators, judges, and members of religious
orders. He also submitted evidence of a
scholarship foundation established in honor
of Raul Camaligan. The Court further
required the comment of Atty. Gilbert
Camaligan, the father of the hazing victim,
to the petitioner’s plea to be allowed to take
the lawyer’s oath.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner may be
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath
RULING: The Court was persuaded that the
petitioner has exerted all efforts to atone for
the death of Raul Camaligan. The
certifications show that Argosino is a devout
Catholic with a genuine concern or civic
duties and public service.
- The Lawyer’s Oath is not a mere
ceremony or formality for the
practice of law.
- All aspects of moral character and
behavior may be inquired into in
respect of those seeking admission to
the Bar.
- Participation in the prolonged
mindless physical beatings inflicted
upon Raul Camaligan constituted
evident rejection of that moral duty.
- According to Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules
of Court, good moral character is a
condition which precedes admission
to the Bar and is not dispensed with
upon admission.
Your Heart above your Head.
Your Humility over your Pride
KIKAY
Consolidated Cases
FACTS: In February 1991, seven freshmen
law students of the Ateneo de Manila
University School of Law signified their
intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris
Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity).
The neophytes, including victim, Lenny
Villa, were subjected to initiation rites. After
the second day of initiation rites has ended,
accused non-resident or alumni fraternity
members Fidelito Dizon (Dizon) and
Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that
the rites be reopened. The head of initiation
rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially
refused. Upon the insistence of Dizon and
Villareal, however, he reopened the
initiation rites. The fraternity members,
including Dizon and Villareal, then
subjected the neophytes to "paddling" and to
additional rounds of physical pain. The
initiation for the day was officially ended,
and the neophytes started eating dinner then
slept. After an hour of sleep, the neophytes
were suddenly roused by Lenny’s shivering
and incoherent mumblings, Villareal and
Dizon ignored it at first but when they
realized that his condition has worsened, the
Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny
was pronounced dead on arrival.
Villareal v People of the Philippines
ISSUE: Whether or not the death of
Villareal extinguish his criminal liability
RULING: It was held that the death of
petitioner Villareal extinguished his criminal
liability for both personal and pecuniary
penalties, including his civil liability directly
arising from the delict complained of.
Consequently, his Petition is hereby
dismissed, and the criminal case against him
deemed closed and terminated.
- According to Article 89(1) of the
Revised Penal Code, criminal
liability for personal penalties is
totally extinguished by the death of
the convict.
- In contrast, criminal liability for
pecuniary penalties is extinguished if
the offender dies prior to final
judgment.
- Civil liability based on a source of
obligation other than the delict
survives the death of the accused and
is recoverable through a separate
Legal Ethics
civil action.
People v Court of Appeals
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA convicted
the accused with lesser offense of physical
injuries instead of homicide
RULING: It was held that the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and
Bantug criminally liable for slight physical
injuries.
- The CA’s ultimate conclusion that
Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug
were liable merely for slight physical
injuries grossly contradicts its own
findings of fact. Considering that the
CA found that the "physical
punishment heaped on Lenny Villa
was serious in nature”, it was
patently erroneous for the court to
limit the criminal liability to slight
physical injuries, which is a light
felony.
- Attributing criminal liability solely
to Villareal and Dizon as if only their
acts caused the death of Lenny Villa
is contrary to the CA’s own findings.
- The death of the victim was the
cumulative effect of the multiple
injuries he suffered, the criminal
responsibility should redound to all
those who participated in the
infliction of physical injuries on
Lenny.
Dizon v People of the Philippines
ISSUE: Whether or not Dizon was deprived
of due process
RULING: Yes. The court is called upon to
see to it that the accused is personally made
aware of the consequences of a waiver of the
right to present evidence. In fact, it is not
enough that the accused is simply warned of
the consequences of another failure to attend
the succeeding hearings. The court must first
explain to the accused personally in clear
terms the exact nature and consequences of
a waiver.
- The right of the accused to present
evidence is guaranteed by no less
than the Constitution itself.
Your Heart above your Head.
Your Humility over your Pride
KIKAY Legal Ethics

- Article III, Section 14(2), provides

that "in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel" This
constitutional right includes the right
to present evidence in one’s defense,
as well as the right to be present and
defend oneself in person at every
stage of the proceedings.

Villa v Escalona

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA was wrong

for dismissing the case for violation of the
accused’s right to speedy trial

RULING: It was held that the accused

Escalona et al.’s right to speedy trial was
violated. Since there is nothing in the
records that would show that the subject of
this Petition includes accused Ampil, S.
Fernandez, Cabangon, and De Vera, the
effects of this ruling shall be limited to
accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and
Adriano.

Your Heart above your Head.

Your Humility over your Pride