The following cases are synthesis in relation to a lawyer’s good moral character and examples

of misconduct which warrants varying disciplinary actions as members of the bar.

In Re: Al Argosino, the Supreme Court emphasized to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer’s oath is
not just a ceremony or formality in order to practice law. Every lawyer must at all times be aware of
his actions in accordance with the promises he made when he took the lawyer’s oath. He must uphold
and conduct himself according to the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility to
administer justice at all times.
In Grande v. Atty. De Silva, the Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of deceit and gross
misconduct and in violation of the lawyer’s oath. In result, she was suspended from practicing law
for two years. According to the Court, the breach of trust by the respondent in issuing a bouncing
check constitutes deceit which is a violation of her oath. A lawyer may be disciplined for such deed
and such conduct is unbecoming of a member of the bar. He must at all times uphold the lawyer’s
Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court will not tolerate such misconduct that
would damage the reputation of an honorable profession.
In Tapucar v. Tapucar, the respondent attorney-at-law mistreated and abandoned his first wife
and their children and contracted another marriage while the first one subsists. These acts show
disrespect of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and the lawyer’s oath. Such
misconduct calls for an appropriate disciplinary action and in the case at bar, Atty. Tapucar faces
disbarment.
In Garrido v. Attys. Garrido and Valencia, the time elapsed between the immoral acts and the
filing of the complaint is immaterial in taking into the qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied
for admission to practice law. It is important to note that even if Garrido’s multiple violations of the
legal profession and immoral conduct of having multiple marriages were prior to his admission to the
practice of law, the Supreme Court held that the possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement to retain membership in the legal profession.
In Brennisen v. Atty. Contawi, the Supreme Court found the respondent to have acted with
deceit, when through the use of a falsified document, he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale
of his client’s property for his personal benefit. The respondent disposed of complainant’s property
without his knowledge or consent and took proceeds of the sale for his own benefit. He committed
acts which shows his unfitness and plain inability to discharge the bounden duties of a member of the
legal profession. The respondent in this case faces disbarment and his name ordered stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys.
The cases above show examples of a breach of the lawyer’s oath and several rules of the Code
of Professional Responsibility such as:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

The Court time and again reminds members of the Bar to live up to the standards of their promised
oath when they pursued law as a profession. Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency while upholding good moral character with values such as honesty, integrity and ethical
conduct.