Apostasy in the Legal Profession

Upon taking a position in the legal profession, a lawyer vows solemnly to conduct
himself “with all good fidelity to the court”, and the Rules of Court constantly remind him “to
observe and maintain respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers”. Yet we are all
aware that there are many lawyers who became disloyal to their position as officers of the
court, hence being called as apostates. (Apostasy- act of giving up or renouncing belief or
allegiance/loyalty). These are lawyers who have not only intentionally disobeyed the ethics of
legal profession but also ignored or set aside the constraints or limitations of the lawyer’s
oath.

This may be pointedly illustrated by the following examples:

a. The lawyer who promptly and recklessly denounced the members of the Supreme
Court as disloyal to their office because they allegedly “do not themselves pass
upon” petitions for review filed with the court, asserting incorrectly that it is only
the clerk of court himself who decides whether to deny or not such petitions.

b. the lawyer who, frustrated after his petition being denied, libeled the Court as
manned by “people who commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity” (immunity from punishment) and who administer justice that is “not only
blind but also deaf and dumb” and proclaimed that” his client had become one of
the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy”.

c. The lawyer who, suddenly from nowhere, entered his appearance in the Court in a
case more than 2 years after the completed execution in the court below of the final
judgment of the Court.

d. The lawyer (if he can be considered one) who filed a petition that was completely
unintelligible and undecipherable.

e. The lawyer who, facing charges of moral turpitude that could lead to his disbarment,
still added his wrongdoings by subsequently submitting to the Court documents
falsified maliciously by him instead of begging mercy at the Court.

f. the lawyer who petitioned the Court for transfer of venue of case where he was a
counsel, falsely asserting that his life was threatened several times by the opposing
party.

g. the lawyer who advised his client to escape from prison after the petition for habeas
corpus filed by him in behalf of his client was decided unfavorably.

*habeas corpus- a writ issued in order to bring somebody who was detained in prison
into court, usually for a decision on whether the detention is lawful

h. Lawyers who, because of negligence, the right to appeal to the Supreme Court was
lost due to the lapse of the reglementary period, later filed special civil actions for
review, hoping that the Court would fail to discover their duplicity.

i. Lawyers who argue before the Court completely unprepared

j. Lawyers who lacks candor (candidness/honesty) and or are intellectually dishonest

when arguing before the Court
 k. lawyers who file petitions so cleverly prepared that while such petitions do not
intentionally tell a lie, they do not tell the whole truth because they omitted to state
the unfavorable facts against them.

l. lawyers who desperately want to win cases solely on the basis of technicality

m. lawyers who surreptitiously or secretly insert bizarre theories upon the Court

As mentioned in the following examples, one reasons for the disloyalty of some lawyers
are the frustration brought about by the alleged “improper” way of the Courts on rejecting
petitions. The practice of the court of rejecting petitions by minute resolutions only have
gained a lot of criticisms since lawyers and of course the public concerned would want to
know the facts and reasons for such denial. However it would be an enlightenment to see the
side of the Court itself. The truth is most petitions rejected by the Court are those that are
very unimportant and ought never been appealed at all. The proper role of the Supreme
Court is to decide only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have
immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. The reasons why the
Court could not be capable of giving out reasons for some denied petitions is it requires too
much time and different reasons frequently move different members of the Court in
concluding that a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable.

Here is a reply of Chief Justice Bengzon on a petitioner’s argument that a lack of merit
resolutions violates Section 12 of Article 8 of the Constitution (Novino et al. vs Court of
Appeals et al., L-21098, May 31, 1963):

…resolutions are not decisions within the above constitutional requirement. They
merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the
provisions of section 4 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court and all lawyers have all this
time so understood it. A petition to review a decision of the Court of Appeals is not a
matter of rightr, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully
explain the Court’s denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned
in the Court of Appeals opinion.”

Criticisms of Courts and Judges

It is natural for a lawyer to express dissatisfaction each time he loses what he really
believes to be a meritorious case that is why they are given a wide scope or leeway to differ
with and voice their disapproval not only on the court’s rulings but also the manner in which
they are handed down. Every citizen has also the right to comment and criticize the decisions
of the Court for they are public officers whose decisions and actions are of public property. So
it is the duty of a lawyer to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges
for they are not sacred nor holy individuals, not capable of erring.

Criticisms of the court has indeed been an important part of the traditional work of the
lawyer. As a citizen and officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise his
right, but also consider it his duty to avail of such right. HOWEVER, it should be taken
importance that these criticisms shall in good faith, and shall not go beyond the meaning of
decency and propriety. Extreme and unfair criticsm is a gross violation of the duty of respect
to courts. The Supreme Court, like any other government agency, does not have immunity
from criticism. But a critic made to them must possess the quality of judiciousness and must
be informed by perspective and infused by philosophy.
 The issue here is that many lawyers, instead of giving out fair criticisms to the Court,
has become an instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of being a mediator
for peace and conciliator for compromise, a master of technicality in the conduct of litigation,
and someone who proportionate his services to his clients based on the his fees.

Being a Lawyer: The Problem of Values

Section 1. THE TRADITIONAL PARADIGM: THE LAWYER AS PARTISAN

This refers to the traditional concept of a lawyer’s role as a loyal professional to his
clients. This conception is attacked by two criticisms:

1. Professional loyalty to a client demands an allocation of the lawyer’s time, passion and
resources in ways that are not always maximally conducive to the greatest good of the many.
- this is also being set on doctors as well. Both professions affirm the principle of primary
loyalty to the client.
-critics contend that it is wasteful and immoral that some of the finest talent in the legal
profession is devoted to the complex problems of the upper class or the rich, like corporate
finance or elaborate estate plans, while important public and private needs for legal services
are not met.
-this immorality is compounded when those preferred clients use the services of the lawyer to
avoid obligation in justice to society, and continue their legal domination over the groups who
have greater needs.

2. The means by which the professional loyalty appears to authorize tactics which procure
advantages for the client at the direct expense of the opposing party.
-harming the identified adversary

These two criticisms of the traditional concept, if left unanswered, will not put the
lawyer in jail but will leave him without a moral basis for his acts. The question is whether
despite of these two criticisms, a decent and morally sensitive person can still conduct himself
according to the traditional conception of professional loyalty and still believe that what he is
doing is morally worthwhile.

The following are answers to those criticisms:

Lawyer as a Friend
-as a professional person one has a special care for the interests of those accepted as clients,
just as his friends, family and he himself have a very general claim to this special concern.
-we recognize an authorization to take the interests of particular concrete persons more
seriously and to give them priority over the interests of the wider collectivity.
-Based on Utilitarian explanation, the tendency of persons to prefer interests of those who are
close to them is perfectly reasonable because we are more likely to be able to benefit those
people. Thus, if everyone is mainly concerned with those closest to him, the distribution of
social energies will be most efficient and the greatest good of the greatest number will be
achieved.
-a lawyer is considered a limited-purpose friend. Upon entering into contract with his client,
like a friend, he acts in his client’s interest and not his own, but the lawyer’s range of concern
is sharply limited.
 So let’s apply the notion of legal friendship in the first criticism which speaks of lawyers
preferring clients and not bestowing his skill in the way which best meets the social need.

-lawyer-client relation is a personal relation, and legal counsel is a personal service.

-Once the relation has been taken up, it is the client’s needs which overpowers-legally and
morally.

With regards to the second criticism which speaks of the morality in a lawyer’s action
of oppressing an opposing party to the advantage of his client, the lawyer must ensure he
does not violate the law in doing so. Example is the lawyer should not advise his client to
commit a crime, or to destroy evidence nor perjure (to tell a lie) himself on the witness stand.

Immoral means

A lawyer cannot also lie in his representative capacity. An example of this is when a
lawyer presents to the court a statement by his client he knows to be a lie. The lawyer is also
not morally entitled to engage his own person in doing personal harm to another.
-he must not attacked the other party as unworthy of respect.

The Lawyer’s Role in Society

1. Counsellor or legal adviser

2. Advocate

In either capacity, a lawyer must know the law. And the study of law it should be
aimed at the acquisition of a working knowledge of:
1. spirit of the law
2. mechanics

Spirit of the law has two aspects, namely:

1. the specific purpose of a given legislation
2. the part it plays within the context of the prevailing legal system

Important qualities in the study of law among other things are:

1. a rather broad literary background
-for a lawyer is basically an advocate, and as such, he must read and write a lot in order to
be able to express his thoughts in a language adequate enough to persuade and convince
others.
2. a good knowledge of the history of civilization, in general, and of the political development
of mankind, in particular,
-inasmuch as history supplies the events of the past, which are the basis of philosophy
3. Some proficiency in philosophy, especially in logic and mathematics
-a lawyer must think a good deal and draw valid conclusions, for which he needs the power of
analysis and the ability to engage in inductive, deductive and analogical reasoning
4. A substantial cultural foundation
-since law demands a great capacity for understanding and suitable appreciation of moral
values, as well as encompasses all fields of endeavor, for which an ecumenical store of
information is necessary.