Traffic was horrible yesterday, so it was already dark when we reached the cemetery, too dark that we decided to stay in the car and pray for my dad from there.
Jaime said the darkness felt like the beginning of a horror film. Iuri even joked that if something suddenly appeared, he’d run and leave us behind.
After the visit, we tried Sensei in BF, as recommended by friends. The place was intimate maybe thirty seats at most, and also carried La Chinesca’s Mexican menu. The portions were modest and the prices a bit steep, but the food delivered where it mattered: taste and quality. Every dish felt intentional, made with care.
The conversation revolved around UA&P, mental health, and my short videos, which Jaime’s friends love teasing him about. Lol.
After dinner, we went to visit my in-laws in Merville. What should’ve been a quick 30-minute drive turned into an hour-long detour after a missed turn led us through Cavitex and Pasay. We finally arrived around 9:50 p.m. Despite the late hour, the grandparents were overjoyed to see the boys, and even Chapo, their dog, barked with pure excitement the moment he heard our voices.
Thankfully, the drive home was smooth. I was tired when we got back but there was a feeling of satisfaction.
I may have spent a little more on food, on wrong turns but what I received in return was something no price could match: laughter, stories that filled the silence, and the grace of being together.
Sometimes, it’s in new places and wrong turns where the heart finds its home.
Let me take you back to one of the oldest questions in philosophy. Plato once told a story called The Ring of Gyges.
Gyges was a simple shepherd who one day discovered a ring that made him invisible. At first, he was astonished. Then he realized what this meant, no one could see him, no one could hold him accountable. So what did he do? He used the ring to do what he could never do in the open: he stole, lied, and even killed the king to take his throne.
Plato then asked: If you could get away with anything, would you still choose to do what’s right? That story is thousands of years old, yet its truth remains timeless.
Trust is the invisible currency that sustains every relationship, personal and professional. It is the foundation upon which teams are built, the essence of credible leadership, and the quiet force that transforms compliance into commitment.
But what exactly is trust? At its core, trust is the belief that someone will act with consistency, honesty, and goodwill, even when there is no immediate reward. It is the confidence that a person’s word, intention, and action are aligned.
Integrity, on the other hand, is the ground upon which trust stands. It means wholeness, being the same person in private and in public, when it benefits you and when it doesn’t. You cannot have trust without integrity because people do not trust perfection; they trust authenticity. When a leader’s inner life and outer actions are congruent, trust naturally follows.
Every leader, at some point, faces his own “Ring of Gyges” moment, the temptation to cut corners, to hide mistakes, to manipulate numbers, or to protect one’s image instead of one’s integrity.
Trust, therefore, begins with this inner question: Who are you when no one is watching?
That is where trust begins, not with policies, not with reputation, but with integrity.
And maybe this is where many of us misunderstand integrity. It isn’t about being flawless, it’s about being real. It is the humble, ongoing effort to keep our convictions, words, and actions in harmony, even when life feels unstable.
Frodo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings embodies this truth. One powerful moment comes at the foot of Mount Doom, when the weight of the Ring has nearly destroyed him. Exhausted and broken, Frodo tells Sam, “I can’t do this, Sam,” revealing the depth of his struggle and fear. Yet despite his weakness, he continues the climb, step by painful step, driven not by pride but by conviction. His integrity lies in that perseverance—in choosing to move forward even when his strength and hope are gone. He never hides his fear, never pretends to be invincible, and accepts Sam’s help when he can no longer walk. In that moment, Frodo shows that integrity is not about perfection or success; it is about remaining true to what is right, even when you are at your weakest.
Genuine integrity doesn’t pretend to be strong; it stays honest, even in weakness. Leaders are rarely tested by the mistakes of others, but by their own silent battles, to remain faithful, to choose authenticity over appearance, and truth over convenience.
That is why trust becomes a leader’s personal brand. It’s not built in a day or declared in a slogan. It’s built quietly, in those unseen choices when no one is watching. When leaders choose integrity in private, people sense it in public. That’s when trust becomes visible, when it becomes the very aura of leadership.
But when integrity is compromised, trust collapses. No title, no charisma, no corporate slogan can rebuild it once it’s gone.
And history has shown us this time and again. When leaders lose that moral alignment, when integrity breaks, the whole structure begins to crumble. Because organizations, no matter how big, are built on human trust.
We’ve seen this before, in companies that once seemed unstoppable, led by brilliant people who lost their way.
The Enron scandal of 2001 remains one of the most powerful reminders. Once celebrated as America’s most innovative company, Enron built its empire on deception, hiding massive debt and inflating profits through accounting tricks. When the truth surfaced, it collapsed overnight, wiping out pensions, investor wealth, and public trust.
Enron’s downfall wasn’t about numbers; it was about broken trust. Its leaders valued appearance over honesty, profit over principles.
A few years later, another story unfolded in Silicon Valley. Travis Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder, was young, brilliant, and relentless. He revolutionized transportation but led through aggression and fear. The company grew fast—but so did the stories of harassment, arrogance, and ethical disregard. In 2017, Kalanick was forced to resign.
Different industries, different eras, but the same moral fracture. Both Enron and Uber remind us: When integrity is traded for convenience, trust becomes the first casualty.
A FILIPINO LENS ON TRUST
If Enron and Uber show us what happens when trust is broken, our own Filipino experience reveals how trust is lived.
In the West, trust often rests on competence, on mastery, precision, and performance. Their heroes are the lone achievers: Batman, Ironman, Rambo, individuals who solve problems by sheer will, power and intellect.
But in the Philippines, trust is relational. It grows not just from performance but from presence. We trust people who are kapwa, those who share themselves with others, who say, “Magkakampihan tayo. We are in this together.”
This sense of kapwa, or shared self, runs deep in our culture. It means “I see myself in you, and you see yourself in me.” It’s not transactional; it’s human. Trust, for Filipinos, is built through connection, through empathy, care, and shared struggle.
That’s why our heroes are different. We are drawn to leaders like FPJ, not because of power, but because of relatability. His characters were men of quiet strength, whose integrity came from loyalty and compassion. He reflected the ordinary Filipino’s longing for justice, humility, and solidarity.
For many of us, trust is presence beyond performance. We give our loyalty not to those who impress us, but to those who stand with us. The leader who listens, who shows up, who stays, that’s the one we follow.
But kapwa also has its shadow side. Sometimes, we choose harmony over honesty. We avoid confrontation to preserve relationships. We forgive too easily to keep the peace. That’s where integrity must enter, to anchor pakikisama in truth.
True trust cannot stand on relationship alone. It must be supported by moral backbone. For trust to endure, relationship must be anchored in integrity, not just connection.
When we combine kapwa with integrity, we get the best of both worlds, connection with conscience, compassion with courage. This is the heart of authentic Filipino leadership: to care deeply, but to stand firmly on truth.
THREE LEADERSHIP ARCHETYPES
So, how do we as leaders embody this kind of trust?
Before we explore the archetypes, remember this:
Presence is neither a technique nor a show. It flows from self-knowledge.
It’s the natural overflow of who we are inside, our values, our truth, our integrity.
The more we know ourselves, the more authentic our leadership presence becomes.
This is where the three leadership archetypes come in—timeless models that show how trust is built. To appreciate them better, let me tell you three stories: from a businessman, a former school dean, and a priest.
Archetype 1: The Big Brother/Sister
Let me tell you a story about a friend of mine, CEO del Pilar of BICOL ISAROG bus company. He runs a tough operation, hundreds of employees, buses on the road 24/7, lives literally in their hands. And he is known to be strict. Very strict.
One time, in a management meeting, a few executives arrived late. Everyone thought he would let it pass, but no. He stood up, went to the front, and stopped the entire meeting. In a firm, steady voice, he said, “Kung hindi kayo marunong rumespeto ng oras, paano ninyo asahan na rerespetuhin kayo ng mga tao niyo? Professionalism begins here.”
The room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. In that moment, nobody doubted his discipline. They knew he demanded excellence because he understood that in their line of work, being late could mean lives at stake. That was the strict side of a Big Brother.
But let me show you another side of him, the side most people don’t see. One of his employees was going through a painful marital crisis. His performance began to drop, and everyone expected the CEO to come down hard. Instead, my friend called him in and said, “I can see you’re carrying something heavy. Work can wait—but your family cannot. I want to help you.”
He didn’t scold him. He didn’t dock his pay. Instead, he personally sponsored marriage counseling sessions for this employee and his wife. He wanted them to heal—to find peace at home.
Imagine that, a CEO taking money from his own pocket to protect not just the company, but the heart of one of his people.
That’s when I realized what it means to be a Big Brother or Sister leader. It’s not about being soft or lowering standards. A Big Brother protects the house by being firm, yes, but also protects the people inside by showing compassion. Because in the Filipino heart, that’s when trust is born, when people know, “Yes, he will call me out when I’m wrong, but he will also stand by me when I’m weak.”
That’s the power of a Big Brother or Sister: they protect, guide, and give courage through their presence, not just in work, but even in life.
Archetype 2: The Teacher
When we talk about leadership, we often think of vision, strategy, results. But there is another archetype we don’t celebrate enough: The Teacher.
The Teacher shows us that leadership is not only about competence; it’s about passing on wisdom. It’s about shaping people not just for the tasks at hand, but for life itself.
Let me take you back to 2012. The rain was pouring hard, one of those Manila storms where the wipers feel useless. I was driving through the flood to DepEd Muntinlupa. Why? Because I needed data for my master’s program in Ateneo. But deep down, I wasn’t chasing numbers, I was chasing the approval of my mentor, Dr. Ed Morato.
Ed wasn’t just a professor. He had been the dean of AIM, chaired a social enterprise, and was a cancer survivor. He lived with resilience and purpose. People warned me he was strict, even feared. But I still chose him. And it became one of the best decisions of my life.
He would spend hours reading our papers, his notes sometimes longer than our essays. He would sit with us patiently, explaining until we truly understood. You’d come in confused and leave enlightened. But what impressed me most was that his teaching didn’t end in the classroom. He mentored his colleagues, staff, and friends. His life was his lesson.
I realized something:
I didn’t learn from Ed because he gave instructions. I learned because he lived as if his whole life was a book, open for us to read. And every page of that book said the same thing: Teaching is not about telling. It’s about forming relationships. It’s about believing in people enough to prepare them to stand on their own. That’s the kind of leadership the Teacher calls us to.
Leadership, at its best, is teaching, and teaching, at its best, is love in action.
Archetype 3: The Good Shepherd
If Enron and Uber show us what happens when trust is broken, MEND shows us what it looks like when trust is lived.
Founded by Fr. Dennis Cagantas, MEND—Music for the Environment and National Development—is a living example of leadership grounded in compassion and integrity. Inspired by Laudato Si’, MEND brings together music, art, and environmental stewardship to renew both people and the planet.
I met Fr. Dennis in my parish. He once spoke at our prayer meeting, and as I drove him home, he told me about MEND’s mission in Limasawa. What struck me most was his simplicity. He leads quietly, yet his influence runs deep. He doesn’t just organize events, he builds communities of hope.
MEND uplifts fisherfolk and farmers through co-creative projects like sustainable farming and art mentorship. From Metro Manila, MENDtors conduct online classes in violin, guitar, voice, dance, and art for students in Limasawa. After three months, they all meet for a face-to-face camp that culminates in music, friendship, and renewal.
This is not just a cultural program, it is shepherding in action.
It is leadership by accompaniment. It is trust built through presence. Because leadership is not about power, titles, or admiration from a distance. It is about proximity. It is about walking beside those you lead. It is the willingness to smell like sheep
That is the mark of the Good Shepherd: He leads not through fear or distance, but through love and faithfulness. He earns trust not by command, but by compassion.
Each archetype reflects a different way of living out kapwa, our shared humanity. And when woven together, they reveal something deeper:
Trust is not just a principle to admire. It can be your personal brand as a leader, quietly built through integrity, presence, and love in action.
THE ULTIMATE MODEL OF TRUST
Every time we struggle with mistrust, whether in ourselves or in others, we can look to the one who lived in the very heart of betrayal and yet chose fidelity. He showed us that trust is not a tactic or strategy; it is love that remains steadfast, even when wounded.
So let me ask: Who do you think is the most trusted person in history? A man who, even after more than two thousand years, continues to be followed, loved, and revered by millions, across nations, cultures, and generations?
It’s Jesus.
And what’s remarkable is that in Scripture, He was never called a CEO, a general, or even a “leader” in the way we use the term today. Instead, He was described with titles that speak of relationship, presence, and care.
He was called a Big Brother. He was called a Teacher. He was called the Good Shepherd.
Notice what these images share. None of them point to authority, power, or status. They all point to trust. To service. To love expressed through constancy.
The Big Brother walks beside you, defends you, and shows you the way. The Teacher doesn’t just instruct—he invests in your growth. The Shepherd never abandons the flock, he protects, he guides, and he lays down his life for them.
That is why people trusted Jesus then, and why people still trust Him now. His leadership was not built on command but on compassion; not on position but on presence.
So if you want to build trust as a leader, don’t begin with your title, your role, or your credentials. Begin with service.
Serve like a brother. Teach like a mentor. Guide like a shepherd.
Because in the end, people don’t follow leaders they fear. They follow leaders they trust. And trust is never demanded, it is always earned.
Who am I, and what kind of presence am I being invited to become?
Credit goes to Fr. Dennis Cagantas for sharing his comments which were useful to this piece of article.
The death of Charlie Kirk, the champion of conservative values was shot by a male sniper.
What we know about the sniper is that he is 22 years old, he was turned in to the police by his father, and lives with a trans partner.
The hate for Kirk is deep that he had to be killed during one of his school campaigns.
This incident speaks a lot about those who go against liberal Americans (not in general): they resort to violence and not conversation, they are relativists, what is considered good and true such as strong family unit, faith, and 2 sex orientation are something they revolt against.
Gun laws are certainly debatable but family, faith and science are not.
On a positive not, more are following his lead in promoting conservative values on faith and family. That is good because these conservative values are founded on objectivity and away from relativism.
His death is a big loss to his family but a big gain to people who advocate conservative ideals.
A few years ago, Charles Duhigg introduced something called the habit loop: trigger, routine, reward. It’s a simple model that explains why we do the things we do, over and over again.
More recently, during the pandemic, James Clear published Atomic Habits. His message? Small habits compound. They don’t just shape what we do; they shape who we become.
Now, when we think about habits, the question we usually ask is: How are habits formed? But I think the more important question is: Why do we form the wrong ones?
By “wrong habits,” I don’t just mean biting your nails or checking your phone too much. I mean the habits that quietly sabotage us, habits that don’t take us where we want to go, and sometimes even pull us in the opposite direction.
And here’s my argument: we fall into the wrong habits because we lack clarity. Clarity about what we value. Clarity about our purpose.
See, our values and our purpose are the foundation of our choices. They’re like the compass that points us in the right direction. Without them, we wander. We chase comfort, convenience, or impulse instead of meaning. And those impulses? They harden into habits.
There’s a beautiful metaphor in The Little Prince. The book talks about Baobab trees. They start as tiny seeds, harmless at first. But if you don’t pull them out while they’re small, they grow. They take over. They can even destroy the planet.
That’s exactly how habits work. A single small habit, born out of confusion or lack of clarity, can grow into something that overtakes our lives. A Baobab tree planted in the wrong soil.
But the opposite is also true. When we’re clear about our values, when we know our purpose, our choices change. We plant seeds that grow into something life-giving.
So here’s the takeaway: Don’t let impulse drive your choices. Let purpose do that. Because in the end, our habits aren’t just routines. They’re seeds. And those seeds will grow into the story of our lives.
The question is: What story are you planting today?
Are you familiar with this photo? If you have seen Adolescence, then you know.
I’ve been curious about Adolescence ever since I read a review and saw comments on social media that blamed masculinity and patriarchy for the issues portrayed in the film. I decided not to comment until I saw the film for myself. Last night, Ingrid recommended it to me, telling me there were only four episodes. I decided to watch it, and I finished the last episode this morning.
By now, many who have seen the film are already familiar with the story, so I won’t go into detail about that. However, there were four significant scenes—long dialogues in Adolescence—that are crucial for helping viewers understand the film better:
The first major scene occurs during the precinct scene, where Jamie chooses his father as the adult to accompany him. He says he chose his father because his father doesn’t judge him. Another important detail comes when Jamie tells the detectives that, on the night of the incident, he came home, and no one noticed him. His father confirms this, stating that Jamie had only just arrived 10 minutes before the police barged in.
The second pivotal scene is the interview between Jamie and the psychologist. Here, Jamie’s relationship with his father is revealed. He avoids questions about his dad, and when asked about masculinity, he repeatedly insists that he’s not gay. But more than that, the scene demonstrates how short-fused Jamie is. In just this one scene, he lashes out three times.
The third big scene takes place in the van, where Jamie’s parents talk about their dance when they were Jamie’s age. It contrasts the difference between teenagers in 1984, when Take On Me was number one, and today, in the age of social media, where bullying, pornography, and extreme ideologies are easily accessible to impressionable minds.
The final and most powerful scene is when Jamie’s parents discuss their regrets. This dialogue reveals a lot about modern parenting. The father reflects on the time when he played games with Jamie but became too busy with work after his business took off, leaving him absent from home daily, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. He also mentions that because his own father struck him, he promised never to do the same to his children. Meanwhile, the mother’s regret was that she was often home early but failed to establish a relationship with Jamie. They both agree that they knew Jamie had a temper problem, but neither corrected nor addressed it.
The movie isn’t about patriarchy, pornography, masculinity, or a broken system. No amount of societal dysfunction can destroy a loving family. Rather, the film highlights the failure of parents to meet the emotional needs of their adolescent children. What are those needs? Relationships. Both parents failed to communicate or connect with Jamie. The father didn’t have time to build a relationship with his son, and while the mother had more time, she didn’t try to do so. This failure to form a relationship left them unable to understand the language of youth, and even to have authority over their son. Yes, in the natural order of things, parents have natural authority over their children.
In the film, there are two main culprits. If you look at the photo I posted, you’ll see them at the end of the movie: technology left unchecked with impressionable minds have harmful effects, symbolized by the arcade game and the clock, and the two Lego figures representing the parents’ time or maybe just the dad since the figure in orange surely is a man and the other is unclear. Anyway, poor Teddy.
Not everyone has the privilege of having both a father and a mother, but beyond parenting and parents having authority over their kids, children also need good role models. The movie calls on adults to take responsibility for being positive role models, to show what good men and women should be, and to have a clear understanding of objective truths. This leads to presence, the most important thing a parent or adult can offer.