5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

VOL. 125, OCTOBER 27, 1983 279

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal
Profession

ANNOTATION

LAWYERS MUST ALWAYS UPHOLD THEIR OATH AND

THE LEGAL PROFESSION
By
FLORIMOND C. ROUS

§ 1. Introduction, p. 279

1. Scope and Related Matters, p. 279

(a) Scope, p. 279

(b) Related Annotations, p. 280

2. Background Data, p. 280

(a) Definitions and Other Allied Issues, p. 280

(b) Legal Pointers, p. 281

§ II. Specific Matters Involving the Lawyer’s Oath

and the Legal Profession, p. 281

3. The Lawyer’s Oath, p. 281

4. Case Subject of Annotation, p. 282
5. Pangan vs. Ramos, p. 283
6. Other Related Cases, p. 285

§ 1. Introduction

1. Scope and Related Matters

(a) Scope

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

This annotation compiles cases involving issues and

matters regarding the lawyer’s oath and the legal
profession; special emphasis is given towards the case
subject of annotation.
280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal
Profession

For purposes of this annotation, the cases given are those,

which have a bearing to the issues involved.

(b) Related Annotations

The Decorum of a Legal Practitioner. 93 SCRA 103.
Disbarment. 32 SCRA 168.
Immorality as a Ground for Suspension or Disbarment.
6 SCRA 896.

2. Background Data
A lawyer is that class of persons who are by license officers
of the courts, empowered to appear, prosecute and defend,
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. (Cui vs.
Cui, 120 Phil. 729).
An attorney (a term synonymously used with lawyer or
attorney-at-law) is a person set apart by the law to
expound to all parties who seek him, the law of the land
relating to the high interests of life, liberty and property.
[Planter’s Bank vs. Hornberger, 44 Tenn. (4 Cold) 531].
The practice of law means customarily and habitually
holding one’s self out to the public as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services. (People vs.
Villanueva, 121 Phil. 897).
A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the
community with the minimal technicalities of the statute.
As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the
community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct
must, perforce, be par excellence especially so when he
volunteers his professional services. (Blanza and Pasion vs.
Arcangel, Administrative Case No. 482, 21 SCRA 2).
The standard of professional integrity which should be
applied to persons admitted to practice law is not satisfied
by such conduct as merely enables them to escape the
penalties of criminal law. Good moral character includes at
least common

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

281

VOL. 125, OCTOBER 27, 1983 281

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal
Profession

honesty. (Royong vs. Oblena, Administrative Case No. 376,

7 SCRA 859).
In the Philippines where the stability of courts and of all
departments of government rest upon the approval of the
people, it is peculiarly essential that the system for
establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high
point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall
have absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of its administration. The future of the Republic, to a great
extent, depends upon our maintenance of justice pure and
unsullied. It cannot be so maintained unless the conduct
and the motives of the members of our profession are such
as to merit approval of all just men. (Canons of Professional
Ethics, Preamble).

(b) Legal Pointers

When confronted with cases involving the lawyer’s oath
and the legal profession, the legal practitioner should
constantly bear in mind the provisions of the Canons of
Professional Ethics and Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court because these constitute the basic law on this subject
matter.

§ II. Specific Matters Involving the Lawyer’s Oath

and the Legal Profession

3. The Lawyer’s Oath

I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., do solemnly swear that I recognize
the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I
will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent
to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

282

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal
Profession

mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

(Rule 138, Section 3, Revised Rules of Court).
Comment: The last step before an individual formally
becomes a member of the legal profession is the lawyer’s
oath as enunciated in Rule 138, Section 3, of the Revised
Rules of Court. When this writer and other individuals
with him were reciting this particular oath some years
back, he had the occasion to notice that his fellow members
seemed to just be going through the motions of reciting the
words thereof, without in fact noticing the meaning and
sanctity of the words contained therein. But for various
reasons, this seems to be the general prevailing attitude of
the lawyers at the time of their recitation of their sacred
oath for one does not really realize the value of said verse
until after some time later or when confronted with a
situation wherein he then gets to ponder each and every
word so stated therein.
Many people may not know it or sometimes even
lawyers may sometimes be forgetful about one essential
thing and this is: that a ground for suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer is the violation of his oath of office.
This may really come as a surprise to the public but this is
a fact, because if a particular person feels that a lawyer
may allegedly have violated his oath of office, then said
party may file the appropriate proceeding against the
particular lawyer which may then result in the reprimand,
admonition, suspension, or even the disbarment of the
lawyer concerned.
Thus, the lawyer should always be watchful of himself.

4. Case Subject of Annotation

Facts: Respondent was charged of changing his name
without authority from the courts from Paquito Lim
Antonio Clemente, as appearing in his birth certificate, to
Francisco G. Antonio. Complainant contends that such act
was contrary to law. In his answer, respondent said that at
no time had he used any alias and therefore he had not
violated any law; much less did he commit falsification of
public documents, he pointed out that his correct surname
of Antonio was likewise included in
283
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

VOL. 125, OCTOBER 27, 1983 283

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal
Profession

his birth certificate as well as in other documents, wherein

the surname mentioned was Antonio. He argued that no
court order was required because the change of surname
amounted to correction of errors in the school records,
pointing out that the court order for change or correction of
entry must be in connection with that appearing in the civil
register. He explained why in his birth certificate the
nickname Paquito was used rather than the correct
appellation. According to him, no question can be raised as
to his using the correct name Francisco from birth in all his
public or private dealings. He referred to a previous case,
Administrative Case No. 848, filed by the same
complainant and based on the same evidence, which case
was dismissed by this Court in a resolution dated
September 30, 1971. Respondent prayed for the dismissal
of the complaint; complainant replied; and the case was
submitted.
Issue: Does the complaint have basis?
Decision: The dignity and the honor of the profession
require that acts unworthy of membership in the bar
should be visited with the appropriate penalty. The charge
against respondent is of a serious character. If in fact there
was such a violation of the law as charged, he should be
duly penalized. It is quite clear, however, that the
complaint is unfounded. It was the product of ill-will, the
desire of complainant to avenge himself. It certainly was
not made in good faith. If it were so, its dismissal would
have sufficed. To repeat such is not the case. x x x.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent
Attorney Francisco G. Antonio is dismissed and
complainant Vicente Lim is hereby censured. (Vicente Lim
vs. Attorney Francisco G. Antonio, Adm. Case No. 1092,
October 27, 1983).

5. Pangan vs. Ramos

Facts: Complainant, Santa Pangan, prayed that
respondent, Dionisio Ramos, be cited for contempt. It
appeared that on September 7, 1978 and March 13, 1979,
the hearings in this administrative case were postponed on
the
284

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal
Profession

basis of respondent’s motions for postponement, predicated

on respondent’s allegations that on said dates, he had a
case set for hearing before Branch VII, Court of First
Instance of Manila, entitled People vs. Marieta M. Isip
(Criminal Case No. 35906). Upon verification, the attorney
of record of the accused in said case was one “Atty. Pedro
D.D. Ramos, 306 Doña Salud Bldg., Dasmariñas, Manila.”
Respondent admitted that he used the name “Pedro D.D.
Ramos” before said court in connection with Criminal Case
No. 35906, but averred that he had a right to do so because
in his birth certificate, his name is “Pedro Dionisio Ramos”
and his parents are Pedro Ramos and Carmen Dayaw and
that the “D.D.” in “Pedro D.D. Ramos” is but an
abbreviation of “Dionisio Dayaw”, his other given name and
maternal surname.
Issue: Is respondent liable for contempt?
Decision: This explanation of respondent is untenable.
The name appearing in the “Roll of Attorneys” is “Dionisio
D. Ramos”. The attorney’s roll or register is the official
record containing the names and signatures of those who
are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is not authorized
to use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of
Attorneys in his practice of law. x x x The duty of an
attorney to the courts to employ, for the purpose of
maintaining the causes confided to him, such means as are
consistent with truth and honor, cannot be
overemphasized. These injunctions circumscribe the
general duty of entire devotion of the attorney to the client.
As stated in a case, his “high vocation is to correctly inform
the court upon the law and the facts of the case, and to aid
it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions. He
violates his oath of office when he resorts to deception, or
permits his client to do so.”
In using the name of “Pedro D.D. Ramos” before the
courts instead of the name by which he was authorized to
practice law—Dionisio D. Ramos—respondent in effect
resorted to deception. He demonstrated lack of candor in
dealing with the courts. The circumstance that this is his
first aberration in this regard precludes Us from imposing
a more severe penalty.
285

VOL. 125, OCTOBER 27, 1983 285

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
5/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 125

Lawyers Must Always Uphold Their Oath And The Legal

Profession

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent

Dionisio D. Ramos is severely REPRIMANDED and
warned that a repetition of the same overt act may warrant
his suspension or disbarment from the practice of law.
(Pangan vs. Ramos, 93 SCRA 87).

6. Other Related Cases

Where a lawyer prepares an immoral contract, deliberately
and corruptly, he thus violates his oath of office of not
doing any falsehood in court and of acting with good fidelity
to the courts. (In re De Lara, 27 Phil. 176).
An attorney may be removed from his office as a lawyer,
whenever he commits a gross misconduct in the
administration of an estate, an act constituting deceit and
malpractice. (In re Adriatico, 7 Phil. 173).
A lawyer who assists a client in a scheme which he
knows to be dishonest, and at the same time connives at
the violation of a law is guilty of unprofessional conduct.
(In re Quiambao, Adm. Case No. 195, Jan. 31, 1958).

——o0o——

286

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001631f63668d086a6aeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7