CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Summer 2019 – Special Class

PART 1: THE LAWYER’S TRILEMMA

1. Even if an adverse witness may be telling the truth, still it is proper to put such
witness in cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting the reliability or
credibility of such adverse witness. Under the Rules of Court, the witness may be
cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test
his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse,
and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue (Section 6, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court). The important purpose of cross-examination is to attempt to
destroy the testimony and/or the credibility of the opponent’s witnesses.

However, cross-examination is not necessary as direct examination. If cross-

examination will add nothing to your case, it is better not to ask anymore in order
to minimize the importance of that witness, as you obviously did not feel the
testimony was significant enough to challenge.

But there are instances were cross-examination is essential even if you may
have knowledge that he may be telling the truth. For example of this is if the
testimony of the adverse witness will be prejudicial to the standing of your case.
Thus, it is better to put the adverse witness in cross-examination by attacking his
ability to perceive, reliability, and truthfulness in order to destroy his or her
credibility.

A witness’s testimony is only as strong as his ability to perceive the events

relevant to the testimony. If you are confronted with a seemingly honest witness
with no ax to grind who has damaging evidence to present, it is better to attack
the witness’s ability to perceive the events at issue. For example, it is possible to
show the witness’s eyesight is poor or line of vision was obstructed, or to show
that the witness was not present when certain events occurred. Thus, the
witness’s testimony may be discredited.
 There are also witnesses that may be truthful but there testimony may not be
reliable. For example, a witness who previously made mistakes regarding dates,
times, and places may be attempting to tell the truth, but there is a question as to
whether the witness can accurately testify to events. In this type of approach, the
intent is not to show the witness is lying but that the witness cannot be counted
upon to testify accurately to what occurred.

Lastly, the most effective attack on a witness is an attack on the witness's

truthfulness. The most effective attacks on truthfulness come from showing a
witness has testified inconsistently under oath. Thus, where testimony at trial is
contradictory to testimony at deposition, such impeachment can be devastating
to a judge's willingness to believe that witness.

Although, cross-examination may not be mandatory in every disposition of the

cases, an effective cross-examination can make the difference between winning
and losing a trial.

2. Witness plays a very important role in any cases. They help to clarify what
happened by telling the judge everything they know about the event. A witness is
someone who has relevant information about a crime or the matter of the case.
That is why both the lawyer of the State and the accused can require witnesses
to come to court to tell this information to the judge. But it is necessary that
witness must make an oath or solemnly state that they will tell the truth in court.
This is in order to dissuade a witness from giving false testimony and cannot avoid
aiding the perjury.

Thus, it is not proper to put a witness on stand when you know personally that he will
only commit perjury. Every lawyer is obliged to protect the cause of every person. A
lawyer who knowingly elicits perjury may not be disciplined for doing so, nor presumably
prosecuted, but the witness who knowingly lies would still be exposed to a perjury
prosecution or to a sentence harsher than he might otherwise have received.

3. Confidentiality, embodied by the attorney-client relationship, is a bedrock

principle of our legal system. It contributes to the trust that is a hallmark of the
client-lawyer relationship. A client is encouraged to seek legal assistance and to
communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally
damaging subject matter. If the lawyer learns that the client is contemplating
perjury, she should make continuing, good faith efforts to dissuade the client from
that course.
 However, permitting lawyers to introduce and argue perjury is an extreme price
to pay to avoid the dilemma created for a court when a lawyer concludes that he
knows his client will lie but the client denies it. For one thing, that situation should
be extraordinarily rare. We can expect that lawyers will give clients the benefit of
the doubt, as they should. At other times, the lawyer really will know and the
client will not claim otherwise, eliminating the need for a trip to the judge. If the
lawyer does know of intended perjury, the lawyer will often be able to discourage
the client from asking to testify. This may be accomplished by warning the client
about cross-examination, telling the client that he will not prepare him to give the
false testimony, and informing the client that the judge might use the client’s false
testimony against him at sentencing.

PART 2: “Non omne quod licet honestum est”

Under the Black’s Law Dictionary, “Non omne quod licet honestum est” is
defined as not everything which is permitted that is honorable.

A lawyer enjoys a number of privileges by reason of his office and in recognition

of the vital role which he plays in the administration of justice. A lawyer has the privilege
and the right to practice law during good behavior before any judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative tribunal. The court in admitting him to practice, presents him to the public
as worthy of its confidence and as a person fit and proper to assume and discharge the
responsibilities of a lawyer. As part of the judicial system, whose role as an advocate
and as an officer of the court is necessary for the due administration of justice, he has
the privilege, as the first one to sit in judgment on every case, to set the judicial
machinery in motion. On him depends the proper course of judicial direction in the
administration of justice. Thus, a lawyer shall not wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same.

Submitted By:

ANDREA B. DELOVIAR

Submitted To:

ATTY. LIZA LYN S. LAMASON-GARCIA

Associate Lecturer