Possession of Good Moral Character as required for the Practice of Legal Profession

Practice of Law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts, and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[1]

Lawyering is a noble profession exclusively granted to those who possess good moral character. Since it is a privileged profession, the conduct of a lawyer is strictly monitored and guided by the Code of Professional Responsibility which lays down the rules that are needed to be observed not only by the members of the Bar, but also to those who aspire to become one of them. Lawyers play a vital role in enforcing the rights referring to life, liberty, and property of a person. They also play an active part in demanding and claiming redress for the violation and abuse of such rights. They are involved in the administration of proper justice as they help the court in determining the truth in every case litigated and to make sure that the rights and abuse of such are properly administered.

Having said that the lawyers’ duty to the society, the legal profession, the court and their clients are imbued with so much trust and confidence reposed in them, they are expected to act with morality in every transaction and dealing they are in.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected with the public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.  Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.[2]

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds, and act constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.[3]

To better understand what a good moral character is, the court defines the same in its numerous cases decided. As the court held in the case of Royong vs. Oblena[4], moral character is the objective reality of what a person really is as distinguished to a good reputation, which is the opinion of the public generally entertained of a person or the estimate in which he is held by the public where he is known. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro viewed the moral character as those expected qualities of truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility.[5]

Good moral character is the opposite of immorality, which is the indifference to the moral norms of society. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct, which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.[6] It must be gross immoral conduct. It is determined to be gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.[7] Thus a lawyer who abandoned his family and cohabiting with another woman is guilty of grossly immoral conduct.[8]

Immoral conduct involves moral turpitude.[9] The latter has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general.

Thus, the court has held in the case of Sps. Anaya vs. Alarez[10], that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment is also a manifestation of moral turpitude.

Moral character relates to how one views morals and ethics. If the Bar believes that the person has poor moral character, the members may feel that such a person does not adhere to the morals or ethics that would make a valuable lawyer. Good moral character can prove that a person has the following characteristics[11]:

Trustworthy. Trustworthiness is important as a lawyer because the clients need to trust the ability and trust that the lawyer will do his part to help them or otherwise conduct himself in an appropriate manner.

It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these legal practices be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys.[12]

Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.[13]

Inspirational. Lawyer’s good moral character could simply boost morale, show good work ethic, and inspire those around him to strive for their goals.

Loyalty. Good moral character can also show that the lawyer has loyalty to those who work with him. If the lawyer’s clients do not feel that he has a loyalty to them or feel that he will treat them disrespectfully, they may not feel the need to be loyal to the lawyer either.

Of course, good moral character goes far beyond these characteristics, and it plays a significant role in lawyer’s future profession.

Honest. A lawyer must be honest from the moment he applies for admission to the bar. Canon 1, Rule 1. 01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Dishonesty involves the act of lying and cheating.

Thus  in the case of In Re: Letter of the Up Law Faculty[14], it is held that plagiarism is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions, including all the effort and creativity that went into committing such ideas and expressions into writing and then making it appear that such ideas and expressions were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty, pure, and simple. A judicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows dishonesty. Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by dishonest means. Evidently, this is a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.

The Significance of Good Moral Character

It is a requirement for admission to the bar. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines, and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, have been filed or pending in any court in the Philippines.[15]

In the case of Tumbaga vs. Teoxon[16], the court held that the good moral character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for admission to the Bar and must be maintained until retirement from the practice of law. Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the court, must not only be in fact of good moral character, but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rules evidencing the need for an applicant’s good moral character before admission to bar examination. It laid there that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar[17] and that a lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education or other, or other relevant attributes.[18]

The falsity referred to in Canon 7 must be knowingly committed by the person. The good moral character must be possessed during application for bar examination. The duties and responsibilities of a lawyer must be observed by those aspiring law students even while in law school. Filing a false application to be admitted in the bar examination cannot be tolerated and the applicant may be denied to take the bar exam if the act was discovered before examination. Supposed the applicant had taken, passed the bar exam, had taken his oath, and signed the roll of attorneys but thereafter the act of falsifying his application is discovered, his name will be stricken from the Roll of attorneys.

In the case of Coronan vs. Coronan[19], the court held that the false assumption of another person’s name, identity, and school records to obtain a law degree and take the bar examinations exhibits dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member of the bar. Further in the case of Leda vs. Tabang[20], a married lawyer’s declaration in his application for admission to the bar examination that he was single was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in bad faith, for which he should be made answerable.

To protect the bar from these kinds of acts and falsification or to avoid the admission to the profession of candidates who are unfit or unqualified for being deficient in either moral character or education, the rules provided the aid of the members of the bar by non-execution of the affidavit of good moral character in favor of the applicant who has not live up to the standards set by law. The lawyer should volunteer information or cooperate in any investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the bar examination. He should also expose without fear or favor before the Supreme Court the corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession and should not hesitate to accept professional employment against a lawyer who has wronged his client.

Continues possession of Good Moral Character is required to enjoy the privilege of practicing the legal profession. The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal Profession. Members of the Bar are clearly duty- bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity in order to safeguard the reputation of the Bar.[21]

The rule requires every member of the bar to maintain good and regular standing to continue his practice of law. In the case of Dantes vs. Dantes[22], the purpose of the requirement of good moral character is to protect the public, the public image of lawyers, the prospective clients and the errant lawyers from themselves.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rules that must be observed by the lawyer to maintain their good moral character while in the practice of their legal profession.  A lawyer shall always conduct himself ethically and morally. The best way a lawyer can uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession is not to engage in any conduct or do any act that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor to behave, in his public or private life, in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.[23]

Acts which adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, which justifies suspension is Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and fraudulent transactions.

Some lawyers have taken the forbidden path and, as a consequence, have been disciplined or deprived of their privilege to practice law. Among those acts that adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, which justifies suspension from practice or disbarment include gross immorality. Gross immorality is reflective of unfitness to practice. An act of personal immorality on the part of a lawyer in his private relationship with the opposite sex may put his moral character in doubt. However, to justify suspension or disbarment, the act must not only be immoral; it must be grossly immoral as well. Lawyers as guardians of the law play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.[24]

In the case of Co vs. Bernardino[25], a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity. The misconduct outside of the lawyer’s professional dealings must be so gross a character as to show him morality unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his license and the law confer on him.

The reason for this is that there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life or in his private transaction because a lawyer may not divide his personality as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.[26] Moreover, any gross misconduct committed by a lawyer whether in his professional or in his private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment since a good character is an essential qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law.[27]

On the other hand, it has also been held in the case of Marcayda v. Mari Wang[28], that mere intimacy between a man and a woman, either of whom possesses no legal impediment to marry voluntarily carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part of the lawyer is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him as a member of the bar, even if as a result of such a relationship, the woman gave birth to a child, and so long as he admits the paternity of and agrees to support, such a child. He may be disciplined if he subsequently disowns, or refuses to support the child.

He should instead, endeavor to conduct himself at all times in such a way as to give credit to the legal profession and to inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of his clients and the community. It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield” in the defense of rights and to ward off wrong. From the profession charged with these responsibilities there must be expected those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that has throughout the centuries been compendiously described as “moral character”.[29] 

The Code of Professional Responsibility also provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. In the case of Adayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Espiritu[30], the court held that the fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of their profession. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession. Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically, and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all time conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.

The practice of law being a privilege is not absolute.  A lawyer cannot hold such privilege to practice if his conduct towards the profession is clearly different from what the law required them.

The Code of Professional Responsibility points the way to the aspiring and provides standards by which to judge the transgressor. Each lawyer must find within his own conscience the touchstone against which to test the extent to which his actions should rise above minimum standards. But in the last analysis, it is the desire for the respect and confidence of the members of his profession and of the society which he serves, that should provide to a lawyer the incentive for the highest possible degree of ethical conduct. The possible loss of that respect and confidence is the ultimate sanction. So long as its practitioners are guided by these principles, the law will continue to be a noble profession. This is its greatness and its strength, which permit of no compromise.[31]

The rules provide grounds on the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer which concur the maintenance of a lawyer’s good moral character. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney-at-law by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or for gross misconduct in such office, gross immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for willful disobedience or any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain either personally or through paid agents or brokers constitutes malpractice.[32]

The grounds enumerated under the Rules of Court are not exclusive and are so broad as to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional and private capacity.

In the case of Vitug vs. Rongcal[33], the court held that, while it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

 “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” - Abraham Maslow

The hammer that lawyers have at their disposal is the law. The law is so powerful that it can be used to abuse and to affect someone’s life, liberty, and property. Thus to regulate the use of the law in an abusive way by the lawyers, a conduct that is set by the rules through the Code of Professional Responsibility and other relevant laws  and regulations must be observed so that the competence and trust in the legal system by the society may not be lost.

---

[1] Plumptre v. Rivera, A.C. No. 1135, August 9, 2016

[2] In Re Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007

[3] Ui vs. Bonifacio, ADM. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

[4] 117 Phil 865, April 30, 1963

[5] Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, “Apostacy in the Legal Profession”, 64 SCRA 784

[6] Dantes vs. Dantes, A.M. No. 6846, September 22, 2004

[7] De Leon vs. Pedrena, A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013

[8] Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998

[9] OCA vs. Ruiz, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361, February 2, 2016

[10] A.C. No. 9436, August 1, 2016

[11] Wechsler, March 20, 2019, https://www.zdwlaw.com/blog/2019/03/why-is-good-moral-character-important-as-an-attorney/

[12] Moran, Comments on the Rules o Court, Vol. 3, pp. 665-666, citing In Re Opinion of the Justices [Mass], 194 N. E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 197 A. 139, 144

[13] Pichon vs. Agleron, A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014

[14] A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011

[15] Sec. 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court as amended by SC Resolutions dated May 20, 1968 and February 13, 1992

[16] A.C. No. 5573, November 21, 2017

[17] Canon 7, Rule 7.01, Code of Professional Responsibility

[18] Canon 7, Rule 7.02, Code of Professional Responsibility

[19] A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016

[20] A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992

[21] De Leon vs. Pedreña, A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013

[22] A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004

[23] Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility

[24] Atty. Kapunan, L. Business Mirror: The Lawyer’s duties to the legal profession, April 9, 2017, https://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/04/09/the-lawyers-duties-to-the-legal-profession/

[25] A.C. No. 3919, January 26, 1998

[26] Funa, page 29

[27] Sosa vs. Mendoza, A.C. No. 8776, March 23, 2015

[28] 106 SCRA 591, 1981

[29] Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 37

[30] A.C. No. 5542, July 20, 2006

[31] Atty. Kapunan, Id.,

[32] Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court

[33] A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006