Republic of the Philippines

Tarlac State University

College of Law

Legal Stands of a COUNSEL

Defending a CLIENT Accused
IMMORALITY CASE

in
of

A research paper on the 3rd topic issued, Stands and Lived

Experiences of Lawyers on Immorality cases in the Philippines at
the current times.
Prepared by:
Jefferson B. Dungca
Legal Counseling Class under

Atty. Adenn L. Sigua

Professor / Instructor

1st Semester, 2014-2015

Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his

clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
So goes an early admonition against immorality
from the Holy Book that is as valuable today as it
was thousands of years ago. In the judiciary, moral
integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity.

A government /court employee who has fallen

short of the exacting standards of morality and
decency has to face the consequences, even after
the embers have died and the scars have faded.

Justice PERLAS-BERNABE,
BANAAG versus
ESPELETA,A.M. No. P-113011December 16, 2011

CONTENTS
I

Introduction

II

An Overview on The Concept of Immorality cases in the

Philippines
A Research of Immorality / Indecency cases in the
Philippines
Immorality as defined by the Supreme Court
The Lawyers expected Position

III

Immorality and Indecency: The Current Jurisprudences

Sensational Cases

IV

Findings / Analysis and Interpretation

The Perception of the General Public on Issues involving

Immorality
Prologue
The Lawyers Stand

Researchers Recommendation

VI

Conclusion

VII

References (Books and Net)

I.INTRODUCTION
In the name of Equality, it must apply to all.
Why the issue? Humbly, this is how the researcher would like to depict
the confusing and always issue to the current events of individuals who are
complained of Indecency, Grave Misconduct and the ever favorite
Immorality acts; and how the Members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines through their experiences and stands react to establish a chosen
side, to favor or not, to tolerate or to put a stop if cannot anymore prevent
such.

In the aftermath of the increasing number of complaints and cases, the

people through the different forms of mass media, elicited a cacophony of
opinions on the matter. Some suggested the knee jerk reaction as if a total
crime, and must have a harsh punishment such as dismissal from

work and criminal penalties while some are of the opinion that there
should be a more thorough review of existing laws and statutes.

As a student of law and hopefully future member of the legal

profession, the researcher have come to a collective conclusion (which he
intend to reveal at the end of this paper) that, as good as he know, is also
reflective of the opinion of the average Juan dela Cruz in these modern
times.

This legal counseling research/study underwent the process of finding

legal stands and experiences from Lawyers who had encountered the same.
Who battle for the right laws, rules and regulations that govern the conduct
of such. It involves locating both laws and rules which are enforced by the
State and the commentaries which explain or analyze these rules.

As any legal research/study for that matter, this paper would also be
an investigative tool for information necessary to support legal decision
making in the light of the rise of Immorality, Grave Misconduct and
Indecency Cases.

Its (the papers) primary point is to answer the questions:

How should a Lawyer Stand or React on a Client who is accused
with Immorality Case?
Are they to be considered Advocates of Immoral Conduct?; or a
Protector of Equal Protection guaranteed for all?

II.An Overview on The Concept of

Immorality cases in the Philippines
A Research on Immorality / Indecency cases in the
Philippines
A study made in 2012 by a group of researchers from Ateneo de
Manila University, on Immorality Cases in the Philippines estimates
that there are at least Eight (8) convicted cases for every Twelve (12)
complaints being tried annually by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent

(60%) of such came from the Judiciary System and the remaining from
the National Government.
This is a staggering figure because not only does this mean that
Immoral Conduct is a popular relationship done by mostly Public
Servants but more importantly, it creates the impression that the
society in general is being passive or lax in the widespread of such
issue.

Immorality as defined by the Supreme Court

Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters
but also "conduct inconsistent with rectitude,

or indicative of

corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful,

flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions
of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate
attitude toward good order and public welfare.
There is no doubt that engaging in sexual relations with a
married individual is not only a violation of the moral standards
expected of employees of the government, but is also a desecration of
the sanctity of the institution of marriage which the Courts abhors and
is,

thus,

punishable. Under

the

Revised

Uniform

Rules

on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, disgraceful and immoral

conduct is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one
year for the first offense. With a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe
penalty. (Jallorina vs. Taneo-Regner A.M. No. P-11-2948)

 The Lawyers expected Position

Duty to be performed within the law (Taken from Rule

1.02 and 1.03 of the CPR), In the judicial forum, the client is
entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that
is authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his
Lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.
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. If he finds his
clients cause is defenseless, then it is his bounded duty to
advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse
the incontrovertible.
Most of all, a Lawyer should not be an Instigator of
Controversy but a Mediator for Concord and Conciliator for
compromise. It is the duty of a lawyer in his exalted position as
an officer of the court not to be an Instigator of any controversy.

III. Immorality and Indecency:

The Current Jurisprudences.

 Sensational Cases

A).

This is an administrative complaint for immorality filed against

respondent Gibas and respondent Lintao who were accused of having an illicit
relationship. Court employees should maintain moral righteousness and
uprightness in their professional and private conduct to preserve the integrity
and dignity of the courts of justice. Court personnel should avoid any act of
impropriety which tarnishes the honor and dignity of the Judiciary, thus:
Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest
sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official
duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve
the courts good name and standing. It cannot be overstressed that the
image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise,
of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its
personnel. Court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct
in order to preserve the good name and integrity of courts of justice.
(Emmanuel M. Gibas, Jr. v. Ma. Jesusa E. Gibas, Court Stenographer I,
Municipal Trial Court, Guiguinto, Bulacan, and Franconello S. Lintao, Sheriff IV,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Malolos City, Bulacan, A.M. No. P-09-2651,
March 23, 2011.)

B).

This is an administrative complaint for Misconduct against

respondent Aromin whereas, she actually interfered with the execution of a

valid certificate of sheriffs sale in behalf of her friend without regard to the
impropriety of her acts considering that she is a court employee. As a public
servant, she should have known that she is enjoined to uphold public interest
over and above personal interest at all times. Employees of the judiciary
should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of
official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people
so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the
community. The image of the court, as being a true temple of justice, is aptly

mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who
work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowliest of its personnel.
Angelina C. Lim and Vivian M. Gaduang v. Maribeth G. Aromin, Records
Officer I, OCC, MTC, Meycauayan, Bulacan, A.M. No. P-09-2677, March 9,
2011.

C).

An administrative complaint was filed against a court employee

for using her position to assist a friend in stopping the implementation of a

courts judgment. In addition, the court employee was absent from work to
attend to this and did not even file a leave. Time and again, the Supreme
Court has emphasized that court personnel must devote every moment of
official time to public service. The conduct and behavior of court personnel
should be characterized by a high degree of professionalism and
responsibility, as they mirror the image of the court. Specifically, court
personnel must strictly observe official time to inspire public respect for the
justice system.
Personnel

Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court

mandates

that

court

personnel

shall

commit

themselves

exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working

hours.

Angelina C. Lim and Vivian M. Gaduang v. Maribeth G. Aromin,

Records Officer I, OCC, MTC, Meycauayan, Bulacan, A.M. No. P-09-2677,

March 9, 2011.

D).

Respondent Tagubas act of collecting or receiving money from a

litigant constitutes grave misconduct in office. Grave misconduct is a grave

offense that carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even
on a first offense. Court personnel, from the lowliest employee, are involved
in the dispensation of justice; parties seeking redress from the courts for
grievances look upon court personnel, irrespective of rank or position, as part
of the Judiciary. In performing their duties and responsibilities, these court
personnel serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their
part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the
peoples trust and confidence in this institution. Therefore, they are expected
to act and behave in a manner that should uphold the honor and dignity of
the Judiciary, if only to maintain the peoples confidence in the Judiciary. This

expectation is enforced, among others, by Section 2, Canon I of the Code of

Conduct for Court Personnel which mandates that [c]ourt personnel shall not
solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit
understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official
actions. Section 2(e), Canon III, on the other hand, mandates that [c]ourt
personnel shall not x x x [s]olicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount,
favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from which it could
reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the
court personnel in performing official duties. The acts addressed are strictly
prohibited to avoid the perception that court personnel can be influenced to
act for or against a party or person in exchange for favors.

Milagros

Villaceran and Omar T. Miranda v. Judge Maxwel S. Rosete and Process Server
Eugenio Taguba, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Santiago City,
Isabela, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1727, March 22, 2011.

E). Rene V. Puse, a registered Professional Teacher, married

Ligaya Delos-Santos on January 10, 1992. He had two children with
her. When Ligaya learned of Rene's deception regarding his marital
status, she filed a criminal case for bigamy against her husband before
the MTC of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. On August 2, 2005, she
filed a letter-complaint with the Director of the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC), National Capital Region, Manila, through the
Director, PRC, Lucena City, seeking assistance regarding her husband
against whom she had filed a criminal case for Bigamy and
Abandonment.
Rene reiterated the arguments in his Answer and prayed
for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was not verified
and for failure of the respondent to attach a valid certification against
forum-shopping. He argued that the proper forum to hear and decide
the complaint was either the CSC pursuant to CSC Resolution No.
991936 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) or
the DepEd pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public

School Teachers). Since the charge was for violation of the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the
complaint
should
have
been
brought
before
the
CSC.
On 16 February 2007, the Board of Professional Teachers (Board), PRC,
Manila, found Rene administratively liable of the charges and revoked
his license as a Professional Teacher. Rene moved for reconsideration
of motion but was denied by the Board. He then filed a petition for
review before the CA. CA denied the Rene's appeal. CA held that the
applicable law was Rep. Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers because he is a Teacher I. Under Rep. Act No. 4670,
the one (1) tasked to investigate the complaint was the Board of
Professional Teachers. It was the Board of Professional Teachers that
had jurisdiction over the administrative case and not the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) or the Department of Education (DepEd) as
contended
by
Rene.

Whether or not the Board of Professional Teachers have

jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint filed by respondent
against petitioner.

Held:
An administrative case against a public school teacher may
be filed before the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, the DepEd or
the CSC, which have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases
such
as
for
immoral,
unprofessional
or
dishonorable
conduct. Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the
same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more
separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body the
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to
be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that

another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which

case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. The
authority to hear and decide administrative cases by the Board of
Professional Teachers-PRC, DepEd and the CSC comes from Rep. Act
No. 7836, Rep. Act No. 4670 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
807,respectively.

Under Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board is given the
power, after due notice and hearing, to suspend or revoke the
certificate of registration of a professional teacher for causes
enumerated therein. Among the causes is immoral, unprofessional or
dishonorable conduct. Thus, if a complaint is filed under Rep. Act No.
7836, the jurisdiction to hear the same falls with the Board of
Professional
Teachers-PRC.

If the complaint against a public school teacher is filed with the

DepEd, then under Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta
for Public School Teachers, the jurisdiction over administrative cases of
public school teachers is lodged with the investigating committee
created pursuant to said section, now being implemented by Section 2,
Chapter VII of DECS Order No. 33, S. 1999, also known as the DECS
Rules of Procedure. A complaint filed under Rep. Act No. 4670 shall be
heard by the investigating committee which is under the DepEd.

The CSC has jurisdiction to supervise and discipline all

government employees including those employed in government-

owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Consequently,

if civil service rules and regulations are violated, complaints for said
violations
may
be
filed
with
the
CSC.

However, where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several

tribunals, the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the
complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.
Here, it was the Board of Professional Teachers, before which
respondent filed the complaint, that acquired jurisdiction over the case
and which had the authority to proceed and decide the case to the
exclusion of the DepEd and the CSC.( Puse vs Puse, G.R. No. 183678
March 15, 2010 Administrative Case; Concurrent Jurisdiction)

IV. FINDINGS / ANALYSIS and

INTERPRETATION
The Perception of the General Public (People of the
Philippines) on Issues involving Immorality

The issue takes us to a most difficult area of law where man stands
accountable to an authority higher than the state. To chose its driven
purpose. To be held on balance are his interest and his expected freedom. In
this highly sensitive area of law, the task of balancing between authority and
liberty is most delicate, because the person invoking freedom has the
consequences of facing the penalties, or being not temporal.

The task is not made easier by the Social origin of our Morality clauses
and the wealth of

intensely controverted area of interpretation than the

Immoral clauses. As stated by a professor of law, it is now notorious that

legal doctrines and judicial decisions in the area of Moral freedom are in
serious disarray. Perhaps no other areas of law have confusion and
inconsistency achieved by such when the undisputed sovereignty is
questioned.

Both the penetrating and panoramic view of this issue would provide
sufficient course of morality and freedom in Philippine jurisdiction. When the
free seekers had a question to raise in an administrative case involving
only one person will not alter the paramount importance of the question for
the positive protection by government of guaranteed freedom -not only for
the minority or majority but perhaps for each of us.

If morality is the answer to the question 'how we ought to live' in the

individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the
social level; though the political sphere raises additional problems and
challenges. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a
relationship between attitudes in morality and politics.

Nowhere to be found in Numbers, Group of Surveyors, Statistics or

Learned individuals on the previous years and the current times, for it is a
Personal Choice, uniquely for everyone.

Prologue:

For the enlightenment of its evaluator and readers, this study has used
the Phenomenological type of data gathering and presentation. It means
that we can encounter their responses from the one-on-one direct interview
undertaken.

There are Five (5) Practicing and Active Lawyers, who are also
Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines from the different Provincial
Chapter of the Region III Central Luzon area.

While answering the sequences asked, the researcher (with the

approval of his Instructor) had decided to conceal the Lawyers true identity
for their comfort and satisfaction. A careful maintenance of Confidentiality
was utilize for their well-being since the type of questioning is based from
their experiences encountered and wise discretionary ability.

Some of the Subjects have answered in their Native Language to

precisely stress out their point. Therefore, we may expect encountering some
Tagalog answers from them. With such, your deep consideration is highly
appreciated by the researcher.

The Lawyers Stand

A. For Atty. Tuscany

Yes, my stand will be on the affirmative. Even accused, have the

right to be heard. Now, whether or not they will present such lies and
mislead the court from the questions of facts, it will be their
consequences if ever the decision wont favor us.

I will do well in the practice my profession on their side, more so

for their right to be heard and be tried equally, to be treated Innocent
until proven otherwise ; that, I can assure;

But if they wanted to influence me or on my manner of

establishing the procedure, I will personally tell them I might become
dysfunctional and uncomfortable. Ill advocate them that we must
follow the law and not our alibis.

B. For Atty. Mabalacat

After Ive heard the established facts and if it their point is

worthy to be fighting in the court, Why Not.? Ill accept to represent
him. I myself is also a Government Employee, if those things happened
to me I might do the same. For all I know, I earned the trust and
confidence of those officials who put me here, therefore I cannot let
anyone easily complaint me based from mere hearsays and suspicions
of Familial and Peer Quarrel.

I firmly believe on the Doctrine that says He who comes in

Court, asking for enlightenment, must come with clean hands. That
also applies to Respondent and Accused Nurse Jef. The essence of
defending your self is to show that you are innocent. Now, if the client
is just on the sake of avoiding him or herself to be jailed, he better ask
his conscience first, before asking my expertise. Reflection is not only
for his persona, but also for his conscience

C. For Atty. Angeles

It is a sensitive case Nurse Jef, but however despite of the

status in life, may the individual be poor, on the middle or rich, Ill give
it a Yes. It is one of the founding or expected acts that we as lawyers
must portray. For I know, it was tackled on our PALE. However this one
is different, the accused here is more like a Government Employee
Right?
I dont see any wrong or malicious part for the defense at here
Jef, whoever found in deep troubled water despite of his wrongfulness
will be heard. And as I can further elaborate, it is more Grave if a
Lawyer would pre-judge an act of an accused. Even convicted and
criminals has rights to be respected. Immorality and Indecency are
sometimes fruits of forbidden relationships. How can you pre-judge if it
is a so called form of love that you are counter-acting with, right?

D. For Atty. Concepcion

I dont have any dissenting opinion or contradicting reactions

regarding this Nurse Jef. All has equal chance in getting the
interpretation of Law. For accused, as much as we know, wanted not to
be on trial, I mean, who among us here wanted to be scrutinized and
exerted much of our time, money, and effort right? But the way I see
things their dignity and well being is the redeeming reward.

No matter how grave or guilty the wrong acts they allegedly

have committed, they are still accompanied by the protection of the
law. Dealing personal revenge on the complainant here is his
premeditated goal. Once he or she beyond reasonable doubt has
proved that the accused are guilty, her justice and reward was served
at the same time. The Lawyers stand here is by and by foreseen. The
Lawyer has nothing personal or special for both parties on that matter,
he just performs his right to practice his profession and work, for that is
what the society really expects from him.

E. For Atty. San Fernando

I may not be the one of the most influential Lawyer who can
answer this questions Jef , but my stand here is still to defend. If, as a
Lawyer, you decline to the calling of your co-member of the society
more so a colleague in the Public service then your principle in
interpreting ethical issues is bit strict and stereo-typical. You are not a
free-thinker or a reality acceptor as my opinion. Another truth is that
even some of our co-members in the IBP were found guilty on
Immorality issues right? So how good are we to construe cleanliness
resides on us strictly.

I cannot decide for the other lawyers here in the commission Jef,
but for me trying to defend an accused immoral employee will test my
patience and understanding. Convicted or acquitted, the intention of
the court that prevailed, feeds us enough knowledge and learning.
Instantly, we may further learn that these acts are evidently seen
immoral and unethical, and more over, may serve as a wake-up call;
and that they must be avoided or opted not to be imitated again.
Never be afraid to try and exert chances, for they are the living lessons
we may remember.

V. RESEARCHERS
RECOMMENDATION

The researcher puts forward the stand

that

Lawyers

Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in aid of its

services for a client accused in Immorality / Indecency Cases
are protectors of the Equal Protection of Laws guaranteed for
all .

As earlier stated, the Lawyer has the duty to protect its clients
with utmost diligence and professionalism. It does not needs any
separate section particularly or specifically stating He should be
qualifying or selective in these cases since this is the main cause of
numerous

misunderstanding

on

accused

clients.

Feeling

of

abandonment and pre-judged can affect their mentality of not

acquiring their services anymore, thus being disenfranchised.

This

could be included in a future amendment to the law governing

Disciplinary Measures on Public servants.

The Civil Service Commissions policy on imposing penalty for

those who will commit such case shall religiously disseminate the
clause of legal accountability upon violations of such law. Instead, upon
amendment of the law by Congress, an Implementing Rules and
Regulation regarding the strict implementation of its provisions should
include the DepEd, CHED, DILG, PNP, Chief of Staffs and every LGU
employee (as the most common front-liners of Govt Service ) as part
of the implementers.

There is no more need for Congress to revisit Civil Service Laws /

Memorandum - Circulars, and other related laws that address issues
that have made its full implementation difficult. Since the penalties
and conviction rate is fast and numerous. Giving us the impression that
decision rendering is highly achievable

To monitor the proper implementation of the Immorality clause in

coordination with the executive departments, a provision for the
creation of a Executive / Superior Oversight Committee should
also be included.

For Lawmakers, the researcher adopts the relative stand of

Senator Juan Ponce-Enrile. He re-iterated that, We will look into the
revision of this law. We will impose stricter adherence to certain steps
to be taken before any relative increasing incidence will rise, he said.

Enrile,
Association

former

(Philconsa),

president

of

said

is

he

the
not

Philippine
against

Constitution

the

Incidental

representation of a Counsel in a Immorality Case. He further said that it

is a constitutional right but there is a limit to these things. The rights of
others in the case of Sese and De guzman are neglected due to trial on
publicity, he added.
There must nothing personal or too much intimidation, for a
counsel when standing with an accused immoral employee. There
must be a drive of sympathy or a valid reason for a lawyer to take a
stand that is to defend or not; if he chooses not, then a professional
ground should be established to prevent any negative assumptions to
the parties concerned, he added.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on all the foregoing, the researcher concludes that the
test of competing thoughts on this issue is a salutary
endeavor, that is worth pursuing A Lawyer Cannot be forced
or coerced what he or she must do. Like anyone else, he has a
guiding conscience;, not only for the interest of the constitutionally
mandated right to be heard and to have a due process of law, but also
in our ardent and continuing defense of the right to life. It consists of
being aware to the responsibilities of your acts, while performing your
journey in life.

The young people through our precedent acts will

reflect these things as correct and just for them. We are their living
example, what they see in us, will do to us.

Moreover, each and every one of us must also not forget

and should remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time,
to pursue justice for those whose rights were neglected; if they were
already been convicted, dismissed from service or warned, let our
guiding hand lead them to reflection that there is still sufficient time to
correct their mistakes. Avoidance, Control and an in depth review to
the consequences they might face when they pursue such similar acts
again. Now is the time and everyone may restart. No qualifications and
selections, purely determination.

VII. REFERENCES
Published Researches:
ADMU Journal Research on Immorlity Cases a tackled
review (2012)
Published Textbook
Jimenez, Legal Counseling , 2004
Luis B. Reyes, RPC Book 1, 17th edition, 2008
Nolledo, Administrative Law 18th edition, 2011
Published newpaper articles
Aning, J. (2012) Philippine Daily Inquirer
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/search-recognition.html
http://www.eskwelahan.net/news/
Journal On-line, June 21, 2012
Manila Bulletin August 15, 2012
CSC Memorandum Circular on Cases Involving Immorality
Full text
http://www.lawphil.net
Sourced from the Internet
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/P
urposeOfLaw.htm
http://opinion.inquirer.net
http://oj-lopez.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php