0CLOIE ANNE C. SULLA ACTIVITY NO.

1
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ACTIVITY NO. 1
I. Answer the questions solely based on the given case/s.
1. Explain the concept of practice of law. What are its exceptions, if any? (Cayetano vs. Monsod,
People vs. Maceda, and OCA vs. Ladaga. For case references, please refer to the course outline
earlier sent to you.) 10 pts

Practice of law under the case of Cayatano vs Monsod means any activity, in or out court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. In
general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court.

This case also cited the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava which also explained
the concept of practice of law which said that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases
or litigation in court. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services,
contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.

However in the case of People vs Maceda it provided an instance wherein one is prohibited from
engaging in practice of law. In this case, private respondent Javellana a detention prisoner was not
allowed to practice his profession as a necessary consequence of his status as a detention prisoner.
The trial courts order was clear that private respondent "is not to be allowed liberty to roam around
but is to be held as a detention prisoner." The prohibition to practice law referred not only to a criminal
case, but to all other cases as well, except in cases where private respondent would appear in court to
defend himself.

And in the case of OCA vs Lagada it provided certain lawyers that are prohibited from engaging
the practice of profession which falls under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of
their profession. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. The said
section reads:
 SEC. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. – No judge or other official or employee of the
superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a
member of the bar or give professional advise to clients.

2. In RE: Application for Admission to Philippine Bar of Vicente Ching, explain the difference in
the Court’s ruling between this case and the case of Esteban Mallare. (5 pts)

In In RE: Application for Admission to Philippine Bar of Vicente Ching, the facts and
circumstances obtaining therein are very different from those in the present case, thus, negating its
applicability. First, Esteban Mallare was born before the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution and the
enactment of C.A. No. 625. Hence, the requirements and procedures prescribed under the 1935
Constitution and C.A. No. 625 for electing Philippine citizenship would not be applicable to him.
Second, the ruling in Mallare was an obiter since, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, it was not
necessary for Esteban Mallare to elect Philippine citizenship because he was already a Filipino, he
being a natural child of a Filipino mother.

In the case of Vicente Ching he was the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese
citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union born after the
effectivity of 1935 Constitution. Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of
fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally
expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing "upon reaching the age of majority." Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why
he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine
citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process.

3. What is good moral character? Did Meling, Alauya, De Silva and Argosino possess the
required good moral character in Re: Disqualification of Harold Meling, Alawi vs. Alauya,
Grande vs. De Silva and Petition of Al Argosino to take the Lawyer’s Oath? (10 pts)

In In Re: Disqualification of Haron S. Meling It has been held that Practice of law, whether
under the regular or the Sharia Court, is not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon
individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character
The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.

The standard form issued in connection with the application to take the 2002 Bar Examinations
requires the applicant to aver that he or she has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by
law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any
pending case or charge against him/her.Despite the declaration required by the form, Meling did not
reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done
under oath at that.

The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory
evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever cases are pending against the
applicant would aid the Court in determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a
lawyer. By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the
cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character
of the applicant.

In Alawi vs Alauya, the law requires that he exercise that right with propriety, without malice
or vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone; in a manner consistent with good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, supra; or otherwise stated, that he "act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good.

Righteous indignation, or vindication of right cannot justify resort to vituperative language, or

downright name-calling. As a member of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a
standard of conduct more stringent than for most other government workers. As a man of the law, he may
not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. As a judicial
employee, it is expected that he accord respect for the person and the rights of others at all times, and that
his every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical
deviation from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be excused, by his strongly
held conviction that he had been grievously wronged.

In Grande vs Atty, de Silva it is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent in issuing
a bouncing check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her oath, for which she should be
accordingly penalized.8uch an act constitutes gross misconduct and the penalties for such malfeasance is
prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27of the Rules of Court.

The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her
suspension or disbarment, because it is important that members of the legal brotherhood must
conform to the highest standards of morality. Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for
the profession, whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a
lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Such conduct is unbecoming
and does not speak well of a member of the bar, for a lawyers professional and personal conduct must at
all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion.

In Petition of Al Argosino to take the Lawyer’s Oath Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the
bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. However the Supreme Court allowed Mr. Argosino to
take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the
contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic
duties and public service. The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the
death of Raul Camaligan.

II. In Problem Areas in Legal Ethics by the good Justice Hilarion Aquino, which point do you agree the
most? Which point do you agree the least? (3 to 5 pages.) 25 points

In Problem Areas in Legal Ethics by the good Justice Hilarion Aquino, the point that i agree the
most is the doctrinal pronouncement that Law is perhaps the noblest profession.

The purpose of law in society is to preserve the moral sanctity that binds the society. Therefore,
the legal profession is considered a noble profession as it is the upholder and protector of law. It is a
service-oriented profession which aims to serve society. Lawyers are considered to be social engineers,
who bring about social change and development. Lawyer is to assist the court in the administration of
justice, the practice of law has a public utility flavour and, therefore, he must strictly and scrupulously
abide by the Code of Conduct behaving the noble profession. The legal profession is nothing without its
ideals and ethics.

Lawyers are strictly governed and remain bound by codes of conduct. Lawyers are not allowed to
act for a client where there is a potential conflict of interest. Once engaged, they owe a duty of skill and
care to their clients to ensure that all matters are conducted with reasonable diligence. Any breach of rules
would expose lawyers to various repercussions, such as being subjected to disciplinary proceedings,
payment of fines, suspension from practice or struck off from the Bar.

Apart from their duty to clients, lawyers are often amongst the first persons to speak up and fight
against injustice and bring about the required social and political changes. Where there are any violations
of human rights by the executive or law enforcement, lawyers will often bring such issues under the
spotlight. Lawyers also contribute to the society at large when their services are engaged to draft a new
piece of legislation or to amend existing ones to cater to the changing needs of society. In Court, lawyers
are involved in the development of law by advancing legal arguments that will have significant public
consequences.

While it could not be denied that legal services are indispensable to society, the stereotypes of
lawyers being untrustworthy and deceitful beings must be repaired. In fact, there have been several
mechanisms put in place to improve public confidence. Where there is a professional misconduct of
lawyers, complaints can be lodged against them with their Disciplinary Board.
 It is important for lawyers to bear in mind that they are first and foremost officers of the Court,
subject to the duty of upholding justice without regards to their personal interests. Lawyers must be
independent and speak truth to power, without fear or favor.

While the point that i least agree is the doctrinal pronouncement that Law is not a trade or
business but a profession. That the motivation for practicing law should not be to earn or gain from it but
to serve one fellowmen in view of justice.

As in this day and age, members of the bar often forget that the practice of law is a profession and
not a business. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not
a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary
consideration. Duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence may
be attained without making much money.