LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

Montecillo Vs. Gica

With full realization that a practicing lawyer and officer of the court facing contempt proceedings cannot just be
allowed to voluntarily retire from the practice of law, an act which would negate the inherent power of the court
to punish him for contempt in defense of its integrity and honor, We resolve, by resolution of January 10, 1974,
to deny said prayer of Atty. del Mar without prejudice to his making arrangement directly with his clients.
To aged brethren of the bar it may appear belated to remind them that second only to the duty of maintaining
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines, is the duty of all attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers (Sec. 20 (b) Rule 138, Rules of Court). But We do remind them of said duty to emphasize to
their younger brethren its paramount importance. A lawyer must always remember that he is an officer of the
court exercising a high privilege and serving in the noble mission of administering justice.
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude (People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572).
As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes
fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic
institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. (In re Sotto 82 Phil. 595).
As We stated before:
We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege. And, he may
suffer frustration at what he feels is others' lack of it. This is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however,
should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison
the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. He should give due allowance to the fact that
judges are but men; and men are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility.
... To be sure, lawyers may come up with various methods, perhaps much more effective, in calling the Court's
attention to the issues involved. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions, emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive (Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer G. R. No. L22979, June 26, 1967; 20 SCRA 441, 444-445)
Criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or
a judge acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into
disrepute or disrespect (17 C. J. S. 7).
2. In. Re gutierrez
Under section 5 of Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime insolving moral turpitude. Murder is, without doubt, such
a crime. The term "moral turpitude" includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals. In re Carlos S. Basa, 41 Phil. 275. As used in disbarment statutes, it means an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in
general, contrary to the accepted rule of right and duty between man and man. State ex rel. Conklin v.
Buckingham, 84 P. 2nd 49; 5 Am. Jur. Sec. 279. pp. 428-429.
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid standards of mental
and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of
academic preparation but require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither

dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else incur the risk of
suspension or removal. As stated in Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 263, 27 Law ed., 552, 556: "Of all classes and
professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all
men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of
society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and
dangerous elements of the body politic.
4. De ysasi vs nlrc
The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties, as revealed by the records, sorely disappoints the Court and
invites reproof. Both counsel may well be reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients
with
zeal 55 goes beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in court. It is just as much their
responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably
out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their
clients. Once again, we reiterate that the useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid
it whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic
forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and a
conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. 56
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that "(a) lawyer shall encourage his
client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement." On this point, we find that both
counsel herein fell short of what was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. The
records do not show that they took pains to initiate steps geared toward effecting a rapprochement between their
clients. On the contrary, their acerbic and protracted exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation
even as they may have found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their respective clients.

5. Pajares vs Abad santos

As we recently said in another case,3 the cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless
clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. There must be more faithful adherence
to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of Court which provides that "the signature of an attorney constitutes a
certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and
belief, there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay" and expressly admonishes that
"for a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action."
6 people vs rosqueta
Supreme Court noted that Atty. Estacio has been irresponsible, has been negligent and inattentive to his duty to
his clients. Atty. Estacio should be aware that even in those cases where counsel de parte is unable to secure
from his clients or from their near relatives the amount necessary to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily
conclude his connection with the case. He should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as
well as to a client, he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that
he prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in this case is
inexcusable.

7 De Roy vs CA
Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the case at bar
owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of the time the subject
decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated. Contrary to petitioners' view, there is no law requiring the
publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to
their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of
decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and
published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the Supreme
Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.
8. Far eastern shipping vs CA
The OSG is reminded that just like other members of the Bar, the canons under the Code of Professional
Responsibility apply with equal force on lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks. 43These ethical duties are rendered even more exacting as to them because, as government counsel, they
have the added duty to abide by the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public
service. 44 Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the OSG, as part of the government bureaucracy, to perform and
discharge its duties with the highest degree of professionalism, intelligence and skill 45 and to extend prompt,
courteous and adequate service to the public. 46
As between the lawyer and the courts, a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. 26 He is an
officer of the court exercising a privilege which is indispensable in the administration of justice. 27 Candidness,
especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to
expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. 28 Candor in all dealings is the
very essence of honorable membership in the legal profession. 29 More specifically, a lawyer is obliged to
observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. 30 It behooves a lawyer,
therefore, to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. 31 Being an officer of the court, a lawyer has a responsibility in the proper administration of justice. Like
the court itself, he is an instrument to advance its ends the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not only help
attain these objectives but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or
prevent their realization, charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. 32Sad to say, the members of said law firm sorely failed to observe their duties as
responsible members of the Bar. Their actuations are indicative of their predisposition to take lightly the avowed
duties of officers of the Court to promote respect for law and for legal processes. 33 We cannot allow this state of
things to pass judicial muster.

9. Jose vs Garcia
The foregoing narration of facts are amply supported by evidence appearing in record. However, complainant
contends that "a lawyer should at all times see to it that he receives his mail and change of address should be
formally filed with the Court with copies with furnished opposing cousel so that his mail would be received on
time at the new address" (Complainant's memorandum dated July 5, 1974). She dismisses as flimsy
respondent's defense that JRS Business Corporation to whom the letter containing the decision of the Court of
Appeals was entrusted for delivery to him failed to deliver said letter before the period to appeal expired.
10. People vs pineda

A rule of presumption long familiar, however, is that official duty has been regularly performed.13 If the Fiscal
has not seen fit to give weight to said affidavit wherein it is alleged that certain personal properties (transistor
radio and money) were taken away by the culprits after the shooting, we are not to jettison the prosecutor's
opinion thereon. The Fiscal could have had reasons for his act. For one thing, there is the grave problem of
proving the elements of that offense robbery. For another, the act could have been but a blind to cover up the
real intent to kill. Appropriately to be noted here is that all the informations charged evident premeditation. With
ponderables and imponderables, we are reluctant to hazard a guess as to the reasons for the Fiscal's action. We
are not now to say that, on this point, the Fiscal has abused his discretion. A prosecuting attorney, by the nature
of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he
has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This
is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to
recognize that a prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his conviction. In case of
doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily
swamped with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process the sporting idea of
fair play may be transgressed. So it is, that in People vs. Sope 75 Phil. 810, 815, this Court made the
pronouncement that "[i]t is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the one charged with the
prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the off ended
party."14

12. Tan vs Gallardo

There is no question that since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State, it is but natural
that the representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution. As stressed in Suarez v. Platon, et
al., 3the prosecuting officer "is the representative not of. an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty
whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in
a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape
or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigorindeed, he should do so. But, while he may
strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
Thus, it was stressed in People v. Esquivel, et al., 4 that there is an absolute necessity for prosecuting attorneys
to lay "before the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying
contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence, to the end that the court's mind may not be
tortured by doubts, that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. Obvious to all, this is
the prosecution's prime duty to the court, to the accused, and to the state." It is for the purpose of realizing the
afore-mentioned objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed under the direction, control, and
responsibility of the prosecuting officer.
The role of the private prosecutors, upon the other hand, is to represent the offended parts, with respect to the
civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. 'This civil action is deemed instituted
with the criminal action, unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute
it separately.5 Thus, "an offended party may intervene in the proceedings, personally or by attorney, specially in
case of offenses which can not be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party. 6 The only exception
to this is when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right to institute it
after the termination of the case, in which case he lost his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to
have lost his interest in its prosecution. 7 And in any event, whether an offended party intervenes in the
prosecution of a criminal action, his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the
prosecuting official. " 8 As explained in Herrero v. Diaz, supra, the "intervention of the offended party or his
attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, subject to the provisions of section 4 of

the same Rule that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of the Fiscal." (Emphasis supplied)

13. People vs Sendaydiego