Legal Ethics MCQs
on April 9, 2012
This is Set A of the 2011 Bar Exams on Legal Ethics. There are 50 items in all. The answers are ol!e!.
1. Att". Mi#e starte! teaching Agrarian $eform an! Taxation in %&ne 2001 at the Arts an! Sciences
'e(artment of the )ar Eastern *ni+ersit". ,n 2005- he mo+e! to San Seastian ,nstit&te of Law where
he ta&ght .olitical Law. ,s Att". Mi#e exem(t from com(l"ing with the MCLE for the /th com(liance
(erio! in A(ril 20101
A. No, since he has yet to complete the required teaching experience to be exempt.
B. 2o- eca&se he is not "et a ar re+iewer.
C. 3es- since " A(ril 2010- he will ha+e een teaching law for more than 10 "ears.
'. 3es- since he &(!ate! himself in law " engaging in teaching.
2. The ac#nowle!gment a((earing in a !ee! of sale rea!s4
5Before me (ersonall" a((eare! this 00 A&g&st 2010 Milagros A. $amire6- who (ro+e! her i!entit" to
me thro&gh witnesses4 1. $osa&ro S. Balana- .ass(ort **120/578 19592010: Bag&io Cit"8 an! 2.
El+ira 2. B&ela- .ass(ort ;;2000/58 191<9200=: Manila.
5Both witnesses- of legal ages- &n!er oath !eclare that4 Milagros A. $amire6 is (ersonall" #nown to
them8 she is the same seller in the foregoing !ee! of sale8 she !oes not ha+e an" c&rrent i!enti>cation
!oc&ment nor can she otain one within a reasonale time8 an! the" are not (ri+" to or are intereste!
in the !ee! he signe!.?
@hat is the stat&s of s&ch a notarial ac#nowle!gment1
A. Q&estionale since the notar" (&lic is not shown to (ersonall" #now the (rinci(al (art".
B. ,neAecti+e since it incl&!e! (arties not (ri+" to the !ee!.
C. ,n+ali! since the e+i!ence of i!entit" is non9com(liant with the notarial r&les.
D. Valid since it is a manner o establishing the identity o the person executing the
document.
0. Att". )ranciscoBs retainer agreement with $C* sai! that his attorne"Bs fees in its case against C$.
5shall e 15D of the amo&nts collecte!.? Att". )rancisco as#e! the trial co&rt to iss&e a tem(orar"
restraining or!er against C$. &t this was !enie!- (rom(ting him to >le a (etition for certiorari with
the Co&rt of A((eals to E&estion the or!er of !enial. At this (oint- $C* terminate! Att". )ranciscoBs
ser+ices. @hen the (arties later settle! their !is(&te amical"- C$. (ai! $C* .100 million. Beca&se of
this- Att". )rancisco came aro&n! an! claime! a 15D share in the amo&nt. @hat sho&l! e his
attorne"Bs fees1
A. 2othing eca&se the com(romise came after $C* terminate! him.
B. 15D of what C$. (ai! $C* or .15 million.
!. A reasonable amount that the court shall "x upon proo o quantum meruit.
'. 2othing since he was &nale to com(lete the wor# state! in the retainer contract.
/. Lee ecame a law"er in 1=FF &n!er a claim that he is a )ili(ino li#e his (arents. Efren so&ght LeeBs
!isarment on the gro&n! that he reall" is a Chinese. To (ro+e he is a )ili(ino- Lee cite! an Ala"
regional trial co&rtBs >nal G&!gment in an action to reco+er real (ro(ert" which mentione! his
citi6enshi( as )ili(ino. This >nal G&!gment res<e! in the correction of his irth recor!s in a se(arate
s(ecial (rocee!ing to show he is a )ili(ino- not Chinese as there state!. ,s LeeBs claim to )ili(ino
citi6enshi( +ali!1
A. No, since the mention o his citi#enship in the land case $as %ust incidental.
B. 2o- since those r&lings were not a((eale! to the S&(reme Co&rt.
C. 3es- eca&se the r&lings in his fa+or ha+e ecome >nal an! exec&tor".
'. 3es- since his (arents are )ili(inos ase! on what he sai! in his ar exam (etition.
5. Sher"l- EricBs co&nsel- once as#e! for (ost(onement an! the co&rt grante! it since the o((osing
co&nsel- Berna!ine- !i! not oGect. Eric then as#e! Sher"l not to allow an" f&rther (ost(onements
eca&se his case has een (en!ing for F "ears. @hen trial res&me!- Berna!ine mo+e! to reset the trial
eca&se of her infantBs ailment. @hat m&st Sher"l !o1
A. $emin! the Co&rt that it has the !&t" to (rom(tl" !eci!e the case.
B. ,nter(ose no oGection since she too once so&ght (ost(onement witho&t Berna!ineBs oGection.
C. ;ehementl" o((ose Berna!ineBs motion for eing contrar" to EricBs wishes.
D. &ubmit the motion to the !ourt's sound discretion.
7. ,n a +eri>e! com(laint- Hath" sai! that %&!ge )lorante !eci!e! a (etition for correction of entr"
in+ol+ing the irth recor! of her gran!son- %osh&a- who ha((ene! to e chil! of %&!ge )loranteBs
!a&ghter- .ilita. %&!ge )lorante insiste! that he committe! no wrong since the (rocee!ing was non9
a!+ersarial an! since it merel" so&ght to correct an erroneo&s entr" in the chil!Bs irth certi>cate. ,s
%&!ge )lorante liale1
A. (es, because )lorante breached the rule on mandatory disquali"cation.
B. 2o- eca&se %&!ge )lorante has no (ec&niar" interest in the (rocee!ing.
C. 2o- eca&se it is tr&e the (rocee!ing was non9a!+ersarial so it (reG&!ice! no one.
'. 3es- since the correction in the chil!Bs recor! aAects the !etails of irth of the chil!.
<. @hich of the following statements est !escries the !istinct tra!itional !ignit" that the legal
(rofession enGo"s o+er other (rofessions1
A. .eo(le are E&ite !e(en!ent on law"ers for their s#ills in getting them o&t of tro&le with the law.
*. +ts members stri,e to maintain honesty e,en in their pri,ate dealings.
C. ,ts memers earn " charging s(eci>e! emol&ments or fees.
'. The (rofession is anchore! on a >!&ciar" relation with the client.
F. $a&l so&ght El"Bs !isarment for notari6ing a !ee! of sale #nowing that fo&r of the sellers were
!ea!. El" a!mitte! that he notari6e! the !ee! of sale &t onl" after his client ass&re! him that the
signat&res of the others were a&thentic.
Later- $a&l mo+e! to ha+e the com(laint against him !ismisse! on the gro&n! that it was >le! eca&se
of a mis&n!erstan!ing which ha! alrea!" een clari>e!. This (rom(te! the ,B. to recommen! the
!ismissal of the com(laint. Can the !ismissal e allowe!1
A. 2o- &nless the com(lainant exec&tes an aI!a+it of !esistance.
B. 3es- since no com(elling reason remaine! to contin&e with it.
C. 3es- &t recall El"Bs notarial commission since the charge against him seems meritorio&s.
D. No, gi,en -ly's admission that he notari#ed the document $hen some signatories $ere
absent.
=. @hen will Att". AntonioBs notarial commission ex(ire if he a((lie! for an! was gi+en s&ch
commission on 12 2o+emer 20101
A. 01 'ecemer 2012
*. .1 December 2011
C. 11 2o+emer 2011
'. 11 2o+emer 2012
10. Elaine >le! a com(laint against )el" efore their aranga" concerning a contract that the" entere!
into. '&ring conciliation- )el" came with Sarah- who claime! the right to re(resent her minor sister. The
aranga" ca(tain let Sarah assist her sister. E+ent&all"- the aranga" iss&e! a certi>cate to >le action
after the (arties faile! to settle their !iAerences. @hen Sarah formall" a((eare! as law"er for her
sister- Elaine >le! an a!ministrati+e com(laint against her for ta#ing (art in the aranga" conciliation
an! (re+enting the (arties from ta#ing meaningf&l a!+antage of the same. ,s Sarah liale1
A. 2o- eca&se she has to re(resent her sister who was a minor.
B. 2o- eca&se the Co&rt can alwa"s !ismiss the case witho&t (reG&!ice to a gen&ine conciliation.
C. 3es- eca&se what Sarah !i! was !eceitf&l an! amo&nts to fra&!.
D. (es, because as a la$yer, she is absolutely orbidden to appear in
barangay conciliations.
11. @hich of the following will s&Gect Att". L"n!on- a Manila notar" (&lic- to sanctions &n!er the
notarial r&les1
A. 2otari6ing a +eri>cation an! certi>cation against for&m sho((ing in Manila Jotel at the reE&est of
his Senator9client.
B. $ef&sing to notari6e an extra9G&!icial settlement !ee! after noting that Amo- a frien!- was !eliste!
as heir when he was in fact one.
!. /erorming signature $itnessing in,ol,ing his brother0in0la$ and recording it in his
register.
'. 2otari6ing a !ee! of sale for someone he #new witho&t reE&iring an" (roof of i!entit".
12. %&stice )ran#- a retire! Co&rt of A((eals G&stice- a((eare! efore the S&(reme Co&rt on ehalf of
Lan!an#- a go+ernment an#- in a case in+ol+ing the com(ensale +al&e of the (ro(ert" ta#en from a
lan!owner &n!er the agrarian reform law. The lan!owner E&estione! %&stice )ran#Bs a((earance in the
case- (ointing o&t that the same is &nethical an! smac#s of o((ort&nism since he o+io&sl" ca(itali6es
on his G&!icial ex(erience. ,s %&stice )ran#Bs a((earance in the case +ali!1
A. (es, because the la$ allo$s such appearance as long as the go,ernment is not the
ad,erse party.
B. 2o- eca&se he cannot enGo" his retirement (a" an! at the same time wor# for a go+ernment
instit&tion.
C. 3es- since Lan!an# !oes not (erform go+ernment f&nction.
'. 2o- he sho&l! ha+e waite! for at least a "ear to a+oi! im(ro(rieties.
10. Kn a((eal- $TC %&!ge $&!" aIrme! the MTCBs con+iction of Lorna for +iolation of the o&ncing
chec#s law an! awar!e! Agnes- the com(lainant- .h(1.7 million in !amages. Two "ears later- &(on
LornaBs motion an! after ascertaining that her co&nsel ne+er recei+e! the co&rtBs !ecision- %&!ge $&!"
recalle! the entr" of G&!gment in the case- re+erse! himself- an! asol+e! Lorna of g&ilt. Claiming an
&nG&st G&!gment- Agnes >le! an a!ministrati+e com(laine! against %&!ge $&!"- sa"ing that it is (lain
from the circ&mstances that he conni+e! with Lorna- her co&nsel- an! the han!ling (rosec&tor. B&t she
oAere! no f&rther e+i!ence. $&!" !enie! the charges an! asserte! that an" error in his G&!gment is
correctile onl" " an a((eal- not " an a!ministrati+e s&it. Sho&l! %&!ge $&!" e !isci(line!1
A. No, because Agnes' complaint is merely based on suspicions and speculations.
B. 2o- eca&se Agnes has "et to estalish that $&!"Bs !ecision is (lainl" erroneo&s.
C. 3es- eca&se he gra+el" a&se! his !iscretion in recalling the entr" of G&!gment.
'. 3es- eca&se reconsi!ering the G&!gment of con+iction that the MTC an! he earlier iss&e! shows
anomal" in %&!ge $&!"Bs action.
1/. After Att". Benn" got a .2 million >nal G&!gment in his clientBs fa+or- he (rom(tl" as#e! the co&rt-
witho&t informing his client- to allow him a charging lien o+er the mone" in the amo&nt of .500-000-
his agree! fees- The Co&rt iss&e! a writ of exec&tion for the whole G&!gment in Att". Benn"Bs name
with an or!er for him to t&rn o+er the excess to his client. ,s Att". Benn"Bs action correct1
A. 2o- since his fees are excessi+e.
B. 3es- since he was merel" asserting his right to collect his fees.
C. 3es- since he wo&l! an"wa" gi+e the excess to his client after getting his fees.
D. No, since he did not disclose to his client the matter o getting a charging lien and a
$rit o execution in his name.
15. Kn 1< A(ril 2007 2@'- a local water !istrict entit"- hire! Att". Chito as (ri+ate co&nsel for a "ear
with the consent of the KIce of the Lo+ernment Cor(orate Co&nsel MKLCCN. Shortl" after- a
lea!ershi( str&ggle er&(te! in 2@' etween faction A an! faction B. Si!ing with the >rst- Att". Chito
>le! se+eral actions against the memers of faction B. E+ent&all"- the co&rt &(hel! )action B which
th&s re+o#e! Att". ChitoBs retainer on 1/ %an&ar" 200<. @ith KLCCBs a((ro+al- 2@' hire! Att". Arth&r
in his (lace. @hen Att". Arth&r so&ght the !ismissal of the actions that Att". Chito ha! instit&te!- the
latter oGecte! on the gro&n! that his term ha! not "et ex(ire! an! Att". Arth&r ha! no +acanc" to >ll
&(. ,s Att". Chito right1
A. No, because Atty. !hito's continued appearances in the cases $as $ithout authority
since 11 2anuary 2003.
B. 2o- eca&se Att". Arth&r wo&l! ha+e +iolate! the r&le on for&m sho((ing.
C. 3es- eca&se Att". ChitoBs retainer an! a&thorit" remaine! +ali! &ntil 1< A(ril 2007.
'. 2o- eca&se Att". Chito has the !&t" to ex(ose the irreg&larities committe! " the memers of
)action B.
17.2oel an! Emil" who were in+ol+e! in a roa! acci!ent s&e! )er!ie- the !ri+er of the other car- for
!amages. Att". %ose re(resente! onl" 2oel &t he calle! Emil" to testif" for his client. '&ring !irect
examination- Emil" claime! that her inG&ries were serio&s when Att". %ose #new that the" were not.
Still- Att". %ose !i! not contest s&ch claim. )er!ie later s&e! Emil" for gi+ing false testimon" since her
own !octorBs re(ort contra!icte! it. Je also s&e! Att". %ose for foisting a false testimon" in co&rt. ,s
Att". %ose liale1
A. 2o- eca&se he !i! not #nowingl" arrange for Emil" to lie in co&rt.
B. 3es- eca&se he !i! not a!+ise his client to settle the case amical".
C. 2o- eca&se Emil" !i! not (ermit him to re+eal the falsit" to the co&rt.
D. (es, because he 4no$ingly let -mily's alse testimony pass or truth.
1<. ,n settling his clientBs claims- Att". Cr&6 recei+e! from the a!+erse (art" .200-000 in cash for his
client. @hich of the following is an ,M.$K.E$ wa" for Att". Cr&6 to han!le the mone"1
A. As# his client to (re(are a chec# for his fees for swa((ing with the cash.
*. Deposit the cash in his o$n ban4 account and later issue his personal chec4 to his client,
less his ees.
C. T&rn o+er the cash to his client with a reE&est that the latter (a" him his fees.
'. Tell his client ao&t the settlement an! the cash an! wait for the clientBs instr&ctions.
1F. %&!ge Cristina has man" law9relate! acti+ities. She teaches law an! !eli+ers lect&res on law.
Some in the go+ernment cons< her on their legal (rolems.
She also ser+es as !irector of a stoc# cor(oration !e+ote! to (enal reform- where she (artici(ates in
oth f&n! raising an! f&n! management. @hich of the following statements a((lies to her case1
A. She sho&l! not engage in f&n! raising acti+ities.
B. Jer acti+ities are acce(tale exce(t the (art where she is in+ol+e! in f&n! management.
!. &he can teach la$ and deli,er lectures on la$ but not do the other things.
'. All of her acti+ities are legal.
1=. Kne of the fo&n!ation (rinci(les of the Bangalore 'raft of the Co!e of %&!icial Con!&ct is the
im(ortance in a mo!ern !emocratic societ" of
A. a G&!icial s"stem that caters to the nee!s of the (oor an! the wea#.
*. public con"dence in its %udicial system and in the moral authority and integrity o its
%udiciary.
C. the existence of in!e(en!ent an! im(artial tri&nals that ha+e the s&((ort of its go+ernment.
'. G&!ges who are learne! in law an! G&ris(r&!ence.
20. After re(resenting Lenie in an im(ortant laws&it from 1==2 to 1==5- Att". %ennifer lost to&ch of her
client. Ten "ears later in 2005- E+el"n as#e! Att". %ennifer to re(resent her in an action against Lenie.
S&ch action in+ol+e! certain facts- some con>!ential- to which Att". %ennifer was (ri+" eca&se she
han!le! LenieBs ol! case. Can Att". %ennifer act as co&nsel for E+el"n1
A. 2o- &t she can assist another law"er who will han!le the case.
B. 3es- &t she m&st notif" Lenie efore acce(ting the case.
!. No, because her duty to 4eep the con"dences o pre,ious clients remains.
'. 3es- &t she cannot re+eal an" con>!ential information she (re+io&sl" got.
21. Eric- a laor fe!eration (resi!ent- re(resente! L&isa- a !ismisse! @CT em(lo"ee- efore the 2L$C.
Att". %ohn re(resente! L&isaBs two co9 com(lainants. ,n !&e co&rse- the 2L$C reinstate! the three
com(lainants with ac#wages an! awar!e! 25D of the ac#wages as attorne"Bs fees- 15D for Att".
%ohn an! 10D for Eric- a non9law"er. @hen @CT a((eale! to the Co&rt of A((eals- Att". %ohn
E&estione! EricBs contin&e! a((earance efore that co&rt on L&isaBs ehalf- he not eing a law"er. ,s
EricBs a((earance efore the Co&rt of A((eals +ali!1
A. 3es- for Eric has a (ersonal sta#e- the fees awar!e! to him- in !efen!ing the 2L$CBs !ecision in the
case.
B. 2o- since %ohn can +er" well re(resent L&isa- she eing in the same sit&ation as his own clients.
!. No, because the representation o another in courts can be entrusted only to la$yers.
'. 3es- since that a((eal is a mere contin&ation of the laor !is(&te that egan at the 2L$C.
22. ,n what !oc&mente! act will a notar" (&licBs fail&re to aIx the ex(iration !ate of his commission
warrant a!ministrati+e sanction1
A. ,n the G&rat of a secretar"Bs certi>cate.
*. +n the $ill ac4no$ledged beore him.
C. ,n the signat&re witnessing he (erforme!.
'. ,n the !oc&ment co(" he certi>e!.
20. .ro+incial Lo+ernors an! M&nici(al Ma"ors who are law"ers are MCLE exem(t eca&se
A. the" han!le cases of their constit&ents for free.
*. the 5ocal 6o,ernment !ode prohibits them rom practicing their proession.
C. the" are ren!ering (&lic ser+ice.
'. As ex(erts in local go+ernance- it ma" e ass&me! that the" are &(!ate! on legal !e+elo(ments.
2/. A !iIc< client !irecte! his co&nsel to ring &( to the S&(reme Co&rt the trial co&rtBs !ismissal of
their action. Co&nsel elie+es that the trial co&rt acte! correctl" an! that an a((eal wo&l! e f&tile.
@hich of the following o(tions sho&l! co&nsel ta#e1
A. 7ithdra$ rom the case to temper the client's propensity to litigate.
B. Engage a collaorating co&nsel who can assist in the case.
C. S&mit a new retainer (ro(osal to the client for a higher fee.
'. Ele+ate the case to the S&(reme Co&rt as !irecte! " client.
25. Altho&gh not co&nsel in a (artic&lar case- Att". Anthon" as#e! Lisa- the $TC cler# of co&rt- if the
case recor!s ha+e alrea!" een reman!e! to the MTC as the Co&rt of A((eals !irecte!. Lisa sai! no-
sa"ing that the $TC ha! not "et recei+e! a certi>e! co(" of the Co&rt of A((ealsB !ecision. @hen Lisa
s&ggeste! that Att". Anthon" >rst sec&re s&ch a co("- the latter scol!e! her. Shame! " this- Lisa >le!
a !isci(linar" action against him for encroaching on the wor# of the law"ers of recor!. Anthon" !efen!s
his follow9&( action " claiming goo! faith an! the (ossiilit" of entering his a((earance later. ,s
Anthon" liale for his recor! follow &(1
A. 3es- eca&se he !i! not inform Lisa of the asis of his interest in the case.
*. (es, because none o the parties to the case authori#ed him to do such ollo$0 up.
C. 2o- eca&se he acte! in goo! faith with a +iew to a (ossile retainer.
'. 2o- eca&se following &( the recor!s of an" case !oes not constit&te (ractice of law.
27. A!ministrati+e (rocee!ings against %&!ges of all co&rts an! %&stices of the Co&rt of A((eals an! the
San!igana"an shall e
A. pri,ate and con"dential.
B. (&lic &t s&!&e!.
C. (ri+ate &t trans(arent.
'. (&lic.
2<.@hen !oes the initial MCLE com(liance (erio! of a newl" a!mitte! memer of the ar egin1
A. 8n the "rst day o the month o his admission.
B. Kn the tenth !a" of the month of his a!mission.
C. Kn the thir! "ear after his a!mission as memer.
'. Kn the >rst "ear of the next s&ccee!ing com(liance (erio!.
2F. Co&nsel for .hil6ea Mining a((eale! a !ecision of the B&rea& of Mines- which was a!+erse to his
client- to the En+ironment Secretar". At ao&t the same time- he >le! a s(ecial ci+il action of certiorari
with the Co&rt of A((eals for the ann&lment of the same !ecision. 'i! co&nsel commit an" ethical
im(ro(riet" in his actions1
A. 3es- since the action he >le! with the Co&rt of A((eals was arre! " the (en!enc" of a similar
action efore the En+ironment Secretar".
*. (es, since he $as e,idently shopping or a sympathetic orum, a condemnable practice.
C. 2o- since his a((eal to the En+ironment Secretar" was a!ministrati+e- not G&!icial.
'. 2o- since he has to exha&st all a+ailale reme!ies to ser+e his clientBs interest.
2=. Att". Melissa witnesse! the car acci!ent that res<e! in inG&r" to Mann"- a frien! of hers. @hile
+isiting him at the hos(ital- she a!+ise! him ao&t what action he nee!e! to ta#e regar!ing the
acci!ent. ,s Att". Melissa s&Gect to !isci(linar" action if she e+ent&all" han!les the case for him1
A. 2o- eca&se Melissa !i! not !irectl" +ol&nteer her ser+ices.
*. No, because 9anny happened to be a riend.
C. 3es- she engage! in t"(ical am&lance chasing.
'. 3es- eca&se she sho&l! ha+e oAere! her ser+ices for free.
00. A Co&rt A!ministratorBs a&!iting team fo&n! that %&!ge $&" &se! &siness car!s which state!- in
a!!ition to her oIcial title as (resi!ing G&!ge of her co&rt- that she is ar to(notcher- her law schoolBs
5class +ale!ictorian-? an! 5one of the most so&ght after (ri+ate law (ractitioners? efore she Goine! the
G&!iciar"- all of which are tr&e. As#e! to ex(lain this seeming im(ro(riet"- $&" (ointe! o&t that
&siness car!s can incl&!e the (ersonBs 5title? which is roa! eno&gh to incl&!e in her case her
stan!ing in the ar an! all the honors she earne!. 'i! $&" commit an im(ro(riet"1
A. 3es- &nless the car!s were gi+en to her as a gift.
B. 2o- eca&se all she state! in her &siness car!s are tr&e.
!. (es, because she sho$ed a hunger or publicity and recognition that debases her %udicial
post.
'. 2o- eca&se she is free to incl&!e in her &siness car!s !etails that sa" who she is.
01. Ser+ing as co&nsel !e o>cio- Att". Mamerto a!+ise! %ohn of the conseE&ences of his (lea of not
g&ilt" to the charge. Before trial co&l! e hel!- howe+er- the (resi!ing G&!ge !ie!. As it ha((ene!- Att".
Mamerto was a((ointe! G&!ge an! %ohnBs case was assigne! to him " raOe. %ohn E&ic#l" mo+e! for
the G&!geBs !isE&ali>cation. ,s %&!ge Mamerto &n!er oligation to inhiit himself from the case1
A. No, because his ser,ice to 2ohn $as %ust momentary.
B. 3es- eca&se his #nowle!ge of %ohnBs case aAects his G&!gment.
C. 2o- eca&se he was merel" a co&nsel !e o>cio.
'. 3es- eca&se he ser+e! as %ohnBs co&nsel.
02. M"ra as#e! Att". Elma to notari6e her !ee! of sale. @hen Elma as#e! for M"raBs com(etent
e+i!ence of i!entit"- she ex(laine! that she !oes not ha+e an" c&rrent i!enti>cation !oc&ment nor
co&l! she get one soon. ,nstea!- she (resente! her frien!- Alex- who showe! Att". Elma his !ri+erBs
license an! con>rme! her M"raBs i!entit". ,s AlexBs i!enti>cation of M"ra +ali!1
A. 3es- (ro+i!e! Alex states in the !ee! of sale that he #new M"ra (ersonall".
*. No, 9yra needs to produce a ,alid identi"cation document o hersel.
C. 2o- since Alex is not himself a (art" to the !oc&ment.
'. 3es- since Alex ha! a +ali! i!enti>cation !oc&ment.
00. Att". Eliseo re(resente! Allan in a collection s&it against the .hili((ine Charit" Swee(sta#es KIce
M.CSKN. After his election as sangg&niang a"an memer- the co&rt ren!ere! a !ecision in .CSKBs
fa+or. Still- Att". Eliseo a((eare! for Allan in the latterBs a((eal- (rom(ting the .CSK to E&estion his
right to !o so. ,n res(onse- Att". Eliseo claime! that the local go+ernment co!e a&thori6es him to
(ractice law as long it !oes not conPict with his !&ties. ,s Att". Eliseo right1
A. No, because he cannot appear against a go,ernment instrumentality in a ci,il case.
B. 3es- eca&se his oIcial !&ties !o not conPict with his (ri+ate (ractice.
C. 2o- eca&se he wor#s on his (ri+ate case at the sacri>ce of (&lic ser+ice.
'. 3es- eca&se he !oes not a((ear in the case as a m&nici(al oIcial.
0/. @hich of the following instances !emonstrates co&nselBs LACH of !iligence in ser+ing his clientBs
interest1
A. )ailing to "le his client's appeal brie despite 2 extensions upon the excuse that the
client did not coordinate $ith him.
B. )ailing to sen! to client a reE&este! legal o(inion &ntil after the latter ga+e him the a!!itional
!oc&ments he reE&este!.
C. )ailing to rehearse his client on his testimon" efore the trial.
'. *(!ating his client ao&t the stat&s of his case " (hone an! electronic mail.
05. @hat is the metho! of national inE&ir" into the con!&ct of S&(reme Co&rt magistrates1
A. A!ministrati+e in+estigation.
B. 'isE&ali>cation.
!. +mpeachment.
'. 'isarment.
07. @hat &nhealth" attit&!e of min! sho&l! a G&!ge a+oi! falling into1
A. Jearing an! a!G&!icating cases is an im(ortant Go.
B. Co&rts are ma!e for litigants.
!. 5itigants are made or the courts.
'. Co&rts sho&l! !is(ose of their cases on time.
0<. After hearing in a sensational criminal case- co&nsel for the acc&se! tol! tele+ision +iewers how
the G&!ge &nfairl" r&le! to sto( his witness from testif"ing f&ll" ao&t certain as(ects of the case that
wo&l! hel( the acc&se!. Co&nsel sai! that the (&lic sho&l! #now the inG&stice to which his client was
eing s&Gecte!. Can co&nsel e !isci(line! for his &tterances1
A. 3es- eca&se rather than !efen! the G&!icial s"stem as was his !&t"- he attac#e! it.
B. 2o- since co&nsel !i! not &se oscene lang&age.
!. No, so long as counsel did not 4no$ingly ma4e alse statements or act in rec4less
disregard o truth.
'. 3es- e+en if the G&!ge ma" ha+e act&all" ma!e &nfair r&lings in the co&rse of trial.
0F. @hich of the following is reE&ire! of co&nsel when with!rawing his ser+ices to a client in a case1
A. Co&nselBs !esire to with!raw- ex(resse! in his motion.
B. .a"ment of with!rawal fee.
C. K((osing co&nselBs conformit" to the with!rawal.
D. !lient's $ritten consent "led in court.
0=. @hich of the following !emonstrates the law"erBs !&t" to gi+e the co&rt the res(ect it !eser+es1
A. Co&nsel consistentl" a((earing in co&rt on time.
*. !ounsel obeying court's orders and processes.
C. @oman co&nsel a((earing in co&rt !resse! in &siness attire.
'. Co&nsel a!!ressing the co&rt as 53o&r Jonor? at all times.
/0. Att". Arth&r agree! to re(resent .atric# in a (ersonal inG&r" case after the latter signe! a retainer
agreement for a 00D fee contingent on their winning the case. ,n the co&rse of trial- .atric# !ismisse!
Att". Arth&r after he (resente! their e+i!ence in chief an! engage! Att". @inston another law"er. The"
lost the case. @hat fee wo&l! Att". Arth&r e entitle! to1
A. Thirt" three (ercent of the fee act&all" (ai! to @inston.
B. The reasonale +al&e of his ser+ices.
C. A Pat ho&rl" rate for the time he in+este! in the case.
D. Absolutely nothing.
/1. $onnie- a (aralegal in a law >rm- hel(e! Beth in a (ro(ert" !is(&te in which she was in+ol+e! "
gi+ing her legal a!+ice an! (re(aring a com(laint that she e+ent&all" >le! in co&rt &n!er her own
signat&re. @hen the law"er for the !efen!ant learne! of it- he tol! $onnie to !esist from (racticing law.
B&t he !is(&te! this- claiming that he ha! not (ractice! law since he !i! not recei+e com(ensation
from Beth for his hel(. ,s $onnie correct1
A. 3es- eca&se he co&l! as a (aralegal (ro+i!e com(etent legal hel( to litigants.
B. 3es- for so long as he !i! not sign the com(laint or a((eare! as BethBs law"er.
C. 2o- &nless Beth was ill9a!+ise! in >ling her com(laint in co&rt.
D. No, because receipt o compensation is not the sole determinant o legal practice.
/2. @hich of the following characteristics (ertains to a charging lien1
A. +t cannot attach to %udgments or deli,ery o real estates.
B. ,t in+ol+es !oc&ments (lace! in the law"erBs (ossession " reason of the retainer.
C. ,t !oes not nee! an" notice to the client to ma#e it eAecti+e.
'. ,t ma" e exercise! efore G&!gment or exec&tion.
/0. To whom ma" the S&(reme Co&rt refer com(laints against law"ers for in+estigation1
A. +ntegrated *ar o the /hilippines.
B. KIce of the Bar Con>!ant.
C. %&!icial an! Bar Co&ncil.
'. KIce of the Co&rt A!ministrator.
//. After se+eral "ears as a (ri+ate (ractitioner- Ben got a((ointe! as $egional Trial Co&rt G&!ge. )i+e
"ears after his a((ointment- he recei+e! s&mmons !irecting him to answer a !isarment com(laint
that (ertaine! to a !oc&ment he notari6e! more than 10 "ears ago from a((ointment !ate. Je so&ght
the !ismissal of the com(laint arg&ing that the ca&se of action has (rescrie!. M&st the com(laint e
!ismisse!1
A. No, because such complaints do not prescribe.
B. 3es- eca&se the com(laint creates a chilling eAect on G&!icial in!e(en!ence.
C. 2o- &t the com(laint sho&l! e +eri>e! to ens&re trans(arenc".
'. 3es- eca&se actions on contracts (rescrie in 10 "ears.
/5. Kn 2o+emer 2F Att". .atric# wrote in a news(a(er col&mn that the S&(reme Co&rt alrea!"
!eci!e! in fa+or of the +ali!it" of the Exec&ti+e Kr!er that create! the Tr&th Commission &(on a +ote
of 1092. B&t- as it t&rne! o&t- the Co&rt act&all" ren!ere! an a!+erse !ecision onl" on 'ecemer <- an!
&(on a +ote of 1095. As#e! to ex(lain his mislea!ing article- .atric# sai! that his constit&tionall"
(rotecte! right to free ex(ression co+ere! what he wrote. Can the Co&rt cite .atric# for contem(t1
A. (es, because his article obstructs and degrades the administration o %ustice.
B. 2o- eca&se the right to free ex(ression occ&(ies a high ran# in the hierarch" of cherishe! rights.
C. 2o- eca&se co&rts m&st sim(l" ignore (&lic o(inion an! the me!ia when ren!ering !ecisions.
'. 3es- eca&se he wrote a lie in his col&mn.
/7. Att". $amon orrowe! his clientBs MMench&N lan! title. After eight months- Mench& !eman!e! its
ret&rn &t he faile! to com(l" an! change! his resi!ence. After Mench& trac#e! him !own- she
confronte! him ao&t the title. Je then oAere! to G&st &" the (ro(ert" an! ga+e her >+e chec#s for it
&t these o&nce!. Charge! with mal(ractice- Att". $amon answere! that his license to (ractice law
cannot e in iss&e. Je merel" inc&rre! ci+il liailit" for a faile! transaction. @ill the mal(ractice action
(ros(er1
A. 2o- eca&se his fail&re to (a" his oligation onl" ma#es him ci+ill" liale.
B. 2o- since Mench& !i! not transact &siness with Att". $amon as a law"er.
C. 3es- eca&se it is (rofessionall" re(rehensile for a law"er to e &na+ailale to a (erson in nee!.
D. (es, he ha,ing ta4en ad,antage o 9enchu $ho $as not ully protected and had no
independent ad,ice.
/<. Att". Alfre!o .ra!o a((eare! in a case as legal oIcer of the Lan! $egistration A&thorit" ML$AN. Jis
o((onent- Att". Arman!o- #new an Att". Alfre!o .ra!o from his (ro+ince who ha! een !ea! for "ears.
@hen Att". Arman!o chec#e! with the S&(reme Co&rt- onl" one Alfre!o .ra!o was in the roll of
attorne"s. @hat action can Att". Arma!o ta#e against ;icente who ha! ta#en a !ea! law"erBs i!entit"1
A. )ile !irect contem(t action against ;icente for !ecei+ing the co&rt.
*. !riminally prosecute Vicente or estaa or ma4ing money upon alse pretense.
C. Criminall" (rosec&te ;icente for theft of Alfre!oBs i!entit" an! law (ractice.
'. ,nstit&te a !isarment case against ;icente for misre(resenting himself as law"er.
/F. After the (rosec&tion cross9examine! Shiela- a witness for the acc&se!- %&!ge .e!ro as#e! her ten
a!!itional E&estions that were so intense the" ma!e her cr". Kne E&estion force! Sheila to a!mit that
her mother was li+ing with another man- a fact that weighe! on the case of the acc&se!. This
(rom(te! the latterBs co&nsel to mo+e to ex(&nge the G&!geBs E&estions for &il!ing on the
(rosec&tionBs case. %&!ge .e!ro !enie! the motion- insisting that olstering a (art"Bs case is inci!ental
to the co&rtBs !esire to e clari>e!. 'i! .e!ro commit an im(ro(riet"1
A. 2o- his ten E&estions co&l! not e consi!ere! an &n!&e inter+ention.
B. 2o- eca&se the G&!ge is free to inE&ire into an" as(ect of the case that wo&l! clarif" the e+i!ence
for him.
!. (es, because he e:ecti,ely depri,ed the deense o its right to due process $hen he
acted both as prosecutor and %udge.
'. 3es- eca&se nothing connects his !esire to e clari>e! with the E&estions he as#e!.
/=. A!ministrati+e (enalties im(ose! on G&!ges are
A. c&rati+e.
B. (&niti+e.
C. correcti+e.
D. both puniti,e and correcti,e.
50. @hich of the following !emonstrates a law"erBs >!elit" to #nown (ractices an! c&stoms of the ar
regar!ing a case he is han!ling1
A. Treating his clientBs !isclos&res as con>!ential &t not the !oc&ments he s&mits for re+iew.
B. Meeting with his clientBs o((onent o+er l&nch to !isc&ss settlement witho&t telling his client.
!. Accepting a tough case although he is ne$ in practice, trusting that his diligence $ould
ma4e up or lac4 o experience.
'. ,n+iting the G&!ge hearing the case to !inner with no (&r(ose to !isc&ss the case with him.
