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. et 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. ! Apostasyact of giving up or renouncing belief or allegiance/loyalty ". #hese 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. #his may be pointedly illustrated by the following e%amples& a. #he lawyer who promptly and recklessly denounced the members of the 'upreme 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. #he lawyer who, suddenly from nowhere, entered his appearance in the Court in a case more than ( years after the completed e%ecution in the court below of the final judgment of the Court. d. #he lawyer !if he can be considered one" who filed a petition that was completely unintelligible and undecipherable. e. #he lawyer who, facing charges of moral turpitude that could lead to his disbarment, still added his wrongdoings by subse)uently 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. ,awyers who, because of negligence, the right to appeal to the 'upreme 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. ,awyers who argue before the Court completely unprepared j. ,awyers 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 bi.arre theories upon the Court

/s mentioned in the following e%amples, one reasons for the disloyalty of some lawyers are the frustration brought about by the alleged improper way of the Courts on rejecting petitions. #he 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. 0owever it would be an enlightenment to see the side of the Court itself. #he truth is most petitions rejected by the Court are those that are very unimportant and ought never been appealed at all. #he proper role of the 'upreme Court is to decide only those cases which present )uestions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. #he reasons why the Court could not be capable of giving out reasons for some denied petitions is it re)uires too much time and different reasons fre)uently move different members of the Court in concluding that a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable. 0ere is a reply of Chief 1ustice 2eng.on on a petitioner$s argument that a lack of merit resolutions violates 'ection 3( of /rticle 4 of the Constitution (Novino et al. vs Court of Appeals et al., L-2109 , !ay "1, 19#"$ & 5resolutions are not decisions within the above constitutional re)uirement. #hey merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the provisions of section 6 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and all lawyers have all this time so understood it. / petition to review a decision of the Court of /ppeals is not a matter of rightr, but of sound judicial discretion8 and so there is no need to fully

e%plain the Court$s denial. 9or one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of /ppeals opinion.

Criticisms of Courts and 1udges :t is natural for a lawyer to e%press 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. ;very citi.en has also the right to comment and critici.e the decisions of the Court for they are public officers whose decisions and actions are of public property. 'o it is the duty of a lawyer to e%pose 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. /s a citi.en and officer of the court, a lawyer is e%pected not only to e%ercise his right, but also consider it his duty to avail of such right. 0<=;>;R, it should be taken importance that these criticisms shall in good faith, and shall not go beyond the meaning of decency and propriety. ;%treme and unfair criticsm is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. #he 'upreme Court, like any other government agency, does not have immunity from criticism. 2ut a critic made to them must possess the )uality of judiciousness and must be informed by perspective and infused by philosophy. #he 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.

2eing a ,awyer& #he ?roblem of >alues 'ection 3. #0; #R/@:#:<A/, ?/R/@:BC& #0; ,/= ;R /' ?/R#:'/A #his refers to the traditional concept of a lawyer$s role as a loyal professional to his clients. #his conception is attacked by two criticisms& 3. ?rofessional loyalty to a client demands an allocation of the lawyer$s time, passion and resources in ways that are not always ma%imally conducive to the greatest good of the many.

+ this is also being set on doctors as well. 2oth 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 comple% 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. (. #he means by which the professional loyalty appears to authori.e tactics which procure advantages for the client at the direct e%pense of the opposing party. +harming the identified adversary #hese 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. #he )uestion 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. #he following are answers to those criticisms& ,awyer as a 9riend +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 recogni.e an authori.ation to take the interests of particular concrete persons more seriously and to give them priority over the interests of the wider collectivity. +2ased on Utilitarian e%planation, 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. #hus, 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. 'o 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.

+<nce the relation has been taken up, it is the client$s needs which overpowers+ legally and morally. =ith regards to the second criticism which speaks of the morality in a lawyer$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. ;%ample 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. :mmoral means / lawyer cannot also lie in his representative capacity. /n e%ample of this is when a lawyer presents to the court a statement by his client he knows to be a lie. #he 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.

#he ,awyer$s Role in 'ociety 3. Counsellor or legal adviser (. /dvocate :n either capacity, a lawyer must know the law. /nd the study of law it should be aimed at the ac)uisition of a working knowledge of& 3. spirit of the law (. mechanics 'pirit of the law has two aspects, namely& 3. the specific purpose of a given legislation (. the part it plays within the conte%t of the prevailing legal system :mportant )ualities in the study of law among other things are& 3. 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 e%press his thoughts in a language ade)uate enough to persuade and convince others. (. a good knowledge of the history of civili.ation, 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 D. 'ome 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 6. / 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.