THE LAWYER’S OATH: REVISITED

Prepared by: Atty. Jason Oliver C. Sun

Is it still relevant?

In one word: YES.

An applicant who has passed the bar examinations or who has otherwise been found to be entitled to be
admitted to the bar must take and subscribe the oath of office as a lawyer.1 As such, the oath is a
prerequisite to the practice of law and admittance to the bar. In fact engaging in the practice of law prior
to the taking of the lawyer’s oath constitutes grave misconduct and can be a ground for denying the
applicant (even if he has passed the bar examinations) admission to the bar.2

However, the lawyer’s oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should
at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer’s oath.
For if all lawyers conduct themselves strictly according to the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer, and easier for everyone
concerned.3

The significance of the oath is that it not only impresses upon the attorney his responsibilities but also
stamps him as an officer of the court with rights, powers, and duties as important as those of the judge
themselves. It is a condensed code of legal ethics and the source of his obligations and its violation is a
ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.4

In summary, the lawyer’s oath is still relevant not only because it is technically required under Rule 138
for admittance to the bar, but also because it serves as a constant reminder of the duties and obligations
imposed upon lawyers, as well as a basis for disciplinary action in the event of its breach.

Is it still being observed?

Problem areas

The general public often holds lawyers in high esteem. However, a significant number of people also
harbor a strong dislike or distrust of lawyers, which may be due to the increasing number of administrative
cases filed against erring lawyers for their breach of the ethical, moral, and professional standards
imposed on the profession.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the number of disbarred barristers almost doubled from 13 (2013)
to 23 (2014), while suspended barristers more than doubled from 8 (2013) to 20 (2014).5 In the Philippine
setting, Justice Paras has also mentioned an increase in the number of administrative cases filed against
judges and lawyers.6 There was also a study published in the Paulinian Compass, which investigated the
number and grounds of suspension or disbarment of lawyers from 2000 to 2009. The study found that the
common grounds for suspension or disbarment include: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of an order of the court; and (7) willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party without authority. Notably, almost one-third (1/3) of disbarment cases were
based on acts of deceit, while nearly half were committed by lawyers in their capacity as private
individuals.7

1
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
2
Tan v. Sabandal, 126 SCRA 60 (1983)
3
In re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26 (1997)
4
Agpalo, R.E., Legal and Judicial Ethics, 8th Ed. (2009) (citations omitted)
5
Baksi, C., Number of disbarred and suspended barristers soars, September 19, 2014, retrieved from:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/number-of-disbarred-and-suspended-barristers-soars/5043358.article on
12/13/2019 12:26 AM
6
Paras, R., The Philippine Judiciary, Philippine Law Journal Vol. 28 No. 6
7
Punzalan, K., Cases of Disbarred Lawyers in the Philippines at the Turn of the Century, The Paulinian Compass Vol.
1 No. 4, 2010
In an even more localized setting, however, the common offenses appear to be less serious, such as
coming to court with improper attire; being overzealous in the defense of clients; committing minor
infractions of the Rules on Notarial Practice; and feeling internal conflict regarding the possibility of
personal gain vis-à-vis encouraging clients to sue.

Proposed solutions

A two-tiered solution to the said problem areas is proposed.

The first tier involves the strengthening of legal ethics courses for law students.

Law school is where aspiring lawyers are trained. Hence, as former Chief Justice Castro once
emphasized, “the standards of the legal profession cannot be raised unless the standards of the legal
education of applicants for admission to the Bar are also elevated.”8 If the goal is to make a lasting
change on how the legal profession values the lawyer’s oath, it is only natural that the importance of the
oath be engrained in the most impressionable minds at the earliest possible opportunity.

Unfortunately, today’s law schools are mostly “bar-oriented” – that is to say that their focus is mostly on
helping their students pass the bar exams. In connection with this, since legal ethics is given the least
weight during the bar exams, law schools also tend to give it the least importance as well. As
emphasized by Justice Reyes, “The present-day law curricula fail to adequately provide for the moral
training of the law student. Stress is laid on what is lawful rather than what is just; emphasis is placed on
what is permissible instead of what is honorable. The rules of professional ethics and responsibility that
place a distinctive import on the legal profession and mark it apart from all others careers are accorded
but casual attention in the law course. The unfortunate result of such a distorted sense of values looms
large in judicial annals – Bar candidates denied admission for moral deficiencies; too many lawyers
suspended, censured or disbarred for abandoning or neglecting their clients cases, for failing to file on
time pleadings or briefs on their behalf, for continual use of delaying tactics, or for not complying with
their duties as officers of the Court.”9 In other words, law schools need to place more emphasis on the
study of legal ethics to ensure that their students ultimately mature to be morally upright as well as
competent.

The second tier involves self-reflection and continuing education for members of the bar.

As already mentioned, the lawyer’s oath is meant to serve as a constant reminder of the duties and
obligations imposed by lawyers upon themselves. Thus, it is only fitting that lawyers regularly take the
time to reflect on their oath and weigh their actions against its words.

In addition, the mandatory continuing legal education program should continue to devote a significant
part of their efforts on educating lawyers about updates and core concepts of legal ethics. Doing so will
not only remind lawyers about their duties and obligations but will also keep them updated on how the
Supreme Court has been disciplining their colleagues.

If this two-tiered approach is successfully implemented, it is most humbly submitted that there will
likely be positive and long-term improvements in the filed of legal ethics.

8
Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro in his speech before the IBP, Manila Hilton, March 17, 1976 as quoted in Anchoriz,
A.D., Legal Ethics, Law Students, and Law School, The Bedan Review, retrieved from:
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p6m854u/Indeed-the-future-lawyers-would-always-start-from-the-law-school-
Law-school/ on 12/13/2019 12:26 AM
9
Anchoriz, A.D., Legal Ethics, Law Students, and Law School, The Bedan Review