Ariel Joseph B.
Nicolas Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
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. Generally, to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill."
Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner"
and which is in many ways synonymous with the
word "lawyer." Today, although many lawyers do
not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that
the majority of lawyers are private practitioners.
At this point, it might be helpful to define private
practice. The term, as commonly understood,
means "an individual or organization engaged in
the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.).
Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole
practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called
"firms." The firm is usually a partnership and
members of the firm are the partners. Some firms
may be organized as professional corporations and
the members called shareholders. In either case,
the members of the firm are the experienced
attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or more
inexperienced salaried attorneys called
"associates."
FACTS:
Christian Monsod was nominated by President
Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of
the COMELEC. Commission on Appointments
confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman
of the COMELEC. Subsequently, he took his oath of
office and assumed office as Chairman of the
COMELEC.
However, Renato Cayetano opposed the
nomination arguing that the former does not
possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. He filed a petition for Certiorari and
consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman
of the Commission on Elections be declared null
and void.
ISSUE:
Whether Monsod possess the requirement of
having practiced law for at least ten years.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Monsod possess the requirement of having
practiced law for at least ten years.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
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. Generally, to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill."
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the
Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations
of 1960. He has also been paying his professional
license fees as lawyer for more than ten years.
He first worked in his father’s law office. Afterward,
he worked in the World Bank Group as an
operations officer for two years in Costa Rica and
Panama, which involved getting acquainted with
the laws of member-countries, negotiating loans
and coordinating legal, economic, and project
work of the Bank. Thereafter, he worked with the
Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of
an investment bank and subsequently of a
business conglomerate, and since 1986, has
rendered services to various companies as a legal
and economic consultant or chief executive officer.
As former Secretary-General (1986) and National
Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod’s work
involved being knowledgeable in election law. He
appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation
hearings before the Comelec.
A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is
a lawyer who handles the legal affairs of a
corporation. His areas of concern or jurisdiction
may include, inter alia: corporate legal research,
tax laws research, acting out as corporate
secretary (in board meetings), appearances in both
courts and other adjudicatory agencies (including
the Securities and Exchange Commission), and in
other capacities which require an ability to deal
with the law.
In a loan agreement, for instance, a negotiating
panel acts as a team, and which is adequately
constituted to meet the various contingencies that
arise during a negotiation. Besides top officials of
the Borrower concerned, there are the legal officer
(such as the legal counsel), the finance manager,
and an operations officer (such as an official
involved in negotiating the contracts) who
comprise the members of the team.
In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in
any debt restructuring program. For aside from
performing the tasks of legislative drafting and
legal advising, they score national development
policies as key factors in maintaining their
countries’ sovereignty.
Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even
more so than purely re negotiation policies,
demand expertise in the law of contracts, in
legislation and agreement drafting and in re
negotiation. Necessarily, a sovereign lawyer may
work with an international business specialist or
an economist in the formulation of a model loan
agreement. Debt restructuring contract
agreements contain such a mixture of technical
language that they should be carefully drafted and
signed only with the advice of competent counsel
in conjunction with the guidance of adequate
technical support personnel.
Hence, Atty. Monsod s past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement — that he has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.
RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OF
LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS
A.M. 21-06-20-SC, August 16, 2023
The lawyers' right to privacy, especially when it
comes to their social media account, is limited.
They cannot use this right as a shield against any
liability. At best, the right to privacy has limited
application to online activities of lawyers.
There is no assurance that posts on Facebook, or
any social media platform for that matter, can be
placed within the confines of privacy… Further, the
fact that the exchanges leaked means that his
social media account is not locked as he claims or
that there is a rat amidst them.
It is settled that in ascertaining whether there is a
violation of the right to privacy, the test is whether
a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
and whether the expectation has been violated.
This, in tum, entails a two-part test: (1) whether, by
a person's conduct, such individual has exhibited
an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation
is one that society recognizes as reasonable.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
Undoubtedly, inappropriate, disrespectful, and
defamatory language of lawyers, even in the
private sphere, are still within reach of this Court's
disciplinary authority.
Clearly, the principles of non-discrimination and
equality are deeply embedded in the Philippine
system of laws. As such, every member of the legal
profession is bound to observe and abide by them,
especially when dealing with LGBTQIA+
individuals.
FACTS:
In a resolution dated June 29, 2021, the Supreme
Court, motu proprio, required Atty. Antay, Jr., Atty.
Tabujara, Atty. Calderon, Atty. Nicanor, and Atty.
Navarette to show cause why no administrative
charges should be filed against them for their
Facebook posts talking about the judges in Taguig,
their sexuality and alleged corruption.
Atty. Antay, Jr. apologized for his posts and claimed
that the words he used was merely descriptive and
was not intended to disparage and disrespect
others.
Atty. Nicanor expressed his remorse and said that
he only made one comment directed to Atty.
Antay, Jr. jesting that the judge might like him.
Atty. Navarette claimed that he did not intend to
discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+
community. He added that he grew up and worked
with them. He also apologized for being not
sensitive enough.
Atty. Tabujara averred that he is a moderator of
numerous online pages and forums and every post
he makes is always made in good faith. He claimed
that he has LGBTQIA+ friends, colleagues and
classmates with whom he has smooth and close
relationships spanning decades.
ISSUES:
(a) Whether the lawyers can invoke the right to
privacy as a shield against administrative liability.
(b) Whether the lawyers committed violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Antay, Jr.,
Atty. Nicanor, Atty. Navarette, and Atty. Calderon.
However, the Court impose a fine against Atty.
Tabujara. All of them have a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
RATIO DECIDENDI
(a)
The Supreme Court said that the lawyers cannot
invoke the right to privacy as a shield against
administrative liability.
The lawyers' right to privacy, especially when it
comes to their social media account, is limited.
They cannot use this right as a shield against any
liability. At best, the right to privacy has limited
application to online activities of lawyers.
The Supreme Court cited Belo-Henares v. Atty.
Guevarra. Under this jurisprudence, the Supreme
Court held that before one can have an
expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it
is first necessary that said user manifests the
intention to keep certain posts private, through
the employment of measures to prevent access
thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can
materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of
Facebook's privacy tools. In other words,
utilization of these privacy tools is the
manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's
invocation of his or her right to informational
privacy.
There is no assurance that posts on Facebook, or
any social media platform for that matter, can be
placed within the confines of privacy. Further, the
fact that the exchanges leaked means that his
social media account is not locked as he claims or
that there is a rat amidst them.
It is settled that in ascertaining whether there is a
violation of the right to privacy, the test is whether
a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
and whether the expectation has been violated.
This, in tum, entails a two-part test: (1) whether,
by a person's conduct, such individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this
expectation is one that society recognizes as
reasonable.
(b)
The Supreme Court held that the lawyers violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 7.03 states that a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Lawyers are burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility and, hence, must handle their
personal affairs with great caution. Undoubtedly,
inappropriate, disrespectful, and defamatory
language of lawyers, even in the private sphere,
are still within reach of this Court's disciplinary
authority.
Furthermore, the principles of non-discrimination
and equality are deeply embedded in the
Philippine system of laws. As such, every member
of the legal profession is bound to observe and
abide by them, especially when dealing with
LGBTQIA+ individuals.
BELO-HENARES VS. ATTY. GUEVARRA
A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016
To address concerns about privacy, but without
defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with
different privacy tools designed to regulate the
accessibility of a user's profile, as well as
information uploaded by the user.
Consequently, before one can have an expectation
of privacy in his or her online social networking
activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary
that said user manifests the intention to keep
certain posts private, through the employment of
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility. This intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's
privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these
privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber
world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to
informational privacy.
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept
respondent's allegation that his posts were limited
to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no
assurance that the same - or other digital content
that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook
profile - will be safeguarded as within the confines
of privacy, in light of the following:
(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open
and connected by giving its users the tools to
interact and share in any conceivable way";
(2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend"
other users who are total strangers;
(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has,
usually by the hundreds; and
(4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the
former's post, or "tag" others who are not
Facebook friends with the former, despite its being
visible only to his or her own Facebook friends.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook
directed at complainant and BMGI, he disregarded
the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe
proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or
private life. He overlooked the fact that he must
behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the
court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead,
he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used
words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and
conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling
insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's
reputation.
FACTS:
Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares is the Medical
Director and principal stockholder of the Belo
Medical Group, Inc. engaged in the specialized
field of cosmetic surgery. On the other hand, Atty.
Roberto C. Guevarra is the lawyer of a certain Ms.
Josefina Norcio.
Norcio filed criminal cases against Belo-Henares
for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
buttocks.
In 2009, Atty. Guevarra wrote a series of posts on
his Facebook account insulting and verbally
abusing Belo-Henares that were intended to
destroy and ruin the company’s reputation.
Moreover, he posted remarks that allegedly
threatened complainant with criminal conviction,
without factual basis and without proof.
Hence, Belo-Henares filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Guevarra before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Guevarra argued that as filed in violation of
his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy
asserting that the posts quoted by complainant
were private remarks on his private account on
Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle
of friends of which Belo-Henares was not a part.
He also invoked his freedom of speech.
IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Guevarra be
suspended for a period of one year from the
practice of law, with a stem warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with more severely. Moreover, the IBP Board of
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Guevarra should be held
administratively liable.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Guevarra
administratively liable. He is suspended from the
practice of law for one year and is sternly warned
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Supreme Court rejected the defense of Atty.
Guevarra invoking his right to privacy.
To address concerns about privacy, but without
defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with
different privacy tools designed to regulate the
accessibility of a user's profile, as well as
information uploaded by the user.
Consequently, before one can have an expectation
of privacy in his or her online social networking
activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary
that said user manifests the intention to keep
certain posts private, through the employment of
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its
visibility. This intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's
privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these
privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber
world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to
informational privacy.
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept
respondent's allegation that his posts were limited
to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no
assurance that the same - or other digital content
that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook
profile - will be safeguarded as within the confines
of privacy, in light of the following:
(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open
and connected by giving its users the tools to
interact and share in any conceivable way";
(2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend"
other users who are total strangers;
(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has,
usually by the hundreds; and
(4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the
former's post, or "tag" others who are not
Facebook friends with the former, despite its being
visible only to his or her own Facebook friends.
Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook
posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another user
who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The
user's own Facebook friend can share said content
or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto,
regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter
is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also,
when the post is shared or when a person is
tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the
person who shared the post or who was tagged
can view the post, the privacy setting of which was
set at "Friends."
Furthermore, Atty. Guevarra’s inappropriate and
obscene language and his act of publicly insulting
and undermining the reputation of Belo-Henares
violate Rule 7.03, Rule 8.01, and Rule 19.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook
directed at complainant and BMGI, he disregarded
the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe
proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or
private life. He overlooked the fact that he must
behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the
court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead,
he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used
words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and
conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling
insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's
reputation.
ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Bar Matter No. 553, June 17, 1993
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
To engage in the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristic of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give advice or
render any kind of service that involves legal
knowledge or skill.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel,
and the preparation of legal instruments and
contract by which legal rights are secured,
although such matter may or may not be pending
in a court.
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney
at law generally engages in three principal types of
professional activity: legal advice and instructions
to clients to inform them of their rights and
obligations, preparation for clients of documents
requiring knowledge of legal principles not
possessed by ordinary layman, and appearance for
clients before public tribunals which possess power
and authority to determine rights of life, liberty,
and property according to law, in order to assist in
proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals
to carry out its services is not controlling. What is
important is that it is engaged in the practice of
law by virtue of the nature of the services it renders
which thereby brings it within the ambit of the
statutory prohibitions against the advertisements
which it has caused to be published and are now
assailed in this proceeding.
In the Philippines, we still have a restricted concept
and limited acceptance of what may be considered
as paralegal service. As pointed out by FIDA, some
persons not duly licensed to practice law are or
have been allowed limited representation in behalf
of another or to render legal services, but such
allowable services are limited in scope and extent
by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefor.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. He is
not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor
shall he pay or give something of value to
representatives of the mass media in anticipation
of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the
lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession.
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation
are prohibited.
The first of such exceptions is the publication in
reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative data. The law
list must be a reputable law list published primarily
for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical which is published principally for other
purposes.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is
also permitted. The card may contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm
which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and special branch of law practiced.
FACTS:
Petitioner Ulep filed a petition against Respondent
Legal Clinic, Inc. praying that the Supreme Court
order the respondent to cease and desist from
issuing advertisements similar to those already
released and to perpetually prohibit persons or
entities from making advertisements pertaining to
the exercise of the law profession other than those
allowed by law.
According to Ulep, the advertisements are
champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of
the community in the integrity of the members of
the bar.
In its answer to the petition, respondent argues
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in
the rendering of "legal support services" through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines and that they should be
allowed to advertise due to the ruling on John R.
Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona
decided by the United States Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
(a) Whether respondent is engaged in the practice
of law.
(b) Whether its service can properly be the subject
of the advertisements.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court resolved to restrain and enjoin
the respondent. from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement
in any form which is of the same or similar tenor
and purpose as the subject of the petition, and
from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity,
operation or transaction proscribed by law or the
Code of Professional Ethics.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
(a)
The Supreme Court held that the respondent is
engaged in the practice of law.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
To engage in the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristic of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give advice or
render any kind of service that involves legal
knowledge or skill.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel,
and the preparation of legal instruments and
contract by which legal rights are secured,
although such matter may or may not be pending
in a court.
In the practice of his profession, a licensed
attorney at law generally engages in three principal
types of professional activity: legal advice and
instructions to clients to inform them of their
rights and obligations, preparation for clients of
documents requiring knowledge of legal principles
not possessed by ordinary layman, and
appearance for clients before public tribunals
which possess power and authority to determine
rights of life, liberty, and property according to law,
in order to assist in proper interpretation and
enforcement of law.
The contention of respondent that it merely offers
legal support services can neither be seriously
considered nor sustained. Respondent corporation
gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers.
With its attorneys and so-called paralegals, it will
necessarily have to explain to the client the
intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the
proper course of action to be taken as may be
provided for by said law. That is what its
advertisements represent and for the which
services it will consequently charge and be paid.
That activity falls squarely within the
jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."
Furthermore, the Philippines still have a restricted
concept and limited acceptance of what may be
considered as paralegal service. As pointed out by
FIDA, some persons not duly licensed to practice
law are or have been allowed limited
representation in behalf of another or to render
legal services, but such allowable services are
limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or
regulations granting permission therefor.
(b)
The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s
service cannot be the subject of advertisements.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. He is
not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor
shall he pay or give something of value to
representatives of the mass media in anticipation
of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the
lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skill as in a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods.
Of course, not all types of advertising or
solicitation are prohibited.
The first of such exceptions is the publication in
reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative data. The law
list must be a reputable law list published primarily
for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade
journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes.
Furthermore, the use of an ordinary simple
professional card is also permitted. The card may
contain only a statement of his name, the name of
the law firm which he is connected with, address,
telephone number and special branch of law
practiced.
Moreover, the Supreme Court believes that with
the present situation of our legal and judicial
systems, to allow the publication of
advertisements of the kind used by respondent
would only serve to aggravate what is already a
deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession
whose integrity has consistently been under attack
lately by media and the community in general.
DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS VS. BAYOT
A.C. No. L-1117, March 20, 1944
FACTS:
Estanilo Bayot, who is an attorney-at-law, is
charged with malpractice for having published an
advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13,
1943. He admitted having published the
advertisement and asked for the mercy of the
court. Furthermore, he alleged that he only
published the advertisement once.
ISSUE:
Whether Bayot is liable for having published his
advertisement.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
The Supreme Court ruled that Bayot should be
reprimanded considering his plea for leniency and
his promise not to repeat the misconduct.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or thru paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. It is highly unethical for an
attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a
merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession
and not a trade. Furthermore, according to the
Supreme Court, the most worth and effective
advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, is
the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This
cannot be forced but must be the outcome of
character and conduct.

Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among

other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney
to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a
trade.

"The most worth and effective advertisement

possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This
cannot be forced but must be the outcome of
character and conduct."