The practice of law in the Philippines is often viewed as a

very high prestige. Indeed, lawyers are seen as people who are
very successful, and influential. Almost every parents hope for at
least one of their children to be a lawyer. This is a profession that
is also used as a social ranking in the society. However, these
common preconceptions about the practice of law sometimes
misleads people. These preconceptions about lawyers
contributes to the fact that lawyers commit unethical conducts
that are detrimental to the legal system, the court, their clients,
and the society. Justice Hilarion L. Aquino published a journal
titled “Problem Areas in Legal Ethics”. In his journal, he discussed
the common mistakes and malpractices of lawyers. In this paper,
I shall discuss briefly my reflection or impression on the journal
itself, the subject matter Problem Areas in Legal Ethics and some
insights on what I have observed personally to the legal practice
here in the Philippines.

First off, Justice Aquino started with pointing out that the
practice of law is not a trade or business but a profession. As
already discussed earlier, common people think highly of
lawyers so much so that parents want their child to be a lawyer.
To simply put it, being a lawyer is equated to being successful.
Here, the problem area in legal ethics now sets in. People are
used to the idea that lawyers have a very high financial
standing. Some lawyers entered the legal profession for the sole
reason of financial security, while for others, this may not be the
original reason but as they become more immerse in the
practice of law, they tend to see their clients as some kind of an
ATM conveniently walking in their law offices. This becomes a
problem and a very serious grey area because lawyers still
continue to represent their client’s cause notwithstanding their

1
intention to administer justice or for the sake of paycheck. Intent
is something that is difficult to prove. Hence, it cannot be
considered as grossly immoral to warrant penalty against the
lawyer, the lawyers is still doing his job despite the fact that he is
only doing it for money. It becomes now a question of ethics and
conscience that is almost beyond the judgment of our courts.
What can only be taken cognizance of are the overt acts that
constitute utter disregard of the profession and merely treat it as
business. However, when the lawyer intends to make profit out
of his or her client’s case but uses some acts that are considered
as legal in order to perpetuate his or her intention, is this
considered unethical too? From what I read in some books by
renowned authors, what is legal is not necessarily ethical. What
if that lawyer is borderline doing something legal and unethical
but in the end of the day, the courts only consider the legality of
the act? The unethical intention is just buried within the lawyer’s
mind but his acts are apparently legal. This is not casting a doubt
on the wisdom of the framers of our laws but lawyers have this
skill – that is to be cunning. While the law sides on what is right,
lawyers find ways in order to navigate their way into that “right”
in the eyes of the law but in greater reality, there is already a
moral wrong.

Justice Aquino also pointed out that the practice of law is

the noblest profession. This is true in our country because just as
he said that the legal profession gives a person the greatest
opportunity to serve his fellowmen. However, I would like to add
that it is also the dirtiest profession. Before jumping into
conclusions, it is not my intention to malign the profession, I still
agree that the practice of law is the noblest profession. To
explain my point, I would like to compare a lawyer’s hand with

2
a farmer’s. A farmer’s hand is stained with soil from tilling the
land, planting and eventually harvesting and the harvest will be
distributed to the public for consumption. A lawyer’s hand is also
stained, not by soil or any dirt but by tears of the defeated party,
curses from other persons, or perhaps blood of the innocent. It is
already established that courts render judgment based on the
pieces of evidence presented therein and that decision may or
may not be the actual truth. Let us say a lawyer will be
representing a notorious criminal. People are already convinced
that the client is guilty without a doubt. Let us say that client is a
politician who is infamous for plunder and corruption, stealing
billions of the people’s money. What will that lawyer do? I was
told that it is an indicia that a lawyer is competent when he takes
a case even though it is apparent that it is not in his favor but is
able to turn things around and win the case nonetheless.
Returning to the example, if that lawyer accepts the case and
was told by his client to win it no matter what despite the fact
that the lawyer knows that the client is indeed guilty, what would
be the right thing to do? The ability to provide a client’s day in
court is the least what a lawyer can do. The dilemma now walks
in when the client demands that he should win no matter what.
According to Justice Aquino, the client has the control over the
aspects that affects his substantial rights while the lawyer control
the procedural aspect. This is easier said than done. What the
client wants is what the lawyer does, this is the reality nowadays.
The client knows he is has committed an illegal act but wants to
come out of the court clean and guiltless. Bound by the lawyer-
client relationship, the lawyer without a doubt will use the both
the law and the procedural rules to make it appear that his client
is innocent despite knowing that he is not. This is how I connect

3
Justice Aquino’s concept of lawyers are “masters of technical
rules”. In the example, the client is, in reality, guilty but the lawyer
will bend the rules. It is earlier stated that the court is bound by
the pieces of evidence that is presented before it. That is one of
the loophole that a lawyer will use. As a defense lawyer, it is his
job to destroy every evidence presented by the prosecution,
without the necessary evidence to satisfy the burden of proof,
the accused, his client, is now innocent even though in reality,
he is not. Did the lawyer commit an illegal act? No. Ethically
speaking? Maybe that lawyer committed an unethical act,
although it was not an overt act, and he was just doing his job. Is
this now how we justify covertly unethical practices? This might
be why there is this popular notion that lawyers are liars.
Coincidentally, both almost sound alike. The very people who
are authorized to administer oaths violates their own oaths.
Justice Aquino even stated that lawyers themselves are not
afraid to commit perjury. Another thing that lawyers love using is
the use of technical rules. It is already settled that only lawyers
are adept to procedural rules in court and any other tribunals.
This is the best advantage that only a lawyer can have. There
are certain things in the Rules of Court that are strictly construed,
these are one of the ammunitions of a lawyer in winning his case.
He will just point out a seemingly simple mistake in the adversed
party’s pleading but that is actually fatal to that pleading.
Technically speaking, this is what a lawyer should do, however,
this extreme usage of technical rules sometimes frustrates the
ends of justice. The Supreme Court has numerously pointed this
out in some cases, but still, lawyers do this practice. Again, it will
only be justified that they are “just doing their job”. Going back,
who has the dirtier hands now, the farmer that feeds or the

4
lawyer that destroyed? It baffles me that how can the noblest
profession be also the dirtiest?

This insight of mine is not intended to undermine the legal

profession. I conclude that the profession itself is noble, there is
no doubt about that. The legal profession, unlike all other
professions, protects and preserves life, liberty, and property.
And there is nothing wrong in looking up to practitioners of law.
What I call dirty are those practitioners that do the dirty jobs, and
sadly there are a lot of these practitioners. People admires a
lawyer who has a high winning rate of cases but is this the
indication of a good lawyer? Reiterating, the practice of law is
not a trade or business but a profession. Lawyers should not be
concerned on the numbers, the quantity of cases that they won.
What is the essence of a case that is won when the lawyer
employed borderline acts? The fact that he or she cheated his
or her way throughout the proceedings. Will the end justify the
means? I therefore say that this is not only an unethical lawyer
but also an incompetent one. A competent lawyer uses both
legal means and ethical standards in advocating his client’s
cause.

5
6