This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Candor and truthfulness are some of the qualities exacted and expected from members of the legal profession.[69] Thus, lawyers shall commit no falsehood, nor shall they mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.[70] As disciples of truth, their lofty vocation is to correctly inform the court of the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions.[71] Courts are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.[72] In the instant case, the submission of a document purporting to be a copy of the Agenda of a member of this Court is an act of dishonesty that puts into doubt the ability of respondent to uphold his duty as a disciple of truth. | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Samala v. Valencia,[18] the Court held that a lawyer may not undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste, which springs from the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers should not only keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. | |||||