Bar QnA Exercises

RODOLFO B. LUCERO JR.
LEGAL ETHICS
JD-1
SYLLABUS FOR THE 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS (2000-2019)
I. LEGAL ETHICS
The embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should govern the
conduct of every member of the bar. (Justice Moran’s Foreword to Malcolm’s Legal and
Judicial Ethics as cited in Agpalo 2009, p. 2)
That branch of moral science of which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the
court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public. (Malcolm, Legal and
Judicial Ethics as cited in Agpalo 2009, p. 2)
A. Practice of Law
-Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. (201 SCRA 210, Cayetano vs Monsod)
In view of the definition of the majority in Cayetano v. Monsod:

(1) Giving advice for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and for
one’s conduct with respect thereto constitutes practice of law [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
A.C. L-553 (1993)].
(2) Preparation of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary layman [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., A.C. L-553 (1993)]. (3) Teaching law is
considered practice of law because the fact of their being law professors is inextricably
intertwined with the fact that they are lawyers [Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty, A.M.
10-10-4-SC (2011)].
a. Question No. 10 (2005 Bar Exam)
Atty. Yabang was suspended as a member of the Bar for the period of one year. During the
period of suspension, he was permitted by his law firm to continue working in their office,
drafting and preparing pleadings and other legal documents, but was not allowed to direct
contact with firm clients. Atty. Yabang was subsequently sued for illegal practice of law.
Would the case prosper?
- Any member of the bar, during his suspension, is barred to practice law. Practice of law is
defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod which is above-mentioned. In this case, the case
would prosper for Atty. Yabang had violated the rules when a member of a bar was suspended.
Even if he is not directly in touch with the firm clients, the mere fact that he drafted and
prepared and other legal documents, it is a violative act. Therefore, he must face the
consequences of his violative act.
b. Question No. IV (2018 Bar exam)
Atty. Cornelio Carbon, 36 years of age, had always dreamed of becoming a judge, and
eventually, a justice, but his legal career took a different turn. Upon graduation, he joined a
government-owned financial institution where he worked in the Loans and Claims Division.
He also taught Negotiable Instruments Law in a nearby law school at night. He has been active
in his IBP Chapter and other law organizations. However, in his 12 years of practice, he has
never done trial or litigation work.
(a) Is Atty. Carbon engaged in the "practice of law"? (2.5%)
(b) Is Atty. Carbon qualified to become a Regional Trial Court Judge?
a. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Practice of law does not require any
litigation for it to be called one. In the case of Atty. Carbon, he has been engaged in practice of
law because he taught Negotiable Instruments Law and worked in the Loans and Claims
Division. Considering his works , it requires the knowledge of law- the application of such.
Therefore, Atty. Carbong has been engaged in practice of law even without any litigation or
trial experience.
b. The qualifications for RTC Judge are; natural born Filipino citizen, at least 35-year old
and has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Considering the
qualifications, Atty. Carbon is qualified to become a Regional Trial Court as I said, practice of
law does not require litigation or any trial.
1. Concept
1.1 Privilege
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who are morally fit. A bar candidate
who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the bar examinations [Aguirre v. Rana,
B.M. 1036 (2003)].
a. Question No. V (2013 Bar exam)
Atty. Repatriar, a law school classmate, approached you on your 25th Class Reunion, with
questions on how he can resume the practice of law in the Philippines. He left the country in
1977 after two (2) years of initial law practice, and migrated to the United States where he was
admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York. He asks that you give him a formal
legal opinion on his query. Outline briefly the steps and the supporting legal reasons you
would state in your legal opinion on what Atty. Repatriar should do to resume his Philippine
practice.
- Atty. Repatriar must prepare a sworn petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice
law in the Philippines. He should manifest in his petition his desire to resume his law practice
in the Philippines, and he is not disqualified to practice law. The “right to resume the practice
of law” is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his
profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to
engage in such practice. It cannot be overstressed that the practice of law is a privilege
burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected with public interest that it is both the
power and duty of the state (through the Supreme Court) to control and regulate it in order to
protect and promote the public welfare.
Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of

morality, faithful observance of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory
continuing legal education requirement, and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar
and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these
conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose
in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege (In re: petition to re-acquire the
privilege to practice law in the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses, B.M. No. 2112, July 24,
2011).
He should file the petition with the Supreme Court, through the Bar Confidant,
accompanied by the original or certified copies of the following documents:
1. Showing that he is still a Filipino citizen. “The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice
of law.” (Ibid.) Having retained Philippine citizenship could be evidenced by the Philippine
passport, the U.S. Green Card showing Philippine citizenship and U.S. residency, or other
authentic documents which the Supreme Court may require.
On the other hand, if Atty. Repatriar has lost his Philippine citizenship, he must submit
the following:
(a) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
(b) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship);
(c) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
(d) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.
The loss of Filipino citizenship means termination of Atty. Repatriar’s membership in

the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. “Under R.A. No. 9225,
natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization
as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship
upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a
citizen of another country and later reacquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225
remains to be a member of the Philippine bar.” (Ibid.)
2. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
3. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
4. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. (Ibid.)
5. A certificate of good moral character attested to by at least three (3) members of the bar; and
6. A certification from the State Bar of New York that Atty. Repatriar does not have any
previous or pending disciplinary action filed against him before that body.
1.2 Profession, not business

Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration [Burbe v. Magulta, A. C. 99-634 (2002)].
a. Question No. 29 (2014 bar exam – multiple choice)
If a lawyer volunteers his free legal service to a poor client. (1%)
- (B) Under Canon 14.04 of the CPR, he is bound to serve his client with same degree of
competence, fidelity and diligence as his paying client. The legal profession is not a
business enterprise but a profession to serve the ends of justice.
B. Four factors in determining practice of law [haca]
(1) Habituality – customarily or frequently holding one’s self out to the public as a lawyer
(2) Application of law, legal principles, practice, or procedure – calls for legal knowledge,
training and experience
(3) Compensation – his professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a
source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services
(4) Attorney-client relationship – For Padilla, teaching law or writing law books is not “practice
of law” [Padilla’s dissent in Cayetano v. Monsod]
a. Question No. 20 (2012 bar exam – multiple choice)

Atty. Lorna, a legal officer of a government agency, and Chona, a nurse in the medical
department, were best friends. At one time, Chona consulted Atty. Lorna about a legal matter,
revealing that she is living with a married man and that she has a child out of wedlock fathered
by another man. Later, the relation between Atty. Lorna and Chona soured. When Chona
applied for promotion, Atty. Lorna filed immorality charges against Chona utilizing solely the
disclosure by the latter of her private life. Chona objected and invoked confidentiality of
information from attorney-client relationship. Decide.
- Personal secrets revealed to Atty. Lorna for the purpose of seeking legal advice is
covered by attorney-client privilege.
b. Question No. XVII (2013 bar exam – multiple choice)
Under the same essential facts as the preceding Question XVI, assume that you have resigned
from ABLE Law Office and that you were never impleaded as a co-defendant, but during your
stay with the firm, you assisted in handling the Cobra Co. account, which is largely owned by
Cable Co. The prosecutor handling the case against Santino and the law firm asks you, as a
former law firm member, if you can help strengthen the prosecution’s case and hints that you,
too, may be impleaded as a co-defendant if you do not cooperate.
What is your best legal and ethical course of action?
- Decline to testify against the defendants and to provide evidence in the case as the
attorney-client privilege lasts even beyond the termination of the relationship.
2. Qualifications for admission to the Bar (Bar Matter No. 1153)
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
Any person admitted to the bar and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to
practice law [Sec. 1, Rule 138]. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be:
(1) Citizen of the Philippines;
● The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save
in cases prescribed by law [Sec. 14, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution].
● Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines.
[Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic and its laws.
● The loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines except when citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization and reacquired
through RA 9225 [Petition to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay, B.M. 1678 (2007)].
2 (1)a - Question No. V (2013 Bar exam)
practice.
- Atty. Repatriar must prepare a sworn petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law
in the Philippines. He should manifest in his petition his desire to resume his law practice in
the Philippines, and he is not disqualified to practice law. The “right to resume the practice of
law” is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his

continuing legal education requirement, and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar
and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these
2011).
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice
of law.” (Ibid.) Having retained Philippine citizenship could be evidenced by the Philippine
passport, the U.S. Green Card showing Philippine citizenship and U.S. residency, or other
authentic documents which the Supreme Court may require.
On the other hand, if Atty. Repatriar has lost his Philippine citizenship, he must
submit the following:


2(1)b -Question No. XI (2010 bar exam)
After passing the Philippine Bar in 1986, Atty. Richards practiced law until 1996 when he
migrated to Australia where he subsequently became an Australian citizen in 2000. As he kept
abreast of legal developments, petitioner learned about the Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225), pursuant to which he reacquired his
Philippine citizenship in 2006. He took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen at the
Philippine embassy in Canberra, Australia. Jaded by the laid back life in the outback, he
returned to the Philippines in December 2008. After the holidays, he established his own law
office and resumed his practice of law.
Months later, a concerned woman who had secured copies of Atty. Richards’ naturalization
papers with consular authentication, filed with the Supreme Court an anonymous complaint
against him for illegal practice of law.
a. May the Supreme Court act upon the complaint filed by an anonymous person? Why or why
not? (3%)
b. Is respondent entitled to resume the practice of law? Explain. (5%)
(2) At least 21 years of age;
● Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be at least 21 years of age.
[Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Ratio: Maturity and discretion are required in the practice of law.
(3) Of good moral character;
● This requirement is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its
continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law [In the Matter of
the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations and
For Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154 (2004)].
● Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar, it
is not only a qualification precedent to the practice of law [Narag v. Narag, A.C. 3405
(1998)].
2(3)a - Question No. 7(a) (2004 Bar Exam)
Upon learning from newspaper reports that bar candidate Vic Pugote passed the bar
examinations, Miss Adorable immediately lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court.
Praying Vic Pugote be disallowed from taking the oath as a member of the Philippine
Bar because he was maintaining illicit relationship with several women other than his
lawfully wedded spouse, however from unexplained reasons, he succeeded to take his
oath as a lawyer. Later, when confronted with Miss Adorable’s complaint formally;
Pugote moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of it being moot and
academic. Should Miss Adorable’s, complaint be dismissed or not?
- It should not be dismissed. Her charge involves a matter of good moral character
which is not only a requisite in the admission to the Bar, but also a continuing condition
for remaining a member to the Bar. As such admission of Vic Pugote to the Bar does
not make it moot and Academic.
2(3)b - Question No. III (2013 bar exam)
Miguel Jactar, a fourth year law student, drove his vehicle recklessly and hit the rear
bumper of Simplicio Medroso’s vehicle. Instead of stopping, Jactar accelerated and
sped away. Medroso pursued Jactar and caught up with him at an intersection.
In their confrontation, Jactar dared Medroso to sue, bragged about his connections with
the courts, and even uttered veiled threats against Medroso. During the police
investigation that followed, Medroso learned that Jactar was reviewing for the Bar
examinations.
Under these facts, list and justify the potential objections that can be made against
Jactar’s admission to the practice of law. (8%)
- The potential objection that can be made against Jactar’s admission to
the practice
of law is the absence of good moral character (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.
2).
Jactar’s bragging about his connection with the courts and uttering veiled
threats against Medroso are indications of his lack of good moral character. His
acts are contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals (In re Basa, 41
Phil. 276). He has acted in a manner that has violated the private and social
duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man (Tak
Ng. vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-13017, 106 Phil. 730, December 23, 1959)
[NOTES: Any answer which explains the nature of absence of good moral
character should be given full credit.
The following additional objection should not result to a deduction nor

should
an absence of the additional objection also result to a deduction:
If light threats would be filed against him, then another
potential objection would be the pendency of charges against him,
involving moral turpitude (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 2).
The question states, “Under these facts, list and justify the potential
objections that can be made against Jactar’s admission to the practice of law.”
The question requires that an assumption be made that Jactar has passed
the Bar Examination and is about to take his oath as an attorney. It is suggested
that the better question should have been: “Under these facts, list and justify the
potential objections that can be made against Jactar’s being admitted to take the
Bar Examination.”]
(4) Resident of the Philippines;
● Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be... a resident of the
Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Ratio: His/her duties to his client and to the court will require that he be readily accessible and
available.
(5) Produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence:
a. Of good moral character;
b. That no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending
in any court in the Philippines [Sec. 2, Rule 138].
2 (5) Question No. XI (2018 bar exam)
Atty. Claire Cortez, a member of the Philippine Bar who was also admitted to the New York
Bar, was disbarred from the practice of law in New York for violation of Anti-Money
Laundering laws of that State. She returned to the Philippines in order to resume her
Philippine law practice.
Can she also be disbarred from practicing law in the Philippines for the same infraction
committed in the foreign jurisdiction? (5%)
- Yes, she can, if the ground for which she was disbarred in New York is also a ground
for disbarment in the Philippines, But she is entitled to due process and she can be
disbarred here only after notice and hearing. The Disbarment decision in New York will
only constitute prima facie evidence of her guilt.
The purposes for this requirement are:
1. To protect the public;

2. To protect the public image of lawyers;
3. To protect prospective clients; and
4. To protect errant lawyers from themselves [Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. 6486 (2004)]
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Two
essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s
oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v.
Rana, B.M. 1036 (2003)].
General rule: Only members of the bar are entitled to practice law.
Exceptions: The following are also allowed in exceptional circumstances:
(1) Law students;

(2) By an agent/friend;
(3) By the litigant himself.
3. Continuing requirements for membership in the bar
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Purpose of the MCLE. - Continuing legal education is required of members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast
with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of
the practice of law. [B.M. 850. October 2, 2001]
3.1 Question No. A.7 (2019 bar exam)
Every new lawyer must be acquainted with the consequences of noncompliance with the
essential obligations attendant to the legal profession. Among these obligations are compliance
with the requirements on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), and payment of
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues.
(a) What are the consequences of non-compliance with the requirements on MCLE? (2.5%)
(b) What are the consequences of non-payment of IBP dues? (2.5%)
3.2 Question No. 6-a (2015 bar exam)
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 Office 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%)
3.3 Question No. 22 (2015 bar exam)
a. Describe briefly the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the purpose of the same. (2%)
b. Name three parties exempted from the MCLE. (3%)
3.4 Question No. V (2013 Bar exam)
practice.
- Atty. Repatriar must prepare a sworn petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law
in the Philippines. He should manifest in his petition his desire to resume his law practice in
the Philippines, and he is not disqualified to practice law. The “right to resume the practice of
law” is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his

continuing legal education requirement, and payment of membership fees to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in
the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these
2011).
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the
practice of law.” (Ibid.) Having retained Philippine citizenship could be evidenced by the
Philippine passport, the U.S. Green Card showing Philippine citizenship and U.S. residency, or
other authentic documents which the Supreme Court may require.
On the other hand, if Atty. Repatriar has lost his Philippine citizenship, he must submit
the following:


3.5 Question No. 1 (2011 bar exam – multiple choice)
Atty. Mike started teaching Agrarian Reform and Taxation in June 2001 at the Arts and
Sciences Department of the Far Eastern University. In 2005, he moved to San Sebastian
Institute of Law where he taught Political Law. Is Atty. Mike exempt from complying
with the MCLE for the 4th compliance period in April 2013?
- No, since he has yet to complete the required teaching experience to be exempt.
Provincial Governors and Municipal Mayors who are lawyers are MCLE exempt because
- the Local Government Code prohibits them from practicing their

profession.
When does the initial MCLE compliance period of a newly admitted member of the bar
begin?
- On the first day of the month of his admission.
Atty. Galing is a Bar topnotcher. He has been teaching major subjects in a law school for
eight (8) years and has mastered the subjects he is handling. Is he exempt from the MCLE
requirement?
- No, eight (8) years experience is not enough.

Atty. Rey has been a professor in the Legal Management Department of Y University for
thirty (30) years. He teaches Constitution, Obligation and Contracts, Insurance,
Introduction to Law. Is he exempted from the MCLE requirement?
- No, because he is not teaching in the College of Law.
What is the duration of MCLE Compliance Period?

- Thirty six (36) months;
Does the MCLE requirement apply at once to a newly-admitted lawyer?

- Yes, if admitted to the Bar and there are four (4) more months remaining of the
compliance period.
What is the purpose of MCLE?

- To keep abreast with law and jurisprudence and to maintain the
ethical standards of the profession.
When does compliance period begin?

- When the lawyer actually begins law practice;
- Upon admission/readmission to the Bar;
- 01 October 2009;
- 01 October 2006.
3.14 Question No. XXX (2014 bar exam)
(A) Can a lawyer who lacks the number of units required by the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board continue to practice his
profession?
(B) May a lawyer be held liable for damages by his clients for the lawyer’s
failure to file the necessary pleadings to prosecute the client’s case and as a
result of which the client suffered damages?
(C) Can a lawyer still practice his profession despite having arrears in his
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) A lawyer who lacks the number of units required by MCLE cannot
continue to practice the legal profession since he is declared as a delinquent
member of the bar per Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 14, 2014,
revoking OCA Circular No. 66-2008.
(B) Yes, lawyer may be held for damages by his client for failure to represent
his client with zeal (Canon 19, CPR) and for not serving his client with competence
and diligence (Canon 18, CPR).
(C) Arrears in the IBP may be a ground to suspend the lawyer upon recommendation
by the IBP to the Supreme Court.
4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
a. Law student practice rule (Rule 138-A)
A law student who has successfully completed third year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in
any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer,
to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school [Sec. 1, Rule
138-A].
The appearance of the law student shall be under the direct supervision and control of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any
and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed
by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic [Sec. 2, Rule 138A].
The Rules safeguarding privileged communications between attorney and client shall
apply [Sec. 3, Rule 138-A].
The law student shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing
members of the bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student
practice may be a ground for disciplinary action [Sec. 4, Rule 138-A].
Sec. 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is
allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student [Cruz v. Mina, G.R. 154207
(2007)]. Thus, a law student may appear under the circumstances of Sec. 38, as an agent
or a friend of a party litigant, without complying with the requirements of Rule 138A,
e.g., supervision of a lawyer.
4a.1 Question No. 12 (2012 bar exam)
Debbie, topnotcher of their class, is now on her 4th year law studies and has enrolled in
the legal aid clinic of the law school. She was assigned to handle a domestic violence and
support case filed by their client against her husband. During the hearing, the clinic's
supervising attorney introduced Debbie to the Branch Clerk of Court and then left to
oversee another intern. In the midst of the proceedings, opposing counsel objected to the
appearance of Debbie because she is not yet a lawyer. Decide.
- Debbie cannot proceed without the presence of their clinic's supervising attorney.
4a.2 Question No. II-2 (2006 bar exam)
- Enumerate the instances when a law student may appear in court as counsel for a
litigant. 2.5%
b. Non-lawyers in courts and/or Administrative Tribunals
B.1 Non-lawyers in courts***
In the court of a municipality a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of
an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized
member of the bar [Sec 34, Rule 138].
Public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties should be entrusted
only to those possessing tested qualifications [PAFLU v. Binalbagan, G.R. No.
L-23959 (1971)].
However, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its judicial power, can validly
authorize a layman to represent a litigant in court [Agpalo (2004)].
A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is bound by the same rules in conducting
the trial of his case. He cannot, after judgment, claim that he was not properly
represented [Agpalo (2004)].
****and/or Administrative Tribunals
A party may also appear on his own behalf, his organization or members thereof,
before administrative bodies. This is also expressly allowed in Art. 222 of the Labor
Code. There are laws which allow representation of another by non-lawyers before
such bodies.
(1) The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure, promulgated pursuant to Art 218(a), Labor
Code, allows
(a) non-lawyers, who are not necessarily a party to the case, to represent a union or
members thereof,
(b) non-lawyers who are duly-accredited members of any legal aid office recognized
by the Department of Justice or Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
(c) non-lawyer owners of establishments, to appear before it.
(2) Under Sec. 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a claimant may appear by himself, or by
some person in his behalf, before a cadastral court.
In order that these laws will not infringe upon the power of the Supreme Court to
regulate the practice of law, the following limitations must be observed:
(1) The non-lawyer should confine his work to non-adversary contentions and should
not undertake purely legal work (i.e., examination of witness, presentation of
evidence);
(2) The services should not be habitual;
(3) Attorney’s fees should not be charged [Agpalo (2004)]
B.2. Self-representation
In any court, a party may conduct his litigation in person.
An attorney who is otherwise disqualified to practice law, or has been disbarred or
suspended from practice, can validly prosecute or defend his own litigation, he
having as much right as that of a layman [Danforth v. Egan, 119 N.W. 1021 (1909)].
When a person conducts his litigation in person, he is not engaged in the practice of
law [Agpalo (2004)]. A juridical person may also appear through its non-lawyer
agents or officers in the municipal trial court. Sec. 34 does not distinguish between
civil and criminal cases.
However, in criminal cases, the rule is qualified:

(1) Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, the accused may defend himself in person “when it
sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel.”
(2) Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, in determining whether a counsel de oficio should be
appointed, or, for that matter, whether a counsel de parte should be required
(conversely, whether the accused should be allowed to defend himself in person), the
gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise should be
considered.
While the right to be represented by counsel is immutable, the option to secure the
services of counsel de parte is not absolute.
The court may restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel de parte if:
(1) He insists on an attorney he cannot afford;
(2) He chose a person not a member of the bar;
(3) The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g., conflict of interest) [People v.
Serzo, G.R. No. 118435 (1997)].
B.3. Agent or friend

When appointed or chosen, the agent or friend is not engaged in the practice of law,
since there is no habituality in the activity and no attorney-client relationship exists.
He is only permitted to appear in the municipal trial court.
In criminal cases, in localities where members of the bar are not available, the court
may appoint any person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a resident of the province and of
good repute for probity and ability to defend the accused, in lieu of a counsel de
oficio [Sec. 7, Rule 116]. In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, this is only allowed in the
municipal trial court.
4b.1 Question No. 21 (2011 bar exam)
Eric, a labor federation president, represented Luisa, a dismissed WXT employee, before
the NLRC. Atty. John represented Luisa's two complainants. In due course, the NLRC
reinstated the three complainants with backwages and awarded 25% of the backwages as
attorney’s fees, 15% for Atty. John and 10% for Eric, a non-lawyer. When WXT appealed
to the Court of Appeals, Atty. John questioned Eric’s continued appearance before that
court on Luisa’s behalf, he not being a lawyer. Is Eric's appearance before the Court of
Appeals valid?
- No, because the representation of another in courts can be

entrusted only to lawyers.
Atty. Magtanggol of the PAO was assigned to defend X who is accused of Slight Physical
Injury before the MTC of a far-flung town. During the trial, P02 Tulco appeared in court on
behalf of the complainant. Atty. Magtanggol objected to his appearance since the policeman is
not a member of the Bar.
- The objection is valid. It should be the public prosecutor who should prosecute the
criminal action.
- Atty. Magtanggol is just afraid that his client may be convicted through the efforts of a
non-lawyer.
- In the courts of a municipality, a party may conduct his litigation in person or with the
aid of an agent or friend.
- If a public prosecutor is not available, at least a private prosecutor who must be a
lawyer should be designated.
4b.3 Question No. XV (2006 bar exam – multiple choice)
Which of the following acts does not constitute a ground for disbarment? Explain. 2.5%
1. Gross misconduct
2. Fraudulent misrepresentation
3. Grossly immoral conduct
4. Violation of the Lawyer's Oath
5. Willful disobedience to a lawful order of the Supreme Court
6. Malpractice
7. Appearance of a non-lawyer as an attorney for a litigant in a case
4b.4 Question No. VIII-3 (2008 bar exam)
State, with a brief explanation, whether the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned for the
conduct stated below.
1. Filing a complaint that fails to state a cause of action, thereby resulting in the defendant
succeeding in his motion to dismiss. (3%)
2. A suspended lawyer working as an independent legal assistant to gather information
and secure documents for other lawyers during the period of his suspension. (3%)
3. A suspended lawyer allowing his non-lawyer staff to actively operate his law office
and conduct business on behalf of clients during the period of suspension. (3%)
4. Keeping money he collected as rental from his client’s tenant and remitting it to the
client when asked to do so. (3%)
5. Refusing to return certain documents to the client pending payment of his attorney’s
fees. (3%)
6. An unwed female lawyer carrying on a clandestine affair with her unwed male
hairdresser. (3%)
7. Not paying the annual IBP dues. (3%)
Question 2:
Raul Catapang, a law graduate and vice-president for labor relations of XYZ Labor Union,
entered his appearance as representative of a member of the union before the Labor Arbiter in
a case for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages and overtime pay. Counsel for the Company
objected to Raul’s appearance and move for his disqualification on the ground that he is not
lawyer. If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you resolve the motion?
Answer:
I will deny the motion to disqualify Raul Article. 222 of the Labor Code authorizes
non-lawyers to appear before the National Labor Relations Commission or any Labor Arbiter
in representation of their organization or members thereof.
c. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing as counsels
4c.1 Question No. 37 (2012 bar exam – multiple choice)
Atty. Fred is a law practitioner and headed a law firm bearing his name and those of his
partners. When Atty. Fred was elected as Congressman, his client's needs were handled by
the other partners. Later, A, a newly proclaimed congressman-friend, faced an election
protest before the HRET, and sought the help of Congressman Fred who immediately
directed his law firm to appear for A. B, the protestant, sought the disqualification of
Congressman Fred's law firm from appearing before the HRET because Congressman
Fred is prohibited from practicing his profession. Decide.
- No, the prohibition is on Congressman Fred from personally appearing, and not to his
partners.
5. Prohibited practice of non-lawyers and appearance without authority
a. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing:
(1) In small claims cases, no attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party
at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If the court determines
that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the
court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist
that party upon the latter's consent [Sec. 17, Rules of Procedure in Small Claims
Cases].
5a.1 Question No. 10 (2013 bar exam)
As a new lawyer, Attorney Novato started with a practice limited to small claims cases,
legal counseling, and notarization of documents. He put up a solo practice law office and
was assisted by his wife who served as his secretary/helper. He used a makeshift hut in a
vacant lot near the local courts and a local transport regulatory agency. With this strategic
location, he enjoyed heavy patronage assisting walk-in clients in the preparation and filing
of pleadings and in the preparation and notarization of contracts and documents. He had
the foresight of investing in a good heavy duty copier machine that reproduces quality
documents, and charges a reasonable fee for this service. He draws electric power from an
extension wire connected to an adjoining small restaurant. He put up a shingle that reads:
"Atty. Novato, Specialist in Small Claims, Fastest in Notarization; the Best and Cheapest
in Copier Services." Is Attorney Novato’s manner of carrying out his professional practice
– i.e., mixing business with the practice of law, announcing his activities via a shingle and
locating his office as above-described – in keeping with appropriate ethical and
professional practice? (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
- No. Attorney Novato’s manner of carrying out his professional practice is not in
keeping with appropriate ethical and professional practice. He has degraded the law
profession which may result to loss of respect to lawyers as a whole. The use of a
makeshift hut standing alone would create the impression that the lawyer does not
have a permanent address which is required to be stated in all pleadings he signs as
well as required to be shown in documents he notarizes. His shingle shows that he has
considered the law profession as a business. He should have separate shingle for his
copier services business. When he included in his shingle the phrases “Specialist in
Small Claims” and “Fastest in Notarization” he has transgressed the rule that a lawyer
in making known his legal services shall use only dignified information or statement
of facts (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 3). So also the norm that a lawyer
shall not use or permit the use of any misleading, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services (Ibid., Canon 3, Rule
3.01). The use of the phrases “Specialist in Small Claims” and “Fastest in
Notarization” is misleading advertisement because they are likely to create an
unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve or implies that the
lawyer can achieve results by improper means (ABA Model Rule 7.1.b).
(2) In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of the counsel or representative, except for minors and
incompetents who may be assisted by their next of kin who are not lawyers [Sec 415,
Local Gov’t Code
b. Lawyers without authority
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
Atty. E entered his appearance as counsel for defendant F in case pending before the
regional Trial Court. F later complained that he did not authorize Atty. E to appear for him. F
moved that the court suspended Atty. E from the practice of law. May the judge grant the
motion? Explain. (5%).
Answer:
The judge may grant the motion. Unauthorized appearance is a ground for suspension
or disbarment (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Question 9:
A. Judge Aficionado was among the several thousands of spectators watching a basketball
game at the Rizal Memorial Coliseum who saw the stabbing of referee Maykilling by player
Baracco in the course of the game. The criminal case correspondingly filed against Baracco
for stabbing of Maykilling was raffled to the Regional Trial court branch presided by Judge
Aficionado. Should the Judge sit in Judgment over and try the case against Baracco?
B. Atty. Walasunto has been a member of the Philippine Bar for twenty years but has never
plied his profession as a lawyer. His sole means of livelihood is selling and buying real estate.
In one of the transactions as a real estate broker, he issued a bouncing check. He was
criminally prosecuted and subsequently convicted violating B.P. 22. In the disbarment
proceedings filed against him, Atty. Walasunto contented that his conviction for violation of
B.P. 22 was not a valid ground for disciplinary action against a member of the bar. He further
argued that his act in issuing the check was done in relations to his calling as a real estate
broker and not in the relation of the practice of law. Are the contentions of Atty. Walasunto
meritorious or not?
Answer:
A. No she should not preside over the case. Rule 3.12(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct
provides that a judge should not take part in any proceedings where the judge has personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the same.
B. No, his contentions are not meritorious. In the first place, a ground for disbarment is
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude( Sec. 27 Rule 138, Rules of Court) and
violation of B.P. 22 is considered a crime involving moral turpitude( People v. Tuanda, 181
SCRA 692). In the second place Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. Additionally Rule 1.01 of the same Code provides that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Atty. D was required by Judge H of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila to show cause
why he should not be punished for contempt of court for shouting invectives at the opposing
counsel and harassing his witness. Assuming that there was sufficient cause or ground, may
Judge H suspend Atty. D from the practice of law? If Judge H finds that the actuations of Atty.
D are grossly unethical and unbecoming of a member of the bar, may Judge H disbar Atty. D
instead? Explain your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Judge H can suspend Atty. D for gross misconduct under Sections 27 and 28, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Judge H, however, cannot disbar Atty. D because it is only the
Supreme Court who can impose such penalty in accordance with its authority under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the authority of the Supreme Court to
discipline lawyers under the 1987 Constitution.
6. Public officials and the practice of law; prohibitions and disqualifications
A. Prohibition or disqualification of former government attorneys Under Sec. 7(b), RA

6713, public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer employee, consultant,
counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee / in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office / unless expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions;
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular
or pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one year after resignation,
retirement or separation from public office, except in case of the second.
Also, the one year prohibition applies to practice of profession in connection with
any matter before the office he used to be with.
B. Public officials who cannot practice law or with restrictions

B.1. Absolute prohibition
(1) Judges and other officials or employees of superior courts as [Sec. 35, Rule 148];
(2) Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General [Sec. 35, Rule 148];
(3) Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio, A.C. 6705 (2006)];
(4) President, vice-president, cabinet members, their deputies and assistants [Sec. 15,
Art. VII, Consti];
(5) Chairmen and members of constitutional commissions [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, Consti];
(6) Members of the Judicial Bar Council [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, Consti];
(7) Ombudsman and his deputies [Sec. 8 (2), Art. X, Consti];
(8) All governors, city and municipal mayors [Sec. 90(a), RA 7160];
(9) Civil service officers or employees whose duties require them to devote their entire
time at the disposal of the government [Catu v Rellosa, A.C. 5738 (2008)]; (10)
Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their
legal profession.
6B1.1 Question No. 2 (2000 bar exam)
Question No. 2
D was charged with estafa by C before the barangay for misappropriating the proceeds
of sale of jewelry on commission. In settlement of the case , D turned over to the barangay
captain, a lawyer, the amount of P2,000.00 with the request that the barangay captain turn
over the money to C. Several months passed without C being advised of the status of her
complaint. C contacted D who informed her that she (D) had long before turned over the
amount of P2,000.00 to the barangay captain who undertook to give the money to her (C). C
thus filed a case against the barangay captain who at once remitted the amount of
P2,000.00 to C. May the barangay captain be faulted administratively?
Answer:
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers who are in the government
service. As a general rule, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as
a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his office as a government official.
However, if that misconduct as a government official is of such character as to affect
his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground (Dinsay v. Cioco, 264 SCRA 703
(1996). In the case of Penticostes v. Ibanez, SCRA 281 (1999), a barangay captain
who failed to remit for several months the amount given to him for payment of an
obligation, was found to have violated the Code of Professional Conduct.
6b1.2 Question No. 27 (2012 bar exam – multiple choice)
During the IBP Chapter elections, the candidates for President were Atty. EJ, a labor arbiter
of the NLRC, Fiscal RJ of the DOJ and Atty. Gani of the PAO. After canvass, Fiscal RJ
garnered the highest number of votes, followed by Arbiter EJ and by Atty. Gani. The
winning Vice-President moved for the annulment of the election for President because all
the candidates for President are government officials and are disqualified. Decide.
- The election for presidency is invalid, and the elected Vice-
President shall assume the Presidency by succession.
B.2. Relative prohibition

(1) No senator or member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
and other administrative bodies [Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987 Consti];
a. The word “appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any such body
but also filing a pleading on behalf of a client [Ramos v Manalac, G.R. L-2610
(1951)].
(2) Sanggunian members may practice law except during session hours and provided
they shall not:
a. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government
unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
b. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his
office;
c. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an official; and
d. Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest of the government [Sec. 90(b), RA 7160].
B.3. Special restrictions

Under Sec. 1, RA 910, the pension of justices therein is provided with a condition
that no retiring justice, during the time that he is receiving said pension shall:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Government or
any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party;
(2) In any criminal case wherein and officer or employee of the government is
accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; or
(3) Collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain
an interest adverse to the Government, insular, provincial or municipal, or to any of
its legally constituted officers.
Vice-Mayor Ron is a well-loved law practitioner because he assists his constituents, especially
the indigents. Ed, one of his friends who is employed as Cashier in the Register of Deeds,
sought his assistance because he was charged with Malversation in court. Can Vice-Mayor
Ron appear as counsel of Ed?
- No, because Ed is charged with an offense in relation to his office.
Atty. Noe was elected Vice-Governor and continued with his law practice. Later, the governor
went on sick leave for one (1) year and Atty. Noe was designated as Acting Governor. Since
hearings have already been set, can Atty. Noe continue appearing as counsel in the cases
handled by him?
- No, all governors – even under acting capacity – are prohibited from exercising their
profession.
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE PROHIBITED TO ENGAGE IN THE

PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW
J 1. Judges and other officials or employees of a superior court[1]
OSG 2. Officials & employees of the Office of the Solicitor General
P 3. Government Prosecutors
P 4. President, Vice President,, members of the Cabinet, their deputies

and assistants[2]-
CC 5. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
JBC 6. Members of the Judicial Bar Councils
O+D 7. Ombudsman and his deputies

GM 8. All governors, City and municipality mayors
6.3 Question No. IX (2013 bar exam)
7. The Lawyer’s Oath
“- I ……… of …….. do solemnly swear, that I will maintain allegiance to the

Republic of the Philippines. I will support its constitution and obey the laws as well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein. I will do no falsehood
nor consent the doing of any in court. I will not wittingly or willingly promote any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor will give aid nor consent to the same. I will
delay no man for money or malice and I will conduct my self as a lawyer according
to my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to courts as to my
client’s, and I impose upon my self this voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me God.”
The lawyer’s oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every
lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he
makes when taking the lawyer’s oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly
according to the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional responsibility, the
administration of justice will undoubtedly fairer, faster and easier for everyone
concerned. [In Re: Argosino, (1997)]
Important terms to remember:

Amicus curiae
Latin for “friend of court,” a lawyer who assists the court by giving information or
advice regarding questions of law or of fact. He does not represent any party.
Attorney
Officers of the courts, empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as a consequence.
[Cui v. Cui (1964)]
Bar
Refers to the whole body of attorneys and counselors, collectively, the members of
the legal profession
Barrister
In England, a person entitled to practice law as an advocate or counsel in the superior
court.
Bench
Denotes the whole body of judges
Notary Public
A public officer authorized by law to certify documents, take affidavits, and
administer oaths. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, all notaries must be
lawyers.
Solicitor
In England, a person prosecuting or defending suits in Courts of Chancery. In the
Philippines, a Government lawyer attached with the Office of the Solicitor General.
7.1 Question No. 2 (2005 Bar Exam)
Mike Andelantado, an aspiring lawyer, disclosed in his petition to take the 2003 bar
examinations that there were two civil cases pending against him for nullification of contract
and damages. He was thus allowed to conditionally take the bar and subsequently placed third
in the said exams. In 2004, after the two civil cases had been resolved, Mike Adelantado filed
his petition to take the lawyers oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys before the Supreme Court.
The Office of the Bar Confidant, However had received two anonymous letters; the first
alleged that the time Mike Adelantado filed his petition to take the bar, he had two other civil
cases pending against him, as well as a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 the other letter
alleged that Mike Adelantado, as Sangguniang Kabataan Chairperson had been signing the
attendance sheets of meetings as Atty. Mike Adelantado.
a. Having passed the bar, can Mike Adelantado already use the appellation Attorney?
b. Should Mike be allowed to take his oath and sign the Attorney’s Roll? ( Question 2, 2005
Bar Examination)
a. No, only those who have been admitted to the Philippine Bar can be called
Attorney(Alawin vs Alauya 268 SCRA 628) Passing the bar examination is not
sufficient for admission of a person to the Philippine Bar. He still has to take oath
of office and sign the Attorney’s Roll as a prerequisite for admission.
b. No, he should not be allowed to take his oath and sign the Attorney’s
Roll(Canon 7 Rule 7.01 Code of Professional Responsibility). Provides that a
lawyer shall be answerable knowingly making a false statement or suppressing
material facts in connection with his application to the bar. Mr. Adelantado made a
false statement in his application to the bar by revealing only that there were two
pending civil cases against him, and suppressed material facts that there was also a
criminal case pending against him. This is a sufficient ground for him to be denied
admission to the Philippine Bar. He also showed lack of good moral character in
using the title attorney before admission to the bar.
7.2 Question No. I (2018 bar exam)
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of any lawyer's obligations and its violation is a ground
for the lawyer's suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
Without stating your name and other circumstances that will identify you, substantially
write down the Lawyer's Oath that a person who has passed the bar examinations is
required to take and subscribe to before the Supreme Court. (5%)
7.3 Question No. I (2016 bar exam)
State the duties of a lawyer imposed by the Lawyer's Oath. (5%)
7.3 Question No. IV (2015 bar exam)
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%)
B. Duties and responsibilities of a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility
B1 Question No. XI-a (2009 bar exam - true or false)
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.
1. The duty of a lawyer to his client is more paramount than his duty to the Court.
B2 Question No. II (2013 bar exam – multiple choice)
Atty. Serafin Roto is the Corporate Secretary of a construction corporation that has secured a
multi-million infrastructure project from the government. In the course of his duties as
corporate secretary, he learned from the company president that the corporation had resorted to
bribery to secure the project and had falsified records to
cut implementing costs after the award of the project. The government filed a civil action to
annul the infrastructure contract and has subpoenaed Atty. Roto to testify against the company
president and the corporation regarding the bribery. Atty. Roto moved to quash the subpoena,
asserting that lawyer-client privilege prevents him from testifying against the president and the
Corporation.
Resolve the motion to quash.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Motion denied. The motion should be denied because Atty. Roto did not learn of the bribery
and falsification in connection with a lawyer-client relation. Being a corporate secretary does
not create a lawyer-client relation because membership in the Bar is not a requirement to
perform the functions of a corporate secretary. Consequently, Atty. Roto does not owe any
obligation of confidentiality to the corporation. Atty. Roto may be compelled to testify. As an
officer of the court, “a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice” (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon
12). Furthermore, “a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court” (Ibid., Canon
10).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Motion granted. It is true that being a corporate secretary does not necessarily constitute a
lawyer-client relation. However, Atty. Roto may be considered in the practice of law if part of
his duties as corporate secretary is to give legal advice to or prepare legal documents for the
corporation. Thus, a lawyer-client relationship may have been constituted between Atty. Roto
and the corporation. Consequently, it is his duty as an attorney “to maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client” (Rules of Court,
Rule 138, Sec. 20, par. e, paraphrasing and arrangement
supplied). Atty. Roto learned from the company president of the bribery and falsification,
while Atty. Roto was in the course of his performance of his duties as corporate secretary.
Thus, he could not be examined on that matter without the consent of his client (Ibid., Rule
130, Sec. 24[b]).
B3 Question No. I (2007 bar exam)
B4 Question No. I (2006 bar exam)
B5 Question No. 10b (2000 bar exam)
1. To society (Canons 1 to 6)
1.1 Question No. IV, essay (2013 Bar Exam)
1.2 Question No.14 (2011 Bar Exam)
2. To the legal profession
a. Canons 7 to 9
2a.1 Question No.6 (2011 Bar Exam)
2a.2 Question No.7 (2011 Bar Exam)
b. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A)
i. Membership and dues

i.1 Question No. 15 (2012 bar exam – multiple choice)
i.2 Question No. 28 (2012 bar exam – multiple choice)
3. To the courts (Canons 10 to 13)
· Question No.5 (2011 Bar Exam)
4. To the clients
a. Canons 14 to 22
· Question No.40 (2011 Bar Exam-Contingency Fee
· Question No.42 (2011 Bar Exam)-Attorney’s liens
c. Attorney’s fees
· Question No.3 (2011 Bar Exam - multiple choice)

i. Acceptance fees
ii. Contingency fee arrangements
iii. Attorney’s liens
iv. Fees and controversies with clients
v. Quantum meruit
C. Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers
2.1 Question No. XI (2018 bar exam)
Atty. Claire Cortez, a member of the Philippine Bar who was also admitted to the New York Bar,
was disbarred from the practice of law in New York for violation of Anti-Money Laundering
laws of that State. She returned to the Philippines in order to resume her Philippine law practice.
Can she also be disbarred from practicing law in the Philippines for the same infraction
committed in the foreign jurisdiction? (5%)
- Yes, she can, if the ground for which she was disbarred in New York is also a ground for
disbarment in the Philippines, But she is entitled to due process and she can be disbarred here
only after notice and hearing. The Disbarment decision in New York will only constitute
prima facie evidence of her guilt.

· Question No.25 (2014 Bar Exam - essay)
1. Nature and characteristics of disciplinary actions against lawyers
2. Grounds
3. Proceedings (Rule 139-B, Rules of Court, as amended)
4. Recoverable amounts; intrinsically linked to professional engagement
D. Readmission to the Bar
1. Lawyers who have been suspended
2. Lawyers who have been disbarred
E. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (Bar Matter No. 850, as amended)
1. Requirements
2. Compliance
3. Exemptions
4. Sanctions
F. Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended)
1. Qualifications of a notary public
2. Term of office of a notary public
3. Powers and limitations
4. Notarial Register
5. Jurisdiction of notary public and place of notarization
6. Competent evidence of identity
7. Sanctions
8. Relation to Code of Professional Responsibility
II. JUDICIAL ETHICS
A. Sources
· Question No.19-a (2014 Bar Exam - essay)
1. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)
2. Code of Judicial Conduct
B. Disqualifications of judicial officers (Rule 137)
· Question No.19-b (2014 Bar Exam -essay)
· Question No.21 (2014 Bar Exam -essay)
1. Compulsory
2. Voluntary
C. Administrative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Judges and Justices (all levels)

Question No.8 (2014 Bar Exam - essay)
[1] Rule 138, Sec 35, RRC
[2] Article VIII, Sec. 13, 1987 Constitution

Bar QnA Exercises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar QnA Exercises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RODOLFO B. LUCERO JR.

​SYLLABUS FOR THE 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS (2000-2019)

In view of the definition of the majority in Cayetano v. Monsod:

b. Question No. IV (2018 Bar exam)

(a) Is Atty. Carbon engaged in the "practice of law"? (2.5%)

(b) Is Atty. Carbon qualified to become a Regional Trial Court Judge?

a. Question No. V (2013 Bar exam)

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of

(a) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

(b) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship);

(c) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

(d) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.

The loss of Filipino citizenship means termination of Atty. Repatriar’s membership in

3. Proof of payment of professional tax; and

4. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. (Ibid.)

1.2 Profession, not business

a. Question No. 29 (2014 bar exam – multiple choice)

If a lawyer volunteers his free legal service to a poor client. (1%)

B. Four factors in determining practice of law [haca]

a. Question No. 20 (2012 bar exam – multiple choice)

2. Qualifications for admission to the Bar (Bar Matter No. 1153)

(1) Citizen of the Philippines;

Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic and its laws.

2 (1)a - Question No. V (2013 Bar exam)

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of

(a) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

(b) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship);

(d) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.

The ​loss of Filipino citizenship means termination of Atty. Repatriar’s membership in

3. Proof of payment of professional tax; and

4. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. (Ibid.)

2(1)b -Question No. XI (2010 bar exam)

(2) At least 21 years of age;

Ratio: Maturity and discretion are required in the practice of law.

(3) Of good moral character;

2(3)a - Question No. 7(a) (2004 Bar Exam)

The following additional objection should not result to a deduction nor

(4) Resident of the Philippines;

(5) Produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence:

a. Of good moral character;

2 (5) Question No. XI (2018 bar exam)

The purposes for this requirement are:

1. To protect the public;

Exceptions: The following are also allowed in exceptional circumstances:

(1) Law students;

3. Continuing requirements for membership in the bar

3.1 Question No. A.7 (2019 bar exam)

(b) What are the consequences of non-payment of IBP dues? (2.5%)

3.2 Question No. 6-a (2015 bar exam)

3.3 Question No. 22 (2015 bar exam)

3.4 Question No. V (2013 Bar exam)

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of

(a) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

(b) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship);

(c) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

(d) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration.

The loss of Filipino citizenship means termination of Atty. Repatriar’s membership in

3. Proof of payment of professional tax; and

4. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. (Ibid.)

3.5 Question No. 1 (2011 bar exam – multiple choice)

3.6 Question No. 23 (2011 bar exam)

- the Local Government Code prohibits them from practicing their

3.7 Question No. 27 (2011 bar exam)

SYLLABUS FOR THE 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS

The loss of Filipino citizenship means termination of Atty. Repatriar’s membership in

What is the duration of MCLE Compliance Period?

a. Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from appearing:

A. Prohibition or disqualification of former government attorneys Under Sec. 7(b), RA

B. Public officials who cannot practice law or with restrictions

J 1. Judges and other officials or employees of a superior court[1]

OSG 2. Officials & employees of the Office of the Solicitor General

P 4. President, Vice President,, members of the Cabinet, their deputies

CC 5. Members of the Constitutional Commissions

JBC 6. Members of the Judicial Bar Councils

O+D 7. Ombudsman and his deputies

6.3 Question No. IX (2013 bar exam)

6.4 Question No. 33 (2011 bar exam)

6.5 Question No. 38 (2011 bar exam – multiple choice)