Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Unlawful Conduct

Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of,

disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful." "Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily

imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element.1

Dishonest Conduct

To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy;

lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straight forwardness.2

By altering the material dates to make it appear that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed,

respondent committed an act of dishonesty. Under pertinent rules, dishonesty constitutes grave

misconduct upon which the Court imposed a one-year suspension on respondent therein for

inserting in the records of the case a certification of non-forum shopping and making it appear

that the same was already part of such records at the time the complaint was filed. A one-year

suspension was similarly imposed on a respondent for deceiving his client into believing that he

filed the petition on time when in fact it was filed on a much later date. It should be stressed that

brazenly resorting to such a legal subterfuge to mislead the court and to cover up for his failings

toward his client is not only a disgraceful indictment on respondent’s moral fiber and personal

fitness to his calling as a lawyer. It is also an embarrassment to his brethren in the Bar. Such

misconduct warrants a similar penalty for the Court cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to

besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.

Immoral or deceitful Conduct

Deceitful means proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that

is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party

imposed upon.3

Where a lawyer borrowed P500,000.00, executed promissory note, issued a postdated check but

later on bounced and failed to explain to the creditor despite receiving demand letters constitute

deceitful conduct.4

1
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. 1538.
2
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. 468.
3
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. 405.
4
Sosa vs. Mendoza A.C. No.8776
An immoral or deceitful conduct is one that involves moral turpitude. It includes anything done

contrary to justice, modesty or good morals 5, or to any vileness, baseness or depravity in the

private and social duties that a man owes to his fellowmen or society, contrary to accepted rule

of right and duty between man and man.6

This rule is furthered by Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court which provides that an

attorney may be removed or suspended from the bar for deceit or grossly immoral conduct:

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. (Emphasis supplied)

Good moral character is necessary for a lawyer to practice the profession. An attorney is

expected not only to be professionally competent, but to also have moral integrity. 7 An applicant

for admission to the bar should have good moral character. He is required to produce before this

Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him, involving

moral turpitude, has been filed or are pending in any court. If good moral character is a sine qua

non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral character is also a

requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be

terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character.8

However, to warrant an administrative penalty, a lawyer's immoral conduct must be so gross as

to be "willful, flagrant, or shameless," so much so that it "shows a moral indifference to the

opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." 9 Grossly immoral conduct

5
In re Basa, 41 Phil.275 (1920)
6
In re Gutierrez, 5 SCRA 661 (1962)
7
Arciga v. Maniwang, 193 Phil. 730 (198 l)
8
Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865
9
Arciga v. Maniwang, 193 Phil. 730, 735 (l981)
must be an act that is "so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to

be reprehensible to a high degree."10

There is no fixed formula to define what constitutes grossly immoral conduct. The determination

depends on the circumstances. It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible

standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and

obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies

that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral

conduct that warrants disbarment.

There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be in consonance with the canons of the moral

code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation from the

path of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's behavior to the

opposite sex where the question of immorality usually arises. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress

with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as "grossly

immoral conduct" will depend on the surrounding circumstances.11

Take the case of Soberano vs. Villanueva, 12 where the Court did not consider the extra-marital

relationship of the lawyer with the woman to be grossly immoral although contrary to modesty

and good morals:

Intimacy between a man and a woman who are not married, especially in the light of the

circumstances attending this case, is neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act nor

so unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or disciplinary action against the man as a

member of the Bar. This is particularly true in the case under consideration, for no less

than the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, where

respondent practices his profession, as well as Dean Jeremias Montemayor of the College

of Law of the Ateneo de Manila, and the Hon. Guillermo Santos, formerly Chairman of

the Agricultural Tenancy Commission, then Presiding Judge of the Court of Agrarian

Relations and Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, have vouched for the good

moral character of said respondent as a worthy and distinguished member of the Bar,

attested by his subsequent election as president of the Negros Occidental Bar

Association. Neither must we overlook the circumstance that, in view of the facts
10
Reyes v, Wong, 159 Phil. l 71, 177 (1975)
11
Id. at 735-7.36.
12
A.C. No. 215 December 29, 1962
 adverted to above and others revealed by the record — which, for obvious reasons, need

not be set forth in this decision — it was rather difficult for respondent to marry

complainant herein.

Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in the following cases:

(1) Where a lawyer succeeded in having carnal knowledge of a woman under promise of

marriage, which he refused to fulfill, although they had already a marriage license and despite

the birth of a child in consequence of their sexual intercourse; he married another woman, and

during the former’s pregnancy, the lawyer urged her to take pills to hasten the flow of her

menstruation and he tried to convince her to have an abortion, to which she did not agree.13

(2) Where lawyer made a woman believe that they were married in the City Hall of Manila, and,

after such fake marriage, they cohabited and she later give birth to their child.14

(3) Where lawyer abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne

him a child.15

(4) The conduct of a lawyer in making a dupe of a woman by living on her bounty and allowing

her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities, while dangling before her the

mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, keeping his

marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from the complainant, and trying to sponge

on her and persuade her to resume their broken relationship after the latter’s discovery of his

perfidy are indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the bar.16

(5) Where a public-school teacher, who was engaged to lawyer, was prevailed upon by him to

have sexual congress with him inside a hotel by telling her that it was alright to have sexual

intercourse because, anyway, they were going to get married. She used to give him money upon

his request. After she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, he refused to marry her.17

(6) Where lawyer, a married man, misrepresenting that he was single and making a promise of

marriage, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with a woman faked a marriage between her

and his own son. The lawyer wrote to the woman: "You are alone in my life till the end of my

13
Almirez v. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 169. See Sarmiento v. Cui, 100
Phil.1102
14
Cabrera v. Agustin, 106 Phil. 256
15
Toledo v. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768. As to disbarment for contracting a bigamous marriage, see Villasanta v. Peralta,
101 Phil. 313
16
Bolivar v. Simbol, 123 Phil. 450
17
Quingwa v. Puno, Administrative Case No. 389, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 439
years in this world. I will bring you along with me before the altar of matrimony." "Through

thick and thin, for better or for worse, in life or in death, my Josephine you will always be the

first, middle and the last in my life."18

(7) Where a lawyer, who had been having adulterous relations for fifteen years with a married

woman separated from her husband, seduced her eighteen-year-old niece who became pregnant

and begot a child.19

Acts which DO NOT constitute gross immorality:

1.Stealing a kiss from a client 20

2. Live-in relationship involving two unmarried persons;

3. Failure to pay a loan

General rule: A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay a loan. The proper remedy is

the filing of an action for collection of a sum of money in regular courts.21

Exception: deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks.22

Moreover, the Court has been consistent in ruling that the determination of what constitutes

immoral conduct should be independent of religious beliefs and ought to be based cm secular

moral standards.

Thus, in the case of Perfecto vs. Esidera23:

The non-establishment clause bars the State from establishing, through laws and rules,

moral standards according to a specific religion. Prohibitions against immorality should

be based on a purpose that is independent of religious beliefs. When it forms part of our

laws, rules, and policies, morality must be secular. Laws and rules of conduct must be

based on a secular purpose.

18
Mortel v. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586
19
Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865
20
Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007
21
Toledo v. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419, 1999
22
Lao v. Medel, A.C. No.5916, July 1, 2003
23
764 Phil. 384 (2015)
 In the same way, this court, in resolving cases that touch on issues of morality, is bound

to remain neutral and to limit the bases of its judgment on secular moral standards. When

laws or rules refer to morals or immorality, courts should be careful not to overlook the

distinction between secular and religious morality if it is to keep its part in upholding

constitutionally guaranteed rights.

There is the danger of ''compelled religion" and, therefore, of negating the very idea of

freedom of belief and non-establishment of religion when religious morality is

incorporated in government regulations and policies ...

This court may not sit as judge of what is moral according to a particular religion. We do

not have jurisdiction over and is not the proper authority to determine which conduct

contradicts religious doctrine. We have jurisdiction over matters of morality only insofar

as it involves conduct that affects the public or its interest.

This principle extends to the determination of morality in administrative cases against lawyers

and judges. To be guilty of "immorality" under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a

lawyer's conduct must be so depraved as to reduce the public's confidence in the Rule of Law.

Religious morality is not binding whenever the court decides the administrative liability of

lawyers and persons under its supervision. At best, religious morality weighs only persuasively.

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.

The Lawyer’s Oath expressly states the duty to “do no falsehood nor consent to its commission”

The responsibilities of a lawyer are greater than those of a private citizen. He is looked up to in

the community. It is not enough that the lawyer himself upholds the Constitution, follows the

laws and upholds the Rule of Law. In addition, the lawyer himself is mandated not to counsel

other people or abet the activities of other people which defy the law or denigrate the legal

system. The lawyer is called upon to take another step further in promoting respect for the laws
and the Rule of Law. If he counsels another to defy the law, he shall be held to account under

this Rule.

A lawyer should not promote nor hold an organization known to be violating the law nor assist it

in a scheme which is dishonest. He should not allow his services to be engaged by an

organization whose members are violating the law and defend them should they get caught.

A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance

of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. 24 A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest

scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action

against the lawyer.25

Defiance of the Law

Where a lawyer advised complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to

evade payment of capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal

processes and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of the law.26

A lawyer cannot shift the blame to his client to by alleging that the latter swayed him to commit

simulations. Being a lawyer, he was aware of and was bound by the ethical canons of the Code

of Professional Responsibility to always act with honesty and to obey the laws of the land.27

In the case of Donton vs. Tansingco 28, the Court held the latter guilty of violating Rule 1.02 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility.

By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified

from owning real property. Yet, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted

that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent,

however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in

complainant’s name. But respondent provided "some safeguards" by preparing several

documents, including the Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stier’s

recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainant’s name.

24
E. Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics 35-36 (1994).
25
In re: Terrell, 2 Phil. 266 (1903).
26
Hsia vs. Mesina A.C. No. 4904
27
Madrid vs. Rivera A.C. No. 11256
28
A.C. No. 6057 June 27, 2006
 In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional

prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said documents.

Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the

Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against

foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an

unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be

suspended.

The Court also imposed the penalty of suspension upon an attorney who prepared a document

stipulating, among others, that the contracting parties, who are husband and wife, authorized

each other to marry again and that each renounced whatever right of action one might have

against the party so marrying.29 Even if consent was given by either spouses, the advice given by

the respondent, the preparation and acknowledgment by him of the contract are contrary to law,

moral, and tend to subvert the vital foundation of the family.

Same reason was applied by the Court in the case of Balinon vs. De Leon30. Respondent De Leon

admits his continuous cohabitation with Regina S. Balinon during his subsisting marriage with

Vertudes Marquez and the fact the he prepared and subscribed the affidavit above quoted, but

contends that he has not been finally convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; that while

the affidavit may be illicit, it is not an agreement but a mere innocent unilateral declaration of

facts; and that while the execution of said affidavit may be illegal and void ab initio, no specific

law has been violated so as to give rise to an action. Respondent Velayo alleges, on the other

hand, that his participation was limited to the task of notarizing the affidavit, as a matter of

courtesy to a brother lawyer and without knowing its contents, and this allegation is corroborated

by respondent De Leon who further stated that no consideration whatsoever passed to the former.

However, the Court emphasized that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from

office as a lawyer on grounds other than those enumerated by said provision. Moreover, De Leon

was able to prepare the affidavit in question because he is a lawyer, and has rendered

professional service to himself as a client. He surely employed his knowledge of the law and

skill as an attorney to his advantage.31

29
In re Roque Santiago, 40 Off. Gaz. [7th Supp.] p. 208
30
A.C. No. 104 January 28, 1954
31
Manalo vs. Gan, Adm. Case No. 72, May 13, 1953