case of a favorable decision. Apollo agreed to transfer to his lawyer a lot in Cebu.

Eventually,
Apollo won the case. Atty. Dennis asked Apollo to execute this deed of sale, but the latter refused
upon advice of a friend that the agreement is illegal. Due to threats of legal action by his lawyer,
Apollo filed a complaint before the Supreme Court alleging that the agreement is a champertious
contract. Rule on the legality of the agreement on contingent fee and the property of getting the
property of Apollo. Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contract for attorneys fees between Atty. Dennis and Apollo is indeed a
champertous agreement is similar to a contingent fee agreement wherein the lawyer will be
paid only if he is successful in handling the case. But what makes it champertous is the
provision, as in this case, that the lawyer will shoulder all the expenses of litigation. That
makes the lawyer a businessman who invested in the case in the hope that he will profit from
such investment. A contingent fee contract is valid, while a champertous agreement is
invalid.
With regard to the acquisition by Atty. Denise of Apollos property in Cebu, the same
will not be in violation of Article 1491 of the New Civil Code, if the contract was simply a
contingent fee contract, because the property in Cebu was not involved in the case that Atty.
Dennis handled, and the lot will not be transferred to Atty. Dennis until the case was
terminated.

VIII.
Arthur hired Atty. Jojo to file a complaint for the collection of P500,000.00. He agreed to
pay Atty. Jojo the amounts of P100,000.00 as acceptance fee and P100,000,00 as success fee.
Arthur paid P50,000.00 as partial payment of the acceptance fee with promise to pay the ba;ance
of P50,000.00 after presentation of Arthurs evidence. During the pre-tial, the defendant paid to
Atty. Jojo the amount of P100,000.00 as partial payment of his debt. Considering that he has not
yet been paid of the balance of his acceptance fee. Atty. Jojo applied P50,000.00 to the balance of
the acceptance fee and the remaining P50,000.00 was deposited in his bank account for
safekeeping. Despite the lapse of one (1) month, Arthur was informed of the payment. Arthur sued
Atty. Jojo for keeping the money and argues that the latter violated the rules under Canon 16 of
the CPR that a lawyer shall holds in trust all monies of his client that may come into his possession.
Atty. Jojo claims he has a lien on the monies paid to him by the defendant. Rule on the complaint
and explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Atty. Jojo violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession, and Rule 16.02, which provides that a lawyer shall account for
all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Atty. Jojo received
P100,000.00 from the defendant as partial payment of his debt to Arthur. Instead of holding
the said amount in trust for Arthur, Atty. Jojo applied P50,000.00 to the unpaid balance of
his acceptance fee, and deposited the other P50,000.00 in his bank account. While Rule 6.03
provides that a lawyer shall have a lien over the funds of his client and may aply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawfyul fees and disbursements, the Supreme Court
has held that this is applicable only if there is an agreement between the lawyer as to the
payment of his fees and the client is notified of the receipt of payment for him. There was no
notice of the payment made to the client, and no agreemen between Atty. Jojo and Arthur as
to when the balance of the formers acceptance fee should be made. In fact, Arthur promised
to pay the same after presentation of his evidence. Moreover, when Atty. Jojo deposited the
balance of P50,000.00 in his bank account, he violated Rule 16.02 which provides that a
lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own with those of
others kept by him.

IX.
Atty. Tristan filed a motion to disqualify Judge Robert from hearing a civil case on the
ground that the latter was the classmate and fraternity brother of Atty. Mark, Attty. Tristans
opposing counsel. Judge Robert denied the motion on the ground that under Rule 3.12 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, he is not required to inhibit in all cases where his classmates and fraternity
brothers are participating lawyers in cases before him. Is Judge Robert correct in denying the
motion? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Judge Robert is correct in denying the motion for inhibition on the ground that he
was the classmate of Atty. Trishas adverse counsel.
That one of the counsels in a case was a classmate of the judge is not manadatory
ground for his disqualification (Vda. de Bonifacio v. BLT Bus Co., Inc, G.R. L-26810, 34
August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 618 [1970]; Santos vs Lacurom, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823, August 28,
2006). However, he may inhibit on the discretion ground that his refusal to inhibit may
reasonably cause the parties to lose trust and confidence on the court.

X
Atty. Harold wrote in the Philippine Star his view that the decision od the Supreme Court
in a big land case is incorrect and should be re-examined. The decision is not yet final. Atty.
Alfonso, the counsel for the winning party in that case, filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Harold for violation of the sub judice rule and Canon 11 of the CPR that a lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts. Explain the sub judice rule and rule on the
disbarment case. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sub judice restricts comments and disclosure pertaining to pe ding judicial
proceedings, not only by participants in the pending case, members of the bar and bench,
litigants and witnesses, but also the public in general, which necessarily includes the media,
in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render on liable for indirect contempt
under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. The specific rationale for the sub judice
rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every
extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that
the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
(Marantan v. Diokno, 716 SCTA 164, G.R. 205956, February 12, 2014). After a case is decided;
however, the decision is open to criticism, subject only to the condition that all such criticism
shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.

A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander
of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair critic is a gross
violation of the duty or respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action (In re Almacen, GR L-27654, 18 February, 1970, 31 SCRA 562 [1970]).
In this case, the published comment of Atty. Harold was made after the decision of
the Supreme Court was rendered, but the same was not yet final. The case was still pending.
Hence, the publication of such comment was inappropriate, and Atty. Harold may be
penalized for indirect conmpt of court.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Although the comment of Atty. Harold was made while the case was technically still
pending, it was made after a decision was rendered, and the comment made is within the
grounds of decency and propriety. Hence, the lawyer does not deserve punishment for the
same.

XI
George, an American citizen doing business in the Philippines, bought a lot in
Manila and secured the services of Atty. Henry for the execution of the required documents. Atty.
Henry prepared a Deed of Sale of Land using the name of Georges friend, Pete, as the buyer. IN
order to protect Georges interest and ensuring his free and undistributed use of the property for
an indefinite period of time, Atty. Henry also prepared a Counter Deed of Sale and Occupancy
Agreement signed by Pete in favor of George. A competitor of George filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Henry on the ground that he violated the Constitution and the CPR. Rule
on the complaint and explain (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will rule in favor of the complainant. IN the case of Donton v. Tansingco, (A.C. 6057,
June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 1 [2006]), which involves the same facts as in this case, the Supreme
Court held that in preparing an Occupancy Agreement, the lawyer in the said case advised and
aided a foreigner in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that the lawyer used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful
end, which amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended, that ruling is
equally applicable in this case.

XII
Jaybee engaged the services of Atty. Pete to defend him in a criminal case for murder.
During the trial, when the defense was presenting its evidence, Jaybee admitted to Atty. Pete that
he killed the victim in the case. Atty. Pete withdrew from the case. Jaybee sued Atty. Pete for
disbarment alleging that the latter violated Canon 15 of the CPR that a lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his client and Canon 17 of the
CPR that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. Rule on the case and explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will rule in favor of Atty. Pete. A lawyers duty of entire devotion to his clients cause
must be performed within the bounds of the law. Canon 19 of the Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer shall repeat his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Canon 15
of the Canons of Professional Ethics also provides that:
The lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability,
to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally
applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should restrain him from the full
discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect, his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that
the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the
law. The office of the attorney does not permit, much less does it demand of him for any
client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own
conscience and not that of his client.