Problem Areas in Legal

Ethics
Mini - Thesis

Submitted by:

Submitted to:

Prince Joyous Lising

Lapena, Jr.

Justice Nicolas

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Mini-Thesis on the issue that:
LAWYERS TEND TO LIE TO PROTECT THEIR CLIENT EVEN IF THEY
KNEW HE IS REALLY GUILTY
Introduction
This mini-thesis deals with the common issue raised by the people in general
about lawyers. In the legal profession and most especially in legal ethics law students
were taught that the law profession is a noble profession, if not the noblest of all
profession. This was the same as my view of what a lawyer is from when I was still a
child. I view lawyers with awe, respect, trust, dignity, integrity and that they possess
a sense of justice, honor and honesty.
Sadly, my view is not shared by many if not most of the citizens of the
Philippines or even the whole world. Nor is it shared by even some who are inside the
law profession. As such before entering law school and upon knowing that I would be
taking up law someday they always say:
All lawyers are liars in one way or another and they could not win a case
without lying or hiding something or some facts. Lawyers defend a person
whom they already knew as the real perpetrator the crime charged and strives
to win the case despite knowing this fact.
Or worse, some even said in front of me and candidly that dont be a lawyer,
choose another profession maybe you should be a doctor instead just dont be a
lawyer, they lie through their teeth, their souls are already burning in hell even if they
are still alive.
Obviously, I did not heed their words and I continued to walk the path that I
chose. However the sad part of realty is, whether it be people I knew or not, whether
in be in the radio, television, newspapers or the world wide web, almost more than
half believe those statements that I have heard as a truth and a fact about lawyers.
So in the spirit of the legal profession through the use of this subject of
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics under the wings of Justice Nicolas Lapena, Jr., I would
try to expound, resolve and shed light to this age old connotation about lawyers, the
law profession and their dealings with their clients.

Legal Ethics
Before trying to solve the problem, we must first define what ethics is. Ethics is
derived from the Greek thikos, which refers to customs. According to Websters

Dictionary, Roman philosopher and statesman, Cicero (10643 BCE) translated

thikos into Latin as moralis. Originally the terms ethical and moral were
synonyms.
In Ethics (1994) the philosopher Peter Singer provides a robust definition of
ethics:
The word itself is sometimes used to refer to the set of rules, principles, or
ways of thinking that guide, or claim authority to guide, the actions of a
particular group; and sometimes it stands for the systematic study of
reasoning about how we ought to act.
Combining the words Legal Profession and Ethics denotes that these are the
set of rules, principles or guide on how persons in the legal profession ought to act.
Thus, this is the norm in which a lawyer or anyone practicing the legal profession
should use to guide their actions.

The Legal Profession

In the legal profession and even the Supreme Court of the Philippines has
repeatedly ruled and stated in various decisions that the legal profession is a noble
profession not a trade or money making business.
Because of being directly or indirectly connected with the administration of
justice, the legal profession has already been battered, bruised and could not escape
the prying eyes of the public. This is because the practice of law is a profession, a
form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted only to those who are
qualified and who possess good moral character.1

The Source of the Issue

If the legal profession and the Supreme Court views the practice of law as one
of the most noble profession then how come this is not what the people in general
view lawyers?
The answer may be found in ethics. Ethics dictates that when a person lies he
is defying ethics since it is a norm that no person should lie. Ethics also dictates that a
person should not defend another for a wrongful act committed, nor make it appear
that he has no fault or worse that he never did such an act.
The practice of law entails that a lawyer should always obey the law and
uphold the Constitution. And in every law, morality, ethics and norms are always a
part. However, when people see that some lawyers defend a person guilty of a crime,
they view it as betrayal of the norm that one should not help another person in
getting away from all his wrong doings.
At the end, the people believe that a lawyer would always fight for a client
even if his cause is not that strong and would even lie just to win the case.
1

Legal and Judicial Ethics, Justice Nicolas Lapena, Jr. page 6.

Problem Area in Legal Ethics

Lying for the sake of winning the case of his client, this is an issue in Legal
Ethics that directly relates to how the public see them as a whole. So the question is,
is a lawyer allowed to lie just to defend the cause of his client in court?
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal
or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them
to defeat the ends of justice.
The law is clear, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clears the
fact that lawyers should not lie, mislead, misuse, misquote or misrepresent in order to
defend his client. Doing such a thing would make him liable under Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and may cause him to be reprimanded, sternly
warned, indefinitely suspended and or his name be stricken off of the roll of
attorneys.

Connection to Another Issue

The public always ask why lawyers defend a person who seemed to be the real
perpetrator, or even when all evidences presented or known points to him as a doer
of a thing prohibited by law. They ask how could a lawyer in his right mind and
conscience defend such person in court. Is it not delaying justice to the victim? And
why do all lawyers stick on every tactic that could be used by the client which
prolongs the case and in turn prolongs justice as stated in the maxim justice delayed
is justice denied.
The root of this controversy could be seen and observed in the current status
of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. In the impeachment trial of
the Chief Justice, when the prosecution presented evidences, people tend to believe
them. And when the defense team stick to the technicalities that could be availed by
the Chief Justice, the people violently reacts and states that if Corona is really
innocent, then he should not resort to technicalities that could prolong the trial. He
should just take the issues raised by the prosecution head on. Is the use of
technicalities prohibited by law?
No, in fact according to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Section 20 (a) states
that:

Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys. - It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be
just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means
only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of
the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may
be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
As stated under paragraph H and J thereof, a lawyer has a duty given to him by
the law and the rules of court to Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
To elaborated this duty, say there was a person asking for a lawyers help in a
case in which he was charged with. He should not reject the case despite of any
consideration or opinion that he have. This has been reiterated under the Code of
Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 2 Rules 2.01 and 2.02 to wit:
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary
to safeguard the latter's rights.

As the words Never which is used in the Rules of Court and Not as used in
the Code of Professional responsibility, the law and the courts frown upon the
rejection of a lawyer when a person asked him for help. The only exception provided
for by the Code of Professional responsibility is seen in the words except for valid
reasons. These valid reasons are provided for by law and by the rulings of the
Supreme Court. These, to reiterate is not the general rule but mere exceptions to the
general rule. Thus, a lawyer has to prove first if he has a valid reason to refuse the
case that is offered to him.
This fact shows the answer on why lawyers, even though they also believe that
the person they are defending really committed the crime, they must, as provided for
by law never to reject, except for valid reason, the said case. Lawyers are not triers of
fact, that is the duty of a Judge. It is up to the judge to determine what is true and
what is not based on the facts presented. Therefore to help the Judge get as much
information as possible to avoid injustice or errors in rendering justice, a lawyer must
set aside his personal opinion and do what was asked of him by law, by the courts
and by his profession.
However, although a case may fall upon the exception as provided for by law,
and as proof that as much as possible the law frowns upon rejection of the cause of a
person especially those of the defenseless or the oppressed, Rule 2.02 clearly stated
that In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to
render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to
safeguard the latter's rights.
This does not only prove the intention of the law and the rules of court but
stresses the importance of the lawyers duty to defend the defenseless up to a certain
point that even if there is a valid reason for him to reject the case, he could not, and
his hand are bound, totally reject the case.
Now that we have proven that lawyers are bound by law to defend someone
despite their personal opinion whether he committed the acts complained of or not
and that although public opinion suggests that he is guilty, a lawyer should set aside
all of those and defend the cause of his client within the bounds of law. We go now to
the next and final issue which is can a lawyer use everything that he knew, even
technicalities to defend his clients as provided for by law?
138 of the Rules of Court, Section 20 (a) paragraph I states that:
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may
be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law
Time and time again, laymen often say that if a person is not guilty he should
not resort to technicalities to win the case, but rather should face the issues head on
for a speedy administration of justice.
Yes, they are correct in saying that it could be more speedy not to touch on the
technicalities of a case and just proceed on its merits however, if in the technicalities

only the case could not pass, there is also a big chance that the case is unmeritorious.
Thus, pointing out technicalities could also in fact make administration of justice
speedy and remove the accused or defendant from the shackles of shame, disrepute
and loss of money and sleep because of the case filed against him.
Moreover, as stated by paragraph I of Section 20 in Rule 138, a lawyer is
entitled to defend his client by presenting every defense that the law permits
and this includes technicalities. The reason behind this allowance made by the rules
of court can also be found at the last part of the said provision which states that to
the end that no person may be deprived of life, liberty and property, but by
due process of law.
This is what the law and the Rules of Court tries to protect that both accused
and victims have, the rights provided for by the constitution and the law. And that in
order to take away those rights, due process must first be given.
This answers the questions of laymen why lawyers do not forego with
technicalities in defending a case. It is because they have been allowed by law and
even mandated to do so in order to ascertain that no rights of either the accused or
the victim could be taken unless with due process of law.

Conclusion
Premises considered, it is highly untrue that lawyers are liars because the legal
profession does not tolerate falsehood. There may be some who employ such means
but it does not mean that all lawyers or the legal profession tolerates such acts.
That lawyers do not defend persons whom others might view or even believed
to be the perpetrator of the acts complained of just because of money. Lawyers are
mandated by the law and Code of Professional Responsibility to defend any man,
whether victim or accused, within the bounds of law so that no right could be waived
or be taken away from them without due process of law. And their personal opinion
on whether the accused did the said act complained of or not should be set aside and
provide services needed to ascertain what is true.
Finally, that lawyers use technicalities not to frustrate justice nor to delay it but
they are used because as provided for by law, lawyers are given the power to use all
the legal means necessary to prove the cause of their client and that includes
technicalities.