2010 Legal and Judicial Ethics, Q7

Atty. Candido commented in a newspaper that the decision of the Court of Appeals was influenced by a powerful relative of the prevailing party. The appellate court found him guilty of indirect contempt. Does this involve moral turpitude? Explain. (3%)

Quick check

Does a conviction for indirect contempt automatically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude?

How does Philippine jurisprudence define an act or crime involving moral turpitude?

What is the primary legal purpose of holding a person in indirect contempt of court?

May a lawyer publicly accuse appellate judges of being influenced by a party's relative in newspaper comments?

Choices available with full access.

What is the appropriate characterization of contempt of court proceedings under Philippine law?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Legal and Judicial Ethics answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Moral Turpitude Definition
Moral turpitude implies an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in private and social duties which a person owes to fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. It involves conduct that is inherently fraudulent, deceitful, or dishonest. Simple offenses, administrative infractions, or contemptuous acts that do not feature fraud, deceit, or moral wickedness do not automatically fall under the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.

2. Contempt Sui Generis
Contempt of court is a special sui generis proceeding designed to preserve the authority, dignity, and independence of judicial tribunals and ensure the due administration of justice. Indirect contempt penalizes improper conduct tending to degrade, impede, or obstruct court proceedings. While a lawyer's public criticism accusing judges of bias or improper influence violates professional ethics and constitutes contempt, it is essentially a punishment for disrespect rather than a crime involving inherent moral depravity.

3. Freedom of Expression
Lawyers enjoy the right to criticize judicial decisions and court rulings in fair and temperate language. However, this freedom of expression is bounded by the lawyer's paramount duty to maintain due respect toward courts and judicial officers. Publicly attributing corrupt motives or improper influence to judges in newspaper comments exceeds fair criticism and degrades judicial integrity. Such misconduct warrants disciplinary action and contempt proceedings without necessarily amounting to a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026