BAR Q&A R EVI EWER S NEWSLETTER FORUM

PINAY JURIST
BA R EXA M R EVI EWER S A ND C A SE DI GESTS

— B AR Q & A, LEGAL ETHICS —

2015 Bar Exam Suggested Answers in Legal Ethics by the

UP Law Complex
JANUARY 23, 2019

I.

Define the following terms: (4%)

(A) counsel de oficio
(B) counsel de parte
(C) amicus curiae
(D) attorney of record
SUGGESTED ANSWER

(A) counsel de o cio – a lawyer appointed by the court to

represent a
party who cannot a ord to secure a lawyer to represent him in a
case.

(B) counsel de parte – a lawyer chosen by a party to represent him

in a case.
(C) amicus curiae – literally, a friend of the court; a lawyer
appointed by the court, not to represent a party to the case, but to
advise the court on intricate questions of law in a case that the
lawyer may have some expertise in

(D) counsel of record – a lawyer whose name and address appears

in the or a case as representing a party; same as a counsel de parte.

II.

In open court, accused Marla manifested that she had already

settled in full the civil aspect of the criminal case filed against her
in the total amount of P58,000.00. Marla further alleged that she
paid directly to private complainant Jasmine the amount of
P25,000.00. The balance of P33,000.00 was delivered to Atty.
Jeremiah, Jasmine’s lawyer, evidenced by a receipt signed by Atty.
Jeremiah himself.
However, Jasmine manifested that she did not receive the amount
of P33,000.00 which Marla turned over to Atty. Jeremiah. Despite
Jasmine’s requests to turn over the money, Atty. Jeremiah failed to
do so. It was only after Jasmine already filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Jeremiah that the latter finally paid the
P33,000.00 to the former, but in three installment payments of
P11,000.00 each. Atty. Jeremiah claimed that he decided to hold on
to the P33,000.00 at first because Jasmine had not yet paid his
attorney’s fees.

Is Atty. Jeremiah administratively liable? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Atty. Jeremiah is administratively liable for violating Rule 16.01 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which provides that
“a lawyer shall account for all money and property collected or
received by him for or from the client.” His claim that he held on
to the P33,000.00 because his client Jasmine had not yet paid his
attorney’s fees, is lame. Rule 16.03 of the CPR provides that “a
lawyer shall have a lien over the funds (of the client) and may
apply as much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client”. But the Supreme Court has held that this can be availed of
by a lawyer only if there is an agreement between him and the
client as to the amount of his attorney’s fees. There is no evidence
of such agreement in this case. In fact, Atty. Jeremiah claimed his
exercise of a retaining lien only after an administrative case was
already filed against him; moreover, it is belied by the fact that
Atty. Jeremiah paid the P33,000.00 to his client Jasmine, albeit in
installments.

III.

Maria and Atty. Evangeline met each other and became good
friends at zumba class. One day, Maria approached Atty.
Evangeline for legal advice. It turned out that Maria, a nurse,
previously worked in the Middle East. So she could more easily
leave for work abroad, she declared in all her documents that she
was still single. However, Maria was already married with two
children. Maria again had plans to apply for work abroad but this
time. wished to have all her papers in order. Atty. Evangeline,
claiming that she was already overloaded with other cases,
referred Maria’s case to another lawyer. Maria found it appalling
that after Atty. Evangeline had learned of her secrets, the latter
refused to handle her case. Maria’s friendship with Atty.
Evangeline permanently turned sour after Maria filed an
administrative case against the latter for failing to return
borrowed jewelry. Atty. Evangeline, on the other hand, threatened
to charge Maria with a criminal case for falsification of public
documents, based on the disclosures Maria had earlier made to
Atty. Evangeline.

(A) Was the consultation of Maria with Atty. Evangeline

considered privileged? (1%)

(B) What are the factors to establish the existence of attorney-

client privilege? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER

(A) The consultation of Maria with Atty. Evangeline is considered

privileged. In the case of Hadjula v. Madianda (A.C. No. 6711, July 3,
2007), which involves basically the same facts, the Supreme Court
held as follows:

“As it were, complainant went to respondent, a lawyer who

incidentally was also then a friend, to bare what she considered
personal secrets and sensitive documents for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice and assistance. The moment complainant
approached the then recep tive respondent to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyerclient relationship evolved between the two. Such
relationship, imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions
circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens
of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in
this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information acquired
or revealed during legal consultations. The fact that one is, at the
end of the day not inclined to handle the client’s case is hardly of
consequence. Of little moment too, is the fact that no formal
professional engagement follows the consultation. Nor will it
make any di erence, that no contract whatsoever was executed by
the parties to memorialize the relationship.”
(B) In the same case, the Supreme Court cited Wigmore on the
factors essential to establish the attorney-client privilege as
follows:

(1) Where legal advise of any kind is sought (2) from a professional
legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communication
relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client
(6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure
by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except the protection be
waived.”

IV.
The Lawyer’s Oath is a source of obligation and its violation is a
ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
State in substance the Lawyer’s Oath. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

I, ________, having been permitted to continue in the practice

of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the
supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support its Constitution and obey the law as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and ! impose upon
myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion. So help me God.”

V.

Judge Ana P. Sevillano had an issue with the billings for the per
cellular phone services of her 16-year-old daughter for the
last three consecutive months. Although Judge Sevillano had been
repeatedly came the Customer Service Hotline of Universal
Telecoms, the billings issuem never fully settled to Judge
Sevillano’s satisfaction. Finally, Judge Sevillante wrote the
National Telecommunications Commission a letter of compra
against Universal Telecoms, using her o cial court stationery and
signing the letter as “Judge Ana P. Sevillano.” Did Judge Sevillano
violate any professional or ethical standard for judges? Justify
your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Judge Sevillano violated Section 8, Canon 4, of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which provides that
“judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial o ce to
advance their private interests, or those of a member of their
family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to
convey the impression that anyone is in a special position
improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial
duties”, as well as Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that “a lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties”.

In the case of Ladigon v. Garong (A.M. MTJ-08-1712, August 20,

2008), where a Municipal Trial Court Judge wrote a letter to a
religious organization abroad, about the complaint of one of its
members, using the stationary of his court and signing with his
title of “Judge”, the Supreme Court held with regard to the use of
the stationary, that “In the present case, the respondent Judge
crossed the line of propriety when he used his letterhead to report
a complaint involving an alleged violation of church rules and,
possibly, of
Philippine laws. Coming from a judge with the letter addressed to
a foreign reader, such report could indeed have conveyed the
impression of o cial recognition or notice of the reported
violation.”

With regard to the use of the judge’s title in signing the letter, the
Supreme Court held that:

“The same problem that the use of letterhead poses, occurs in the
use of the title of judge or Justice in the correspondence of a
member of the Judiciary. While the use of the title is an o cial
designation as well as an honor that an incumbent has earned, a
line still has to be drawn based on the circumstances of the use of
the appellation. While the title can be used for social and other
identification purposes, it cannot be used with the intent to use
the prestige of his judicial o ce to gainfully advance his personal,
family or other pecuniary interests. Nor can the prestige of a
judicial o ce be used or lent to advance the private interests of
others, or to convey or permit others to convey the impression
that they are in a special position to influence the judge. To do any
of these is to cross into the prohibited field of impropriety.”

VI.

Casper Solis graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from

Achieve University in 2000 and took and passed the bar
examinations given that same year. Casper passed the bar
examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath together with other
successful bar examinees on March 19, 2001 at the Philippine
International Convention Center (PICC). He was scheduled to sign
the Roll of Attorneys on May 24, 2001 but he misplaced the Notice
to Sign the Roll of Attorneys sent by the O ce of the Bar Confidant
after he went home to the province for a vacation. Since taking his
oath in 2001, Casper had been employed by several law firms and
private corporations, mainly doing corporate and taxation work.
When attending a seminar as part of his Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education in 2003, Casper was unable to provide his roll
number. Seven years later in 2010, Casper filed a Petition praying
that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Casper alleged
good faith, initially believing that he had already signed the Roll
before entering PICC for his oath-taking on March 19, 2001.

a. Can Casper already be considered a member of the Bar and be

allowed to use the title of “attorney”? Explain. (1%)

b. Did Casper commit any professional or ethical transgression for

which he could be held administratively liable? (2%)

c. Will you grant Casper’s Petition to belatedly sign the Roll of

Attorneys? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

(A) Casper cannot already be considered a member of the Bar and

be allowed to use the title of attorney. In the case of In Re: Petition
to Sign on the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A. Medado, Petitioner
(B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013), and Aguirre v. Rana (B.M. No.
1036, June 10, 2003, 451 SCRA 428), involving the same facts, the
Supreme Court held that it is the act of signing the Roll of
Attorneys that makes a successful Bar examinee a full-fledged
member of the Philippine Bar.

(B) He can be held liable for unauthorized practice of law. Canon 9

of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.” In the Medado case, the Supreme Court held that “while a
reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from
assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized
practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under this
provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to
prevent the unauthorized practice of law”.

(C) I will grant Casper’s petition to belatedly sign the Roll of

Attorneys.
He demonstrated good faith and moral character in voluntarily
filing his petition. He did not wait for a third party to file a
complaint against him for his transgression. However, he should
be allowed to sign the Roll only one year afterwards, which is
tantamount to a suspension, as was done in the Medado case.

VII

Cite some of the characteristics of the legal profession which

distinguish it from business. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession

from a business are:
(1) a duty of public service of which emolument is a by-product,
and in which one may attain the highest eminence without making
much money;
(2) a relation as o cer of the court to the administration of justice
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
(3) a relation to client in the highest degree fiduciary;
(4) a relation to colleagues characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising
and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their
clients (In Re Sycip, 92 SCRA 1).

VIII

Engr. Gilbert referred his friends, spouses Richard and Cindy

Maylupa, to Atty. Jane for the institution of an action for partition
of the estate of Richard’s deceased father. In a letter, Atty. Jane
promised to give Engr. Gilbert a commission equivalent to 15% of
the attorney’s fees she would receive from the spouses Maylupa.
Atty. Jane, however, failed to pay Engr. Gilbert the promised
commission despite already terminating the action for partition
and receiving attorney’s fees amounting to about P600,000.00.
Engr. Gilbert repeatedly demanded payment of his commission
but Atty. Jane ignored him. May Atty. Jane professionally or
ethically promise a commission to Engr. Gilbert? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Atty. Jane may not professionally or ethically promise a
commission to Engr. Gilbert. Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) provides that “a lawyer shall not divide or
stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
authorized to practice law”.

IX.

(A) Explain the doctrine of quantum meruit in determining the

amount of attorney’s fees. (2%)

(B) Identify the factors to be considered in determining attorney’s

fees on a quantum meruit basis. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER

(A) Quantum meruit means as much as the services of a lawyer are

worth.
Recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is
authorized when (1) there is no express contract for the payment
of attorney’s fees; (2) although there is a contract for attorney’s
fees, the fees stipulated are found unconscionable by the court; (3)
the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to formal defects of
execution; (4) the lawyer was not able to finish the case for
justifiable cause; (5) the lawyer and the client disregard the
contract for attorney’s fees; and (6) the client dismissed his
counsel or the latter withdrew therefrom, for valid reasons.

(B) The factors are those set in Rule 20.01 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility (CPR), as follows:

a) the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or

required;

b) the novelty and di culty of the questions involved;

c) the importance of the subject matter;

d) the skill demanded;

e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of

acceptance of the pro ered case;
f) the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of
fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits
resulting to the client from the service;
h) the contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) the character of the employment, whether occasional or
established; and
j) the professional standing of the lawyer.”

X
The spouses Manuel were the registered owners owners of a parcel
of land measuring about 200,000 square meters. On May 4, 2000,
Manuel sold the land for P3,500,000.00 to the spouses Rivera who
were issued a certificate of title of the said lands. Because the
Spouses Rivera falled to pay the balance of the purchase price for
the land, the spouses Manuel, through Atty. Enriquez, instituted
an action on March 18, 2010 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for sum of money and/or annulment of sale, docketed as Civil Case
No. 1111. The complaint in Civil Case No. 1111 specifically alleged
that Atty. Enriquez would be paid P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees
on a contingency basis. The RIC subsequently promulgated its
decision upholding the sale of the land to the spouses Rivera. Atty.
Enriquez timely filed an appeal on behalf of the spouses Manuel
before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found for the
spouses Manuel, declared the sale of the land to the spouses Rivera
null and void, and ordered the cancellation of the spouses Rivera’s
certificate of title for the land. The Supreme Court dismissed the
spouses Rivera’s appeal for lack of merit. With the finality of
judgment in Civil Case No. 1111 on October 20, 2014, Atty. Enriquez
filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.

Meanwhile, the spouses Rivera filed on November 10, 2014 before

the RTC a case for quieting of title against the spouses Manuel,
docketed as Civil Case No. 2222. The spouses Manuel, again
through Atty. Enriquez, filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No.
2222 on the ground of res judicata given the final judgment in Civil
Case No. 1111. Pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in
Civil Case No. 2222, the RTC granted on February 9, 2015 the
motion for issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 1111 and
placed the spouses Manuel in possession of the land. Atty.
Enriquez, based on a purported oral agreement with the spouses
Manuel, laid claim to 1/2 of the land, measuring 100,000.00 Square
meters with market value of P1,750,000.00, as his attorney’s fees.

Atty. Enriquez caused the subdivision of the land in two equal

portions and entered into the half the appropriated for himself.
Based on the professional and ethical standards for lawyers, may
Atty. Enriquez claim 1/2 of the land as his contingency fee? Why?
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER

Atty. Enriquez may not claim 1/2 of the land as his contingency fee.
In the first place, a lawyer cannot charge his client a contingent
fee or a percentage of the amount recovered as his fees in the
absence of an express contract to that e ect (Corpus v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-40424, June 30, 1980, 98 SCRA 424). There is
no such contract in this case. As a matter of fact, the claim of a
purported oral agreement for a contingency fee of 1/2 of the land is
contradicted by the allegation in the Complaint in Civil Case No.
1111 for a contingency fee of P200,000.00 only. Moreover, the
amount claimed as contingent fee appears to be excessive and
unreasonable. The issue involved in the case was simple and did
not require extensive skill, e ort and research on the part of Atty.
Enriquez. Furthermore, Atty. Enriquez caused the division of the
land and appropriated one half thereof, pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 2222. This constitutes a
violation of Article 1491 of the New Civil Code, because the case in
which the property is involved has not yet been terminated (The
Conjugal Partnership of the Spouse Cadavedo v. Victorino T.
Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014).

XI

Atty. Belinda appeared as counsel for accused Popoy in a case

being heard before Judge Tadhana. After Popoy was arraigned,
Atty. Belinda movcu a resetting of the pre-trial conference. This
visibly irked Juage and and so before Atty. Belinda could finish her
statement, Judge Tadhana cut her o by saying that if she was not
prepared to handle the case, then he could easily assign a counsel
de oficio for Popoy. Judge Tadhana also uttered that Atty. Belinda
was wasting the precious time of the court. Atty. Belinda tried to
explain that she was capable of handling the case but before she
could finish her explanation, Judge Tadhana again cut her o and
accused her of always making excuses for her incompetence. Judge
Tadhana even declared that he did not care if Atty. Belinda filed a
thousand administrative cases against him. According to Atty.
Belinda, Judge Tadhana had also humiliated her like that in the
past for the flimsiest of reasons. Even Atty. Belinda’s clients were
not spared from Judge Tadhana’s wrath as he often scolded
witnesses who failed to respond immediately to questions asked of
them on the witness stand. Atty. Belinda filed an administrative
case against Judge Tadhana. Do the acts of Judge Tadhana as
described above constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Judge Tadhana has violated Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of

Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which provides
that:”Sec. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all
proceedings before the court, and be patient, dignified and
courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others
with whom the judge deals in an o cial capacity. Judges shall
require similar conduct of legal representatives, court sta and
others subject to their influence, direction or control”
The Supreme Court has held as follows:
“The duty to maintain respect for the dignity of the court applies
to members of the bench and bar alike. A judge should be
courteous both in his conduct and in his language especially to
those appearing before him. He can hold counsels to a proper
appreciation of their duties to the court, their clients and the
public in general without being petty, arbitrary, overbearing, or
tyrannical.. He should refrain from conduct that demeans his
o ce and remember that courtesy begets courtesy. Above all, he
must conduct himself in such a manner that he gives no reason for
reproach” (Ruiz v. Bringas, A. H. No. MTJ-00-1266, April 6, 2000,
330 SCRA 62).

XII

(A) What is the best form of advertising possible for a lawyer (27)
(B) What are the allowable or permissible forms of advertising by a
lawyer? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
(A) The best form of advertising is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned
as an outcome of character and conduct (Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.,
Bar Matter No.553, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA 378 [2012]).

(B)
1. Publication in reputable law lists of brief biographical and
honest informative data; 2. Use of an ordinary professional
business card;
3. Announcements of specialization and availability of service in a
legal journal for lawyers; 4. Seeking of appointment to a public
o ce requiring lawyers;
5. Advertising to seek full-time position as counsel for a
corporation;
6. O ering free legal service to indigents through radio broadcasts
or printed matter;
7. Announcement of opening of a law firm, changes ofpersonnel,
firm name or o ce address;
8. Listings in a telephone directory.

XIII

In a land registration case before Judge Lucio, the petitioner is

represented by the second cousin of Judge Lucio’s wife.
(A) Di erentiate between compulsory and voluntary
disqualification and determine if Judge Lucio should disqualify
himself under either circumstance. (3%)
(B) If none of the parties move for his disqualification, may Judge
Lucio proceed with the case? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

(A) In compulsory disqualification, the judge is compelled to

inhibit himself from presiding over a case when any of the ground
provided by the law or the rules exist. Under Section 1, Rule 137 of
the Revised Rules of Court, no judge or judicial o cer shall sit in
any case (1) in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or (2) in which he
is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or a nity or to counsel within the fourth degree computed
according to the rules of the civil law, or (3) in which he has been
executor, administrator, trustee or counsel, or (4) in which he has
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the
subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in
interest and entered upon the record.

Section 5, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Philippine Judiciary adds the following grounds:
a) the judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or
personal knowledge of dispute the proceedings;

b) knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the judge

has previously served as a lawyer or was witness in the matter
under controversy.

In voluntary disqualification, a judge may inhibit himself in the

exercise of his discretion. Paragraph 2. Rule 137 of the Revised
Rules of court provides that “a judge may, in the exercise of his
sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just
and valid reasons other than those mentioned above”. The New
Code of Professional Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary adds that
“judges shall disquality themselves from participating in any
proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter
impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that
they are unable to decide the matter impartially.” There is no
mandatory ground for Judge Lucio to disqualify himself. The
second cousin of his wife, a sixth degree relative, is appearing not
as a party but as a counsel.

(B) If none of the parties moves for his disqualification, Judge

Lucio may
proceed with the case. All the more so if, without the participation
of the judge, the parties and their lawyers execute a written
agreement that Judge Lucio may proceed with the same, and such
agreement is signed by them and made a part of the records of the
case.

XIV
Identify and briefly explain three of the canons under the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine judiciary. (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

(Any three of the following:)

Canon No. 1 – Independence. Judicial independence is a pre-

reguisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify the judicial
function independently on the basis of their assessment of the
facts and in accordance a conscientious understanding of the law,
free from any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat
or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any
reason.

Canon No. 2 – Integrity. Integrity is essential not only to the

proper discharge of the judicial o ce but also to the personal
demeanor of judges. The behavior and conduct of judges must
rea rm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice
must not be merely done but must also be seen to be done.

Canon No. 3. – Impartiality. Impartiality is essential to the proper

discharge of the judicial o ce. It applies not only to the decision
itself but also to the process by which the decision is made. Judges
shall perform their judicial functions without favor, bias or
prejudice.

Canon No. 4. – Propriety. Propriety and the appearance of

propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a
judge. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all their activities.

Canon No. 5. – Equality. Ensuring equality of treatment to all

before the courts is essential to the performance of the judicial
o ce. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in
society and di erences arising from various sources, including,
but not limited to, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste,
disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and
economic status and other like causes.

Canon No. 6. – Competence and Diligence. Competence and

diligence are prerequisites for the due performance of judicial
o ce. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance
their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the
proper performance of judicial duties.

XV

Jon served as Chief Executive O cer (CEO) of PBB Cars, Inc. (PRR)
family-owned corporation engaged in the buying and selling of
second hand cars. Atty. Teresa renders legal services to PBB on a
retainer basis In 2010, Jon engaged Atty. Teresa’s services for a
personal case. Attu Teresa represented Jon in a BP. Big. 22 case
filed against him by the spouses Yuki, Jon paid a separate legal fee
for Atty. Teresa’s services, Jon subsequently resigned as CEO of
PBB in 2011. In 2012, Atty. Teresa filed on behalf of PBB a
complaint for replevin and damages against Jon to recover the car
PBB had assigned to him as a service vehicle. Atty. Teresa,
however, had not yet withdrawn as Jon’s counsel of record in the
BP Big. 22 case, which was still then pending. jon filed an
administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Teresa for
representing conflicting interests and violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Teresa countered that since the
BP Big. 22 case and the replevin case are unrelated and involved
di erent issues, parties, and subject matters, there was no conflict
of interest and she acted within the bounds of legal ethics.
Is Atty. Teresa’s contention tenable? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The Supreme Court has adopted the following tests for

determining conflict of interest.
(1) Whether a lawyer is duty bound to fight for an issue or claim in
behalf of one client, and at the same time, to oppose that claim for
another client.
(2) Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the
full discharge of his duty of undivided loyalty to his client.
(3) Whether the acceptance of a new relation would invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
of his duty of fidelity and loyalty.
(4) Whether in the acceptance of the new relation, he would be
called upon to injure his former client on a matter that he has
handled for him, or require him to reveal information that his
former client has given to him.

Although the case for replevin filed by Atty. Teresa against Jon is
di erent from the BP Big. 22 case she was handling for him, the
pendency of the two cases at the same time is likely to invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
of her duty and fidelity to Jon Teresa’s contention is, therefore,
not tenable.

XVI

Atty. Luna Tek maintains an account in the social media network

calls Twitter and has 1,000 followers there, including fellow
lawyers and some clients. Her Twitter account is public so even her
non-followers could see and read her posts, which are called
tweets. She oftentimes takes to Twitter to vent about her daily
sources of stress like tra c or to comment about current events.
She also tweets her disagreement and disgust with the decisions of
the Supreme Court by insulting and blatantly cursing the
individual Justices and the Court as an institution.

(A) Does Atty. Luna Tek act in a manner consistent with the Code
of Professional Responsibility? Explain the reasons for your
answer. (3%)

(B) Describe the relationship between a lawyer and the courts.

(3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
(A) Atty. Luna Tek did not act in a manner consistent with the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Canon 11 of the Code
provides that “a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts and to judicial o cers and should insist on similar
conduct with others”. As an o cer of the court, a lawyer should
set the example in maintaining a respectful attitude towards the
court. Moreover, he should abstain from o ensive language in
criticizing the courts. Atty. Luna Tek violated this rule in insulting
and blatantly cursing the individual Justices and the Supreme
Court in her tweets. Lawyers are expected to carry their ethical
responsibilities with them in cyberspace (Lorenzana V. Judge Ma.
Cecilia L. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014).

(B) A lawyer is an o cer of the court. As such, he is as much a part

of the machinery of justice as a judge is. The judge depends on the
lawyer for the proper performance of his judicial duties. Thus,
Canon 10 enjoins a lawyer to be candid with the courts; Canon 11
requires him to show respect to judicial o cers; and Canon 12
urges him to exert every e ort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and e cient administration of justice.”

XVII

Give three instances when a lawyer is allowed to withdraw bis/her

services. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

(Any three of the following)

1. When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct

in connection with the matter he is handling;
2. When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative
of these canons and rules;
3. When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;
4. When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
di cult for him to carry out the employment e ectively;
5. When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services
or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
6. When the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public o ce.
7. Other similar cases.

XVIII

Atty. Javier sold a piece of land in favor of Gregorio for P

2,000,000.00. Atty. Javier drafted the Deed of Sale with Right to
Repurchase which he and Gregorio signed on August 12, 2002.
Under said Deed, Atty. Javier represented that he had”the perfect
right to dispose as owner in fee simple” the land and that the land
is “free from all liens and encumbrances. The Dec also stated that
Atty. Javier had two years within which to repurchase is property.
Atty. Javier turned over the owner’s copy of his certificate of title,
TCT No. 12121, to Gregorio. Gregorio then immediately took
possession of the land.

Atty. Javier failed to exercise his right to repurchase within two

years. Gregorio sent Atty. Javier a letter dated April 8, 2005
demanding that the latter already repurchase the property.
Despite receipt of Gregorio’s letter, Atty. Javier still failed to
repurchase the property. Gregorio remained in peaceful
possession of the land until July 25, 2013, when he received notice
from Trustworthy Bank informing him that the land was
mortgaged to said bank, that the bank already foreclosed on the
land, and that Gregorio should therefore vacate the land. Upon
investigation, Gregorio discovered that Atty. Javier’s TCT No. 12121
had already been cancelled when another bank foreclosed on a
previous mortgage on the land, but after a series of transactions,
Atty. Javier was able to reacquire the land and secure TCT No
34343 for the same. With TCT No. 34343, Atty. Javier constituted
another mortgage on the land in favor of Trustworthy Bank on
February 22, 2002. Gregorio was subsequently dispossessed of the
property. Gregorio filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Javier. In his defense, Atty. Javier argued that he could not be held
administratively liable as there was no attorney-client
relationship between him and Gregorio. Moreover, the transaction
was not actually one of sale with right to repurchase, but one of