The Lawyer's Oath

By J. Jose L. Sabio, Jr.

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 selfserving 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.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and
legal processes
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any mans
cause
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE A.M.
NO. 02-8-13-SC
RULE I IMPLEMENTATION
Section 1. Title. These Rules shall be known
as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Section 2. Purposes. These Rules shall be
applied and construed to advance the following
purposes:
(a) to promote, serve, and protect public
interest;
(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the
rules governing notaries public; and
(c) to foster ethical conduct among
notaries public
Section 3. Interpretation. Unless the context
of these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the
singular include the plural, and words in the
plural include the singular.
RULES II XIII (refer to the Rules of Court, pages
755-783)
SPOUSES SANTUYO V. HIDALGO
SANTUYO V HIDALGO
CORONA; January 17, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct
and Dishonesty
FACTS
- Petitioners
Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused
respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious
misconduct and dishonest for breach of his
lawyers oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land
covered by deed of sale
- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and
entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo
German over ownership of said land; German
presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo
denying authenticity of his signature on deed of

sale
Petitioners' Claim
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale
contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly
notarized document (including impression of his
notarial dry seal)
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature,
not being learned in technicalities surrounding
notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and
notarial register, and they could not have made
any imprint of his seal or signature.
Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for
disputed property.
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio
General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted that
he notarized several documents in that office.
- As a matter of procedure, senior lawyers
scrutinized documents, and only with their
approval could notarization be done.
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves)
would affix dry seal of junior associates on
documents relating to cases handled by the law
firm.
- He normally required parties to exhibit
community tax certificates and to personally
acknowledge documents before him as notary
public.
- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov
1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so as to
personally acknowledge another document)
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged
(strokes of a lady)
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on
vacation.
ISSUES
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed
of sale was forged
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence
HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio
The alleged forged signature was different from
Hidalgos signatures in other documents
submitted during the investigation.
Reasoning
Santuyos did not state that they personally
appeared before respondent. They were also not
sure if he signed the document; only that his
signature appeared on it. They had no personal
knowledge as to who actually affixed the
signature.
2. Yes.
Ratio
He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the
preparation and other mechanics of the
document for notarization to the office
secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and
making entries in notarial register.

Reasoning
Responsibility attached to a notary public is
sensitive, and respondent should have been more
discreet and cautious.
Disposition
Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission
as notary public for two (2) years for negligence
in the performance of duties as notary public.
SICAT V ARIOLA, JR.
PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in the Supreme Court.
Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
FACTS
- In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo
Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty.
Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of
Cainta, Rizal withviolation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by committing fraud,
deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly
the notarization of a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly
executed by one Juanito C. Benitez According to
complainant, respondent made it appear that
Benitez executed the said document on January
4, 2001 when in fact
the latter had already died on October 25, 2000.
- He alleged that prior to notarization, the
Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract
with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical
Management, represented by Benitez, for the
construction of low-cost
houses (project worth=11M). For the services of
the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta issued
a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of
3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and
Technical Management and/or Cesar Goco. The
check was received and cashed by the the latter
by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola.
Respondents' Comments
- Respondent explained that as early as May 12,
2000, Benitez had already signed the SPA. He
claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only on
January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it.
Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on
January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because
Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco
sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000.
Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day
he notarized it.
- Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for
forum shopping since similar charges had been
filed with the Civil Service Commission and the
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon which
complaints were dismissed because the assailed
act referred to violation of the IRR of the
Commission on Audit.
- The Court, in its resolution dated March 12,
2003, referred the complaint to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation. The IBP recommended that
respondent's notarial commission be revoked and
that he be suspended from the practice of law for
one year.
ISSUES
WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD

Ratio
The act was a serious breach of the sacred
obligation imposed by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Reasoning
The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on
October 25, 2000. The notarial acknowledgment
of respondent declared that Benitez appeared
before him and acknowledged that the
instrument was his clear and voluntary
act.Clearly respondent lied and intentionally
perpetuated an untruthful statement.
- Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in
question was superfluous and unnecessary, and
prejudiced no one, exonerates him of
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a
public document contravened one of the most
cherished tenets of the legal profession and
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of
every notarial act.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola,
Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let
copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office
of the Bar Confidant and entered in the records of
respondent, and brought to the immediate
attention of the Ombudsman.
UI V BONIFACIO
DE LEON; June 8, 2000
NATURE
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court.
Disbarment.
FACTS
Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio on the ground
of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit
relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the
proceeding before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio
attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate
that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985,
but according to the certificate of marriage
obtained from the Hawaii State Department of
Health, they were married in 1987. She claims
that she entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in
good faith and that herconduct cannot be
considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor
can it suggest moral indifference.
She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to
be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true
civil status, she parted ways with him.
ISSUE
WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an
immoral manner for which she deserves to be
barred from the practice of law
HELD
- No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar
candidate does not have the right to enjoy the
practice of the legal profession simply by passing
the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be
revoked, subject to the mandate of due process,
once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates
of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the
admission to the bar is that an applicant must
possess good moral character. More importantly,
possession of good character must be continuous
as a requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such
privilege.

- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral

conduct, which has been defined as the conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the
community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public
faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social
responsibility and thus must handle their affairs
with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent
in managing her personal affairs. However, the
fact remains that her relationship with Mr. Ui,
clothed as it was with what she believed was a
valid marriage cannot be considered immoral.
Immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral normsof society.
Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary
action, the same must be grossly immoral, that
is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
A member of the bar and an officer of the court is
not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships but must also behave himself so as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Atty. Bonifacios act of immediately distancing
herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil
status belies just that alleged moral indifference
and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting
the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession. On the matter of the falsified
certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human
experience and highly improbable that she did
not know the year of her marriage or that she
failed to check that the information in the
document which she attached to her Answer were
correct. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts
of malpractice.
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
ROMERO; July 31, 1997
FACTS
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon
Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal
profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams
on the fourth attempt.
- Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been
sweethearts, that a child was born to them out of
wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill his
repeated promises to marry her.
- Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in
Janiuay, Iloilo and were steadies since 1953.
Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960.
A son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11,
1964. Barranco promised to marry Figueroa after
he passes the bar exams. Their relationship
continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of
marriage. Barranco gave only P10 for the child on
Rafaels birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned
Barranco married another woman.
- From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss
and comments were filed.
- On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss
the complaint for failure of complainant to
prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of
time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the
lawyers oath.
- Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to
Figueroas opposition, resolved to cancel
Barrancos scheduled oath-taking.
- June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the
IBP. On May 17,
1997, IBP recommended the dismissal of the case
and that respondent be allowed to take the
lawyers oath
ISSUE

WON the facts constitute gross immorality

warranting the permanent exclusion of Barranco
from the legal profession
HELD
No. 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 acts which shows a moral
indifference to theopinion of respectable
members of the community.
-Barrancos engaging in premarital sexual
relations with Figueroa and promises to marry
suggest a doubtful moral character on his part
but itdoes not constitute grossly immoral
conduct.
- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose
sexual relations wereevidently consensual.
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is
already 62.
Disposition
Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is
allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon
payment of proper fees.
BARRIOS V MARTINEZ
PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004
FACTS
- Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP
22
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March
13, 1996, and the
Entry of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an
action for disbarmentagainst Martinez
- July 3, 1996 the Court required respondent to
comment on saidpetition within 10 days from
notice
- February 17, 1997 second resolution was
issued requiring respondent to show cause why
no disciplinary action should be imposed on him
for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution
and to submit
Comment
- July 7, 1997 the Court imposed a fine of P1000
for respondentsfailure to comply with previous
resolution within 10 days
- April 27, 1998 the Court fined the respondent
an additional P2000 and required him to comply
with the resolution under pain of imprisonment
and arrest for a period of 5 days or until his
compliance
- February 3, 1999 the Court declared
respondent Martinez guilty of
Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure and ordered his
imprisonment until he complied with the
aforesaid resolution
- April 5, 1999 NBI reported that respondent was
arrested in Tacloban City on March 26, 1999 but
was subsequently released after having shown
proof of compliance with the resolutions of
February 17, 1997 and April 27, 1998 by remitting
the amount of P2000 and submitting his overdue
Comment:
1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated
February 17, 1997 as he was at that time
undergoing medical treatment at Camp
Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte
2. Complainant passed away sometime in June
1997
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of
a civil case which was decided in respondents

favor. Respondent avers that as a result of his

moving for the execution of judgment in his
favorand the eviction of the family of
complainant, the latter filed the present
administrative case
- September 11, 1997 Robert Visbal of the
Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City
submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of
Court alleging that respondent Martinez also
stood charged in another
estafa case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as
well as a civil case involving the victims of the
Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the RTC of
Basey, Samar rendered a decision against him,
his appeal thereto having been dismissed by the
CA.
- June 16, 1999 the Court referred the present
case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation
- The report of IBP stated:
1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of
the case on the ground that the complainant died
and that dismissal is warranted because the case
filed by him does not survive due to his demise as
a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death.
The IBP disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule
139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the SC or the
IBP may initiate the proceedings when they
perceive acts of lawyers which deserve sanctions
or when their attention is called by any one and a
probable cause exists that an act has been
perpetrated by a lawyer which requires
disciplinary sanctions.
2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as
shown by respondent, is an utter lack of good
moral character
3. Respondents conviction of a crime of moral
turpitude clearly shows his unfitness to protect
the administration of justice and therefore
justifies the imposition of sanctions against him
4. It is recommended that respondent be
disbarred and his name stricken out from the Roll
of Attorneys immediately
- September 27, 2003 the IBP Board of
Governors passed a Resolution adopting and
approving the report and recommendation of its
Investigating Commissioner
- December 3, 2003 Atty. Martinez filed a Motion
for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation
- January 14, 2004 the Court required the
complainant to file a comment within 10 days
- February 16, 2004 complainants daughter
sent a Manifestation and
Motion alleging they have not been furnished with
a copy of respondents Motion
ISSUE
WON the crime respondent was convicted of is
one involving moral turpitude
HELD
Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything, which is
done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals. It involves an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties, which
a man owes his fellow men, or to society in
general, contrary to the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and woman,
or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty,
or good morals.
- The argument of respondent that to disbar him
now is tantamount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law is also untenable.

The practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of

a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those
who exercise this important function shall be
competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom
courts and clients may repose confidence.
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose
of preserving courts of justice from the official
ministrations of persons unfit to practice them.
-The court is also disinclined to take respondents
old age and the fact that he served in the

judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all,

the respondent was held to a higher standard for
it, for a judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence, and
his conduct should be above reproach.
- The Court based the determination of the
penalty from previously decided cases, holding
that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for
conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral
turpitude.
Disposition
Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys.