ACE THE BAR 💕

Fortune Favors the Brave ️

 HOME

 ABOUT ME

 CONTACTS

 REQUESTS AND SUGGESTIONS

September 08, 2020

POSSESSION OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AS

REQUIRED FOR THE PRACTICE OF LEGAL PROFESSION
Practice of Law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of
legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts, and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[1]
Lawyering is a noble profession exclusively granted to those who possess good
moral character. Since it is a privileged profession, the conduct of a lawyer is
strictly monitored and guided by the Code of Professional Responsibility
which lays down the rules that are needed to be observed not only by the
members of the Bar, but also to those who aspire to become one of them.
Lawyers play a vital role in enforcing the rights referring to life, liberty, and
property of a person. They also play an active part in demanding and claiming
redress for the violation and abuse of such rights. They are involved in the
administration of proper justice as they help the court in determining the
truth in every case litigated and to make sure that the rights and abuse of such
are properly administered.

Having said that the lawyers’ duty to the society, the legal profession, the court
and their clients are imbued with so much trust and confidence reposed in
them, they are expected to act with morality in every transaction and dealing
they are in.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately

affected with the public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State
(through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote
the public welfare. Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules
of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal
education requirement and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good
standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach
by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and
confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the continued
exercise of his professional privilege.[2]

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest

standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing
less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from
misdeeds, and act constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as
officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.[3]

To better understand what a good moral character is, the court defines the
same in its numerous cases decided. As the court held in the case of Royong
vs. Oblena[4], moral character is the objective reality of what a person really is
as distinguished to a good reputation, which is the opinion of the public
generally entertained of a person or the estimate in which he is held by the
public where he is known. Good moral character includes at least common
honesty. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro viewed the moral character as those
expected qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor,
intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility.[5]

Good moral character is the opposite of immorality, which is the indifference

to the moral norms of society. Immoral conduct has been defined as that
conduct, which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to
the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.[6] It must be
gross immoral conduct. It is determined to be gross when it is so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances
as to shock the community’s sense of decency.[7] Thus a lawyer who
abandoned his family and cohabiting with another woman is guilty of grossly
immoral conduct.[8]

Immoral conduct involves moral turpitude.[9] The latter has been defined as
everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act
of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man
owes his fellowmen, or to society in general.

Thus, the court has held in the case of Sps. Anaya vs. Alarez[10], that the act of
a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she
does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment is also a manifestation of
moral turpitude.

Moral character relates to how one views morals and ethics. If the Bar believes
that the person has poor moral character, the members may feel that such a
person does not adhere to the morals or ethics that would make a valuable
lawyer. Good moral character can prove that a person has the following
characteristics[11]:

Trustworthy. Trustworthiness is important as a lawyer because the clients

need to trust the ability and trust that the lawyer will do his part to help them
or otherwise conduct himself in an appropriate manner.

It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these legal practices be

performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound
moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to
clients which rests upon all attorneys.[12]
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve his
client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care
and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed on him.[13]

Inspirational. Lawyer’s good moral character could simply boost morale, show
good work ethic, and inspire those around him to strive for their goals.

Loyalty. Good moral character can also show that the lawyer has loyalty to
those who work with him. If the lawyer’s clients do not feel that he has a
loyalty to them or feel that he will treat them disrespectfully, they may not feel
the need to be loyal to the lawyer either.

Of course, good moral character goes far beyond these characteristics, and it
plays a significant role in lawyer’s future profession.

Honest. A lawyer must be honest from the moment he applies for admission
to the bar. Canon 1, Rule 1. 01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Dishonesty involves the act of lying
and cheating.

Thus in the case of In Re: Letter of the Up Law Faculty[14], it is held that
plagiarism is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s
work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at
worst. It constitutes a taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions,
including all the effort and creativity that went into committing such ideas and
expressions into writing and then making it appear that such ideas and
expressions were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty, pure, and
simple. A judicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows
dishonesty. Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to
allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by
dishonest means. Evidently, this is a complete perversion and falsification of
the ends of justice.

The Significance of Good Moral Character

It is a requirement for admission to the bar. Every applicant for admission as a

member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one
years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines, and
must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or pending in any court in the Philippines.[15]

In the case of Tumbaga vs. Teoxon[16], the court held that the good moral
character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for
admission to the Bar and must be maintained until retirement from the
practice of law. Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer
of the court, must not only be in fact of good moral character, but must also be
seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rules evidencing the
need for an applicant’s good moral character before admission to bar
examination. It laid there that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar[17] and that a lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be
unqualified in respect to character, education or other, or other relevant
attributes.[18]

The falsity referred to in Canon 7 must be knowingly committed by the person.

The good moral character must be possessed during application for bar
examination. The duties and responsibilities of a lawyer must be observed by
those aspiring law students even while in law school. Filing a false application
to be admitted in the bar examination cannot be tolerated and the applicant
may be denied to take the bar exam if the act was discovered before
examination. Supposed the applicant had taken, passed the bar exam, had
taken his oath, and signed the roll of attorneys but thereafter the act of
falsifying his application is discovered, his name will be stricken from the Roll
of attorneys.

In the case of Coronan vs. Coronan[19], the court held that the false
assumption of another person’s name, identity, and school records to obtain a
law degree and take the bar examinations exhibits dishonesty and utter lack of
moral fitness to be a member of the bar. Further in the case of Leda vs.
Tabang[20], a married lawyer’s declaration in his application for admission to
the bar examination that he was single was a gross misrepresentation of a
material fact made in bad faith, for which he should be made answerable.

To protect the bar from these kinds of acts and falsification or to avoid the
admission to the profession of candidates who are unfit or unqualified for
being deficient in either moral character or education, the rules provided the
aid of the members of the bar by non-execution of the affidavit of good moral
character in favor of the applicant who has not live up to the standards set by
law. The lawyer should volunteer information or cooperate in any
investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the bar examination. He should
also expose without fear or favor before the Supreme Court the corrupt or
dishonest conduct in the profession and should not hesitate to accept
professional employment against a lawyer who has wronged his client.

Continues possession of Good Moral Character is required to enjoy the

privilege of practicing the legal profession. The possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal
Profession. Members of the Bar are clearly duty- bound to observe the highest
degree of morality and integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of the
Bar.[21]

The rule requires every member of the bar to maintain good and regular
standing to continue his practice of law. In the case of Dantes vs. Dantes[22],
the purpose of the requirement of good moral character is to protect the
public, the public image of lawyers, the prospective clients and the errant
lawyers from themselves.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rules that must be
observed by the lawyer to maintain their good moral character while in the
practice of their legal profession. A lawyer shall always conduct himself
ethically and morally. The best way a lawyer can uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession is not to engage in any conduct or do any act
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor to behave, in his
public or private life, in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.[23]

Acts which adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, which
justifies suspension is Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude and fraudulent transactions.

Some lawyers have taken the forbidden path and, as a consequence, have been
disciplined or deprived of their privilege to practice law. Among those acts that
adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, which justifies
suspension from practice or disbarment include gross immorality. Gross
immorality is reflective of unfitness to practice. An act of personal immorality
on the part of a lawyer in his private relationship with the opposite sex may
put his moral character in doubt. However, to justify suspension or
disbarment, the act must not only be immoral; it must be grossly immoral as
well. Lawyers as guardians of the law play a vital role in the preservation of
society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of
their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent
obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.
[24]

In the case of Co vs. Bernardino[25], a lawyer may not be suspended or

disbarred for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity. The
misconduct outside of the lawyer’s professional dealings must be so gross a
character as to show him morality unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privilege which his license and the law confer on him.

The reason for this is that there is no distinction as to whether the

transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his
private life or in his private transaction because a lawyer may not divide his
personality as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
[26] Moreover, any gross misconduct committed by a lawyer whether in his
professional or in his private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the
penalty of suspension or disbarment since a good character is an essential
qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law.[27]

On the other hand, it has also been held in the case of Marcayda v. Mari
Wang[28], that mere intimacy between a man and a woman, either of whom
possesses no legal impediment to marry voluntarily carried on and devoid of
any deceit on the part of the lawyer is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled
as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him as a member
of the bar, even if as a result of such a relationship, the woman gave birth to a
child, and so long as he admits the paternity of and agrees to support, such a
child. He may be disciplined if he subsequently disowns, or refuses to support
the child.

He should instead, endeavor to conduct himself at all times in such a way as to

give credit to the legal profession and to inspire the confidence, respect, and
trust of his clients and the community. It is a fair characterization of the
lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield” in the defense
of rights and to ward off wrong. From the profession charged with these
responsibilities there must be expected those qualities of truth-speaking, of a
high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of
fiduciary responsibility, that has throughout the centuries been
compendiously described as “moral character”.[29]
The Code of Professional Responsibility also provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. In the case of
Adayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Espiritu[30],
the court held that the fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places
the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence, and
distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is
betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in
the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all members of the bar
are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public
confidence in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of their profession. The
nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral
character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to
the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s
good standing in the profession. Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to
practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually,
academically, and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards of
the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all time conduct themselves,
especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.

The practice of law being a privilege is not absolute. A lawyer cannot hold
such privilege to practice if his conduct towards the profession is clearly
different from what the law required them.

The Code of Professional Responsibility points the way to the aspiring and
provides standards by which to judge the transgressor. Each lawyer must find
within his own conscience the touchstone against which to test the extent to
which his actions should rise above minimum standards. But in the last
analysis, it is the desire for the respect and confidence of the members of his
profession and of the society which he serves, that should provide to a lawyer
the incentive for the highest possible degree of ethical conduct. The possible
loss of that respect and confidence is the ultimate sanction. So long as its
practitioners are guided by these principles, the law will continue to be a noble
profession. This is its greatness and its strength, which permit of no
compromise.[31]

The rules provide grounds on the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer which

concur the maintenance of a lawyer’s good moral character. A member of the
bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney-at-law by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or for gross misconduct in such
office, gross 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 willful disobedience or any lawful
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases
at law for the purpose of gain either personally or through paid agents or
brokers constitutes malpractice.[32]

The grounds enumerated under the Rules of Court are not exclusive and are so
broad as to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional
and private capacity.

In the case of Vitug vs. Rongcal[33], the court held that, while it is has been
held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two
unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such
illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of
fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under
penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat

everything as if it were a nail.” - Abraham Maslow

The hammer that lawyers have at their disposal is the law. The law is so
powerful that it can be used to abuse and to affect someone’s life, liberty, and
property. Thus to regulate the use of the law in an abusive way by the lawyers,
a conduct that is set by the rules through the Code of Professional
Responsibility and other relevant laws and regulations must be observed so
that the competence and trust in the legal system by the society may not be
lost.

[1] Plumptre v. Rivera, A.C. No. 1135, August 9, 2016

[2] In Re Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007

[3] Ui vs. Bonifacio, ADM. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

[4] 117 Phil 865, April 30, 1963

[5] Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, “Apostacy in the Legal Profession”, 64 SCRA 784

[6] Dantes vs. Dantes, A.M. No. 6846, September 22, 2004

[7] De Leon vs. Pedrena, A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013

[8] Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998

[9] OCA vs. Ruiz, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361, February 2, 2016

[10] A.C. No. 9436, August 1, 2016

[11] Wechsler, March 20,

2019, https://www.zdwlaw.com/blog/2019/03/why-is-good-moral-character-
important-as-an-attorney/

[12] Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3, pp. 665-666, citing In Re
Opinion of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc.
v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144

[13] Pichon vs. Agleron, A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014

[14] A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011

[15] Sec. 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court as amended by SC Resolutions dated
May 20, 1968 and February 13, 1992

[16] A.C. No. 5573, November 21, 2017

[17] Canon 7, Rule 7.01, Code of Professional Responsibility

[18] Canon 7, Rule 7.02, Code of Professional Responsibility

[19] A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016

[20] A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992

[21] De Leon vs. Pedreña, A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013

[22] A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004

[23] Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility

[24] Atty. Kapunan, L. Business Mirror: The Lawyer’s duties to the legal
profession, April 9, 2017, https://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/04/09/the-
lawyers-duties-to-the-legal-profession/

[25] A.C. No. 3919, January 26, 1998

[26] Funa, page 29

[27] Sosa vs. Mendoza, A.C. No. 8776, March 23, 2015

[28] 106 SCRA 591, 1981

[29] Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 37

[30] A.C. No. 5542, July 20, 2006

[31] Atty. Kapunan, Id.,

[32] Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court

[33] A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006

Share

Labels: Articles Legal Ethics Legal Profession Term Paper

COMMENTS

1.
Moshe StruganoAugust 26, 2022 at 11:55 PM

Israeli Lawyer Moshe Strugano says, Sexual interactions outside of marriage are regarded
as shameful and sinful because they show a conscious disdain for the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows that are upheld by our laws and the Constitution, even if not all forms
of extramarital relations are penalised by the law.

REPLY

Post a Comment
POPULAR POSTS

July 23, 2020

CASE DIGEST: PIMENTEL VS. LEB G.R. NO. 230642 & 242954. SEPTEMBER
10, 2019
Share

2 comments

October 21, 2020

DOLE, NLRC SAMPLE POSITION PAPER: HOW TO DRAFT
Share

10 comments

Powered by Blogger

MJ Gorospe J.D.
VISIT PROFILE
Followers
Total Pageviews
104524
BAR SUBJECTS
LAW TOPICS
Report Abuse