LEGAL ETHICS

1. As a result of a vehicular mishap between a Toyota Land Cruiser driven by

Judge Garcia and the motorcycle driven by Francisco Ortega, the latter died
and Judge Garcia was subsequently charged with the crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide. Judge Ortega filed a Motion to Quash the
Information on grounds that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged and over his person. He argued that the Ombudsman
should refer all cases against judges and court personnel filed before his
office to the Supreme Court since it is only the Supreme Court that can
oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take
the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation
thereof by virtue of its constitutional power of supervision over all courts and
court personnel. Resolve the motion to quash.

A: The Motion to Quash should be denied. Article VIII, Section 6 of the

Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of
the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk.Hence, it is the
Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the judges and court personnel and
take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation
of the laws of the land. No other branch of government may intrude into this
power, without running afoul of the independence of the judiciary and the
doctrine of separation of powers.However, that prerogative only extends to
administrative supervision. As such, the Ombudsman cannot encroach upon
this Courts task to oversee judges and court personnel and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation of the laws of
the land.Since the criminal case filed against Judge Ortega was in no way
related to the performance of his duties as a judge. As such, the jurisdiction of
the MCTC over the case is beyond contestation.

2. Judge Untalan is a former official of the Mandaluyong city government

entrusted with the duty of settling land disputes. After he was appointed as a
judge, he continued to assist neighbors and friends, without any
compensation, in settling their land differences. Is there an
ethical/professional responsibility problem in this situation? If a problem
exists, what are its implications or potential consequences?

A: Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.By using his
position to help private persons settle a legal dispute, Judge Untalanis
administratively liable under Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His
intentions may have been noble as he sought to make complainant realize
that he had been occupying by mistake the property subject of the dispute,
but Judge Untalanshould be mindful to conduct himself in a manner that gives
no ground for reproach. The Court held in Miranda v. Judge Mangrobang that
 a judges private life cannot be dissociated from his public life and it is, thus,
important that his behavior both on and off the bench be free from any
appearance of impropriety.

While there was no categorical finding of bad faith or malice on the part of
respondent Judge, who was motivated by the noble intention of settling the
property dispute between Lozada and Abando, however, he must bear in
mind that his office demands an exacting standard of decorum to promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judge
Untalanshould be more prudent in the observance of his dealings with the
public to obviate the mistaken impression of impropriety in that he is probably
using his position as a judge to impose improper pressure or exert undue
influence so as to obtain the desired result in a given situation.

3. When is inhibition considered as mandatory and when is it considered as a

matter of discretion on the part of a judge?

A:Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court stated that 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. 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 above.

4. A Complaint was filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant by Mrs. Agbulos
against Atty. Viray for allegedly notarizing a document denominated as
Affidavit of Non-Tenancy in violation of the Notarial Law since a competent
evidence of identity was not presented. Atty. Viray argued that the Notarial
Rules did not amend Section 163 of the Local Government Code which only
requires the presentation of a Community Tax Certificate when notarizing a
document since the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court cannot amend
the law. Was the affidavit validly notarized? Explain.

A: The Community Tax Certificate and a competent evidence of identity must

be presented to the Notary Public since the Notarial Rules did not amend
Section 163 of the Local Government Code. The law and the rule must be
complied with.

5. Ana Salinas filed a case for Violence Against Women and their Children with
a Petition for the Issuance of a Temporary Protection Order against her
husband Roy Salinas before the Regional Trial Court. After a chamber
conference with both parties counsels, Judge Bitas immediately issued an
Order appointing MervynAover as the administrator of the spouses
community properties. Ana Salinas avers that she did not agree to the
appointment of an administrator, hence, she filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order appointing MervynAover as the administrator.
In response, Roy Salinas counsel filed his comment on the motion, with
motion to cite Ana Salinas for indirect contempt for her defiance to the order
of the court by disallowing MervynAover to take over the management of the
spouses community properties. Judge Bitas summarily held petitioner in
contempt of court for violating the courts order by disallowing the
administrator to perform his duty. Is Judge Bitas correct in issuing an order
peremptorily holding Ana Salinas in contempt of court?

A: Judge Bitas should be held administratively liable for summarily holding

Ana Salinas in contempt of court. Charges for indirect contempt shall be
commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true
copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance
with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal
action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but
said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the
court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the
principal action for joint hearing and decision. From the foregoing, it is clear
that the following procedural requisites must be complied with before
petitioner may be punished for indirect contempt: First, there must be an
order requiring the petitioner to show cause why she should not be cited for
contempt. Second, the petitioner must be given the opportunity to comment
on the charge against her. Third, there must be a hearing and the court must
investigate the charge and consider petitioners answer. Finally, only if found
guilty will petitioner be punished accordingly. What is most essential in
indirect contempt cases, however, is that the alleged contemner be granted
an opportunity to meet the charges against him and to be heard in his
defenses.

Here, it appears that Roy Salinas did not file a verified complaint, but instead
initiated the indirect contempt through his Comment/Opposition to the Motion
for Reconsideration with Motion to Cite Defendant for Indirect Contempt.
Regardless of this fact, however, respondent Judge still issued an order
peremptorily holding petitioner in contempt of court. Moreover, assuming that
the contempt charge was initiated motuproprio by the Court, respondent
Judge still failed to abide by the rules when he did not require petitioner to
show cause why she should not be punished for contempt.Plainly, respondent
Judge's obstinate disregard of established rules of procedure amounts to
gross ignorance of the law or procedure, since he disregarded the basic
procedural requirements in instituting an indirect contempt charge.
6. JohnwellTiggangayran for the mayoralty position of Kalinga in the election but
lost to Rhustom L. Dagadag by a slim margin. Following Dagadag's
proclamation, Tiggangay filed an electoral protest which was raffled to the
sala of Judge Wacas. Judge Wacas rendered a Decision finding Dagadag to
have won the protested election but at a reduced winning margin. Tiggangay
filed a complaint charging Judge Wacas with Impropriety and Partiality,
alleging that during the course of the proceedings, he learned that Judge
Wacas is Dagadags second cousin by affinity, the formers aunt is married to
an uncle of Dagadag. Should Judge Wacas be held administratively liable for
Impropriety and Partiality for not inhibiting himself from hearing the electoral
protest case?

A: No. There is no affinity between the blood relatives of one spouse and the
blood relatives of the other. A husband is related by affinity to his wifes
brother, but not to the wife of his wifes brother. There is no affinity between
the husbands brother and the wifes sister; this is called affinitasaffinitatis.
There is no relationship by affinity between Judge Wacas and Dagadag as
they are not in-laws of each other. Thus, Judge Wacas is not disqualified
under Sec. 1 of Rule 137 to hear the election case.

7. Atty. Revilla notarized a complaint-affidavitsigned by Heneraline L. Brosas, a

sister of Atty. Revillas wife, without requiring the presentation of the latters
valid identification card. Can this be a ground for the disbarment of Atty.
Revilla?

A:Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly

disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the
notarial act, since the affiant or principal is his relative within the fourth civil
degree of affinity. Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it
behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing
the document.

The fact that a valid identification card has not been presented is immaterial.
If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to
show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of
a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Atty. Revilla, Jr.s violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule
IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar
him. He did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross
immoral conduct, or any other serious ground for disbarment under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

8. An administrative case for gross incompetence, inefficiency, negligence, and

dereliction of duty was filed against Judge Andaya of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 53, Lucena City, Quezon. However, the action was brought in court
 only after he retired on March 27, 2009. Did Judges Andayas retirement bar
the Supreme Court from pursuing the administrative proceeding against him?

A: A judges retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the instant
administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office, and
divested the Court, much less the OCA, of any jurisdiction to still subject him
to the rules and regulations of the judiciary and/or to penalize him for the
infractions committed while he was still in the service. The Court has lost
jurisdiction to find him liable for the cases and motions left unresolved prior to
his retirement.

9. What are the three tests provided by Jurisprudence in determining whether a

lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interest?

A:Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a lawyer is

guilty of representing conflicting interest. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-
bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same
time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers argument for
one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other
client, there is a violation of the rule. Another test of inconsistency of interests
is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge
of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new
relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired
through their connection or previous employment.

10. During the pendency of a litigation case between Czarina Malvar and Kraft
Foods Phils, a Compromise Agreement was executed by the parties. Atty.
Perez, believing that the compromise agreement was authored by Kraft
Foods Phils to evade a possible loss of P182,000,000.00 or more as a result
of the labor litigation, refused to withdraw the case. Considering Atty. Perez
as a major stumbling block in the settlement of her case, Malvar terminated
his services. Claiming that Malvar unceremoniously and without any justifiable
reason terminated his legal service and required him to withdraw from the
case, Atty. Perez filed a Motion for Intervention to recover his full
compensation based on his written agreement with Malvar. Can the Motion
for Intervention prosper?

A:Atty. Perez has the right recover in full its compensation based on its
written agreement with his client who unceremoniously and without any
justifiable reason terminated its legal service and required it to withdraw from
the case. A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in
his place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to
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. For the payment of his compensation the
attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case
wherein his services had been retained by the client.

11. Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of
Bachelor of Laws in 1979and passed the same years bar examinations. He
took the Attorneys Oath but failed to Sign the Roll of Attorneys allegedly
because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by
the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation. Several
years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the
Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had
not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC
was probably just an attendance record. By the time Medado found the
notice, he was already working. He stated that he was mainly doing corporate
and taxation work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation practice.
Thus, he operated under the mistaken belief that since he had already taken
the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial
to his status as a lawyer; and the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost
its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten. In 2005, when
Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars,
he was required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances
to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to
provide his roll number. About seven years later, Medado filed a Petition to
the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Should the petition be granted?

A: Yes. Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to
imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have
reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar. In
this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted.

Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by ones assuming
to be an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without authority,
may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both. Such a finding, however, is in the nature of criminal
contempt and must be reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of
hearings. In this case, while it appears quite clearly that Medado committed
indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of
law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no
formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against him.Knowingly
engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provided that a lawyer shall
not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.While a
reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the
 unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer
himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is
the lawyers duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty
likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of
the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical
standards of the legal profession.

12. Atty. Espejo, after being introduced to Victoria by a common friend, obtained
a loan from the latter in the amount of P250,000.00. Despite successive
demands by Victoria, Atty. Espejo failed to fulfill her obligation. Instead, she
issued worthless checks to settle her loan. Can Atty. Espejo be disbarred due
to the fact that she issued worthless checks despite the fact that the loan was
obtained in her private capacity?

A: The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless
checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of no
moment. A lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty
in his profession but also for his misconduct outside of his professional
capacity. While the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct
committed in his non-professional capacity, the Court may be justified in
suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct outside the
lawyers professional dealings is so gross in character to show him morally
unfit and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer.

13. Atty. Lacaya and Vicente Cadavedo entered into a contract with the following
stipulation: That due to the above circumstances, the plaintiffs were forced to
hire a lawyer on contingent basis and if they become the prevailing parties in
the case at bar, they will pay the sum of P2,000.00 for attorneys fees. Is the
stipulation in the contract is valid?

A:This agreement is champertous and is contrary to public policy.Champerty,

along with maintenance (of which champerty is an aggravated form), is a
common law doctrine that traces its origin to the medieval period. The
doctrine of maintenance was directed "against wanton and in officious
intermeddling in the disputes of others in which the intermeddler has no
interest whatever, and where the assistance rendered is without justification
or excuse. "Champerty, on the other hand, is characterized by "the receipt of
a share of the proceeds of the litigation by the intermeddler."Some common
law court decisions, however, add a second factor in determining
champertous contracts, namely, that the lawyer must also, "at his own
expense maintain, and take all the risks of, the litigation."

As matters currently stand, any agreement by a lawyer to "conduct the

litigation in his own account, to pay the expenses thereof or to save his client
therefrom and to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment
is obnoxious to the law." The rule of the profession that forbids a lawyer from
 contracting with his client for part of the thing in litigation in exchange for
conducting the case at the lawyers expense is designed to prevent the
lawyer from acquiring an interest between him and his client. To permit these
arrangements is to enable the lawyer to "acquire additional stake in the
outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery
rather than that of his client or to accept a settlement which might take care of
his interest in the verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his
duty of undivided fidelity to his clients cause."

14. The Heirs of Mcabangkit sued National Power Corporation for recovery of
damages and of property with the alternative prayer for the payment of just
compensation. Atty. Dibaratun was the original counsel of the Heirs of
Macabangkit. When the appeal was submitted for decision in the Court of
Appeals, Atty. Ballelos filed his entry of appearance and a motion for early
decision. When the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the same was
furnished solely to Atty. Ballelos. However, shortly before the rendition of the
decision, Atty. Dibaratun filed in the Court of Appeals a motion to register
attorneys lien, alleging that he did not withdraw his appearance and he was
not aware of the entry of appearance by Atty. Ballelos. Amir Macabangkit,
one of the heirs of Macabangkit, confirmed Atty. Dibaratuns representation
through an ex parte manifestation that he filed in his own behalf and on behalf
of his siblings. Amir imputed malpractice to Atty. Ballelos for having filed an
entry of appearance bearing his forged signature and for plagiarism for
copying verbatim the arguments contained in the pleadings previously filed by
Atty. Dibaratun. Atty. Ballelos claimed that he was hired by the other heirs of
Mcabangkit. Both Atty. Dibaratun and Atty. Ballelos posited that their
entitlement to attorneys fees was contingent.What is the appropriate
attorneys fees? Who is entitled to attorneys fees?

A:With neither Atty. Dibaratun nor Atty. Ballelos presenting a written

agreement bearing upon their supposed contingent fees, the only way to
determine their right to appropriate attorneys fees is to apply the principle
of quantum meruit.Quantum meruit literally meaning as much as he
deserves is used as basis for determining an attorneys professional fees
in the absence of an express agreement. The recovery of attorneys fees on
the basis of quantum meruit is a device that prevents an unscrupulous client
from running away with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without
paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the attorney
himself. An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable
compensation for the effort in pursuing the clients cause, taking into account
certain factors in fixing the amount of legal fees.
Atty. Dibaratun, the attorney from the outset, unquestionably carried the bulk
of the legal demands of the case. His representation of all the Heirs of
Macabangkit was not denied by any of them.In fairness and justice, the Court
accords full recognition to Atty. Dibaratun as the counsel de parte of the Heirs
of Macabangkit who discharged his responsibility in the prosecution of the
 clients cause to its successful end. It is he, not Atty. Ballelos, who was
entitled to the full amount of attorneys fees that the clients ought to pay to
their attorney. Given the amount and quality of his legal work, his diligence
and the time he expended in ensuring the success of his prosecution of the
clients cause, he deserves the recognition, notwithstanding that some of the
clients might appear to have retained Atty. Ballelos after the rendition of a
favorable judgment. Atty. Ballelos may claim only from Cebu, Batowa-an,
Sayana, Nasser, Manta and Edgar, the only parties who engaged him. The
Court considers his work in the case as very minimal.

15. Robert Seares, Jr. filed a complaint against Atty. Alzate charging her with
incompetence, professional negligence and violation of the prohibition against
conflicting interests. Seares alleged that Atty. Alzate was his legal counsel
when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra. When he
lost, Atty. Alzate filed in his behalf a Petition of Protest Ad Cautelam,
however, the same was dismissed for being fatally defective. Several months
later, Atty. Alzate insisted on filing a Petition of Protest, but the petition was
also dismissed on the ground that it was already time barred. After sometime,
Seares again ran for Municipal Mayor and won. He subsequently learned that
his political opponents retained Atty. Alzate as their counsel. Barely two
months in office, Seares was charged by one CarlitoTurqueza with abuse of
authority, oppression and grave misconduct and Atty. Alzate was the one who
represented the latter as counsel. Seares stated that Atty. Alzate made false
and hurtful statements in the memorandum that she prepared in that
administrative case in order to attack him. He asserts that Atty. Alzate
violated Canon 15, Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting
him, and for uttering false and hurtful allegations against him. Hence, he
prays that she should be disbarred. Did Atty. Alzate violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

A: There is no conflict of interest in a situation where a lawyer represents his

present client against his former client, so long as no confidential information
acquired during the previous employment was used against the former client
by the lawyer. The prohibition does not cover a situation where the subject
matter of the present engagement is totally unrelated to the previous
engagement of the attorney.

16. Rey Decena had brought an administrative case against Judge Malanyaons
wife, Dr. Amelita, the then Assistant Provincial Health Officer of Camarines
Sur. During the hearing of the administrative case, Judge Malanyaon was
occupying a seat beside his daughter, Atty. Maria Kristina Malanyaon, the
counsel of Dr. Amelita. The Judges presence therein enabled him to advise
his daughter on what to do and say during the hearing. When the counsel of
Decena inquired regarding the personality of Judge Malanyaon, being seated
at the lawyers bench, the Judge then proudly introduced himself and
 manifested that he was the counsel of the respondents counsel. The Judge
stated that he was merely assisting her daughter who just passed the bar.
Subsequently, the complainants lodged an administrative complaint for
conduct unbecoming a judge against Judge Malanyaon. Are the actuations of
Judge Malanyaon constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge?

A: The act of a judge coaching her daughter who is the counsel of the
respondent during a hearing is considered as engaging in private practice of
law. A judge may not involve himself in any activity that is an aspect of the
private practice of law. His acceptance of an appointment to the Bench
inhibits him from engaging in such practice, regardless of the beneficiary of
the activity being a member of his immediate family. The judges act of doing
so renders him guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge.

17. Atty. De Leon persuaded Arthur, Liza and Ethel to invest in a business
venture that later went bankrupt. Arthur, Liza and Ethel charged Atty. De Leon
with estafa. Simultaneously, they filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. De Leon with the Supreme Court. If Atty. De Leon is convicted of estafa,
will he be disbarred? If Atty. De Leon is acquitted of the estafa charge, will the
disbarment complaint be dismissed?

A:Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,

honesty, or good morals. In essence and in all respects, estafa, no doubt, is a
crime involving moral turpitude because the act is unquestionably against
justice, honesty and good morals. If Atty. De Leon is convicted of estafa, then
his guilt cannot now be questioned and his disbarment is inevitable. On the
other hand, if he is acquitted, the disbarment case will not be automatically
dismissed since the quantum of proof required for a criminal case may not
have been sufficient for his conviction but may suffice for his disbarment

18. The Supreme Court suspended indefinitely Atty. Cruz from the practice of law
for gross immorality. He asked the Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge of his
town if he can be appointed counsel de oficio for Martin, a childhood friend
who is accused of theft. The judge refused because Atty. Cruz's name
appears in the Supreme Court's List of Suspended Lawyers. Atty. Cruz then
inquired if he can appear as a friend for Martin to defend him. If you were the
judge, will you authorize him to appear in your court as a friend for Martin?

A: Suspension is the removal of a lawyer from the practice of law for a

specified minimum period of time. Generally, suspension should be for a
period of time equal to or greater than six months, but in no event should the
time period prior to application for reinstatement be more than three years.
Procedures should be established to allow a suspended lawyer to apply for
reinstatement, but a lawyer who has been suspended should not be permitted
to return to practice until he has completed a reinstatement process
demonstrating rehabilitation, compliance with all applicable discipline or
 disability orders and rules, and fitness to practice law. Allowing him to act as
an agent or friend of a litigant before the MCTC is akin to doing indirectly what
he cannot do directly.

19. Sheila consulted Atty. Fernandez whether she can successfully prosecute her
case for declaration of nullity of marriage she intends to file against her
husband. Atty. Fernandez advised her in writing that the case will not prosper
for the reasons stated therein. Sheila, however, decided to file the case and
engaged the services of another lawyer, Atty. Lim. Her husband, Noel, having
learned about the opinion of Atty. Fernandez, hired him as his lawyer. Is Atty.
Fernandezs acquiescence to be Noel's counsel ethical?

A: Yes. There is conflict of interest since the confidential information Atty.

Fernandezacquired during his previous employment with Sheila can be used
against the latter.A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very
first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advise regarding the
formers business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential
that the client employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion.

It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is

it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for
which his service had been sought.If a person, in respect to business affairs
or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with
the consultation, then the professional employments is established.

20. Atty. Toquerro was admitted as a member of the New York Bar. While in
Manhattan, he was convicted of estafa and was disbarred. Does his
disbarment in New York a ground for his automatic disbarment in the
Philippines?

A: No. Disbarment in the NY bar is not a ground for disbarment in the

Philippines. At most, it can serve as prima facie evidence for the disbarment
case in the Philippines.