By Atty. Roland Collado
Cagayan de Oro- In the Philippine legal landscape, a lawyer’s duty to a client often clashes with their duty as an officer of the court. This tension recently took center stage as high-profile cases raised a critical question: What exactly a lawyer’s duty to the court and to the client?
Basically, a lawyer’s duty is four-fold: Duty to Society: The Guardian of the Rule of Law, Duty to the Legal Profession: The Keeper of the Flame, Duty to the Courts: The Officer of Justice, and Duty to the Client: The Devoted Advocate.
A lawyer is mandated to protect a client’s interest within the bounds of the law. In the high-stakes arena of Philippine litigation however, the line between ” advocacy” and ” obstruction” has become dangerously thin. Lawyers are trained to explore every avenue, file every conceivable motion, and exhaust all remedies for their clients.
The thin line between aggressive lawyering and criminal complicity in the Philippines however, has often been treated as a blurred horizon, but recent shifts in jurisprudence and the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) have turned that horizon into a sharp, unforgiving cliff.
For years, the “duty to the client” was the ultimate shield. Today, that shield is thinning. Accordingly, the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) emphasizes that a lawyer’s first duty is to the law and the courts, not the client’s whims to subvert the administration of justice.
While a lawyer’s primary mandate is to “present every defense that the law of the land permits” and “exhaust all legal remedies” available, the Supreme Court (SC) in a recent case reaffirmed the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine, which bars fugitives from seeking judicial relief. An accused person who flees to avoid prosecution loses their standing in court and cannot participate in proceedings through a representative until they voluntarily surrender.
In the said doctrine the Supreme Court clarified that fugitives from justice, and by extension their counsel, lose the right to seek affirmative judicial relief. This “Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine” means that as long as the client refuses to surrender, their lawyer’s motions and appeals may be ignored by the courts.
Worse, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently warned that advising a client not to surrender in the face of a lawful warrant could be “unethical and potentially criminal”. Under PD 1829, anyone who “knowingly or willfully obstructs the apprehension” of a person can face prosecution.
The “no surrender” strategy, often touted as a way to “exhaust all legal remedies”, is a perverse interpretation of the right to due process. It assumes that legal remedies only exist outside of custody. A lawyer’s duty is to the law and the courts, not to act as a custodian for a fugitive.
Remedies like motions to quash or petitions for bail are meant to be filed while the accused is properly under the jurisdiction of the court, not while they are hiding in a safe house or, as recent cases suggest, potentially preparing to flee the country.
Although some lawyers argue they are “exhausting legal remedies,” this tactic often backfires. In Philippine criminal law, flight may be evidence of guilt. By advising a client to stay in the shadows, a lawyer effectively ensures that their client cannot invoke the very due process they claim to protect.
True legal defense is fought within the halls of justice, not by running from them. When a lawyer advises a client to defy a court order, they aren’t just risking their license—they are undermining the very foundation of the Philippine legal system.
Ultimately, the lawyer’s role is to fight for a client within the law, not to help them stay above it. A lawyer must be a shield, not a hideout. While clients pay the bills, the duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount.
###
