LOL: Living Out Legal Ethics

(An Assent-Dissent
on Hilarion L. Aquinos Revisiting Legal and Judicial Ethics: Challenges and Perspectives)
By Anton John Vincent M. Frias

Legal ethics. It shall not only be revisited. It shall also be lived out the door.

On the Introduction
I assent to the internet post, Legal ethics is an oxymoron. Dictionaries would define
oxymoron as a compressed paradox, or in other words, a concept that includes opposites like,
cruel kindness, hot but cold.

Legal ethics, as Mr. Aquino said in his paper, consists of problems: The Bar and the Bench
have their shares of problems. Notwithstanding that reality, I submit that there is an implicit reality
in between those lines: that the Bar and the Bench have their shares of solutions or blessings. Mr.
Aquino, however, focused only on the other side of the coin, only the problems.

Is it not lawyers would better realize their problems, and think of more solutions, if they are
first reminded of how blessed they are of being lawyers, that they passed a very difficult
examination in the Philippines, if not the most difficult?

At the same time, therefore, I dissent to how Mr. Aquino put it or used words in his
Introduction: that the profession is suffering, a poor public image, negative, etc. He forgot that
the legal profession is in the first place is a noble calling (Linsangan v. Atty. Tolentino, AC 6672,
September 4, 2009). It is a duty to public service is the primary consideration (Brunet v. Atty.
Guaren, AC 10164, March 10, 2014).

In the first place, morality, which is part and parcel of legal ethics, consists of the good, not
only the bad. Lawyers are good. Lawyers are good persons. Thus, I submit that good persons can
really become lawyers, since becoming a lawyer requires utmost diligence, and diligence requires
good attitude. Diligence is a good characteristic. Again, in the first place, a lawyer cannot become
one if he did not exert diligence in his studies, or love what he is studying.

Considering a word in the title of Mr. Aquinos paper, Challenges, I submit that, every
lawyer will be more challenged, and would better realize the problems of the Bar and the Bench, if
he recalls how much effort he exerted to become a lawyer. He started good in becoming a lawyer.

Why do the Bar and the Bench have these problems? Why is the Bar suffering from such
poor public image? Why are lawyers perceived as generally self-seeking? Why are lawyers
liars to some, if not really many, of the public?

As law students, they surely started well, without too much problem in their first year in law
school until the lessons had started piling up for finals. But is it not that they had started wearing a
rich public image, and not a poor one? Relatives and friends would be proudly share with others

1
that their son, cousin, or barkada, will be a lawyer and file a case for them in the future. That,
as students, they would sometimes forget about themselves when preparing for exams? Is that
self-seeking? Most would study for the grades, or for their family, or for the future, but not exactly
for themselves. That they cannot be liars when taking the quizzes or exams or even the Bar,
otherwise they would not become lawyers.

But how come, after signing the Roll and taking the Oath, there are these problems, poor
public image and stereotypes of self-seeking and liars?

I submit that they might have forgotten how it all started. That at the outset, they were good
and were doing well. But now, they appear or actually act bad.

The legal profession is a noble and a good one. It does not create problems. It solves them.

I further submit that a suggested answer is also an oxymoron. It is simply said, but difficultly
done simple but difficult. The answer I suggest is for every member of the profession to start
from what he has, the good reputation he has, and not otherwise, to do what he can and not what
he cannot. But it would seem difficult because of what the public holds of each of them. I submit
that it only takes courage. It is the courage or determination that pushed them to take the entrance
exam or apply for law school or attend the first day of class in law school. That is the challenge.

On Law, Ethics and Justice: Linkages

I assent to the idea of Mr. Aquino that justice is principally not a legal but a moral concept.
Thus it is affirmed that justice is the promotion of the welfare of people, if not all the people, as
enunciated in Calalang v. Williams (G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940). It is about doing good to
the neighbor. It is a hornbook principle in life that one shall do good to others, so that they shall do
the same to him or her.

I further submit that, goodness or badness is synonymous with justice or injustice. If one
does goodness, he is just. Otherwise, unjust. Again, another oxymoron: it is simply said, but
difficultly done.

However, the reality is that, with the existence of some unjust laws, law itself does not bring
about order, but rather chaos. Thus, a person is tilted to do more injustice than justice. In the latter
parts of the paper of Mr. Aquino, he discusses that judges, by following the letter of some unjust
laws, guided by stare decisis principle, do not have choice but follow the unjust law.

In sum, justice is innate. Its opposite which is injustice, is sometimes brought about by
some laws, only the unjust ones.

On Legal Ethics
a. The Ethos of the Legal Profession
I dissent to the theory of Mr. Aquino that a lawyer is basically client-centered.

2
 I rather submit that a lawyer is not as such. Instead, it really depends. There are many
angles to look upon. This is justified by the catena of administrative cases decided upon by the
Supreme Court. A good number of such cases would contradict the said theory: that a lawyer is
more of self-centered or family-centered or money-centered. The Court would often remind lawyers
in the cases: That he shall always act fully as a professional, because lacking professionalism, or
entertaining his personal interests and principles would lead to his suspension (Dominquez v. Atty.
Agleron, A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014); That the profession is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture (Atty. Guaren, supra).

b. Imperatives of Principled Legal Advocacy

I assent to the discussion of Mr. Aquino here. And remarkable is the quote he included
which is No master but the law, no guide but conscience, no goal but justice by Justice JBL
Reyes. I submit that that already encapsulates the Lawyers Oath (Lecture Notes in Problem
Areas in Legal Ethics, under Atty. Mylene Cabuag), in consideration of what Mr. Aquino said that
he suggests that this be the mantra of all lawyers. The Code of Professional Responsibility
provides for the detailed rules of the conduct of a lawyer, while the Lawyers Oath puts those into a
capsule. The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyers Oath (De Leon v. Atty.
Castelo, AC 8620, January 12, 2011). But for a simple digestion of the capsule, there is the
statement of Justice JBL Reyes.

c. The Ethics of Prosecutorial Discretion

I dissent to the discussion of Mr. Aquino here. I proceed to his question stated at the very
last portion of this section:
Why indeed should a prosecutor be allowed to gamble xxx that his inadequate evidence
may perchance be fortified or rehabilitated during trial?
I submit that there is actually no gambling by the prosecutor whenever he would file the
Information. Jurisprudence explained that probable cause is not just mere personal opinion and
reasonable belief that a crime was committed, but he relies on common sense. What is
determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed. Therefore, it is instead a well-founded one based on the facts and
circumstances. Actually, there is no inadequate evidence here, but evidence adequate enough for
an average man to believe that there was a crime done. That is why there will be trial where further
evidence will prove that he really did it.
Lastly, prosecutors are guided by their Credo and the constitutional mandate that a
public office is a public trust (Valle-Corpuz, THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE
PROSECUTION IN THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, National Prosecution
Service, Department of Justice, Philippines, p. 275.) Thus, I submit that, since their position is
imbued with public trust, they act carefully in bringing in the accused to the court. They represent a
number of average men who believe that the accused really did it. There is no gambling in his
functions. We are instead reminded that being called an accused, receiving an arrest warrant is
indeed a serious matter. It is something not to be gambled about.

On Judicial Ethics

a. Judging for Ethics

3
 I wonder why justice is a very difficult concept for Mr. Aquino, whereas he had said earlier
in his paper that it is principally a moral concept. And by that, it means that justice is innate.
Morality is innate in every person. It is either we do good or just acts, or otherwise. In this section,
he contradicts himself again, when he reiterated that it in fact a moral concept. In In the Matter of
Disqualification of Haron Meling, the Court said that good moral character is what a person really
is and it corresponds to objective reality (B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004). Therefore, by innate, it
means that it is already there. It is not given by somebody else. It is what a person really is.
Accordingly, if he is just, he cannot be otherwise because it is what he really is.

Moreover, I submit that the concept of justice is in between the lines of the Constitution
despite the fact that it is only stated twice therein. One is in the Preamble. And it is a principle in
Statutory Construction that the Preamble is an introduction of a law show its intent or purposes
(Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court, G.R. No. 200238, February 9, 2012).
Therefore, though not explained therein, justice permeates throughout the fundamental law. It may
be said that it is a guiding principle in every rule therein.

Lastly, I assent to the submission of Mr. Aquino that under circumstances, public welfare
should be factored in the decisional process. I submit that judges shall consider every fact and law
for the benefit of upholding justice, of who rightfully has to recover more and who has less, or who
shall pay for the injury through imprisonment or damages. And if the law is so strict, jurisprudence
is the evidence that equity is always permitted so that justice will not be defeated. Many cases
would relax the strict laws, just or unjust.

b. The Ethos of the Judge vis-a-vis the Shift to Inquisitorial System of Trial

I assent to the discussion of Mr. Aquino on the passivity of judges on decision-making,

whereby, they are spoon-fed of pleadings and pieces of evidence. All these are to avoid being
suspected of bias or abuse of discretion, which they actually do not escape from.

I submit that the passage of the Judicial Affidavit Rule and revision of various procedural
rules would really remove the said passivity. At these times, the judge would have control over the
proceedings, and not over any party.

On Conclusion

I dissent to how Mr. Aquino concluded his paper. Actually, it shows how he is on to what is
close to his heart, instead of making a final say to what he had said in his introduction. He said at
the outset about his ethical propositions, but nowhere in the conclusion shows his final
recommendation. Will a legal academia address the long-time controversies of the profession? Will
passing the reflections answer those controversies?

I submit that legal ethics is principally an action, not merely a theory. This time, in this view,
it is not an oxymoron. It must only be an action, not both theory and action. It shall be practiced,
and must be left as a theory. It must not remain in the dark.

4
It shall not only be revisited. It shall also be lived out the door. That should be legal ethics.