1. Yes. There is a valid ground to discipline Atty.

Soho despite the absence of lawyer-client

relationship wherein Atty.Soho as an officer of the court, in all his dealings be it in private
life and of his professional life, he is expected to exhibit trust and confidence on the legal
profession from his clients, the public and the courts. In this instance, Atty. Soho being a
laywer, he is expected to have known the terms and conditions of any contract he is
entering and he, being trained and schooled for that matter in law school, cannot now
use the alibi to that of the exorbitant interest charged by Ms. S as per the loan she
granted him. He has all the time and skill to have known in at the first place to reject said
offer and discard the same but he, for having taken said amount and use it therefor and
later on refuse for the very the same reason and even for breach of contract. Verily, Ms.S
granted the loan because for her belief of his promise and for the very reason that Atty.
Soho that he is a lawyer, it can now be inferred that Atty.Soho usurped his profession as
a lawyer into deceiving and inducing her to grant said loan. Rule 1.01 of the CPR is clear
that “ A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.n
only points out that his indecent, unprofessional manner of dealing”. Thus, Atty. Soho
conduct is deceitful for having taken advantage of Ms. S’s trust of him because of his
promises and due to his profession. Hence, a ground for discipline and/or suspension if
he cannot settle the same or insists of not paying despite the exorbitant interest.

2. Yes. Atty. Dela Cruz committed a grossly immoral conduct which is a ground for
disbarment. Being an unmarried man and having two kids from different partners is
unacceptable as a public policy for one being in the legal profession who is expected to
be a role of model of decency, morality and honesty but nevertheless, the case is exactly
the opposite with Atty. De la Cruz who continuously commit such grossly immoral
conduct by impregnating even her client's sister. The Supreme Court in one case
consented to one unwed female attorney who is having an affair with his female
hairdresser as being not so corrupt the reason being that they are both unmarried, single
and of age is thus not warranted for disbarment. But in the case at bar, this is not so
beacause Atty. De la Cruz has multiple sexual partners which is definitely belonging to
those cases to be categorized by the Supreme Court as being "grossly immoral" acts, or
even of moral torpitude, the very ground for disbarment. His last act for impregnating his
client’s sister and Ms Y. being able to give brith during the pendency of the case
necessitates such member of the bar to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys as a
strong example to other lawyers for defaming and unshamefully disregarding the legal
profession that is ought be observed with honor and dignity.

3. Yes. Definitely Atty. Juan a grave misconduct for his deceptive actions and/or
malpractices of receiving commissions for his referral of litigants to private
practitioners. The nature of his position being a public prosecutor prohibits such
acts which is counterproductive. Such practice is deemed a conduct which is
unbecoming for one who is an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for that matter
who has conflicting interests and his position being a public servant and an
officer of the court negates the oath which he sworn. By such conduct he is
violating CANON 11 which statest that — A lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others. His acts thus degrade the respect due to prosecutors by his
machinations. And also RULE 1.02 which clearly states that “A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.”

4. Yes. Atty. Juan being a public prosecutor is liable for misconduct for having
received monetary contributions from private complainats despite being given
voluntarily and despite the very reason that that his presence benefits them or
that he was zealous with his duties is immaterial. What Atty. Juan should realized
that such acts are deplorable albeit being equivalent to indirect bribery for that
matter because he is giving the impresssion that he can openly receive gifts,
donations, and/or contributions for that matter thus the danger of favoring them
 or affecting his decisions/judgment for any case he might be handling. RULE
20.03 of the CPR clearlyt states that A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission,
interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever
related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client. He
could have done the same only if he is a private counsel but not when is a public
prosecutor which position is imbued with utmost dignity. What he should have
done is to escalate the matter to his superiors so his concern be resolved
internally and not openly to private complainants which gives a wrong
impression to the courts.

5. Yes there is a violation of the Code and generally, the Supreme Court categorize
suchs acts as one of moral torpitude for violating the breach of trust in issuing
bouncing checks still amounts to deceit and thus the act of Atty. Dela Cruz
should be penalized accordingly even though, in the instant case, only one of the
12 checks issued was dishonored. Ms. S has the right to file a disbarment
complaint against Atty. De la Cruz for having violated their agreement but
ultimately it will be up to the High Court to grant or deny such complaint as it
deemed proper. But as per my opinion, Atty. De la Cruz cannot be disbarred for
that matter because 5 days since the notice of dishonor he willingly met with Ms.
S to pay the same debt in cash but Ms. S refused to do so and perhaps only a
suspension for a month is but proper.