D.

THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

Representing conflicting interests-

Canon 15, Rule 15.03 which states:

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests

except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.

This rule “prohibits a lawyer from representing new

clients whose interests oppose those of a former
client in any manner, whether they are parties in the
same action or in totally unrelated cases” (Lim et al.,
v. Villarosa AC No. 5303, June 15, 2006).

To be a counsel of record is not required-

In Artezuela v. Maderazo, AC No. 4354, April 22, 2002) the

Court ruled that “to be guilty of representing conflicting
interests, a counsel of record of one party need not also be
counsel of record of the adverse party. He does not have to
publicly hold himself as counsel for the adverse party, nor
make his efforts to advance the adverse party’s conflicting
interest of record --- although the circumstances are the
most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge. It is
enough that counsel of one party had a hand in the
preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming
adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original
client. To require that he also be counsel of record of the
adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of
deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of
disloyalty.”

The duration of time that has elapsed is immaterial-

In Abaqueta v. Florido, AC No. 5948, January 22, 2003, the
Court held that where the lawyer-client relationship with the
first client was terminated 8 years before the creation of the
lawyer-client relationship with the new client that has an
adverse interest with the first client, there is still a conflict of
interest.

In Natan v. Capule, AC No. 76, July 23, 1952, the Court also
said that termination of previous engagement is not a
ground to disregard the prohibition because a client’s
confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the
expiration of the professional employment.

Note that there need not be an actual double dealing or

damage to an interest, the offense is committed by the mere
appearance of double-dealing or threat to a client’s interest.

Test of conflict-

In Santos Sr. v. Beltran, AC No. 5858, Dec. 11, 2003,

the Court stated that one of the tests of
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of
the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance of that duty.

Anastacio N. Teodoro III vs. Atty. Romeo S.

Gonzales. A.C. No. 6760. January 30, 2013
The facts of this case show that the respondent retained
clients who had close dealings with each other. The
respondent admits to acting as legal counsel for Cirilo
Arellano, the spouses Ylaya and Reynold at one point during
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 2902. Subsequently, he
represented only Reynold in the same proceedings, asserting
Reynold’s ownership over the property against all other
claims, including that of the spouses Ylaya.

Ruling:

When applicable-

The proscription against representation of conflicting

interest applies "even if the lawyer would not be
called upon to contend for one client that which the
lawyer has to oppose for the other, or that there
would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of
the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated.

The sole exception is provided in Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility – if there is a written
consent from all the parties after full disclosure.

Reason behind the rule:

The relationship between a lawyer and his client

should ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. Necessity and public interest
require that this be so.

Thus, a lawyer may not accept a retainer from a defendant

after he has given professional advice to the plaintiff
concerning his claim; nor can he accept employment from
another in a matter adversely affecting any interest of his
former client. It is his duty to decline employment in any of
these and similar circumstances in view of the rule
prohibiting representation of conflicting interests.

Rule proscribing conflict of interest applies even after

the termination of lawyer-client relationship-

Ferdinand A. Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, A.C. No.

6664, July 16, 2013.
Rationale:

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest is grounded in

the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout the
course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client’s case,
including the weak and strong points of the case.
Knowledge and information gathered in the course of
the relationship must be treated as sacred and
guarded with care. It behooves lawyers not only to
keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
paramount in the administration of justice. The
nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust
and confidence of the highest degree.

The spirit behind this rule (that the rule against

representing conflicting interests continues to apply
even after the) termination of the attorney-client
relationship is that the client’s confidence once given
should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the
professional employment. Even after the severance
of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that
will injuriously affect his former client in any matter
in which the lawyer previously represented the
client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of
the client’s confidences acquired in the previous
relation.

Suspended for 2 years

Duty to hold in trust or being accountable for money

received from client-

“When a lawyer receives money from the client for a

particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the money was
spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use
the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must
immediately return the money to his client.”

Gloria P. Jinon v. Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz; A.C. No.

9615. March 5, 2013
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as
for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for
the purpose, should be returned to the client
immediately. The Court held in Dhaliwal v. Dumaguing that
a lawyer’s failure to return the funds he holds on behalf of a
client, despite latter’s demand, gives rise to the presumption
that he has appropriated the same for his own use and
constitutes a gross violation of general morality and
professional ethics.
Suspended for 1 year
 Azucena Segovia-Ribaya v. Atty. Bartolome C.
Lawsin, A.C. No. 7965, November 13, 2013
Atty. Lawsin undertook to process the registration and
eventually deliver, within a period of 6 months, the
certificate of title over a certain parcel of land (subject land)
in favor of complainant acting as the representative of the
Heirs of the late Isabel Segovia. Atty. Lawsin received from
complainant the amounts of P15,000 and P39,000 to cover
for the litigation and land registration expenses, respectively.
Atty. Lawsin, however, failed to fulfill his undertaking and
failed to return the money to complainant.

Verily, a lawyer’s duty to his client is one essentially

imbued with trust so much so that it is incumbent
upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts
towards its faithful compliance.

CF Sharp Inc., vs. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres (AC No.

10438, September 23, 2014)

Disbarred

In this case, the IBP Investigating Commissioner correctly

found that complainant had exposed respondent’s modus
operandi of repeatedly requesting the issuance of checks
purportedly for the purpose of settling seafarers’ claims
against the complainant’s various principals, only to have
such checks (except for the check in the amount of
P145,650.00 issued to Delgado) deposited to an
unauthorized bank account, particularly International
Exchange Bank, Banawe, Quezon City Branch, under
Account No. 003-10-06902-1.
Clearly, respondent’s acts of misappropriation constitute
dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence reposed in him by
the complainant, and betrayal of his client’s interests which
he is duty-bound to protect. They are contrary to the
mandate of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR which provides
that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Such malfeasance is not only
unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal
profession; it also reveals a basic moral flaw that makes him
unfit to practice law.

As already discussed, respondent’s conduct of

misappropriating complainant’s money has made him unfit
to remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen
below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral acts. As a
member of the Bar, he is expected at all times to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission
which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed
in him by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear
that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and
confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only
the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the
same, as in this case.

The lawyer has the duty to account for money

received for or in behalf of the client-

Viray vs. Atty. Eugenio T. Sanicas (AC No. 7337,

September 29, 2014)
The lawyer received payments without authority from the
client and unilaterally applied them to his claim for attorney’s
fees and reimbursement for expenses incurred allegedly in
connection with the case-
The Court is not impressed. As aptly observed by the
Investigating Commissioner, other than his self-serving
statements, there is nothing in the records, which
would support respondent’s claim that he was
authorized to receive the payments. Neither is there
proof that complainant agreed to pay him additional 25%
attorney’s fees and reimburse him for all expenses he
allegedly incurred in connection with the case. Respondent
did not present any document, retainer’s agreement, or
itemized breakdown of the amount to be reimbursed to
support his claim.

Even if authorized he must account promptly-

In any event, even assuming that respondent was
authorized to receive payments, the same does not exempt
him from his duty of promptly informing his client of the
amounts he received in the course of his professional
employment.
“The fiduciary nature of the relationship between
counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or
received for or from the client. He is obliged to
render a prompt accounting of all the property and
money he has collected for his client.”
“The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s
fees on the money in his hands collected for his client
does not relieve him from the obligation to make a
prompt accounting.”
Moreover, a lawyer has no right “to unilaterally
appropriate his client’s money for himself by the
mere fact alone that the client owes him attorney’s
fees.”

In sum, “respondent’s failure to immediately account for and

return the money when due and upon demand violated the
trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and
moral soundness, and warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action.”
Suspended for 1 year.

On Borrowing money from a client-

Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case and by
independent advice.
Deliberate failure to pay a just debt and issuing
worthless checks is gross misconduct-

Victoria C. Heenan v. Atty. Erlinda Espejo, AC No.

10050, Dec. 3, 2013

Facts:
Heenan filed a complaint against Atty. Espejo for violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath due to the latter’s failure to pay a loan
and issuing worthless checks.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found Atty. Espejo guilty of gross

misconduct. The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct,
for which a lawyer may be sanctioned. Verily, lawyers
must at all times faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients.
The prompt payment of financial obligations is one of
the duties of a lawyer.
The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and
issued the worthless checks in her private capacity
and not as an attorney of Heenan is of no moment. A
lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice
and dishonesty in his profession but also for gross
misconduct outside of his professional capacity. While
the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for
misconduct committed in his non-professional or private
capacity, the Court may be justified in suspending or
removing him as an attorney where his misconduct outside
of the lawyer’ professional dealings is so gross in character
as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the privilege
which his licenses and the law confer.
Thus, Atty. Espejo was suspended from the practice of law
for two (2) years.
Natividad P. Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero v. Atty.
Ivan M. Solidum, Jr., A.C. No. 9872, January 28,
2014.

The Supreme Court found Atty. Solidum, Jr. guilty of

engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his
professional capacity with respect to his client, Presbitero,
and in his private capacity with respect to complainant
Navarro. Atty. Solidum borrowed money from both
Presbitero and Navarro who allowed Atty. Solidum, Jr. to
draft the terms of the loan agreements. Atty. Solidum, Jr.
drafted the MOAs knowing that the interest rates were
exorbitant. Later, using his knowledge of the law, he
assailed the validity of the same MOAs he prepared. He
issued checks that were drawn from his son’s account whose
name was similar to his without informing
complainants. Further, he did not pay nor undertook to pay
the loans he obtained from complainants.

The Supreme Court held:

Atty. Solidum, Jr. violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Conduct, as used in the Rule, is
not confined to the performance of a lawyer’s professional
duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity.

Sps. Concepcion vs. Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa (AC. No.

10681. February 3, 2015)

Respondent borrowed money from complainants who were

his clients and whose interests, by the lack of any security
on the loan, were not fully protected. Owing to their trust
and confidence in respondent, complainants relied solely on
the former’s word that he will return the money plus interest
within five (5) days. However, respondent abused the same
and reneged on his obligation, giving his previous clients the
runaround up to this day.

Accordingly, there is no quibble that respondent violated

Rule 16.04 of the CPR.

Her act of borrowing money from a client was a violation of

Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client

unless the client’s interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case and by independent advice.

A lawyer’s act of asking a client for a loan, as

what respondent did, is very unethical. It
comes within those acts considered as abuse
of client’s confidence. The canon presumes that
the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to
use all the legal maneuverings to renege on her
obligation.

In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also

violated Canon 7 of the CPR which reads:

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE

INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and

by blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused
the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and,
in so doing, failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. Thus, he should be equally held
administratively liable on this score.

Malpractice.

Edgardo Areola v. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza, A.C.

No. 10135, January 15, 2014.

A Complaint was filed against Atty. Mendoza of the Public

Attorney’s Office (PAO) for violation of the attorney’s oath,
deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of
the charges against Atty. Mendoza which she admitted is
telling her clients — “Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin
at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.”
The Supreme Court held that Atty. Mendoza made
irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02
and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that “a lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”
Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer shall impress upon
his client compliance with the laws and the principles
of fairness.”

However, while her remark was inappropriate and

unbecoming, her comment was not disparaging and
reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the
Judiciary. Thus, she was only reprimanded and sternly
warned.
The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente
Cadavedo and Benita Arcoy-Cadavedo (both
deceased), substituted by their Heirs, namely:
Herminia, Pastora, Heirs of Fructiosa, Heirs of
Raquel, Evangeline, Vicente, Jr., and Armand, all
surnamed Cadavedo, G.R. No. 173188. January 15,
2014.

Spouses Cadavedo hired Atty. Lacaya on a contingency

basis.

The Supreme Court held that spouses Cadavedo and Atty.

Lacaya agreed on a contingent fee of ₱2,000.00 and not, as
asserted by the latter, one-half of the subject lot. The
stipulation contained in the amended complaint filed by Atty.
Lacaya clearly stated that the spouses Cadavedo hired the
former on a contingency basis; the Spouses Cadavedo
undertook to pay their lawyer ₱2,000.00 as attorney’s fees
should the case be decided in their favor.

Granting arguendo that the spouses Cadavedo and Atty.

Lacaya indeed entered into an oral contingent fee
agreement securing to the latter one-half of the subject lot,
the agreement is void. The agreement is champertous and is
contrary to public policy.

Champertous contract prohibited

Any agreement by a lawyer to “conduct the litigation

in his own account, to pay the expenses thereof or to
save his client therefrom and to receive as his fee a
portion of the proceeds of the judgment is obnoxious
to the law.”

The rule of the profession that forbids a lawyer from

contracting with his client for part of the thing in
litigation in exchange for conducting the case at the
lawyer’s expense is designed to prevent the lawyer
from acquiring an interest between him and his
client.

Factors that create integrity risks

According to Samira Lindner, Transparency International 1

April 2014 Number: 2014:07 in an article published via
www.transparency.org:

There are a variety of factors that give rise to corrupt

activities and create an environment conducive to
corruption, thus:

Lack of anti-corruption awareness

One of the major problems cited by studies on the matter is

the lack of awareness of a) the international anti-corruption
provisions among legal professionals and b) the risk that
lawyers could be complicit in corrupt transactions. Nearly
40% of respondents of the above-mentioned 2010 IBA-
OECD-UNODC survey had never heard of the major
international instruments that make up the international
anti-corruption regulatory framework, such as the OECD
Anti-Bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against
Corruption (IBA, OECD, UNODC 2010). The 2013 survey
similarly showed that many clients are not confident in their
lawyers’ anti-corruption knowledge and expect a higher
degree of anticorruption knowledge and awareness (IBA,
OECD, UNODC 2013). This can create a high level of risk for
corruption as lawyers may not be aware of international
obligations on issues such as foreign bribery of public
officials, and clients are thus left ill-advised. In the past, this
lack of awareness has also been used as a defence against
corruption charges. For example, in the USA, a lawyer was
charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA). He allegedly paid and authorised the
payment of bribes to officials in Azerbaijan and drafted the
legal documents used for the payments (Arnold and Porter
2013). The lawyer was charged according to the FCPA as it
existed before amendments in 1998, so he was able to
defend himself by arguing he had not been informed that
the FCPA applied to his conduct as a non-resident foreign
national (Arnold and Porter 2013).

In particular, it appears that anti-corruption knowledge is

not trickling down to the more junior and younger
employees (IBA, OECD, UNODC 2010). Partners showed a
level of awareness more than five times higher than
associates, indicating that anti-corruption information within
firms may not be disseminated to the firm’s lower ranks
(IBA, OECD, UNODC 2010).

Economic incentive

Another factor arguably conducive to corruption concerns

economic incentives. Nicola Bonucci, Chair of the IBA Anti-
Corruption Committee, explains “in today’s difficult economic
climate, some law firms may tend to cross legal lines to
obtain business” (Ethics Intelligence 2012). He argues that
these benefits are only shortterm, however. Fasterling
(2009) argues that in the current climate there is a great
amount of competition both within and between law firms
for lucrative clients. This can conflict with the core values of
legal ethics (Fasterling 2009).

Some argue that the interests of clients and lawyers have

become too closely aligned in contemporary commercial
legal services (Griffiths-Baker and Moore 2012). Lawyers are
under pressure to create top value for clients (Fasterling
2009). It is argued that this pressure may lead lawyers to
find ways to circumvent laws and standards. For example,
experts suggest that the advice sought by companies from
commercial lawyers often relates to restrictive market
practices (Mescher 2008). Mescher (2009) also argues that
often both in-house and external lawyers give counsel to
commercial clients that only takes into consideration the
client’s commercial interests rather than the broader
foundation of professional ethics that one expects and
requires from lawyers.

Compromised independence

Another component of the ethical challenges facing the legal

profession is when the independence of lawyers – one of the
key common principles of legal practice – is compromised.
Lack of independence may put lawyers at risk of undue
influence and cause them to act in a way that is not ethically
sound. The IBA provides a list of scenarios in which a
lawyer’s independence will or may be at risk or impaired
(IBA 2011):

• when the lawyer is involved in a business transaction with

a client without proper disclosure and client consent
• when the lawyer is involved in a business occupation or
activity whilst acting for a client and such an interest may
take precedence over the client’s interest

• when the lawyer knowingly acquires an ownership,

possessory or security interest adverse to the client (except
where authorised by law)

• when the lawyer holds or acquires a financial interest in

the subject matter of a case which the lawyer is conducting
(except where authorised by law)

The risks to the independence of lawyers go beyond the

individual actions of lawyers. If the administration of the
legal profession is affected by undue or improper influence,
whether from the government, the courts or otherwise, this
can also undermine the independence of legal professionals
(IBA 2011).

Relationship to judiciary

The proximity of some law firms to the judiciary and public

authorities is also recognised as a threat to both the
independence of lawyers and of the judicial system. The
results from the 2013 IBA-OECD-UNODC survey reveal that
clients are concerned about how external legal professionals
foster their relationships with judges, courts, prosecutorial
services and court clerks, particularly in cases where the
client is being represented before these authorities (IBA,
OECD,UNODC 2013).

Some respondents expressed concerns about the lobbying

and quasi-lobbying practices of their legal advisers (IBA,
OECD, UNODC 2013).
Misuse of attorney-client privilege

Attorney-client privilege is seen as a cornerstone of legal

practice. However, in the context of corruption scandals,
there is an ongoing debate about the extent of this privilege
and whether it assists in covering up corrupt activities. In
recent years, there have been some regulatory moves
towards curbing this privilege when related to illegal/corrupt
activity. There are now many jurisdictions with legal
obligations relevant to the reporting of corruption. Most of
these relate to antimony laundering legislation (AML) and
corporate governance laws. In the European system, the
Third AML Directive from 2005 requires financial operators
including lawyers to report any suspicious or unusual
transactions or activities, and also includes offenses such as
“tipping off” a client when investigations are underway
(Arnold and Porter 2013). Aside from AML regulations, the
US has strong reporting obligations under the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 that applies topublic companies trading on
a US exchange (Arnold and Porter 2013).

However, in some countries such regulations are absent as

they are seen to greatly restrict attorney-client privilege. In
fact, some jurisdictions actually make this kind of reporting a
criminal offence, or a breach of professional duties where it
relates to a client, such as in Argentina (Arnold and Porter
2013).

Philippine setting:

Sec. 24, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

“Disqualification by reason of privileged communication-

The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in

confidence in the following cases:

Xxx

(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be

examined as to any communication made by the client to
him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a
view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.”

Under the present Anti-Money Laundering or RA No. 10365,

it provides that “money laundering is also committed by any
covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under the AMLA, as amended, to be
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails
to do so.”

But said law expressly excludes lawyers from covered

persons:

1. if acting as independent legal professionals in relation

to information concerning their clients; or
2. where disclosure or information would compromise
client confidences or the attorney-client relationship.

Weak standards within the industry

In addition to the “hard law” set by legislation, bar

associations can also play a significant role in combatting
corruption. In many jurisdictions, membership in the local
bar association is mandatory, which means that lawyers
wishing to practice in the jurisdiction must adhere to the
association’s guidelines on professional behaviour (Arnold
and Porter 2013).

However, only 43% of respondents in the 2010 IBAOECD-

UNODC survey realised that their bar associations provide
some kind of anti-corruption guidance for legal practitioners
(IBA, OECD, UNODC 2010). Of these, only a third said that
such guidance specifically addresses the issue of
international corruption (IBA, OECD, UNODC 2010). In
response, the IBA created an anti-corruption guide for bar
associations in 2013 with a variety of guidelines on how bar
associations can improve their anti-corruption practices.

Weak internal policies and controls

In addition to the absence of national legislation and bar

association standards, weak internal policies and controls
within law firms can pose a significant risk to the integrity of
law firms. Without these controls, the lack of awareness of
anti-corruption legislation and the pressure to produce
profits cannot adequately be addressed.

V. The Solution to the problem –

Firm and constant commitment to ethical principles

or integrity

How then, do we, as members of the Bar, old and new,

bring back the honor and nobility intrinsic to our profession?
What can we, members of the Philippine Bar, do to change
the current situation we are in – where perception of
corruption is as malevolent as the fact of corruption itself.

If the cause is lack of integrity then the solution is to adhere

to integrity at all times. In other words, we should not stop
at merely learning the ethical principles underlying our
profession during our college of law and bar examination
days or paying them lip service, but more importantly as
lawyers, we should be committed to them and practice them
because these ethical principles:

1.) help guard against the abuses and ills of the

profession;
2.) provide the basis for the weeding out of the unfit
and the misfit in the legal profession for the
protection of the public; and

3.) will raise the standard of the legal profession,

encourage and enhance the respect for the law,
assure an effective and efficient administration of
justice. (Legal and Judicial Ethics, Ernesto Pineda)

As our beloved Pope Francis has exhorted us during his visit

to the Philippines last year relative to our Christian values:

Be wise! First know. Then put to heart what you know.

Finally, translate what you have in your heart into action.

And note what is needed is our commitment to, not merely

involvement in integrity in the practice of law because there
is a whale of difference between the two as illustrated thus:

When you have a breakfast of buwad and itlog, the hen that
lays the egg is merely involved in giving you food, while the
fish is committed.

Thus, the challenge we lawyers, old and new, face today is

to be committed to and put to action integrity in everything
we do as lawyers.
But how can we remember the numerous Canons and rules
that govern legal ethics in order to practice them, we might
protest. It is really not that difficult because all of those
canons and rules in Legal Ethics can be encapsulated under
one law, Article 19 of the New Civil Code, which is the
fundamental law on human relations. It provides:

“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the

performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.”

It is also not difficult to remember these fundamental canon

and rule in our Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

By putting them into practice all the time, by being ethical in

all things we do, integrity becomes second nature, integrity
becomes you and me.

The following can also be of help:

According to Samira Lindner, Transparency International 1

April 2014 Number: 2014:07 in an article published via
www.transparency.org:

“There are four core principles regarding integrity

that guide legal practice:

Independence-
A lawyer shall exercise independent, unbiased professional
judgment when advising a client, including in relation to the
likelihood of success of the client’s case (IBA 2011). This
independence is both protective (a lawyer should be
protected from outside pressures that impair professional
judgment) and self-disciplinary (lawyers should not impair
their professional judgment by pursuing personal interests or
succumbing to outside pressures) (Fasterling 2009).

• Confidentiality.

A lawyer shall at all times maintain and be afforded

protection of confidentiality regarding the affairs of present
or former clients, unless otherwise allowed or required by
law and/or applicable rules of professional conduct (IBA
2011).

• Conflict of interest.

A lawyer shall not assume a position in which a client’s

interests conflict with those of the lawyer, another lawyer in
the same firm, or another client, unless otherwise permitted
by law, applicable rules of professional conduct, or, if
permitted, with the client’s authorisation (IBA2011).

• Professional integrity.

A lawyer shall at all times maintain the highest standards of

honesty, integrity and fairness towards their clients, the
court, colleagues and all those with whom the lawyer comes
into professional contact (IBA 2011).

James Thomas, the founder of the Alliance for Integrity and

the author of Integrity: The Indispensable Element – The
Fundamental Principles Leading to Trust, Reputation, Fair
Play, Reliability, Accountability, Adherence to Proper
Conduct, Standards, Values, in an address to the Bar
Association in Athens, Georgia He pointed out two sources of
integrity:

1. Those mandated and imposed by the organized bar

and;”(first source of integrity)

2.“ xxx those the practitioners impose upon

themselves. They are the values, convictions, ideas,
and ideals that fix how one practices, as
distinguished from what one practices.”

A lawyer who upholds integrity, Thomas said, shares

these nine crucial traits:

-They place a heavy premium on trustworthiness,

reliability, and their precious reputations.

-They know that how they practice is as obligatory

as what they practice.

-Their word is their bond and they keep it, in matters

great and small.

-They strive to deliver their services as promised,

when promised, and in the manner promised.

-When working on demanding and difficult problems,

expediency is not an option.
-They refuse to cut corners or play fast and loose
with the rules, or the spirit of the rules.

-They have a keen sense of sin and keep the smell

test handy.

-They look with disdain on the unfair advantage.

-They practice scrupulous honesty.

Price tag is high-

Thomas admitted the price tag for maintaining integrity can

be high. “Holding fast can cause the loss of a client, even a
case. It can disrupt firms and partnerships, impair career
advancement, induce grief, and render one unpopular.” In
his address he went on to point out, “Pared to its bed-
rock essence, integrity is the capacity to stand by the
right ideas, even when doing so is inconvenient,
difficult, or unprofitable.” But, he added, “Its payoffs
and benefits are unmistakable.”

In an article entitled “INTEGRITY IN THE PRACTICE OF

LAW; TEACHING INTEGRITY IN THE PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY CURRICULUM: A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR
CHANGE” by Mary C. Daly published in the Fordham Law
Review, she summarized JOHN FEERICK’S CONCEPT OF
INTEGRITY thus:

Staying with your principles even if holding on to

your principles won't promote your advancement or
at times may bring you grief and make you
unpopular.., holding on to who you are and being
yourself at all times as best you can... strikes me as
being at the heart of integrity .... [N]ot giving up your
principles in order to promote yourself ....

She further said that the following are the lessons that can
be learned from Feerick’s concept on integrity:

The first lesson on the meaning of integrity that I took from

John's list is that integrity is a virtue exercised over a
lifetime. Integrity is not a single event, a moment in
time when a fearsome soul steps forward to object to a
manifest wrong and then steps back into obscurity.
Integrity is a habit of mind that stays the course of a
lifetime.

xxxx

The second lesson on integrity that John taught me is that

integrity is exercised within a community, not in
solitude.

(In our context we should exercise integrity in our

relationship with fellow lawyers, the court, society and
clients.)

The third lesson gleaned from John's list is that integrity

is an institutional virtue as well as a personal one.

Importance of humility-

Finally, equally important is to be constantly reminded,

according to an American Supreme Court Associate Justice,
that: “neither a judge nor a lawyer can properly
discharge the great responsibilities that are his
unless he displays, in a large measure, humility –
that is, freedom from arrogance.”

So to end, if we want change in our reputation as

lawyers, the urgent call and challenge for all of us is
to advance the cause of integrity in our profession.