PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

(2020 2021 (13))

No. The lawyer did not breach attorney – client privilege.

Under the rules, it is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to
preserve the secrets of his client.

In the case bar, a lawyer gave a legal advice to another guest regarding the latter’s marital problems while
attending a wedding. Consequently, the lawyer shared with their best friend the guest’s marital problems.

Hence, the lawyer did not breach attorney – client privilege because the client must intend the communication to
be confidential.

(2020 2021 (14))

Yes. The seafarer have legal grounds to file the complaint.

Under the rules, attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto
made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary procedure. Bu they cannot, without special
authority, compromise their client’s litigation, or receive anything gin discharge of a client’s claim but the full
amount in cash.

In the case bar, a seafarer to refused to accept the amount of PHP.1,000,000.00, as no prior approval had been
given to the lawyer to settle the case.

Hence, the seafarer have legal grounds to file the complaint because the lawyer entered into compromise
agreement without the seafarer’s approval.

(2020 2021 (15))

Yes. The judge should inhibit.

Under the rules, no judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he is related to either party within 6 th
degree of consanguinity or affinity, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered
upon the record.

In the case bar, it is alleged that the judge was related with the private complainant within 4 th degree of
consanguinity.

Hence, the judge should inhibit.

(2020 2021 (16))

Yes. The lawyer may continue to practice law in the Philippines.

Under the rules, those who retain or re – acquire Philippine citizenship shall enjoy full civil and political rights
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and those
intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit
to engage in such practice.

In the case bar, a lawyer reacquired his Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine consulate in Washington, D.C. in the United States.

Hence, the lawyer may continue to practice law in the Philippines provided he must apply with the proper
authority for a license to engage in such practice.

(2020 2021 (16))

jurat
(2020 2021 (16))
Certification against forum shopping
By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 1
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

(2019 (A) (1) (a))

Under the rules, A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document is not in the presence personally at the time of the notarization; and is not personally known
to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity.

In the case at bar, Atty. A’s secretary would usually perform the notarial acts on his behalf. Consequently,
Atty. A drafted a Petition for the Nullification of Marriage with verification while the client, Mrs. B, was in
Singapore and it was Atty. A’s secretary, as per usual practice, notarized the signed document upon the his
instruction.

Atty. A violated the abovementioned practices under the Rules on Notarial Practice because Mrs. B was not
present during the time of notarization, and she is not personally known to the notary public.

(2019 (A) (1) (b))

Yes. Atty. A may also be held liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under the code, a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.

In the case bar, Atty. A allowed his secretary, as per usual practice, notarized a signed document.

Hence, Atty. A may also be held liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility since in violating the
Rules on Notarial Practice he also committed acts that would adversely reflect his moral fitness to practice law.

(2019 (A) (2) (a))

Atty. X violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

1) A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

Accordingly, the acceptance fee received by Atty. X since the money was not use for the intended purpose.

2) Further, a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client interests are fully protected by
the case or by independent advice.

Accordingly, the failure of Atty. X. to pay the money he borrowed from Y prior to the commencement of
their attorney – client relationship is highly unethical.

3) Lastly, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Accordingly, the fact that the communications between Atty. X and Y were cut will not justify the former’s
failure to file the required initiatory pleading.

(2019 (A) (2) (b))

The prayer for the return of the PHP.50,000 acceptance fee may prosper but the PHP.300,000 personal loan
will not prosper.

Under the rules, a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.

In the case at bar, Y filed an administrative complaint against Atty. X, seeking that Atty. X be sanctioned
and that the PHP.50,000 acceptance fee and the PHP.300,000 personal loan be returned.

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 2
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Accordingly, in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue whether the officer of the court is
still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.

Hence, only the return of the PHP.50,000 acceptance fee may prosper because the IBP’s recommended
return of the aforesaid sum lies beyond the ambit of administrative case.

(2019 (A) (3) (a))

Yes. Justice K violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under the code, a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.

In the case at bar, Justice K commented on the perceived bias of the court on a pending resolution of a high
– profile case against him, and subsequently, such commentaries was published by some local newsmen.

Hence, Justice K violated the Code of Professional Responsibility because lawyers are restricted to make
comments and disclosures to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing
the administration of justice.

(2019 (A) (3) (b))

No. Justice K cannot be validly claimed that he cannot be subject of administrative since his comments
were made in a purely private capacity.

Under the code, a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.

In the case at bar, Justice alleged that his against the perceived bias of the court on a pending resolution of a
high – profile case against him were made in his private capacity.

Hence, Justice K cannot be validly claimed that he cannot be subject of administrative since his comments
were made in a purely private capacity because a lawyer must observe due respect to the courts and its processes at
all times.

(2019 (A) (4) (a))

Yes. The communication made by Mr. L to Atty. M regarding the kickback is presumed to be confidential.

Under the code, a lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.

In the case at hand, Mr. L mentioned to Atty. M that he would be able to pay his legal fees because he
received a huge kickback.

Hence, the communication made by Mr. L is presumed to be confidential because matters disclosed by a
prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged communication even if the prospective client
does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines the employment.

(2019 (A) (4) (b))

It is the duty of the lawyer to call his client and rectify the fraud he committed.

Under the rules, a lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the
representation perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same,
and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Hence, it is the duty of the lawyer to call his client and rectify the fraud he committed.

(2019 (A) (5) (a))

By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 3
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Yes. The rule on conflict of interest is violated in this case.

Under the code, 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, P engaged the services of Attys. A, B, C, D, and E to represent him in an illegal dismissal
cases against Company X. Subsequently, 2 years after, Attys. A, B, C, D, and E represented Company X in the
criminal case filed against him based on the same event.

Hence, the rule on conflict of interest is violated because there is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter
of the previous litigations in which he appeared for the former client.

(2019 (A) (5) (b))

No. The termination of the services of ABCDE Law Office is not a valid defense to the administrative
charge.

Under the code, a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney –
client relationship is terminated.

In view of the foregoing, the prior termination of attorney - client relationship between P and ABCDE Law
Office does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse with that of his client because one’s trust and
confidence is given it should not be violated by the mere expiration of the lawyer – client relationship.

(2019 (A) (5) (c))

Yes. Attys. B, C, D and E may be held administratively liable for violating the rule on conflict interest
despite the fact that it was only Atty. A who had knowledge of P’s engagement as a client.

Under the rules, a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and for legal processes.

Hence, Attys. B, C, D and E may be held administratively liable for violating the rule on conflict interest
despite the fact that it was only Atty. A who had knowledge of P’s engagement as a client because as name
practitioners of the law office, they are tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all
lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

(2019 (A) (6))

The affidavit of desistance and withdrawal of Y’s complaint has no effect on the administrative case filed
against Atty. U.

Under the rules, no investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same unless the
Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no
compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension of proceedings against the respondent.

In view of the foregoing, the affidavit of desistance and withdrawal of Y’s complaint has no effect on the
administrative case filed against Atty. U because administrative proceedings against lawyers are not strictly
governed by the Rules of Court. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but
is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.

((2019) (A) (8))

No. The advertisement is not proper.

Under the rules, a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self – laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 4
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

In the case at bar, a lawyer advertised in the newspaper that he is an expert in annulment of marriage.

Hence, the advertisement is not proper because to allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to
commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to
efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called.

(2019 (A) (9))

Yes. Mr. O may be reinstated as a member of the Bar.

The guidelines in resolving for judicial clemency are the following:

1) A lawyer who has been disbarred cannot file a Petition for Judicial Clemency within a period of 5 years
from the effective date of his or her disbarment, unless for the most compelling reasons based on extraordinary
circumstances, a shorter period is warranted.
2) It is required that the lawyer shall show that he or she genuinely attempted in good faith to reconcile
with the wronged private offended party in the case for which he or she was disbarred, or if such is not possible, he
must explain with sufficient reasons as to why such attempt at reconciliation could not be made.
3) Notwithstanding the conduct for which the disbarred lawyer was discipline, the disbarred lawyer has the
requisite integrity and competence to practice law.

In the case at bar, Mr. O, age 58, was disbarred from the practice of law and during the 10 year period, he
had asked forgiveness from his children and maintained a cordial relationship with his complainant wife. Further, he
was issued a certification from the parish priest and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapter to
which he belongs of his civil mindedness and good moral character.

Hence, Mr. O may be reinstated as a member of the Bar because he successfully followed the
abovementioned guidelines.

(2019 (A) (10))

Yes. The practice of Atty. B of having his motions for extension of time signed by Ms. D constitutes a
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under the rules, a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by
law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

In view of the foregoing, the practice of Atty. B of having his motions for extension of time signed by his
secretary named Ms. D constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the preparation
and signing of any pleading, motion or other paper to be submitted in court in connection with any pending matter
constitute legal work within the context of the practice of law.

Hence, the responsibility of signing the motions for extension of time was personal to Atty. B as
the attorney of record.

(2019 (B) (11))

Yes. Judge T committed an act of impropriety.

The law states, judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.

In the case at bar, Judge T dismissed an injunction case that was filed against the construction of a 40 –
storey condominium building owned by a XYZ Corp., and consequently, 2 years later Judge T bought condominium
units in the same 40 – storey condominium building.

Judge T committed an act of impropriety because by buying the aforesaid condominium units it would
make an impression that he had personal interest in the outcome of the case.

(2019 (B) (12))

Yes. Judge B may be subjected to any disciplinary actions.
By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 5
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

The law states, as a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might
be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
In the case at bar, Judge B was photographed by a local boatman who witnessed him appearing drunk and
in the act of dancing naked by the seashore.

Hence, Judge B may be subjected to any disciplinary actions because judge’s personal behaviour both in
the performance of his duties and his daily life, be free from the appearance of impropriety as to be beyond
reproach.

(2019 (B) (14))

Yes. Judge D should inhibit from the case.

Under the rules, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a
case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned in the rules.

In the case at bar, Judge D personally witnessed a vehicular accident between a motorcycle and a car and
consequently, a criminal case arising from said accident was raffled to his court.

Hence, Judge D should inhibit from the case because it possible that Judge D might be influence by his
personal knowledge of the case when he tries and decides the same on the merits, which should certainly constitute a
denial of due process to the party adversely affected by his judgment or decision.

(2018 (2) (a))

Atty. Celis is required to pay his IBP and professional dues.

Under the rules, every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annul membership dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, while the law grants senior citizens exemption from the payment of individual income taxes,
provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National
Economic and Development Authority for that year, the exemption does not include payment of membership or
association dues.

Hence, Atty. Celis is required to pay his IBP and professional dues.

(2018 (2) (b))

Atty. Celis violated the following rules:
1) Under the rules, every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annul membership dues as the Board
of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court.
2) Under the code, a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the integrated bar.

Hence, for non – payment of IBP and professional dues by Atty. Celis he violated the abovementioned
laws.

(2018 (3) (a))

Yes. A lawyer may legally charge their clients based on contingent fees.

Under the code, a lawyer shall be guided by the contingency or certainty of compensation in determining
his fees.

Hence, a lawyer may legally charge their clients based on contingent fees.

(2018 (3) (b))

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 6
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Yes. Casal, Casos and Associate should be allowed to intervene in the case pending before Court in order
to collect their fees from Carina.

Under the rules, a client at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the
contract between the client and attorney has been reduced in writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without
justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract.
However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in the case to protect his rights.

In the case at bar, Casal, Casos, and Associates filed a motion to intervene in the case pending with the
Court, praying that Carina be ordered to pay them with their legal fees.

Hence, Casal, Casos and Associate should be allowed to intervene in the case pending before Court in order
to collect their fees from Carina because although a lawyer concerned does not finish the case successfully in favor
of his client he is still entitled to the protection of the rule.

(2018 (3) (c))

No. Carina cannot refuse to pay attorneys’ fees on the ground that the lawyers who personally handled her
case had already resigned from the law firm with which she had contracted.

Under the rules, a client at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the
contract between the client and attorney has been reduced in writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without
justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the contract.

In view of the foregoing, when Carina employs the Carina and Casal, Casos and Associates she engages the
entire law firm.

Hence, the resignation, retirement or separation from the law firm of the handling lawyer does not
terminate the relationship, because the law firm is bound to provide a replacement.

(2018 (3) (d))

Yes. Carina’s employer may be held solidarily liable with Carina for the payment of the attorney’s fees of
Carina’s lawyers.

The law states, the responsibility of 2 or more persons who are liable for quasi – delict is solidary.

In the case at bar, Carina and her employer negotiated the compromise agreement without the participation
of their lawyers since the employer imposed the condition that no lawyers should be involved in the compromise
negotiation.

Hence, Carina’s employer may be held solidarily liable with Carina because it can be inferred that they
connived with each other in order to deprive the law firm of its attorney’s fees.

(2018 (3) (e))

No. The intervenors may not collect legal interest in addition to their attorneys’ fees.

The law states, if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay,
the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed
upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is 6% per annum.

Accordingly, the abovementioned law does not justify the imposition of legal interest on the payment of
attorney’s fees as it is only applicable on ordinary obligations and contracts.

Hence, the intervenors may not collect legal interest in addition to their attorneys’ fees because contracts
for attorney’s services stands upon an entirely different footing from contracts for the payment of compensation for
any other services.

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 7
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

(2018 (4) (a))

Yes. Atty. Carbon is engaged in the practice of law.

Jurisprudence states, practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

In the case at bar, Atty. Cornelio Carbon joined a government – owned financial institution where he
worked in the Loans and Claims Division.

Hence, Atty. Carbon is engaged in the practice of law because work in government that requires the use of
legal knowledge is considered practice of law.

(2018 (4) (b))

Yes. Atty. Carbon is qualified to become a Regional Trial Court Judge.

The law states, no person shall be appointed Judge of the Regional Trial Court unless he is at least 35 years
of age, for at least 10 years has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a public office in
the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite, he is a citizen of the
Philippines, and a member of the Philippine Bar.

Hence, Atty. Carbon is qualified to become a Regional Trial Court Judge because work in government that
requires the use of legal knowledge, and teaching Negotiable Instruments Law for 12 years is considered practice of
law.

(2018 (5) (a))

The contention of Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina that they could not be held administratively liable for
gross immorality because the bigamous marriages took place before they were admitted to the bar is not meritorious.

Under the rules, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for grossly immoral conduct.

In the case at bar, Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina decided to get married Hongkong despite their knowledge
that Atty. Carlos is married to Corinne and deceased Consuelo.

Hence, the defense that the acts complained of took place before they were admitted to the bar is not
meritorious because admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint,
into any question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the respondents before they became a lawyer.

(2018 (5) (b))

The contention of Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina that they could not be held administratively liable for
gross immorality because Atty. Carlos’ marriage to Corinne was void ab initio due to his subsisting first marriage
with Consuelo is not meritorious.

Under the code, a lawyer shall not engage in the conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

In view of the foregoing, ordinary decency would have required Atty. Cristina to ward off Atty. Carlos, as
he was a married man.

Hence, the defense of Atty. Carlos’ marriage to Corinne was void ab initio is not meritorious because
lawyers, as officers of the court, must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and must lead lives in accordance with highest moral standards of the community.

(2018 (6) (a))

Yes. Atty. Colorado can be sanctioned for his actions.
By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 8
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Under the code, a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.

In the case at bar, Atty. Colorado filed with the court a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel without the consent
of his client Mrs. Conchu. Consequently, Atty. Colorado no longer appeared at the hearings nor did he contact Mrs.
Conchu.

Hence, Atty. Colorado can be sanctioned for his actions because the lawyer has no right to presume that his
petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court, and until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer
remains counsel of record.

(2018 (7) (a))

Yes. The IBP can continue to investigate Atty. Casis and recommend the imposition of sanctions against
him, and for the Court to impose sanctions, if warranted, notwithstanding Miss Cerrada’s filing of the motion to
withdraw the complaint against him.

Under the rules, no investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance of the
complainant to prosecute the same unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension
proceedings against the respondent.

In the case at bar, Miss Cerrad filed an administrative complaint with the IBP against Atty. Asis. However,
upon Atty. Casis’ pleas, Miss Cerrada filed a motion to withdraw the complaint.

Hence, the IBP can continue to investigate Atty. Casis because because administrative proceedings against
lawyers are not strictly governed by the Rules of Court. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil
nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.

(2018 (8) (a))

Judge Camarin violated the following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
1) Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
2) In particular, judges conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
3) Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those
of a member of their family or of anyone else.

Accordingly, Judge Camarin’s posting of hiring advertisement in the bulletin board of his sala is a conduct
of unbecoming of his judicial robe.

Hence, Judge Camarin violated the abovementioned provisions because the moment the Judge deviates
from purposes not directly related to the functioning and operation for which the courts of justice has been
established, it must be immediately rectified.

(2018 (9))
No. The manner of questioning is not proper.

Under the code, Judges, shall perform their judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice.

In the case at bar, the questions of the justices were in the nature of cross – examinations characteristics of
confronting, probing, and insinuation.

Hence, the manner of questioning is not proper because the justices should limit themselves to asking
clarificatory questions designed to clarify point and to elicit additional relevant evidence.

(2018 (10) (a))

Yes. Atty. Corpuz is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.
By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 9
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Under the rules, 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, Connie engaged the services of Atty. Cesaro Corpuz in the preparation and execution in
her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land. Subsequently, Atty. Corpuz filed a civil case on behalf of
Constancia for the annulment of the Deed of Sale over the same parcel of land.

Hence, Atty. Corpuz is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests because he did not make
a full disclosure of facts to both parties before he accepted the new engagement with Constancia.

(2018 (11) (a))

Yes. Atty. Claire Cortez can also be disbarred from practicing law in the Philippines for the same infraction
committed in the foreign jurisdiction.

Under the rules, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice.

In the case at bar, 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 the Anti – Money Laundering laws of
that State.

Accordingly, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his
disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts in the abovementioned rule.

Hence, the judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension.

(2018 (12) (a))

The defense of prescription by Atty. Calumpang is meritorious.

Under the rules, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice.

In the case at bar, in 2004, Corinna engaged the services of Atty. Calumpang for the titling of a beachfront
property. however, after almost a decade, and the property could still not be titled in Corinna’s name, she filed an
action with Commission on Bar Discipline in 2014 for deceit, malpractice, and conduct unbecoming of a member of
the Bar.

Hence, the defense of prescription by Atty. Calumpang is meritorious because although an administrative
complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe but the unexplained and unreasonable delay in the
institution of an administrative complaint against a member of the Bar creates suspicion concerning the negatives of
the Corinna.

(2018 (13) (a))

Yes. Ciguerra can be disbarred for the series of posts in his FB account against Dr. Cielo.

Under the rules, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

In the case at bar, Dr. Cielo filed a disbarment case against Ciguerra for posting on his FB account, sexist,
vulgar, and obscene comments, and language disrespectful of women in his FB posts.

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 10
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Hence, Ciguerra can be disbarred for the series of posts in his FB account against Dr. Cielo because while
the freedom of expression and the right of speech and the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the
Constitution, every person exercising them is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his dues, and observe
honesty and good faith.

(2018 (14) (a))

The defense of Judge Conde that the case he discussed was already decided in finality and it was part of his
academic freedom to openly discuss and criticize a decision of the Supreme Court is not meritorious.

Under the code, judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Hence, the defense of Judge Conde is not meritorious because the constitutional right to freedom of
expression of members of the bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the
courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the judicial system.

(2018 (14) (b))

The defense of Judge Conde that the marriage scam where Cacai’s mother was charge is of public
knowledge, and the discussions were not done in the performance of his official duties, thus, he could comment
thereon in the exercise of his rights to freedom of speech and expression is not meritorious.

Under the rules, judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could come before them,
make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the
manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair
trial of any person or issue.

Hence, the defense of Judge Conde defense is not meritorious since the proceeding on the aforesaid
marriage scam was not yet in its finality.

(2018 (15) (a))

Atty. Compostela had no right to retain the owner’s duplicate of title as his retaining lien.

Under the rules, a written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by
the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

In the case at bar, Atty. Compostela demanded an additional attorney’s but Charo did not agree to such
demand because they were contrary to their agreement.

Hence, Atty. Compostela had no right to retain the owner’s duplicate of title because an attorney is not
entitled in the absence of express contract to recover more than a reasonable compensation for his services, and even
when an express contract is made, the court can ignore it and limit the recovery to reasonable compensation if the
amount of the stipulated fee is found by the court to be unreasonable.

(2018 (15) (a))

Atty. Compostela is not entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the principle
of quantum meruit.

Under the rules, an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the professional standing of the attorney, the importance of the subject
matter of the controversy, and the extent of the services rendered.

In view of the foregoing, Charo Conti engaged the service of Atty. Compostela and they subsequently
agreed in writing the attorney’s fees of the latter.

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 11
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Hence, Atty. Compostela is not entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the
principle of quantum meruit because the same could only be used as basis for determining an attorney’s professional
fees in the absence of an express agreement.

(2010 (3))
Yes. Atty. Y may be held administratively liable.

Under the code, a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

In view of the foregoing, the acceptance fee of P.50,000 must be returned by Atty. X since he failed render
the legal services he was hired to do.

However, the P.300,000 personal loan will not prosper because disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
are only confined to the issue of whether or not respondent – lawyer is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member
of the Bar. Matters which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer’s to professional engagement should be threshed out in
another proper proceeding.

(2010 (A) (2) (a))

Y’s prayer for the return of the acceptance fee and the personal loan may partially prosper.

Under the code, a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.

In the case bar, Atty. Y alleged that the administrative complaint filed against him is unavailing because the
proscription against the use of abusive language does not cover pleadings filed with the NLRC, as it is not a court,
nor are any of its Commissioners are Justices or Judges. Accordingly, when Atty. Y addressed the NLRC he
remained a member of the Bar, an oath – bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must scrupulously observant law and ethics.

Hence, Atty. Y may be held administratively liable.

(2010 (4))
No. Atty. XX’s contention is not in order.

Under the code, a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and for legal processes.

In the case bar, Atty. X contended that his non – payment of rentals and bills is a personal matter which has
no bearing on his profession as a lawyer.

Hence, Atty. XX’s contention is not in order because as part of a lawyer’s duty is to pay his financial
obligations.

(2010 (6))
Yes. Atty. Santos – Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under the code, a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

In the case bar, Atty. Santos – Cruz allowed her husband who is non - lawyer to give out calling cards
bearing his name as senior partner in her law firm and to appear in courts to move for postponements. Accordingly,
it is an indicative of assisting in unauthorized practice of law.

Hence, Atty. Santo – Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

(2010 (7))
By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 12
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

No. The unfounded allegation of Atty. Candido does not constitute moral turpitude.

Jurisprudence states, moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.

Accordingly, there is no indication that the published comment of Atty. Candido tantamount to moral
turpitude although it is contemptuous in character.

(2010 (8))
No. Atty. Delmonico is not liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Civil Code.

Under the code, a lawyer’s fees may be subject to contingency or certainty of compensation.

In the case at bar, in a case involving 5,000 square meters of land Atty. Delmonico as counsel for Wag Yu
agreed on a success fee of PHP.50,000 plus 500 sq. m. of the land. Accordingly, such agreement is a contingent
contract which is allowed under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Further, justices, judges, and prosecuting attorneys cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
auction, the property and rights in litigation before the court within whose jurisdiction they exercise their respective
functions. This prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to
the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.

Consequently, the contingency fee agreement does not violate the Civil Code because the transfer or
assignment of the property in litigation takes effect only after the finality of a favorable judgment.

Hence, Atty. Delmonico is not liable under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Civil Code.

(2010 (9))
No. The defense of in pari delicto in a disbarment complaint for immorality against Atty. R is not a ground
for exoneration.

The law states, when the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and the
act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no action against each other, and
both shall be prosecuted.

In view of the foregoing, the defense of in pari delicto is unavailing because disbarment proceeding is not
about his paramour P’s acts but Atty. R’s conduct as one of the officers of the courts and his fitness to continue as a
member of the Bar.

(2010 (11) (a))

Yes. The Supreme Court may act upon the complaint filed by an anonymous person.

Under the rules, proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu propio.

In the case at bar, a concerned woman filed with the Supreme Court an anonymous complaint with the
Supreme Court for illegal practice of law against Atty. Richards. Accordingly, the Supreme Court may act on
anonymous complaints motu propio especially if the complaint consists of documents which can be verified being of
public records.

Hence, the Supreme Court may act upon the complaint filed by an anonymous person.

(2010 (12))
No. Judge A is not justified in not inhibiting himself.
By: Caffeinated Wisdom
Page 13
PART II (BAR ANSWERS LEGAL ETHICS AND JUDICIAL ETHICS)

Under the canon, judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which he
related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree.

In the case at bar, Rebecca’s complaint was raffled to her stepfather Judge A’s sala. Accordingly, Judge A,
being stepfather of Rebecca, is related to her by affinity by just one degree.

Hence, Judge A is not justified in not inhibiting himself.

(2010 (15) (a))

Yes. Atty. Rico is violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under the code, a lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for
cultivating familiarity with judges.

In the case at bar, Atty. Rico had been regularly hosting parties for members of the bench and regularly
playing golf with a judge. Accordingly, such manifestations cannot erase suspicion that it is indicative of influence
peddling.

Hence, Atty. Rico violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

(2010 (15) (b))

Yes. The members of the bench violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Under the code, judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

In view of the foregoing, the members of the bench who grace the parties of Atty. Rico would not erase
suspicion that the latter is conveying influence peddling. Thus, judges should behave at all times so as to promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all their activities.

(2010 (16))
Yes. Judge L may incur administrative and/or criminal liability.

Under the code, judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the
executive and legislative branches of the government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable
observer.

In view of the foregoing, by actively participating in a partisan political activity Judge L creates a
presumption of inappropriate connection with the other branches of the government. Thus, he may incur
administrative liability.

Further, any officer or employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices, who, directly or
indirectly, intervenes in any election campaign or engages in any partisan political activity, except to vote or to
preserve public order shall be guilty of an election offense. Thus, Judge L may also be criminal liability because he
is considered an officer in the civil service.

By: Caffeinated Wisdom

Page 14