Kuwentong Peyups
Atty. Dennis Gorecho
Supreme Court to lawyers: Do not date your clients
A lawyer is prohibited from romantic entanglements with clients under the updated Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) / A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC which was approved by the Supreme Court En Banc on April 11, 2023.
The prohibition is indicated in Canon III Section 15 which states: “A lawyer shall not have dating, romantic, or sexual relations with a client during the engagement, unless the consensual relationship existed between them before the lawyer-client relationship commenced.”
A lawyer-client relationship arises “when the client consciously, voluntarily and in good faith vests a lawyer with the client’s confidence for the purpose of rendering legal services such as providing legal advice or representation, and the lawyer, whether expressly or impliedly, agrees to render such services.”
The provision is under Canon III on the subject matter of Fidelity which “pertains to a lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, to assist in the administration of justice as an officer of the court, and to advance or defend a client’s cause, with full devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit of truth and justice”.
Updating the 34-year old CPR is in line with the Supreme Court’s rule that possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal profession.
CPRA stated that “an ethical lawyer is a lawyer possessed of integrity. Integrity is the sum total of all the ethical values that every lawyer must embody and exhibit. “
The CPRA follows a values-based framework, divided into Canons on Independence, Propriety, Fidelity, Competence, Diligence, Equality, and Accountability.
“We want to be very clear that the lawyer-client relationship can clearly define what are your duties and what are your responsibilities. We don’t want any dating or romantic factor to blur these lines,” Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh said in an interview.
The provision earned different reactions from a Facebook lawyer’s group: “Sorry It is not you it is my profession.”; “Sign this motion to withdraw appearance please”; “I don’t need love, I need cash. I am sorry”; “When both are in love there is no illegality”; and “Execute a waiver and quit claim with affidavit of desistance.”.
Violation of said provision may lead to disciplinary proceedings whose purposes are to protect the public, to foster public confidence in the Bar, to preserve the integrity of the profession, and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.
In cases involving illicit relationships, the Supreme Court penalized the erring lawyers either by suspension or disbarment, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Disbarment is imposed where the misconduct and unrepentant demeanor shows a serious flaw in his character and the outright defiance of established norms, including the moral indifference to the sanctity of marriage and marital vows.
The conduct complained of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly immoral.
Extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded as offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family, and the community that blemish their ethics and morality
Disbarment were imposed by the Supreme Court on several cases as the conduct put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril.
In Toledo v. Toledo (117 Phil. 768), and Hosoya v. Contado, (AC No. 10731, October 5, 2021), the Supreme Court disbarred lawyers who had abandoned their respective wives and families and cohabited with another with whom they had children.
In Obusan v. Obusan (213 Phil. 437), the lawyer had abandoned the wife and maintained an adulterous relationship with a married woman.
In Cojuangco v. Palma (481 Phil. 646), the lawyer abandoned his lawful wife and three children, lured an innocent woman into marrying him and misrepresented himself as a “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.
In Dantes v. Dantes, (482 Phil. 64) the lawyer maintained illicit relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his marriage to his legal wife.
In Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, (676 SCRA 37), the lawyer entered into marriage twice while his first marriage was still subsisting.
“The title of lawyer is not an individual aggrandizement. We become lawyers only because we can ethically serve others. We become lawyers only because we understand that it is not the be-all of who we should be: that we continue to build who we are as we engage, assist, and empower others,” says Senior SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who was my professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law.
(Peyups is the moniker of University of the Philippines. Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan law offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09088665786
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 at 13:53, Kathy Laquinta
<laquintakatherine@gmail.com> wrote: