Pascual, Emary Joy D.

11593725

I. Yes, Atty. Charlie can be subject of another administrative complaint

because according to law and jurisprudence, when the Court orders a
lawyer suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing
all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of
suspension. In this case, Atty. Charlie continued to practice his knowledge
of law by drafting and preparing pleadings and other legal documents.
Therefore, he can be subject of another administrative case.

II. No, Nathalie may not place an advertisement in a newspaper of

general circulation to be able to apply for a teaching position in a leading
law school. Rule 3.1 of the Code of Professional responsibility partly
provides that a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any self-laudatory
or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. In
the case at bar, although Nathalie was one of the bar topnotchers, she is
not exempted from complying with rule 3.1 of the CPR concerning
commercialization of the Practice of Law. Thus, Nathalie may not place an
advertisement in a newspaper.

III. No, Atty. Richard did not commit any infraction of professional ethics
because according to Rule 1.04 of Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement. Thus, Atty. Richard’s help to the parties to
settle the matter is within the code of professional responsibility.

IV. No, jurisprudence states that moral turpitude is everything which is

done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general. The act of commenting on a newspaper
is not under the definition of what moral turpitude Hence, he should not be
guilty of contempt.

V. Jeffrey may take his oath upon proof that he is of good moral
character. One of the requirements for the admission to practice law in the
Philippines is that the applicant must be of good moral character and that
there has no pending or he has not been convicted of any crime involving
moral turpitude. In the case at bar, Jeffrey has a pending case for physical
injuries. Thus, Jeffrey may only take his oath upon proof that he is of good
moral character.

VI. Yes, because in the case of Garrido v Garrido, the complainant in a

disbarment case is not a direct party whose interest in the outcome of the
charge is wholly his or her own; effectively, his or her participation is that of
a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. In this case,
it should be Myrna who should file the disbarment case against her
husband.

VII. No, Atty. Salvador cannot represent Kapamilya Broadcast Company

in this new case. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. In
the case at bar, Atty. Salvador was a former senior partner of ACADEMIA
Law Office that represented Kapuso Broadcast Company in a civil suit
against Kapamilya Broadcast Company. Therefore, Atty. Salvador cannot
represent the opposing party - Kapamilya Broadcast Company.

VIII. No, Atty. Obispo cannot claim exemption from MCLE requirements
because the law states that only the following persons are exempted in the
MCLE Requirement. These are the President, Vice President, Members of
the Senate and House of Representatives, Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, Governors, Mayors, incumbent and retired members of the
judiciary, Cabinet Secretaries and their undersecretaries, OSG lawyers,
OGCC lawyers, Ombudsman and all Deputies of the Ombudsman,
Professors and Reviewers of law who have engaged in such professional
for a period of ten years. Therefore, Atty. Obispo is not among the
exempted persons in MCLE he must still comply with the MCLE
requirement.

IX. No, Atty. Rosario did not validly notarize the Deed of Sale because
according to the law and jurisprudence the general rule is that the notary
public cannot notarize document without the parties presenting valid
identification being, however, exception is that the notary public personally
knows the person appearing before him or her. In this case, it is Rolando
who personally knows Sylvia and not Atty. Rosario. Thus, the Deed of Sale
is not validly notarized.

X. Atty. David is obliged to notify the court as well as his clients of his
withdrawal. Rule 22.02 provides that a lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers
and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with his
successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter. In the case at bar, Atty.
David, a lawyer who is handling several cases, intends to leave the
Philippines because his immigrant visa to Canada was duly approved.
Therefore, Atty. David must give notice to his clients and the courts
concerning his withdrawal.