Court of Appeals HOME :: COURT PROFILE :: INCUMBENT

Ma. Orosa St., JUSTICES :: ADMINISTRATION ::

Ermita, Manila, COMPOSITION :: REFERENCES ::
Philippines JOURNAL/YEARBOOK ARTICLES ::
GENDER CORNER :: TRANSPARENCY ::
DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS :: JOB
VACANCIES :: PROCEDURES ::
ANNOUNCEMENTS :: PROCUREMENT ::
CONTACT US ::

Website Directory 

Today is Monday, January 15, 2018

Links

The Lawyer's Oath

::SUPREME COURT
::SANDIGANBAYAN By J. Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
::CTA
The Oath: The Lawyer's Ideal

What is an oath? Webster defines it as: �A solemn appeal to God, or in a

wider sense, to any sacred or revered person or sanction for the truth of
an affirmation or declaration or in witness of the inviolability of a promise
or undertaking.� As early as Alvarez vs. CFI, the Supreme Court
explained its meaning in this wise:

In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of

attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in
conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. It is an
outward pledge given by the person taking it, that his
attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of
his responsibility to God.

Section 17 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that an applicant who
has passed the required examination, or has been otherwise found to be
entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and subscribed before the
Supreme Court an oath of office. The new lawyer swears before a duly
constituted authority as an attestation that he/she takes on the duties
and responsibilities proper of a lawyer. More particularly, form 28 of the
judicial standard forms prescribes the following oath to be taken by the
applicant:

I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will

maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not
wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will
delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So
help me God.

The taking of this oath is a condition to the admission to practice law and
may only be taken before the Supreme Court by a person authorized by
the high court to engage in the practice of law. And what is the nature of
a lawyer's oath? In the case of Sebastian vs. Calis the Supreme Court
held that: �A lawyer's oath are not mere facile words, drift and hollow,
but a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable.� The
substance and gravity behind these words may be understood in the light
of the substance and gravity behind the oath being taken. In a sense, the
oath embodies the ideals by which a lawyer lives by in the practice of the
legal profession. This is why the lawyer's oath has been likened to a
condensed version of the canons of professional responsibility. This seems
to have been confirmed in Endaya vs. Oca, where it was held that: �the
lawyer's oath embodies the fundamental principles that guide every
member of the legal fraternity. From it springs the lawyer's duties and
responsibilities that any infringement thereof can cause his disbarment,
suspension or other disciplinary actions.�

In the words of the Supreme Court, an oath is any form of attestation by

which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully. What then does a lawyer promise to perform
faithfully and truthfully when he takes on the oath upon being admitted to
the practice of law? It is the very practice of his duties and responsibilities
as a lawyer. The gravity of the oath is grounded on two important things:
on the gravity of a lawyer's duties and on the fact that he makes a
solemn promise before God to undertake these duties faithfully. When a
great amount of trust is placed on such an office, then a corresponding
sense of integrity and responsibility is expected of those who have taken
on that office. The legal profession is one such office laden with a great
amount of trust. In the hands of the lawyer is entrusted not only the
power to steer the course of some client's personal or business future but
more importantly, the very nature of the legal profession presupposes a
certain moral burden that demands personal integrity. As stated by the
Supreme Court:

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not

only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their
legal career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that
exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is
more than just the absence of bad character. Such character
expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is
right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is
wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed
to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and
confidence; he deals with his client' s property, reputation,
his life, his all.

A lawyer is said to be the servant of the law and belongs to a profession

to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the
dispensing of justice. For this reason, a lawyer's oath impresses upon him
the responsibilities of an officer of the court upon whose shoulders rest
the grave responsibility of assisting courts in the proper, fair, speedy and
efficient administration of justice.

In fact, it may be understood that the words contained in the oath of

office summarize the main duties and responsibilities a lawyer is
supposed to take on in the practice of law. In other words, every time an
oath of office is taken, the person making the statement in effect states
that in taking on the oath he/she promises to conscientiously fulfill the
duties entrusted to his office. Section 20 of Rule 138 enumerates what
these duties are. It is the duty of an attorney -

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines

and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines;

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of

justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only

as appearing to him to be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law;

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes

confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth
and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
 (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to
himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his clients' business except
from him or with his knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance

no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the

continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's
cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself,

the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair

and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as
to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the
law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of
life or liberty, but by due process of law.

In order to fulfill these duties, every lawyer is expected to live by a

certain mode of behavior now distilled in what is known as the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Code mandates upon each lawyer, as his
duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In essence,
all that is contained in this Code is succinctly summarized in the oath of
office taken by every lawyer. It is of little surprise to find that in
Magdaluyo vs. Nace the Supreme Court declares that the lawyer's oath is
a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension,
disbarment or other disciplinary action. In the case of Businos vs.
Ricafort, the Supreme Court also held that:

By swearing the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a

guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable
instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice
� a vital function of democracy, a failure of which is
disastrous to society. While the duty to uphold the
constitution and obey the laws is an obligation imposed upon
every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities over and
beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As
servant of the law, a lawyer ought to make himself an
example for others to emulate. He should be possessed of
and must continue to possess good moral character.

In Brion Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr., the Supreme Court also ruled: �the
lawyer's primary duty as enunciated in the attorney's oath is to uphold
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails
obedience to the legal orders of the court.� The importance and
significance in upholding the sanctity of a lawyer's oath have been
highlighted by the Supreme Court in the various rulings it made involving
disciplinary actions against members of the legal fraternity.

The Real World Of The Legal Practice

While it is true that these ideals by which every lawyer swears to live by
remain sublime, the same ideals often hardly motivate some lawyers in
the real world of legal practice. Instead of high ideals, less honorable
reasons and more pragmatic considerations � often financial and material
in nature � take hold of many a cynical and hardened lawyer. This has
been the cause of lament and expressions of grave concern by honorable
individuals, among them the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred Ruiz
Castro. In an address before members of the legal profession, he said:

Many a legal practitioner, forgetting his sacred mission as a

sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of
the court, has allowed himself to become:

An instigator of controversy, instead of a mediator for

concord and a conciliator for compromise;
 A virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation, instead
of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice;

A mercenary purveying the benefits of his enlightened

advocacy in direct proportion to a litigant's financial posture,
instead of a faithful friend of the courts in the dispensation of
equal justice to rich and poor alike.

Though these words were expressed some time ago, yet is is sad to note
that Chief Justice Ruiz's words still ring loud and true today. The goal of
remaining true to the ideals of the legal profession is hampered by the
seemingly irresistible influence and pressures of modern day
commercialism in almost every facet of human activity and endeavor. In
various cases, the Supreme Court has denied applicant's petition to take
the lawyer's oath for grave misconduct or for any serious violation of the
canons of professional responsibility which puts in question the applicant's
moral character. Moreover, a reading of the latest rulings of the highest
tribunal would reveal the lawyer's utter disregard, if not disdain, for the
lawyer's oath.

In Vitriola vs. Dasig, a case for disbarment against an official of the

commission on higher education charged with gross misconduct in
violation of the attorney's oath for having used her public office to secure
financial spoils, the Supreme Court, in ordering respondent's disbarment,
held:

The attorney's oath is the source of the obligations and duties

of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The
attorney's oath imposes upon every member of the bar the
duty to delay no man for money or malice.

Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the code of

professional responsibility. Respondent's demands for sums
of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications
or requests before her office violates such duty, and runs
afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the bar.

The affirmation by a lawyer to uphold the law was the subject in De

Guzman vs. De Dios. In this case where respondent was charged for
representing conflicting interest, found guilty and suspended for six
months, with a warning, the highest tribunal held:

To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the
law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be
over-emphasized. Considering that, 'of all classes and
professions, (lawyers are) most sacredly bound to uphold and
respect the law', it is imperative that they live by the law.

Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in

deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession. As a
lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood
or consent to its commission and to conduct herself as a
lawyer to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The
lawyer's oath is a source of obligation and violation thereof is
a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary
action. The acts of respondent Atty. De Dios are clearly in
violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this court will
not tolerate.

In Sevillano Batac, Jr., et al. vs. Atty. P. Cruz, Jr., the Supreme Court in
ordering the suspension of respondent, quoted Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, thus:

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by

supreme court; grounds therefor: A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or, other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. A
lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money
or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his
client. Such was the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in ordering the
disbarment of lawyer who converted the money of his client to his own
personal use without her consent. The lawyer's oath exhorts law
practitioners not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. In Young vs.
Batuegas, where respondent was suspended for six months for knowingly
alleging an untrue statement of fact in his pleading, the Supreme Court
said, thus:

A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his

admission to the bar that he will 'do no falsehood nor consent
to the doing of any in court' and he shall conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He
should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his 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
a correct conclusion.

The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only

complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading
before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend
his client's rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal
in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be at
the expense of truth.

That a lawyer's oath are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, was
applied by the Supreme Court in Vda. De Rosales vs. Ramos, where a
notary public commission was revoked and respondent disqualified from
being a notary public, in this manner: �where the notary public is a
lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn
oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of
any.�

Indeed when an office entrusted with great responsibility and trust by

society is violated and abused, one finds truth in the expression corruptio
optimi pessima (the corruption of the best is the worst). The words of
former Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals Pompeyo Dias cannot find
a more relevant application:

There are men in any society who are so self-serving that

they try to make law serve their selfish ends. In this group of
men, the most dangerous is the man of the law who has no
conscience. He has, in the arsenal of his knowledge, the very
tools by which he can poison and disrupt society and bring it
to an ignoble end.

A Return to Basic Ideals

With the glaring reality of legal practice evidenced by the increasing

numbers of administrative cases filed against lawyers in the Courts, it is
no surprise therefore that legal ethics has been prescribed as a subject
under the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). Moreover, of
the 36 units prescribed under the MCLE, six units pertain to legal ethics.
There is clearly a perceived need to instill legal ethics in the practice of
the legal profession. The pressing need for legal ethics was highlighted by
the Supreme Court in Endaya vs. Oca:

For practical purposes, the lawyers not only represent the

law; they are the law. With their ubiquitous presence in the
social milieu, lawyers have to be responsible. The problems
they create in lawyering become public difficulties. To keep
lawyers responsible underlies the worth of the ethics of
lawyering. Indeed, legal ethics is simply the aesthetic term
for professional responsibility.

Undoubtedly, faithful compliance and observance of the canons of the

Code of Professional Responsibility is the main object of the MCLE. And to
ensure success thereof, the Supreme Court, in its various
pronouncements in administrative cases filed against lawyers, has
emphasized the lawyer's basic duties and responsibilities. In a more
 recent ruling, the Supreme Court recapitulated the significance and
importance of the oath in this wise: �This oath to which all lawyers have
subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of
justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be
forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By
swearing the lawyer's oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule
of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of
justice.�

Indeed, if the legal profession is to achieve its basic ideal to render public
service and serve the ends of justice, there is a need to unceasingly and
constantly inculcate professional standards among lawyers. As the
Supreme Court in Cordon vs. Balicanta (supra), said: �If the practice of
law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those
enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles, but
should also in their lives accord continuing fidelity to them.�

{themseting}
Copyright © 2016 Court of Appeals Website
Designed, developed and maintained by the MIS Division