THE GODS OF PADRE FAURA

CROSSING MERIDIANS
(A Study Defining the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
over Lawyers in Government Service)

In partial compliance of the requirements for the subject

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Buendicho, Earl John

Doce, Stephanie Marie
Maquiling, Elida

University of San Agustin

College of Law
April 30, 2020

1
 LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE

A. The Lawyer

A lawyer is a representative of clients, or a neutral third party, an

officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special
responsibility for the quality of justice.1

A lawyer may perform various functions:

• as advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an

informed understanding of the client’s legal rights
and obligations and explains their practical
implications;
• as advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s
position in accordance with the rule of law;
• as negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous
to the client but consistent with requirements of
honest dealing with others;
• as intermediary between clients, a lawyer seeks to
reconcile their divergent interests as a mediator and,
to a limited extent, as a spokesperson for each client;
• as a neutral third party, a lawyer represents neither
party, but helps the parties to arrive at their own
solution; and
• as evaluator, a lawyer examines a client’s legal
affairs and reports about them to the client or to
others.2

However, the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer are not only

limited to his clients, the courts, and the legal profession, but it also
extends up to the public in general or the society, whether or not his
legal assistance is being requested. As a member of the Bar, his
obligations are neither confined alone in the four walls of a courtroom
during litigation nor in an office while drafting pleadings for his clients.
According to the Supreme Court in Cayetano vs. Monsod, “the practice
of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and
experience.” The High Court further held in the same case that “to
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires

1
Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities, Virginia State Bar. November 9, 2008. www.vsb.org.
2
id.

2
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”3 Hence, in relation
to the definition and scope of the practice of law as emphasized by the
Supreme Court in the case of Cayetano, even if a lawyer chooses to
serve in the Government, regardless of whether or not his duties
involve the appearance in any court or tribunal, it cannot be denied that
he is engaged in such practice. Thus, this tacitly explains the wisdom
behind the rule that we adhere unto that he is still within the grasp of
the Code of Professional Responsibility as expressly laid down by its
very provisions in Canon 6 and the succeeding rules that follow.

B. The Public Servant

Here in the Philippines, our government is composed of

numerous officials and employees who are members of the Bar, from
the highest seats in the national level down to the local government
units. These lawyers in the public service have been of great help in
the affairs of the government and are essential instruments in its
arsenal in the effective implementation of its programs, proper delivery
of its services, fair imposition of its rules and regulations, and
protection of its citizens. A lawyer’s abilities of strong communication
skills, people skills, time management, analysis and research, being
detail oriented, flexibility, judgment, and stress management makes
him the most desirable candidate for a public position.4 Hence, they
should be at the forefront in ensuring the development and
maintenance of a responsible legislature that seeks to promote rights
and liberties, as it entails the development of a legal framework that
protects the freedoms and rights of citizens, and to ensure that the laws
passed are not oppressive or discriminative against the society.5

However, despite the unquestionable capabilities of a lawyer in

both intellectual and practical matters with regard to being a servant
and an advocate for the general public, it is undeniable that some
members of the Bar who are working in the government have
disregarded the rules set forth in the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the moral duties and obligations contained in the
Lawyer’s Oath in performing their supposed duties as evidenced by a
significant amount of cases involving lawyers employed in the
government that enriched our jurisprudence.

In one case resolved by the Supreme Court, a lawyer who is also

serving as a Regional Director of the Commission on Human Rights
for Region II was suspended for being found guilty of allowing his
secretary to notarize documents in his stead; a clear violation of Rule
3
Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
4
Mixon, Bryan. Skills of a Successful Lawyer. April 4, 2020. Retrieved from www.amazelaw.com.
5
Holden, Tina. The Role of a Lawyer to the Society. August 17, 2017. www.icantropologia.org

3
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct; the Lawyer’s Oath; and of course, sections 245
and 246 of the Notarial Law.6 While it is true that the directives provided
by the law as regards notarial practice is but an elementary rule in our
legal system, but sad to say that there are still a lot of lawyers, both in
private practice and public service, who take the sacredness of the
notarial act for granted, and are continuing to allow their secretaries or
assistants to notarize documents on their behalf even as of this very
moment.

In another case wherein a lawyer falsified an inexistent decision

of Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court stationed in Bugasong,
Antique, the then Justice Lucas Bersamin as ponente stated in his
decision that, “a lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it
as that of a court of law is guilty of the gravest misconduct and
deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment.” He then proceeded to
warn and remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do
nothing that may in any way or degree lessen the confidence of the
public in their professional fidelity and integrity, and that the Court will
not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among them
who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their
Attorney’s Oath.7 Time and again, some lawyers have neglected the
importance of the Lawyer’s Oath in their very own practice. It seems
that these lawyers who willfully and knowingly violated its provisions,
failed to remember that the Oath is not merely an empty promise being
recited in front of someone authorized to administer the same, but “a
solemn appeal to God, or in a wider sense, to any sacred or revered
person or sanction for truth of an affirmation or declaration or in witness
of the inviolability of a promise or undertaking”, and “by swearing the
lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of
law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice.”8

The Supreme Court in another case upheld the contention of a

complainant that the respondent public officer could not justify her act
by pretending to be in good faith because even non-lawyers are not
excused from ignorance of the law.9 A lawyer must know better than
anybody else and that every action he takes should be in accordance
with the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer’s Oath, and
most of all, the law. It goes without saying that a higher degree of
accountability is imposed upon lawyers in the government service in
the proper execution of their assigned functions since they are duty-

6
Lingan vs. Calubaquib, A.C. No. 5377. June 30, 2014
7
Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732. October 22, 2013
8
Sabio, Jose. The Lawyer’s Oath: Its Significance and Importance.
9
Abella vs. Cruzabra, A.C. No. 5688, June 4, 2009.

4
bound to protect first and foremost the welfare of the public in general.
They owe utmost fidelity to public service. Thus, they should be more
sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their
conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.10

Even so, while the cases cited in the preceding paragraphs have
proven the jurisdictional reach of the Supreme Court with respect to
erring members of the Bar in government service, not to mention the
seemingly absolute provision of the Rules of Court in Section 1, Rule
139-B as amended by Bar Matter No. 1960 which states that,
“proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or upon the filing of
a verified complaint of any person before the Supreme Court or The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines”11, the Supreme Court has expressly
mentioned, however, that generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official, but
if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation
of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by the Supreme
Court as a member of the Bar.12 Apparently, it is clearly provided in the
Lawyer’s Oath in its opening statement that a lawyer is obliged to
support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the duly
constituted authorities in this country13. It is, therefore, axiomatic that
any violation or offense that would be committed by a member of the
Bar in government service is against his obligation to obey the laws of
the land; thus, obviously constitutive of a violation of his Oath. Hence,
this makes the aforementioned statement of the Supreme Court rather
confusing and in need of a clarifying resolution.

For that reason, it is necessary to define the jurisdictional reach

of every office or quasi-judicial body which exercises the power to
regulate or discipline these lawyers in government service.

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES

A. Government Offices

Under the rules, if and when a lawyer commits any offense, it is

within the authority of the Supreme Court to enforce any disciplinary
action as it deems necessary, together with the investigative and
recommendatory function of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. But

10
Vitriolo et al. vs. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003.
11
The Revised Rules of Court.
12
id. 10.
13
The Lawyer’s Oath.

5
for those who are also in the government service, aside from the
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, there are
other agencies and tribunal in the government that are clothed with
jurisdiction to entertain and hear a complaint brought before it,
including the authority to administer penalties and sanctions.

1. The Civil Service Commission

Article II, Section 3 of Republic Act No. 2260 provides that the
Philippine Civil Service shall embrace all branches, subdivisions of the
Government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations, and appointments therein, except as to those which are
policy determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature,
shall be made only according to merit and fitness, to be determined as
far as practicable by competitive examination.14 In addition, Rule 2,
Section 5 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service set forth in particular its jurisdiction over administrative case,
providing therefore that the Civil Service Commission shall hear and
decide administrative cases or matters instituted by or brought before
it, directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review
decisions and actions of its offices and other government agencies.15
Penalties that may be imposed, depending on the gravity of the
offense, are reprimand, demotion, suspension, and dismissal.16

2. The Office of the Ombudsman

According to Section 13 of Republic Act 6670 known as the

Ombudsman Act of 1989, The Ombudsman and his deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any
form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned and controlled corporations, and enforce their
administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the
evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the
Government to the people. Section 21 of the same law enumerates the
officials subject to its disciplinary authority. It states that the Office of
the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and
appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies, including members of the Cabinet,
local government, government owned and controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries except officials who may be removed only by
impeachment or over members of Congress, and the Judiciary.

14
Republic Act No. 2260.
15
2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
16
id. 15 Rule 10, Section 50.

6
Penalties imposable range from suspension without pay to dismissal
with forfeiture of benefits or fine.17

3. The Sandiganbayan

Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended,

provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in
all cases involving violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, where the accused are officials occupying positions, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, to which the salary grade of 27
is assigned, including, among others, regional directors, governors,
vice-governors, and provincial board members, city mayors, vice-
mayors, city councilors, army and air force colonels or naval captains,
high ranking officers of the Philippine National Police, prosecutors and
their assistants, presidents, directors, trustees or managers of
government-owned and controlled corporations, members of
Congress and officials with salary grade 27 and up, members of the
Judiciary, and the chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the Constitution. It likewise may
exercise original jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies, whether
simple or complexed with other crimes, committed by public officials
and employees mentioned above in relation to their office where the
penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional, and in
civil and criminal cases pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A issued in 1986 relating to ill-gotten
wealth.18

The Supreme Court further ruled that the Sandiganbayan may

exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over municipal mayors charged with
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It has also held
that said jurisdiction may be exercised over presidents, directors,
trustees or managers of all government-owned and controlled
corporations, whether or not they have original charters.19

4. The Professional Regulation Commission

The Professional Regulation Commission, shortly known as the

PRC, is a three-man commission attached to Department of Labor and
Employment. Its mandate is to regulate and supervise the practice of
the professionals who constitute the highly skilled manpower of the
country. As the agency-in-charge of the professional sector, the PRC

17
Republic Act No. 6770
18
Cruz, Isagani and Cruz, Carlo. Philippine Political Law.
19
id.

7
plays a strategic role in developing the corps of professionals for
industry, commerce, governance, and the economy.20

The PRC is the Supreme Court’s counterpart in issuing

professionals the license to practice to in the country. According to its
mandate, the Commission is also vested with power to regulate the
practice of these individuals. Therefore, the latter’s acts or omissions
in violation of their oaths in their respective fields can be subject of
disciplinary action or license revocation by the Commission.

Further, the PRC’s rules provide, that in case of a pending

criminal or civil case before the court of law of these persons within the
scope provided, shall neither suspend nor bar the proceedings of the
administrative case. The Commission or Board shall independently
proceed with the investigation and shall render its decision without
awaiting the final decision of the court. If found guilty by the regulation
board, the professional shall be meted the penalty of reprimand, and
shall be required to surrender his Certificate of Registration,
Professional License and Professional Identification Card. The
Commission shall further recommend to the Office of the President the
suspension or removal, of the member of the Board from the office, as
the case may be.21

In the case of George C. Cordero v. Board of Nursing22, which

involved leakage of actual examination questions, damaging the
credibility of the professional examinations in the country and
tarnishing the reputation of the Philippine nursing profession. This
case emphasized that the Professional Regulatory Commission is
responsible for the administration, implementation and enforcement of
regulatory policies on the regulation and licensing of various
professions and occupations under its jurisdiction.

In the revocation case of the license of Dr. Hayden Kho filed by

his former lover Katrina Halili for videotaping without her express
consent and uploading on the internet their most intimate moment
together, despite being absolved by the Court of Appeals for
committing any criminal liability, the PRC was not precluded23 from
revoking his license and preventing him from practicing medicine.

20
Republic Act No. 8981.
21
Sec. 1, Rule XV, PRC 2017 Revised Rules and Regulations in Administrative Regulations.
22
G.R. No. 188646, September 21, 2016.
23
Appeals court clears Hayden Kho in 'sex video' case. August 16, 2012. Retrieved from
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/showbiz/content/270023/appeals-court-clears-hayden-kho-in-sex-
video-case/story/.

8
 The revocation of his license served as a sanction for such
immoral conduct so unbecoming of a medical doctor. This case bears
stressing that the act committed does not have to be criminal in nature
for the PRC to revoke a professional license.

Like the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over members of the Bar,

PRC has the power to regulate nursing practice or any other profession
under it in accordance to its mandate as provided for by the law. IN the
absence of any formal complaint filed by any person, the PRC or
through its office or division, can investigate and provide sanctions
motu proprio. The PRC itself, may bring an administrative action
against any registered professional whose practice and privileges
come under its regulation.

Upon analysis of the jurisdiction of every agency in charge of the

regulation of lawyers in government service, it can be gleaned that
there is no prohibition stated in their rules against the Supreme Court
to step in and investigate, motu proprio or upon motion of a party, a
lawyer in government service who has allegedly committed a
misconduct in the course of his duties. Also, note that these offices
only hear and decide administrative and criminal charges and if proven
guilty, impose penalties such as fines, restitution, entity liability and
public service requirements, only as far as the lawyer’s position is
concerned and/or misconduct in the performance of duties and not in
his capacity as a professional. Professional discipline is where the
initial grant of a license of a lawyer is being reexamined. Disbarment,
suspension, reprimand and educational requirements for admission to
the Bar, typically are not within the power of these offices but only
within may be imposed through investigation and disciplinary
proceedings which are well within the discretion of the Supreme Court.
These sanctions are designed to shape the individual lawyer’s doings
and forbidding illegal conduct in the field of practice.24

B. The Supreme Court of the Philippines

The Supreme Court is vested with judicial power. This power

includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights that are
legally demandable and enforceable and to determine if any branch or
instrumentality of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has
both original and appellate jurisdiction. It has the exclusive power to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
24
Zacharias, Fred C. The Purpose of Lawyer Discipline, 45 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 675 (2003).

9
assistance to the underprivileged. Any such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.25

As the office representing the third branch of the government, the

Supreme Court has always been firm of its independence from the
legislative and executive bodies. Correspondingly, the Supreme Court
promulgated its own rules and regulations to properly carry out the
mandate of the judicial department and exercise its judicial power such
as the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Code has been used
by the Supreme Court to prescribe standards upon which a lawyer
must not fall short of without being sanctioned.

The Lawyer’s Oath and The Code of Professional Responsibility

It has been settled that for an applicant who has passed the
examinations, to be fully admitted to the Bar, must sign the rolls and
take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath
of office.26 This oath of office or Lawyer’s Oath embodies the principles
that a lawyer must embody in his/her practice of law. The case of
Cayetano v. Monsod extensively discussed what is the practice of law.
In the case of Sebastian v. Calis27, the Supreme Court held: “The
lawyer’s oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.” In fact, the Lawyer’s
Oath is often referred to as a compressed version of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which sets the standard of conduct and
discipline that the lawyer must uphold at all times and a contrary act or
omission from these rules will hold the lawyer accountable and even
strip off a lawyer of the title ‘Attorney’. The Supreme Court declared in
Magdaluyo v. Nace,28 that the lawyer's oath is a source of obligations
and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other
disciplinary action.

The Code of Professional Responsibility sets forth the four-fold

duty of lawyers to the society, the legal profession, the courts, and their
clients. The Canons of the Code express the standards a lawyer is
expected to uphold. From these Canons come the ethical standards of
a lawyer and from these ethical standards arise the disciplinary rules.

25
Section 5, Article VII, 1987 Constitution.
26
Sec.17, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
27
A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999.
28
A.C. No. 3808. February 2, 2000.

10
Guided by the principles, a lawyer is to find within him the touchstone
unto how these are to be followed and from which his actions must not
fall short otherwise he shall be subject to disciplinary action. Lawyers
are often regarded as guardians of the law. This speaks volume as
they are expected to maintain the highest standard of morality and
ethical conduct.

As guardians of the law, lawyers are required to understand their

function and importance in the legal system.29 The first duty of a lawyer
and most especially a lawyer occupying a public office, is to the society,
to the public. Canon 1 states that, “A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
for legal processes.” Further, Rule 1.01 provides that, “A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” A
lawyer is expected to abide by the rules and laws at all times otherwise
the public shall have an impression that all lawyers disrespect the law
and might taint the public’s view of the legal profession and the legal
system in the country.

In the Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe30, Atty. Buffe

questioned the provision of RA 6713, giving preferential treatment to
incumbent public officials and employees as regards private practice,
while non-incumbents, according to the last paragraph of Section 7 of
such law, cannot practice their profession in connection with any
matter before the office they used to be with for a period of one year
after resignation, retirement or separation from public office. Such
question was due to the fact that, within one year after her resignation
from her position as Clerk of Court, she engaged in the private practice
of law by appearing as private counsel in several cases before RTC-
Branch 81 of Romblon before which she was appointed. The Court
found Atty. Buffe of professional misconduct and was fined for acting
in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 considers as “unlawful” and by acting
so, she contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. At the same time, by not living up to her oath, she has
also violated Canon 7 which provides that, “A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” The Court ruled
that her open disregard of the law disgraced the dignity of the legal
profession by openly disobeying and disrespecting the law. By her
irresponsible conduct, she also eroded public confidence in the law
and in lawyers.

In the same case the Supreme Court ruled that when a member
of the bar commits a violation of the lawyer's oath and/or a breach of

29
Patajo-Kapunan, Lorna. April 9, 2017. The lawyer’s duties to the legal profession. Retrieved from www.
businessmirror.com.ph/2017/04/09/the-lawyers-duties-to-the-legal-profession/.
30
A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC. August 19, 2009.

11
the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility and there is absence of any formal charge
against and/or formal investigation of an errant lawyer, it does not
preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining
authority, as long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the
opportunity to be heard. Given so, a member of the bar may be
penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise
of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.

Res ipsa loquitur

The Supreme Court has applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur
in various administrative cases against lawyers although the concept
has been used widely in medical malpractice. The Latin phrase means
‘the thing speaks for itself. In Solidum v. People of the Philippines31 the
Court explained the applicability of the doctrine res ipsa loquitur:

xxx The doctrine res ipsa loquitur means that "where the
thing which causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident is such as
in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those
who have the management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by
the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."
It is simply "a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter
of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of
certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of
negligence on the part of the person who controls the
instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some
explanation by the defendant who is charged with
negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary
human experience and on the basis of such experience or
common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the
mere occurrence of the accident itself.

In Richards vs. Asoy32, a lawyer was disbarred for neglecting his

duties of representing his client despite being duly notified and paid by
the latter for expenses necessary for litigation. As a result of such
absence, his client’s case was dismissed without prejudice twice for
lack of interest. The Supreme Court held that, “the facts, as disclosed,
require no further evidentiary hearing, and speak for themselves. Res
Ipsa Loquitor. The Orders of the trial court dismissing the civil case are

31
G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
32
A.C. No. 2655, July 9, 1987

12
of record and respondent’s excuse that he no longer recalls them is
feeble. Respondent’s side has been fully heard in the pleadings he has
filed before this Court. A trial type hearing is not de riqeur. The
requirement of due process has been duly satisfied. What due process
abhors is absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.” Thus, the High
Court has found him guilty of grave professional misconduct for he had
abandoned his client in violation of his contract ignoring the most
elementary principles of professional ethics amounting to malpractice
and violation of his oath as a lawyer.

With respect to the legal profession, the applicability requires that

a lawyer causes some form of injury or violation to someone whom the
lawyer has the duty of care or responsibility and there is a showing that
there is want of care. It is of common knowledge among lawyers, most
especially lawyers in government service, to faithfully follow the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional responsibility and that one
of their duties as a public servant is to the society or the public. The
mere showing of a lawyer’s violation or alleged violation of his oath as
a lawyer or the Code of Professional Responsibility therefore calls for
the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which vests the
Supreme Court the jurisdiction over erring lawyers even without formal
charges or trial and the lawyer is given the opportunity to be heard.

CONCLUSION

The legal profession is invested with public trust. Its goal is to

render public service and secure justice for those who seek its aid.
Thus, the practice of law is considered a privilege, not a right, bestowed
by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to
possess the legal qualifications required for the conferment of such
privilege.33 It bears stressing that if the profession itself is invested with
public trust, all the more reason must a lawyer in government service
be disciplined since the lawyer occupies a public office and a public
office involves public trust which must at all times be respected. The
bar is already set high for lawyers and should it fall below the bar with
respect to the standards of the Code, it is only rightful that the Supreme
Court take into its jurisdiction these erring lawyers. Res ipsa loquitur.

There are many instances where a lawyer has been disciplined

by the Supreme Court even though he was not in the practice of law
but in his private capacity. With even better reason should the
Supreme Court handle cases which involve lawyers serving in the
government, exert a more careful and more stringent application of the
rules and regulations. Lawyers in government service are first lawyers

33
Abay v. Montesino, A.C. No. 5718, December 4, 2003.

13
and they are duty-bound to faithfully observe their sworn oath
particularly to the public. A lawyer who has taken his oath is almost like
wearing the One Ring. The One Ring is a representation – almost the
talisman – of the country’s legal system, of the Supreme Court’s own
being and power. The Ring is a strong amulet and is given only to
those who have a strong will. When a lawyer wears it, he becomes
‘invisible’ to others, however, the Ring does not offer the wielder full
protection because he has become visible to the Gods of Padre Faura.
It makes the wielder suddenly hyper-visible to the Ring’s master. As
soon as he becomes a full-fledged lawyer, he is given the power, the
authority to practice law but also the responsibility to uphold the laws.
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to
uphold the laws, as 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.34 When a lawyer, in private
or public practice, commits a violation of his oath or allegedly does so,
he becomes more vulnerable to the eyes of the Gods. Since he is a
representation, the Gods cannot just let a wielder of the ring taint the
reputation of the legal system and eventually lose the people’s trust.
The bearer of this Ring of privilege to practice law must be competent
enough to carry out the mandate of the Supreme Court. To do so, the
bearer would need a remarkably logical and devoted mind, and a great
sense of moral development, guided by the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

It has been settled that the Code has been the Supreme Court’s
basis in reprimanding the members of the Bar. Although nowhere in
the Code states the limitations or scope of the Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction, based on the foregoing, it can be inferred that as long as
he is a member of the Bar, whether in private practice or serving in the
government, acting in his private capacity or in the performance of his
duties, the lawyer is well within the Supreme Court’s reach. The
general rule declared in the case of Vitriolo v. Dasig35 should be
abandoned. In this case, the Supreme Court seem to have drawn a
line that should have been inexistent because it is incongruous with
the power enshrined to it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
the plenary disciplinary authority over lawyers. Its disciplinary authority
and regulatory power over the members of the Bar is in consonance
with its constitutional mandate which is the proper administration of
justice and also the exclusive power of admission to the practice of law
and the practice of law itself.36 Therefore, whether or not the
misconduct committed is in the discharge of his duties as a

34
Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004.
35
id. 10.
36
Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 79690-707 & 80578, October 7, 1988,

14
government official, the Supreme Court does not lose and cannot be
deprived of exercising its power to regulate.

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor
to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the
legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in
any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the
fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.37 With that being
said, it is only appropriate, with its inherent duty of properly
administering justice and of carrying out its judicial functions, that the
Supreme Court, cross lines and should not be taken aback by the
invisible cloak of immunity held by lawyers in government service. As
the Ring’s master, the Gods of Padre Faura, should always lay an All-
Seeing Eye of Sauron over its Ringbearers to ensure the that the Ring
is not tarnished by their incompetence and apathy.

37
Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997.

15