What does the line to deny one for money or malice...

so help me God in
the lawyers oath mean?

In Vitriola vs. Dasig, a case for disbarment against an official of the

commission on higher education charged with gross misconduct in violation
of the attorney's oath for having used her public office to secure financial
spoils, the Supreme Court, in ordering respondent's disbarment, held that the
attorney's oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and
any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other
disciplinary action. The attorney's oath imposes upon every member of the
bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice.
Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the code of professional
responsibility. Respondent's demands for sums of money to facilitate the
processing of pending applications or requests before her office violates such
duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the bar.
The affirmation by a lawyer to uphold the law was the subject in De
Guzman vs. De Dios. In this case where respondent was charged for
representing conflicting interest, found guilty and suspended for six months,
with a warning, the highest tribunal held:
To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to
state the obvious, but such statement can never be over-emphasized.
Considering that, 'of all classes and professions, (lawyers are) most sacredly
bound to uphold and respect the law', it is imperative that they live by the law.
Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful
conduct have no place in the legal profession. As a lawyer, respondent is
bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to
conduct herself as a lawyer to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The
lawyer's oath is a source of obligation and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. The acts of respondent
Atty. De Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this
court will not tolerate.
In Sevillano Batac, Jr., et al. vs. Atty. P. Cruz, Jr., the Supreme Court
in ordering the suspension of respondent, quoted Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, thus:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by supreme court;
grounds therefor: A member of the bar may be disbarred orsuspended from
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or,
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so
to do.
1

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. A
lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or
malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.
Such was the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in ordering the
disbarment of lawyer who converted the money of his client to his own
personal use without her consent. The lawyer's oath exhorts law practitioners
not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. In Young vs. Batuegas, where
respondent was suspended for six months for knowingly alleging an untrue
statement of fact in his pleading, the Supreme Court said, thus:
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to
the bar that he will 'do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court'
and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his
clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court 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 a correct conclusion.
The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete
honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer
has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is expected to display the
utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct must never be at the
expense of truth.
That a lawyer's oath are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, was
applied by the Supreme Court in Vda. De Rosales vs. Ramos, where a notary
public commission was revoked and respondent disqualified from being a
notary public, in this manner: where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the
laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.
Indeed when an office entrusted with great responsibility and trust by
society is violated and abused, one finds truth in the expression corruptio
optimi pessima (the corruption of the best is the worst). The words of former
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals Pompeyo Dias cannot find a more
relevant application:
There are men in any society who are so self-serving that they try to
make law serve their selfish ends. In this group of men, the most dangerous is
the man of the law who has no conscience. He has, in the arsenal of his
knowledge, the very tools by which he can poison and disrupt society and
bring it to an ignoble end.

Source: Sabio, Jr., J. Jose L. (n.d.). The Lawyer's Oath. Retrieved from
http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php?action=mnuactual_contents&ap=j8080