Ui vs.

Bonifacio

Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

Facts:

Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an illicit relationship with
respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed
by complainant against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the
complainant’s husband. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because
they were married abroad and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status,
she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.

Issue:

Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
practice of law.

Held:

The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, was dismissed.

All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,”
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree.

SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997]

Facts:
Simeon Barranco, petitioner, was a bar exam passer. However, before he could take his oath, Patricia Figueroa,
respondent, petitioned that respondent be denied admission. Her complaint was that respondent and she had
been sweethearts, a child of them was born out of wedlock, and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated
promises to marry. Furthermore, respondent married and settled with another woman. Complainant further
claimed that respondent forced complainant into sexual relations with him.

Issue:
Are the charges set against the respondent enough to disbar him from taking the lawyer’s oath?

Ruling:
No, the charges required to constitute a disbarment not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. In the case at
hand, the allegation on respondent merely suggest a doubtful moral character. Furthermore, complainant
continued to see respondent for a while, even after giving birth to the child, thus suggesting that the sexual
relations were consensual and not forced.

Cordova v. Cordova
A.M. no. 3249, November 29, 1989
Ponente:

Facts
• June 6, 1976: Salvacion Delizo and Laurence Cordova got married, and had 2 children out of the
marriage.
• 1985: The couple lived in the Quirino province, but in the same year Cordova left his family, and his job
as Clerk of Court of the RTC, and went to live with Fely Holgado, who was also married and had left her
family, in Surigao del Sur, living as husband in wife in public.
• April 6, 1986: Cordova and his wife had an apparent reconciliation with Cordova promising to leave
Fely. He brought his family to Surigao del Sur, but frequently came home drunk and failed to support his
family.
• February 1987: Upon returning home from a trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her
daughter, Salvacion discovers that Laurence had their home for another mistress, Luisita Magallanes, and had
taken their other daughter, Melanie with him.
• April 14, 1988: Salvacion submitted her complaint against Atty. Laurence Cordova for immorality and
acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
• December 1, 1998: Laurence Cordova was found to be in default for failure to file an answer to
Salvacion’s complaint.
• The hearing was moved many times, because both of them failed to appear. In April 6, 1989, the
complainant informed the Commission that they had already reconciled.

Issue/s and Held

Held: Yes. He was suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has continued supporting his
family, and has given up immoral conduct.

As a requirement to the admission in the Bar, a candidate must show that he is of good moral character. As held
in In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1 this Court, following the rule in the United States, held that "the continued
possession ... of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of the
law ... and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground
for disbarment. " Good moral character is not limited to the discharge of one’s duties as a laywer.

Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary
obligations before his own daughter and the community at large.

EN BANC [G.R. No. 159486-88. November 25, 2003]

Facts:
-Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the respondent justices have violated Rule 5.10 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution.
“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of
political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse
candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities.” Also, petitioner contended that
the justices have prejudged a case that would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The
subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states,
a patent mockery of justice and due process. According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong
Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan made
manifest their bias and partiality against his client. Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario
supposedly employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming
gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as insignificant even
before the prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.) remarking in open court that
to grant Estrada’s motion would result in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the alleged ‘bias and partial
attitude’ of the Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for their
disqualification. The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution the TRUTH of the acts of
Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20, 2001 in:
a) going to EDSA 2;
b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo as President on the ground of permanent disability’
even without proof of compliance with the corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g., written declaration by
either the President or majority of his cabinet; and
c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that same ground of permanent disability.
In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio
V. Panganiban, he has demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several advisory opinions
on matters pending before the Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing
the foregoing orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lack of merit. The
Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an indispensable requirement to warrant a recourse to
the extraordinary relief of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned Attorney Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary
sanction, to desist from further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its
Members.
Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the Court, Attorney Paguia appears to persist on end. In
fact, on the 7th September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say -
“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right to due process of law? It renders the
decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed. There
was no fair play since it appears that when President Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his
fellow justices had already committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment already made and waiting to
be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had
authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected to voluntarily admit the
unconstitutionality of their own act?”

Issue: WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
-Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness, of a
decision of the Court would be welcome for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and
contribute to the correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil 595.) However, Attorney Paguia has
not limited his discussions to the merits of his client’s case within the judicial forum. Indeed, he has repeated
his assault on the Court in both broadcast and print media.
“Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the bar from making such public
statements on any pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. By his acts, Attorney
Paguia may have stoked the fires of public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the
administration of justice.”
-It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its statutory context, relates to acts designed
to cause the success or the defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of candidacy
to a public office in an election. The taking of an oath of office by any incoming President of the Republic
before the Chief Justice of the Philippines is a traditional official function of the Highest Magistrate. The
assailed presence of other justices of the Court at such an event could be no different from their appearance in
such other official functions as attending the Annual State of the Nation Address by the President of the
Philippines before the Legislative Department.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the
erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice
law in the Philippines.
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally
imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members
of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of
justice.
-The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
-WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon
his receipt hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

Adelino Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco G.R. No. L-23815 June 28, 1974
May 30, 2017

Facts:
Adelino Ledesma, a counsel de parte for one of the parties in a case pending before the sala of Judge Rafael
Climaco, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de parte in light of his appointment as an election registrar.
Judge Climaco, instead of granting his withdrawal, appointed him as counsel de oficio of the two defendants in
the criminal case. Ledesma then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio but it was denied,. Hence, he
instituted this petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's withdrawal
as counsel

Held:
No. Membership in the Bar carries with it a responsibility to live up to its exacting standards. Law is a
profession and not a trade or craft.Those enrolled in its ranks aid the courts in the administration of justice. As
such, an attorney may be called or appointed as counsel de oficio to aid indigents for the realization of their
constitutional right to counsel especially in criminal cases like this where a person may be convicted not
because of his or her guilt but because he or she lacks competent legal representation.
Assuming Ledesma's good faith, his appointment as an election registrar cannot be availed of now when
granting his withdrawal will result to the delay in the administration of justice. It is to be noted that the
proceedings has been delayed at least eight times at the defense's instance, resulting to undue inconvenience to
the parties involved.
What is easily discernible in this case is the petitioner's reluctance to comply with the responsibilities incumbent
upon him as counsel de oficio. Petitioner is admonished for not being mindful of his obligation where he is
expected to exercise due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation, to the case of his clients. He must be
reminded that a member of the bar is a vanguard in the bastion of justice and is therefore expected to have a
bigger dose of social conscience and a little less self-interest.
 In re Luis B. TAGORDA
March 23, 1929

FACTS
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. He admits that during his campaign, he made
use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which, in translation means that he is a lawyer and a notary public;
and that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, can renew lost documents,
and etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; and that he is willing
to serve the poor. The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of
barrio in his home municipality advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board
member, he can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to
receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land
registration cases for a charge of three pesos.

ISSUE Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.

HELD
Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother
lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This
cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or
advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is
unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind,
whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering
retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for
business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude
of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the
traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood,
relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was
unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law
for a month.

Khan vs. Simbillo, A.C No. 5299, August 19, 2003

FACTS:
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads: “Annulment of Marriage
Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs.
Simbillo who answered. She claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases
and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and
custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published. An administrative complaint
was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend
Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he
admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to lift
the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the
prohibition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.

HELD:

Yes! The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary duty is public service and
money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty to public service and administration of
justice should be primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest. Worse, advertising himself as an
“annulment of marriage specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as
sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond. Solicitation of
business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that
purpose --- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his
name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.

Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985]

FACTS:

[R]espondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the
ten lawyers, asked a certain Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to
H.E. Gabriel, a client. Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman
to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not,
what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law office.” Not having received any reply, he filed the
instant complaint. As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional
partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world.
Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing under the firm name of Guerrero &
Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Baker & McKenzie, an alien law firm, could practice law in the Philippines.

HELD:

NO. Respondents were enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.

RATIO:

Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of
Court).

Respondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constituted a representation that being associated with
the firm they could “render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others
engaged in foreign trade and investment”. This was unethical because Baker & McKenzie was not authorized to
practice law here.

CASE DIGEST – BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

29 - Atty. Khan v Atty. Simbillo

Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of public Information
Office, filed and administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal services. The respondent has issued a paid advertisement
in the Philippine Daily Inquirer promoting annulment of marriages with a corresponding contact
number. Ms. Ma. Theresa, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court
called the published telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. Mrs. Simbillo
answered and confirmed that her husband is an expert in handling said cases. The Public
Information Office has also learned that an identical advertisement was also published in
different newspapers on the succeeding months. Atty. Simbillo confirmed the actions alleged to
him however contended that the act of lawyer advertising and of solicitation is not against the
law.

The acts committed were violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules
2.03 and 3.01, and Rules 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court. Respondent not only rendered and
solicited his legal services in an improper manner, but also evaded in the sanctity of marriage
which is valued by Philippine law. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Atty.
Simbillo from practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that if identical acts were repeated
would result to severe punishment wherein the Court also affirmed.
30 – In Re: Tagorda

Luis B. Tagorda is a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela,
advertised his position as an attorney for purposes of personal gain and addressed a letter directly
to a lieutenant of barrio to whom he voluntary offers his services. His actions for the purpose of
creating suits and stirring up litigations imply barratry and malpractice of the legal profession.
However, respondent was unaware that the acts committed were improper, and he, as a
practising attorney and youth, is also inexperience at the bar. He also promised not to repeat the
mistake in the future. In view of these considerations, instead of subjecting the respondent for
disbarment, Luis B. Tagorda is suspended in the practice of law for one month.
31 – Dacanay v Baker and Mackenzie

Atty. Adriano Dacanay filed a complaint to prevent Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other
lawyers form practising law under the name of Baker and Mackenzie, a law firm organized in
Illinois. Atty. Dacanay received a letter from Vicente A. Torres using the letterhead of Baker and
Mackenzie, asking Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International,
Inc. to client named Gabriel. He denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel and asked to be
informed whether the latter was from Baker and Mackenzie.
The Court held that using the firm name of Baker and Mackenzie is unethical, because
the firm is a professional partnership in Chicago Illinois and is not allowed to practise law in the
Philippines, thus respondents associated with the firm are enjoined from practising law.
32 – Samonte v Gatdula

A complaint was filed against Atty. Rolando Gatdula by Julieta Borromeo Samonte for grave misconduct
wherein respondent was engaged in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his duties as a Branch
Clerk of Court. Samonte was an authorized representative of her sister, Flor Borromeo in an ejectment case
filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon city. Complainant received a temporary restraining order,
because she put the wrong address of the defendant involved in the ejectment case, therefore preventing the
execution of the decision of the Metropolitan trial Court. She then inquired the issuance of the temporary
restraining order to Atty. Gatdula. Complainant said that Atty. Gatdula had blamed her lawyer for writing the
wrong address of the ejectment case and in order for the case to proceed, the respondent offered her a calling
card with his name entailing certain law office was written. The respondent denied the allegations against him
and claiming that it was the complainant who asked him to be her counsel instead and the calling card was
shown by her.

In the scheduled hearings, complainant failed to comply while respondent, in the last time the hearing was set,
appeared in his own behalf to support his claims. Despite the complainant’s failure to present in court, the
respondent was indeed found to be included in the BALIGOD, GATDULA, TACARDON, DIMAILIG &
CELERA LAW OFFICES which corroborated that Atty. Gatdula is engaged in private practice of law.
Moreover, the respondent merely denied that he was part of the law firm and does not claim that it was printed
without his knowledge nor his consent thus, making him guilty of infraction. The court held respondent to be
reprimanded with a warning of repetition of this act would constitute to severe offenses.

Misamin v san juan

FACTS: Herein respondent admits having appeared as counsel for the New Cesar’s Bakery in the
proceeding before the NLRC while he held office as captain in the Manila Metropolitan Police.
Respondent contends that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated exercise of his profession. He
contends that his appearance as counsel while holding a government position is not among the grounds
provided by the Rules of Court for the suspension or removal of attorneys.
Issue: Whether or not the administrative case against the defendant should prosper

Held: The court ruled in the negative. The court ruled that the matter is to be decided in an administrative
proceeding as noted in the recommendation of the Solicitor General. Nonetheless, the court held that while
the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar
to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far
from living true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of
whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the
office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated
but also to be at the beck and call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should
not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar should
refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the
position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in
an honorable profession who does not even take care that his honor remains unsullied.

VITRIOLO VS DASIG

Facts: This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of
the Attorney’s Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the dignity
and reputation of the CHED. Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED.
In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed with this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that
respondent, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches,
Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending
before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of
P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She
demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was subsequently confirmed to be
P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her application for correction of name
then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.

Issue: Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of
the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.
Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons with applications or requests pending before her office are
violative of Rule 1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from
engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of
Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests.
Promotion of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction
requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. Respondent’s
conduct in office falls short of the integrity and good moral character required from all lawyers, specially from
one occupying a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree
of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren in private practice.