Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
I Christine was appointed counsel de oficio for Zuma, who was accused of raping his own daughter. Zuma pleaded not guilty but thereafter privately
admitted to Christine that he did commit the crime charged.
a. In light of Zuma’s admission, what should Christine do? Explain. (3%)
Christine should suggest to Zuma that he should plead guilty to the crime as charged.
Canon 19, Rule 19.02 of the CPR states 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.”
b. Can Christine disclose the admission of Zuma to the court? Why or why not? (2%)
No, Christine cannot disclose Zuma's admission to the court.
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.”
Christine cannot disclose the admission without violating the abovementioned canon. The information disclosed is in the nature of a privileged
communication, hence, she cannot disclose it to the court without Zuma's consent.
c. Can Christine withdraw as counsel of Zuma should he insist in going to trial? Explain. (3%)
Christine cannot withdraw as counsel of Zuma.
Canon 14, Rule 14.01 of CPR states that “a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of
life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.”
Despite the admission of Zuma, Christine cannot withdraw as Zuma's counsel because Zuma is still considered innocent until proven guilty. Further,
there may be mitigating circumstances that Christine may raise as a defense that is favorable to Zuma.
II In 1998, Acaramba, a telecommunications company, signed a retainer agreement with Bianca & Sophia Law Office (B & S) for the latter’s legal services
for a fee of P2,000 a month. From 1998 to 2001, the only service actually performed by B & S for Acaramba was the review of a lease agreement and
representation of Acaramba as a complainant in a bouncing checks case. Acaramba stopped paying retainer fees in 2002 and terminated its retainer
agreement with B & S in 2005. In 2007, Temavous, another telecommunications company, requested B & S to act as its counsel in the following
transactions: (a) the acquisition of Acaramba; and (b) the acquisition of Super-6, a company engaged in the power business.
In which transactions, if any, can Bianca & Sophia Law Office represent Temavous? Explain fully. (7%)
Bianca & Sophia Law Office cannot represent Temavous in the acquisition of Acaramba because the Canons of Professional Ethics (Canon 6) and the
Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 15) provide that a lawyer shall not represent parties with adverse interests to one another. Even though
their relationship had already been terminated the Code further provides (Canon 21) that a lawyer should safeguard the confidences of his former
client. In the case of acquisitions, B&S would definitely have an undue advantage (Rule 21.02-.03), or to appear to have such, in assisting Temavous’
acquisition of its former client due to its prior relationship. In contrast, as to the case of Super-6, B&S may represent Temavous because such a
transaction is in no way connected to its prior relationship with Acaramba.
III Dumbledore, a noted professor of commercial law, wrote an article on the subject of letters of credit which was published in the IBP Journal.
a. Assume he devoted a significant portion of the article to a commentary on how the Supreme Court should decide a pending case involving the
application of the law on letters of credit. May he be sanctioned by the Supreme Court? Explain. (4%)
Yes, he may me sanctioned by the court.
Canon 13, Rule 13.02 provides that “a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion
for or against a party.”
As a lawyer, Dumbledore should not have made such statements regarding a pending case so as not to influence the court in deciding the case or giving
the public the impression that the court was influenced by his commentaries, should the court arrive at a decision similar to that of Dumbledore's
comments.
b. Assume Dumbledore did not include any commentary on the case. Assume further after the Supreme Court decision on the case had attained
finality, he wrote another IBP Journal article, dissecting the decision and explaining why the Supreme Court erred in all its conclusions. May he
be sanctioned by the Supreme Court? Explain. (3%)
No, he may not be sanctioned by the court.
Dumbledore's commentary in the IBP journal is not unethical. What the CPR prohibits is the making of public statements regarding pending cases
before the courts. Dumbledore's article in the IBP Journal is about a decided case already. Once a case has been decided, it is already open for public
consumption hence anyone can criticize or make known their opinions regarding the conclusion of the case.
IV Chester asked Laarni to handle his claim to a sizeable parcel of land in Quezon City against a well-known property developer on a contingent fee
basis. Laarni 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. Chester 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 Chester for P1 Billion. Chester
refused to pay Laarni P150 Million on the ground that it is excessive. Is the refusal justified? Explain. (4%)
Yes, the refusal is justified.
Canon 20 of the CPR states that “a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.”
Although under a contingent fee agreement lawyers are entitled to greater remuneration because of the possibility of receiving nothing at all, the fee
charged must still be fair, reasonable and conscionable. In this case, the 150 million fee is excessive and unconscionable.
b. Assume there was no settlement and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court which promulgated a decision in favor of Chester. This
time Chester refused to convey to Laarni 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. (4%)
The refusal is not justified.
The transfer of the land to Laarni would not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code because said article does not cover contingent fee agreements. This
is because in a contingent fee agreement a transfer would only occur in case a favorable judgment is obtained. Further, the case reached the Supreme
Court which means that Laarni spent so much time on the case and much of her skills were demanded hence the 150 million is a fair and reasonable
fee.
V The vendor filed a case against the vendee for the annulment of the sale of a piece of land.
a. Assume the vendee obtained a summary judgment against the vendor. Would the counsel for the defendant vendee be entitled to enforce a
charging lien? Explain. (4%)
No, vendee's counsel would not be entitled to enforce a charging lien.
A charging lien to be enforceable there must be a judgment for money. In the case at bar, there was no mention of a judgment for money in favor of
the vendee thus vendee's counsel cannot enforce a charging lien.
However, if there would be a judgment for money vendee's counsel would be entitled to enforce the charging lien.
b. Assume, through the excellent work of the vendee’s counsel at the pre-trial conference and his wise use of modes of discovery, the vendor was
compelled to move for the dismissal of the complaint. In its order the court simply granted the motion. Would your answer be the same as in
question (a)? Explain. (3%)
Vendee's counsel would still not be entitled to enforce a charging lien.
A dismissal on motion of the plaintiff would certainly not include a judgment for money. Therfore, the counsel cannot enforce a charging lien.
VI Atty. Abigail filed administrative cases before the Supreme Court against Judge Luis. Thereafter, Atty. Abigail filed a Motion for Inhibition praying
that Judge Luis inhibit himself from trying, hearing or in any manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which Atty. Abigail is involved and handling.
Should Judge Luis inhibit himself as prayed for by Atty. Abigail? Explain fully. (6%)
No. Being the subject of an administrative case is not one of the grounds for disqualification of a judge from handling case provided by the Code of
Judicial Responsibility in Canon 3 Rule 12.
VII In need of legal services, Niko secured an appointment to meet with Atty. Henry of Henry & Meyer Law Offices. During the meeting, Niko divulged
highly private information to Atty. Henry, believing that the lawyer would keep the confidentiality of the information. Subsequently, Niko was shocked
when he learned that Atty. Henry had shared the confidential information with his law partner, Atty. Meyer, and their common friend, private
practitioner Atty. Canonigo. When confronted, Atty. Henry replied that Niko never signed any confidentiality agreement, and that he shared the
information with the two lawyers to secure affirmance of his legal opinion on Niko’s problem. Did Atty. Henry violate any rule of ethics? Explain fully.
(7%)
Canon 21 provides that an attorney shall preserve the confidence of his client and further articulates this point in Rule 21.03-.04 by clarifying that he
may not disclose such information to outside agencies without the consent of his client and that he may disclose such information to firm partners
unless prohibited by his client. In the case of Atty. Meyer, he was a firm partner and as such is covered by Rule 21.04 and not being explicitly prohibited
by Niko Henry committed no wrong in giving information to him. However in the case of Atty. Canonigo who was not in any way connected to the firm
Henry committed a gross violation of Rule 21.03. In either case the mere entry into the attorney-client relationship obviates the need for a
confidentiality agreement.
VIII 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. (3%)
Yes. 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.
b. 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%)
Yes. Under the law, only lawyers in good standing can perform or engage in the practice of law. In the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, the Court held
that the practice of law involves rendering serice to the genral public that calls for the professional judgment of a lawyer, the essence of which is his
educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specified legal problem. Clearly, the act of working as a legal assistant in gathering
information and securing documents for other lawyers is within the scope of practicing law. A suspended lawyer is temporarily prohibited to practice
the legal profession therefor he cannot engage in the mentioned acts.
c. 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%)
Yes. Canon 9, Rule 9.01 states that “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.”
d. Keeping money he collected as rental from his client’s tenant and remitting it to the client when asked to do so. (3%)
Yes. Canon 16, Rule 16.01 provides that “a lawyer shall 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.
e. Refusing to return certain documents to the client pending payment of his attorney’s fees. (3%)
No. Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court states that “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.” Hence, he may keep the documents pending payment of his attorney's fees.
f. An unwed female lawyer carrying on a clandestine affair with her unwed male hairdresser. (3%)
No. Both parties are of age and qualified to marry each other hence the affair is not one which is grossly immoral. It is not so corrupt nor so unprincipled
to warrant sanction from the court.
g. Not paying the annual IBP dues. (3%)
Yes. Default in payment of IBP dues for 6 months shall warrant suspension of membership to the IBP and default in payment for one year shall warrant
for the removal of the member in the Roll of Attorneys.
IX 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. (3%)
No. Under Canon 3, Rule 3.12 a judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. One of the
cases would be where the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to counsel within the fourth degree. A second cousin is a relative within the 6th
degree, hence it is not covered by the prohibition.
b. Deciding a case in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling but adding that he does not agree with the ruling. (3%)
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. (3%)
Yes. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. He must not hastily issue decisions.
2015
b. Counsel de parte: a lawyer retained by a party litigant, usually, for a fee, to prosecute or defend his cause in court. The term implies freedom of
choice either on the part of the lawyer to accept the employment or on the part of the litigant to continue or terminate the retainer at any time.
c. Amicus Curiae: a friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of the action. One who is considered as an
experience and impartial attorney to help in the disposition of issues submitted to the Court. (Sec. 36, Rule 138)
d. Attorney of Record: a member of the bar appointed by a client to represent in cause of a court and upon whom service of papers may be made.
II.
Yes. Atty. Jeremiah is administratively liable. Canon 16 of the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility provides: “A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his profession.” Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients
is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them (Aya v. Bigornia, 57 Phil. 8). Belated payment of the amount he fraudulently obtained do
not relieve him from any liability if only to impress upon him that the relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of
a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring high degree of fidelity and good faith. In view of that special relationship, lawyers are
bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
(Daroy v. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304).
III.
a. Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. However, the privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information
is limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. (Genato v. Silapan, A.C.
No. 4078, July 14, 2003)
The rule on privileged communication applies to matters disclosed to a lawyer by a prospective client. The mere disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion
thereon create an attorney-client relationship. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. (Hilado v. David, 84 Phil. 569)
b. The following factors are considered to establish the existence of attorney-client privilege:
1. There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relation, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the
communication.
2. The client made the communication in confidence.
3. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his legal capacity. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, pp. 271-272, 2009 edition)
IV.
According to the Supreme Court the Lawyer’s Oath, to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit
of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust
that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By swearing the lawyer’s oath, lawyers become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as
well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice. (Ting-Dumali v. Torres, 427 SCRA 108)
The Lawyer’s Oath not only impresses upon the attorney his responsibilities but it also stamps him as an officer of the court. The oath embodies the
four-fold duty of a lawyer: his duty to society, his duty to the legal profession, his duty to the court and his duty to his client.
V.
Yes, Judge Savellano violated Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance
of all activities of a judge. Section 8 of Canon 4 provides:
“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, nor shall they convey
the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.”
By using her official court stationery to relay to the National Telecommunications Commission her complaint regarding the three-month billings of
Universal Telecoms for the post-paid cellular services, Judge Savellano acted in an improper manner.
VI.
a. Casper cannot be considered a member of the bar and should not be allowed to use the title “Attorney”. The title of "attorney" is reserved to those
who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in the Philippines. (Sophia Alawi
v. Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court VI, Shari ’a District Court, Marawi City, A.M. SDC-97-2-P)
In a decided case, the Supreme Court held that a bar passer is not considered a full-fledged member of the Philippine bar until he has signed the Roll
of Attorneys. (In re: Petition of Atty. Medado to sign Roll of Attorneys, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013)
c. I will grant Casper’s Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys for having demonstrated good faith by acknowledging his own lapse, albeit after the passage
of more than nine (9) years. His action action manifested his good moral character because Casper strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the
ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. His work
experience as a lawyer also indicates his competence as a member of the legal profession. (Ibid.)
VII.
The primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business are:
1. The practice of law involves a duty of public service of which the emolument is a by-product and one may obtain eminence without making much
money.
2. The practice of law creates a relation as an officer of the court whose primary role is to assist in the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability.
3. The practice of law creates a relation with clients with the highest fiduciary degree.
4. The practice of law creates a relation which other lawyers which requires candor, fairness and decency avoiding any kind of encroachment upon
other’s practice.
VIII.
Atty. Jane cannot promise any commission to Engr. Gilbert. As a general rule, a lawyer shall not divide his professional fees with persons not licensed
to practice law. (Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)
Rule 9.02 provides for the following exceptions: “ (a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or (b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or (c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing agreement.”
Under the facts presented, it therefore not ethical for Atty. Jane to share her professional fees with Engr. Gilbert. Otherwise, she will be held liable for
violation of Rule 9.02 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
IX.
a. Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "as much as he has deserved.” In the determination of professional fees of lawyer who has rendered
services to a client, the doctrine of quantum meruit can be applied. It is important to establish certain factors for the doctrine to operate. The lawyer
may recover his professional fees by proving that:
1. a lawyer-client relationship exists;
2. the lawyer rendered valuable professional services to the client;
3. the lawyer’s services were accepted, used, and enjoyed by the defendant; and
4. the client was aware that the lawyer, in performing the services, expected to be paid.
b. The following factors should be considered in fixing a reasonable compensation for services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit:
1. the time spent and the extent of services rendered or required;
2. the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
3. the importance of the subject matter;
4. the skill demanded;
5. the probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
6. the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which the lawyer belongs;
7. the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the services;
8. the contingency or certainty of compensation;
9. the character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
10. the professional standing of the lawyer. (Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. National Labor Relations Commission and
Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz, G.R. No. 120592. March 14, 1997)
X.
No, Atty. Enriquez cannot claim ½ of the property of the Spouses Manuel. The contingent fee of P200, 000.00 should control the agreement of counsel
and his clients although the same was contingent upon winning the case. While Atty. Enriquez and Atty. Enriquez entered into an oral contingent fee
agreement securing to the latter one-half of the subject lot, taking one half of the property involved in litigation valued at P3,500,000.00 or an
equivalent amount of P1,750,00.00 appears to be unconscionable. Even if the Spouses Manuel agreed to such contingent fee, the same may be reduced
by the court in proper proceedings because the same is contrary to public policy (In Re: The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo
and Benita Arcoy-Cadavedo (both deceased), substituted by their Heirs, namely: Herminia, Pastora, Heirs of Fructiosa, Heirs of Raquel, Evangeline,
Vicente, Jr., and Armand, all surnamed Cadavedo, G.R. No. 173188. January 15, 2014)
XI.
Yes, the acts of Judge Tadhana constitute a violation of his duty as a member of the bench. A judge should be courteous to counsel and also to those
others appearing or concerned in the administration of justice. (Canon 14, Canons of Judicial Ethics)
Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Tadhana violated Canon 4 which speaks of Propriety as the standard of conduct of a judge in all
proceedings before his court. Such tyrannical and overbearing attitude of the Judge Tadhana demeans the judiciary and may even erode public
confidence in the administration of justice. (Ruiz v. Bringas, 330 SCRA 62)
XII.
a. The best form of advertising one’s legal services is the establishment of well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to the trust
repose by clients. (Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil.579)
XIII.
a. If the judge is compulsorily disqualified under any of the grounds under the first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, he has no
choice but to withdraw from the case, unless all parties consent thereto in writing and entered into the records while in voluntary inhibition under the
second paragraph of Section 1of Rule 137, when circumstances appear that the judge’s actions give rise, fairly or unfairly, to perceptions of bias which
would erode public confidence in the judiciary, the judge must inhibit himself. Voluntary inhibition is left to the sound discretion of the judge but in
mandatory
Under the set of facts, Judge Lucio must inhibit himself since the counsel is related to his wife and is clearly covered by the first paragraph of Section 1
of Rule 137 which provides:
“Disqualification of judges. – No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise , or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them
and entered upon the record.”
In mandatory disqualification, the judge needs the written consent of all the parties and such consent shall be incorporated in the record of the
proceedings. (Section 6 of Canon 3, the New Code of Judicial Conduct)
In a land registration case, the state is represented by the Office of the Solicitor General and since Judge Lucio draws his salaries from the government,
propriety and prudence also dictate that he should inhibit himself.
b. No, the rationale behind the compulsory disqualification of a judge rests on the presumption that a judge, sitting in a case, must at all times be
wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. (Agpalo, supra, p.623)
XIV.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes six (6) qualities to be observed by the members of the Judiciary, to wit:
CANON 1: INDEPENDENCE
As a member of the bench, a judge must exhibit his independence in both personal and judicial aspects. As an embodiment of justice, the judge is
expected at all times to uphold the Rule of Law.
CANON 2: INTEGRITY
Integrity does not only pertain to ensuring that public will not lose its trust in the disposition of cases by judges but also covers the personal demeanor
of judges.
CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY
In the discharge of their judicial duties, the members of the bench are mandated to observe the impartiality. It is the solemn duty of a judge to promote
justice and administer it fairly and impartially.
CANON 4: PROPRIETY
Both propriety and the appearance of propriety are imposed upon the members of the bench in the performance of all their duties and responsibilities
as judges. The same exacting standard is required even in their social activities and personal relationships.
CANON 5: EQUALITY
It is the paramount duty of a judge to ensure equality of treatment to all before the courts.
XV.
No, the contention of Atty. Teresa is not correct. The Court has held that the proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a
situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be
called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one
case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would
affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients. (Quiambao v. Bamba A.C. No. 6708 (CBD Case No. 01-874), August 25, 2005)
XVI.
a. Atty. Luna Tek is an officer of the court and as such she has the duty to observe candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. (Canon 10, Code of
Professional Responsibility)
She is also mandated to respect the courts. (Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility)
While a lawyer may criticize a decision of the court on legal grounds, the same must be done in a respectful manner. Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 specifically
enjoins lawyers to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing before the courts.
b. The relationship between a lawyer and the courts is one mutual respect. Both the members of the bench and the bar dedicate themselves to the
pursuit of justice. In the discharge of their respective duties and responsibilities, judges and lawyers are duty-bound to strictly observe the law and
maintain fidelity to the ethics which govern them. Both the judges and lawyers must ensure that their actions will not in any way obstruct, pervert or
impede the administration of justice. This duty of mutual respect will contribute significantly to public confidence in the judicial system in the
Philippines.
XVII.
Under Rule 22.01 of Canon 22, a lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
XVIII.
a. As the Investigating Commissioner, I will find Atty. Javier guilty of misconduct and dishonesty and will recommend his disbarment. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity and fair dealing.
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct. The
complementing Rule 7.03 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law." Another complementing provision is found in the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court providing that a member of the bar may
be suspended or even removed from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in office.
The Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase which Atty. Javier drafted gave a warranty to Gregorio that he had “the perfect right to dispose in fee
simple” is an act of dishonesty because the property was mortgaged and was eventually foreclosed by Trustworthy Bank. Atty. Javier’s fitness to
continue in the advocacy of law and manage the legal affairs of others are thus put in serious doubt as such act reflects on his lack of moral integrity.
(Dahlia s. Gacias v. Atty. Alexander Bulauitan, A.C. NO. 7280, November 16, 2006]
b. As a general rule, a lawyer may not be ordered to return the amount due to the complainant since the same may be a subject of an independent
court action. (Litigo v. Dicon, 246 SCRA 9)
In exceptional cases, the Court has, however, allowed the complainant to recover such amounts which have been shown by convincing evidence during
the disbarment proceedings against a lawyer. In Keld Stemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas (A.C. 8010, June 16, 2009), a lawyer was disbarred by taking
advantage of the lack of knowledge of Philippine laws by a foreigner. Atty. Mas drew up a Deed of Sale of a property in Subic which is part of public
domain and therefore outside the commerce of man. Respondent lawyer was ordered to reimburse complainant P3, 800,000.00 which represented
the value of the land and the amount of P400, 000.00 which represented his professional fees.
In Reddi v. Sebrio, Jr. (Adm. Case No. 7027, January 30, 2009), the Court ordered Sebrio to return to the complainant US$544,828.00 which admitted
he received from the complainant. The Court disbarred him deceiving an American into giving him thousands of dollars to purchase several real estate
properties for resale.
Given the situation, it is my considered opinion that erring lawyer can be asked to restore the complainant the amount of P2,000,000.00.
XIX.
a. Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court provides the following grounds: deceit or any gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of crime
involving moral turpitude, violation of lawyer’s oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party in a case without authority, malpractice which includes practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers.
b. A decision in a disciplinary action against a Filipino lawyer practicing abroad may also be a basis for a disbarment proceeding against the same lawyer
in the Philippines. (Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345)
XX
Under B.M. 850 issued the Supreme Court on October 2, 2001, members of the IBP shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours
of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
(Section 2, B.M. 850)
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. (Section 1, B.M. 850)
“SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial
and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.”
XXIII
XXIV
a. As a general rule, the Supreme Court does not entertain anonymous complaints against judges. (In Re: Quijano, A.M. No. 361, August 31, 1977)
From the facts set forth above, it would appear that the anonymous complaint falls within the exception to the rule. The Supreme Court has allowed
the institution of complaint based on an anonymous letter provided that the complaint could be fully borne by public records of indubitable integrity.
(In Re: Araula, 81 SCRA 483). In the instant case, the inclusion of relevant pages of the transcripts of several cases heard by Judge Hambog would prove
the substantial allegations against him considering the TSNs form part of the records of the cases.
b. If the administrative complaint against the RTC judge is sufficient in form and substance, the Office of the Court Administrator will furnish the
respondent judge with a copy of subject complaint. The respondent judge is given a period of 10 days to comment on the complaint. If there is no basis
to conduct further investigation, the same will be dismissed. (Section 2, Rule 140, Rules of Court)
If the complaint appear to merit an action, the respondent judge is given 10 days to comment. Upon filing of the respondent judge’s comment, or upon
the expiration of 10 days and unless other pleadings or documents are required, the Supreme Court refers the same to the Office of the Court
Administrator for investigation, report or recommendation. The Court may also assign a Justice of the Court of Appeals to conduct the investigation
and submit his report and recommendation. (Section 4, Rule 140, Rules of Court)
The Supreme Court will render its decision based on the investigation, report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator or the
assigned Justice of the Court of Appeals.