You are on page 1of 3

Justin V.

Torres 1G

Jose Santos, 56, is employed as a farmer in Nueve Ecija. He has a wife named Helen, 39, and seven kids named Dante, Juan, Maria, Milagros, Daniel, Gabriel and Miguel. All of his kids are below 11 years old. A dengue outbreak was pronounced at Nueva Ecija on August 2012 and on August 14, Miguel, Joses 18-month-old son and Gabriel, 3 years old got very sick. The doctor said they are both in Stage 3 dengue and are in critical condition, they have to be confined in the hospital. Jose didnt have money to pay the hospital nor the medicines the kids needed. He wanted the kids to survive but do not have the means to help them. Late at night on August 16, Jose was so desperate that he broke into the warehouse of Mauricio Pineda and took 6 sacks of palay. Jose was caught red handed as he was about to leave the warehouse. He was sent to jail for robbery with force upon things. While in the precinct, due to him being indigent, Jose was given a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office, Atty. Tiffany dela Cruz. No other lawyers from PAO were available for the months of August until December for some unexplainable reasons but Atty. dela Cruz. This was Atty. dela Cruzs first case in PAO and she was only at the PAO because of her fathers demands who is the Chief Public Attorney.

DISCUSSION a. Atty. dela Cruz refuses to take on the case because she doesnt get along well with poor people. Is her reason for refusal valid? I. Consider the following: i. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 2.01, 2.02, 14.01, 14.02, 14.03, 14.04, 18.01, 22.01. ii. Sec. 7, R.A. 9406, An act reorganizing and strengthening the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), amending for the purpose pertinent provisions of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987", as amended, granting special allowance to PAO officials and lawyers, and providing funds therefor. Memorandum Circular No. 007 Series of 2010. Code Of Conduct For Public Attorneys And Employees of The Public Attorneys Office.

iii.

b. Atty. dela Cruz took on the case even after knowing that her fiances Uncle was the warehouses owner, Mr. Mauricio Pineda who her fianc is indebted to.

I.

Consider the following: i. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 15.01, 15.03, 17, 19.01. Memorandum Circular No. 007 Series of 2010. Code Of Conduct For Public Attorneys And Employees of The Public Attorneys Office. A.C. No. 5948, January 22, 2003, ABAQUETA vs. FLORIDO.

ii.

iii.

c. Atty. dela Cruz was instead appointed as counsel de oficio by the court to represent Jose Santos. Atty. dela Cruz then declined to take on the case because she was six months pregnant, unknown to the Judge. I. Consider the following: i. ii. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 14.02. Sec. 7, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. G.R. No. L-23815, June 28, 1974, LEDESMA v. CLIMACO.

iii.

d. Atty. dela Cruz, as counsel de oficio of Jose Santos came unprepared on the first day of Joses trial due to the abundance of cases she was handling. I. Consider the following: i. ii. iii. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons 18.02, 18.03 Sec. 7, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure A.C. No. 3523, January 17, 2005, Anderson Jr. v. Cardeo.