Legal Ethics Answer Finals

1. Atty L. was appointed appointed counsel de oficio for B, who was accused accused of raping his own daughter. B pleaded not guilty but thereafter privately admitted to Atty. Lie that he did commit the crime charged. a. In light of B’s admission, what should Atty. L do? Explain. (3%)Suggested Answer: Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated 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.”  In the light of this provision, Atty L. should call upon B to immediately rectify the fraud he committed upon the court by pleading not guilty when he really committed the crime charged. b. Can Atty. Atty. L disclose the admission admission of B to the court? Why or why not? (2%) (2%) Suggested Answer: No, Atty. L cannot disclose B's admission to the court. If she does, she will violate her obligation to preserve confidences or secrets of her client as stated in Canon 21, Rule 21.02 of the CPR provides that “a lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.” The thereto.”  The privileged communication between lawyer and client may be used as a shield to defend crimes already committed 2. A asked asked Atty. B to handle his claim to a sizeable parcel of land in Baguio City against a well-known property developer on a contingent fee basis. B asked for 15% of the land that may be recovered or 15% of whatever monetary settlement that may be received from the property developer as her only fee contingent upon securing a favorable final judgment or compromise settlement. A signed the contingent fee agreement. a. Assume the property developer settled the case after the case was decided by the Regional Trial Court in favor of A for P1 Billion. A refused to pay B P150 Million on the ground that it is excessiv excessive. e. Is the refusal justified? Explain citing Canon 20 of the CPR. Suggested Answer: The refusal of A to pay is unjustified. A contingent fee is impliedly sanctioned by Rule 20.01(f) of the CPR which states that “a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees: (f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs” A much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fees I consideration of the risk that the lawyer will get nothing if the suit fails. In several cases, the SC has indicated that a contingent fee of 30% of the money or property that may be recovered id reasonable. Moreover, although the developer settled the case, it was after the case was decided by the RTC in favor of A, which shows that Atty. B has already rendered service to the client. b. Assume there was no settlement and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court which promulgated a decision in favor of A. This time A refused to convey to B 15% of the litigated land as stipulated on the ground that the agreement violates Article 1491 of the Civil Code which prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase properties and rights which are the object of litigation in which they take part by reason of their profession. Is the refusal justified? Explain. Suggested Answer:  A’s refusal is not justified. A contingent fee agreement agreem ent is not covered by Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code which states that “ Art.  Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or  judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another: (5) Justices, judges, prosecutin prosecuting g attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibitio prohibition n 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. ”, because the transfer transfer or assignment of the property in litigation takes effect only upon finality of a favorable judgment. judgment.

3. Atty. D filed administrative cases before the Supreme Court against Judge. Thereafter, Atty. D filed a Motion for Inhibition praying that Judge inhibit himself from trying, hearing or in any manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which Atty. D is involved and handling. Should Judge inhibit himself as prayed for by Atty. D? Explain fully citing the Code of Judicial Responsibility, Canon 3 Rule 12. Suggested Answer: No, Judge should not inhibit himself. The mere filing of an administrative case against a judge is not a ground for disqualification on the ground of bias and prejudice provided by the Code of Judicial Responsibility Canon 3, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct it states that: “A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where: (a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; (c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review; (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree; (e) the judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.” 4. In need of legal services, B secured an appointment to meet with Atty. G. During the meeting, B divulged highly private information to Atty. G, believing that the lawyer would keep the confidentiality of the information. Subsequently, B was shocked when he learned that Atty. G had shared the confidential information with his law partner, Atty. J, and their common friend, private practitioner Atty. M. When confronted, Atty. G replied that B never signed any confidentiality agreement, and that he shared the information with the two lawyers to secure affirmance of his legal opinion on B’s problem. Did Atty. G violate any rule of ethics? Explain fully citing Canon 21 of the CPR. Suggested Answer:  Atty. G violated Canon 21 of the CPR by sharing information obtained from his client B with Atty. M. Canon 21 provides that “a lawyer shall preserve the confidences or secrets of his client even the attorney client relationship is terminated.”  The fact that Atty. M is a friend from whom he intended to secure legal opinion on B’s problem, does not justify such di sclosure. He cannot obtain a collaborating counsel without the consent of the client as stated in Rule 18.01 of the CPR, “A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.” On the other hand, Atty. G did not violate Canon 21 in sharing information with his partner Atty. J. Rule 21.04 of the CPR specifically provides that “A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.” Atty. G was not prohibited  from disclosing affairs of B with the members of a firm is generally considered as employment of the form itself. 5. State, with a brief explanation, whether the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned for the conduct stated below. a. Filing a complaint that fails to state a cause of action, thereby resulting in the defendant succeeding in his motion to dismiss. Cite Canon 18, Rule 18.02. Yes. The lawyer may be sanctioned for lack of competence and diligence, Canon 18, Rule 18.02 states that “A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.” A lawyer should have exercised diligence and made adequate preparations to ascertain that the complaint stated a cause of action to prevent the dismissal of the complaint. Filing a complaint that fails to state a cause of action resulting to the dismissal of his case shows incompetence and lack of adequate preparation.

b. Keeping money he collected as rental from his client’s tenant and remitting it to the client when asked to do so. Cite Canon 16, Rule 16.01. Suggested Answer: Yes. Canon 16, Rule 16.01 provides that “a lawyer sha ll account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.” A lawyer should account for all money he collected immediately. He should not wait that the client would ask or demand for the money. The lawyer may be sanctioned for not d elivering the rentals that he collected from the client’s tenant immediately, and waiting for his client to ask for it yet. Money collected for the client should be reported and accounted for promptly. c. Refusing to return certain documents to the client pending payment of his attorney’s fees. Cite Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court. He may not be sanctioned. He is entitled to a retaining lien by virtue of which he may retain the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession, until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid. Section 37.  Attorneys' liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for t he payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such  judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements. 6. State, with a brief explanation, whether the judge concerned may be sanctioned for the conduct stated below. a. Refusing to inhibit himself although one of the lawyers in the case is his second cousin. Cite Canon 3, Rule 3.12. One of the mandatory grounds for inhibition of judge is when he is related to any of the lawyers handling a case before him within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity which is stated in Canon 3.12(d) of the New Judicial Conduct. A second cousin of a judge is his relative within the sixth degree, hence he may not be sanctioned for not inhibiting on such ground. Canon 3, Rule 3.12 states that “ A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where: (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree” b. Deciding a case in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling but adding that he does not agree with the ruling. Cite applicable Canon. No. There is no law or rule prohibiting such conduct. Regardless of his opinion, the judge still followed the Supreme Court's ruling thus there is really nothing wrong with such act. Further, his opinion will not have any bearing as it is not part of the decision. c. Dictating his decision in open court immediately after trial. Cite applicable Canon. There is no rule prohibiting such conduct, especially in simple cases for a minor offense. But in complex and serious cases, such conduct may be considered improper, and the judge accused of arriving at hasty decisions.

7. Cite the applicable Canon (Canon of Judicial Responsibility) a. CANON 2 Provisions that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

CANON 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. RULE 2.02 - A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory. RULE 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or  judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the  judge. RULE 2.04 - A judge should refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. b. DISQUALIFICATION: RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Enumerate the proceedings. DISQUALIFICATION RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where: (a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; (c) the judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review; (d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree; (e) the judge knows the judge's spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. 8. Cite the applicable Canon (Canon of Professional Responsibility) for the following: a. Rafols, Jr. v. Barrios, Jr.  –  A.C. No. 4973, 15 March 2010. Lawyer who facilitated an illegal transaction (bribery) between his clients and the judge handling the case. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. b. Vaflor- Fabroa v. Paguinto  –  A.C. No. 6273, 15 March 2010 - Lawyer who caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against complainant. CANON 1  - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. c. Barandon v. Ferrer  –  A.C. No. 5768, 26 March 2010 - Lawyer who used temperate language and unkind ascriptions against another lawyer. Rule 8.01  - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 7.03 - 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. d. Baculi v. Battung  –  A.C. No. 8920, 28 September 2011. Lawyer who disrespected a judge by shouting at him inside the courtroom and continued to threaten him even after the latter had cited him for contempt. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. e. Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua – A.C. No. 6655, 11 October 2011. Lawyer made an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. Rule 1.02 -  A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. f. Espinosa and Glindo v. Omana –  A.C. No. 9081, 12 October 2011. Lawyer made and notarized an agreement for the extra-judicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. g. Bansig v. Celera - A.C. No. 5581, 14 January 2014. For contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting and for willfully ignoring the Orders of the Supreme Court which, in itself, is already a ground for suspension or disbarment. CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03 - 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. h. Brunet v. Guaren  –  A.C. No. 10164, 10 March 2014. Lawyer received Php 7,000.00 as partial acceptance fee for the titling of complainant’s property but failed to perform his obligation to file the case despite the lapse of five years. CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. i. Dizon v. de Taza, AC No. 7676, 10 June 2014. Lawyer manifested a propensity for borrowing money, issuing bouncing checks and incurring debts which she left unpaid without any reason. Lawyer also made it appear to the complainant that the proceedings before the Court can be expedited and ruled in their favor in exchange for an exorbitant amount of money as part of a scheme to milk more money from her clients.  j. Tan v. Diamante, AC No. 7766, 5 August 2014. Respondent committed acts of falsification in order to misrepresent to his client, i.e., complainant, that he still had an available remedy in his case, when in reality, his case had long been dismissed for failure to timely file an appeal, thus, causing undue prejudice to the latter. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.04 -  A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

k. Respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer, and received P350,000.00 as downpayment for his legal services. In truth, however, respondent has no specialization in immigration law but merely had a contact with a purported US consul. CANON 1  - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03  - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. l. Sanchez v. Atty. Torres, A.C. No. 10240, 25 November 2014. Respondent borrowed Php2,200,000.00 from complainant, and failed to pay his due debt despite demand. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.