U.P.

LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

Q1: Roman was a named partner in the law firm of Sanchez, Roman, and Valdez. Roman decided and
eventually became Governor of Bataan. Although Roman made it clear to his law partners and the public that
he will not practice law during his tenure as Governor, senior partner Sanchez decided to leave Roman's name
on the firm's stationery and on the door of the firm's plush offices. Is Sanchez’s decision proper?
A1: No, because Roman is not actually practicing with the firm. All governors, city and municipal mayors are public
officials absolutely prohibited from the practice of law during their tenure and for a period of 1 year after
resignation, retirement or separation from public office, [Sec. 90(a), RA 7160]

Q2: A lawyer’s failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance or exemption would result in?
A2: Penalty and disciplinary action for the non-compliant lawyer. Pursuant to B.M. 850, as amended (Dated Feb.
15, 2015. Effective Mar. 1, 2015): “…Pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated January 14, 2014, the phrase
“failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records” is repealed and amended to read, “failure to disclose the required information
would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.” Penalties for non-disclosure of
compliance or exemption number in the pleadings include:
i. The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000, P3,000 and 4,000 for the first to third offense
successively.
ii. In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar
iii. The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client shall be allowed to secure
the services of a new counsel with the right to demand the return of fees already paid to the lawyer. [B.M.
1922]

Q3: Tony is a law school graduate. He later received a degree in divinity and was formally ordained as a
minister of his faith and pastor of a local church, where Atty. Alfred is a member of the congregation. Tony
has been very disturbed about the high separation rates and the breakdown in Philippine family life.
Therefore, he holds frequent "family counseling sessions" where, among other things, he explains to the
parishioners who attend these sessions many of the legal ramifications of annulment, child support, and child
custody. These sessions are usually followed by question-and-answer periods, during which Tony gives legal
advice to parishioners who cannot afford a lawyer. Tony learned that Congress passed a new law amending
the Juvenile Delinquency Act. He asks Alfred to prepare an outline and a memorandum fully explaining the
new law, so that he will be better informed for the sessions with his parishioners. If Alfred agrees to do this,
is he subject to discipline'?
A3: Yes, since Alfred would be assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law [Canon 9]

Q4: Lawyer Fanny offered for sale spouses Jeremias’ agricultural land covered by TCT 597 to the late Nestor
and Pura S. Tria (Spouses Tria), for P2,800,000.00, payable in installments. Before Nestor died, he
approached Fanny to help him transfer the property in Spouses Tria’s name once fully paid, which eventually
happened. But Jennifer, Spouses Tria’s daughter later discovered that a deed of sale over the subject property
was executed by Sps. Jeremias and notarized by Fanny in favor of someone else on 26 May 1998 for a lesser
consideration of P200,000.00. Fanny claimed that Nestor instructed her not to proceed with the sale and,
instead, look for another buyer. She reportedly returned the P2,800,000.00 in cash to Nestor before he died
and that he allowed her to keep P115,000.00 originally intended for capital gains taxes and other expenses
as attorney's fees, all of which turned out to be false. Is Fanny liable here?
A4: Yes, because Fanny was not mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on her pursuant to Canon 16.

Q5: Which of the following is a prohibited advertisement for lawyers?

I. A 12x 36 inches tarpulin notice in a Quezon City building stating that Atty. Basti has since moved to his
new office in downtown Antipolo City.
II. A page devoted to Atty. Basti’s credentials found in his monograph indicating his qualification to write
the subject of his legal dissertation.
III. Distribution of a 3x9 inches business card indicating Atty. Basti’s office and other contact details.
A5: III only. Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. As per Ulep
v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553 (1993) the following are allowable advertisement:

1
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

(1) Ordinary simple professional card;

(2) Publication in reputable law list with brief biographical and other informative data which may include:
(a) Name;
(b) Associates;
(c) Address;
(d) Phone numbers;
(e) Branches of law practiced;
(f) Birthday;
(g) Day admitted to the bar;
(h) Schools and dates attended;
(i) Degrees and distinctions;
(j) Public or quasi-public offices;
(k) Posts of honor;
(l) Legal authorships;
(m) Teaching positions;
(n) Associations;
(o) Legal fraternities and societies;
(3) References and regularly represented clients must be published for that purpose [Publication of simple
announcement of opening of law firm, change of firm;
(4) Listing in telephone directory but not under designation of special branch of law;
(5) If acting as an associate (specializing in a branch of law), may publish a brief and dignified announcement to
lawyers (law list, law journal);
(6) If in media, those acts incidental to his practice and not of his own initiative;
(7) Writing legal articles;
(8) Activity of an association for the purpose of legal representation.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published primarily for other purposes.

Q6: Complainants engaged Atty. Juan in connection with the recovery of their properties from Fevidal.
Complainants signed a contract of legal services, where they would not pay acceptance and appearance fees
to their counsel, but that they would share the docket fees. Under their contract, complainants would pay him
50% of whatever would be recovered of the properties. Later, however, complainants terminated counsel’s
services and settled with Fevidal. Atty. Juan opposed the withdrawal of their complaint in court. Thus,
complainants filed a case against him alleging that counsel’s motion to record attorney’s charging lien was
the “legal problem” preventing them from enjoying the fruits of their property. Is Juan’s action proper?
A6: No, since counsel’s retainer is void for being champertous. A champertous contract is one where the lawyer
stipulates with his client that he will bear all the expenses for the prosecution of the case, the recovery of things
or property being claimed, and the latter pays only upon successful litigation. This contract is void for being against
public policy.

Q7: Distinguish between Ambulance-Chasing and Barratry.

A7: Ambulance-chasing is the unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims to bring suits. This is the
practice of lawyers in frequenting hospitals and homes of the injured to convince them to go to court.
Ambulance Chasing Barratry
Refers to personal injury Refers to any action
Refers to cases brought before judicial bodies Refers to suits before judicial or non-judicial
bodies

Q8: Atty. Rex is hired to represent Lorna in a tort case. Rex agreed to accept the case on a 33% contingent fee
arrangement. Before the case can go to trial, Lorna dismissed Rex and retained Rudy, who eventually lost the
case at the trial and on appeal. What amount is Rex entitled to?
A8: Nothing. A contingent contract is an agreement in which the lawyer’s fee, usually a fixed percentage of what
may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend the client’s
right. The lawyer does not undertake to shoulder the expenses of litigation. It is a valid agreement. Contingent fee
contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be protected from

2
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

unjust charges. A much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that the lawyer may
get nothing if the suit fails [Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. 183385 (2009)].

Q9: Rossana is on trial for murdering three patients at the nursing home where she works. She admits to her
lawyer, Ramon, that she is a vigilante prompting her to kill the patients who were evil anyway. Furthermore,
she tells Ramon that she plans to kill another patient as soon as she is moved to another floor. Hospital
officers told Ramon about the plan to move Rosanna to another floor. Which of the following disclosures will
not make Ramon liable?
a. Rossana is a vigilante.
b. Rosanna killed the three patients.
c. The three that Rosanna killed were all evil anyway.
d. Rosanna intends to kill another patient.
A9: Rosanna intends to kill another patient. The period to be considered in determining the scope of the attorney-
client privilege is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation
to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. If the
crime was committed in the past, the privilege applies. If it is still to be committed, the privilege does not apply,
because the communication between a lawyer and his client must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a
lawful end to be privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115439 (1996)]. The privilege is limited only to
communications which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does
not extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. It is not within the profession of
a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime. [Genato v. Silapan, A.C. 4078 (2003)].

Q10: Atty. Jun represented Alice in litigation that was settled for PhP325,000, with Alice’s approval. Jun
received a check in that amount from defendant, payable to Jun's order. Jun endorsed and deposited the check
in a trust account for Alice. He then alerted Alice and billed her PhP50,000 for legal fees. Alice disputed the
amount and wrote Jun, agreeing to pay PhP30,000 as a reasonable fee for work done, and nothing more. Is
it proper for Jun to retain the entire PhP325,000 in the trust account until the fee dispute is settled?
A10: No, Jun should send Alice PhP275,000, transfer PhP30,000 to his office account, and retain PhP20,000 in
the trust account until the dispute is settled. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a
particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should
promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose,
he must immediately return it to the client [Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815 (2009)]. The fact that a lawyer has a
lien for fees on money in his hands would not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds
received [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No. 936 (1975)]. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client’s
money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him attorney’s fees. The fact alone that a lawyer has
a lien for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client does not relieve him of his duty to promptly account
for the moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct [Rayos v. Hernandez, G. R. 169079
(2007)].

Q11: Differentiate a retaining lien from a charging lien.

A11:
Nature
Passive lien. It cannot
be actively enforced. It
is a general lien.
Basis
Lawful possession of
funds, papers,
documents, property
belonging to client
Coverage
Covers only funds,
papers, documents,
and property in the
Active lien. It can be
enforced by execution.
It is a special lien.
Securing of a favorable
money judgment for
client
Covers all judgments
for the payment of
money and executions

3
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

lawful possession of issued in pursuance of

the attorney by reason such judgment
of his professional
employment

Effectivity
As soon as the lawyer As soon as the claim
gets possession of the for attorney’s fees had
funds, papers, been entered into the
documents, property records of the case
Applicability
May be exercised Generally, it is
before judgment or exercisable only when
execution, or the attorney had
regardless thereof already secured a
favorable judgment
for his client
Notice
Client need not be Client and adverse
notified to make it party need to notified
effective to make it effective

Q12: Clara sued Atty. Christian for disbarment after the latter refused to recognize their common child and for
withholding support to the latter. Upon receipt of the Clara’s complaint, Christian promptly moved for the
dismissal of Clara’s complaint because the absence of the required certification against forum shopping in
initiatory pleadings is plainly fatal. Must the complaint be dismissed on this ground?
A12: No, because the complaint is neither civil nor criminal. Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, i.e. they
belong to a class of their own. They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they do not involve a trial of an
action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. It is not meant to grant
relief to a complainant but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in
order to protect the public and the courts. [Tiong v Florendo, AC 4428, (2011)]

Q13: Lawyer Philip filed a petition for contempt before the RTC against fellow lawyer Prima and several other
media practitioners and outfits for publicizing the disbarment complaint they filed against him in media.
Prima and her co-respondents insist that there was nothing wrong with what they did and that Philip’s
petition has a chilling effect on the people’s right to free press. Can the RTC give due course to Philip’s
petition?
A13: Yes, but only against Prima for premature publication of the disbarment complaint. Proceedings against
attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like
its decisions in other cases. [Sec. 18, Rule 139-B, ROC] The purpose of which is a) To enable the Court to make its
investigations free from any extraneous influence or interference; b) To protect the personal and professional
reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients
and litigants; c) To deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions thereof without authority.
Malicious and unauthorized publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative complaints and their
premature publication constitutes contempt of court. [Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. 121404 (2006)].

Q14: Judge Pacalna was held administratively liable for dishonesty, serious misconduct and gross ignorance
of the law. Soon after, he then filed a Petition for Judicial Clemency before the Supreme Court stating that he
realized the folly of his errors and undertook to mend his ways since he still has productive years ahead of
him. Should his petition be given due course?
A14: No, as nothing in his petition complies with the judicial clemency guidelines. Guidelines in resolving requests
for judicial clemency of disbarred lawyers:
(1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These include testimonials of credible institutions and
personalities;

4
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

(2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation;
(3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself;
(4) There must be a showing of promise (e.g., intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal scholarship), and
potential for public service;
(5) Other relevant factors to justify clemency [Re: Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. 07-7-17-SC (2007)].

Q15: The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the Congressional Village Homeowner’s Association, Inc.
from the RTC’s judgment favoring the plaintiff because the original period to file its appellant’s brief had
expired 95 days before the first motion for extension of time to file such brief was filed. The Court of Appeals
also stated that the six subsequent motions for extension of time to file brief were unmeritorious. The Court’s
Resolution became final. Eight years later Nestor and Bienvenido, members of the Association, filed a
Complaint for Disbarment against lawyer Daniel before the IBP for his negligence in handling the appeal and
willful violation of his duties as an officer of the court. Daniel insists that complainants have no personality
to file a disbarment case against him as they were not his clients and that the present suit was merely
instituted to harass him after they got defeated in the homeowners’ association. Is this argument correct?
A15: No, because disbarment proceedings are proceedings sui generis. Any interested person or the court motu
proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to
clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the
charges. [Figueras v. Jimenez]

Q16: Atty. R notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by two of Atty. R’s wife and a houseboy of R’s wife’s family.
Ms. J complains that Atty. R is disqualified to perform the notarial act under the Rules and asserts that Atty.
R did not require the affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid identification cards. Can a
complaint for disbarment be filed against Atty. R?
A16: A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: (a) Is a party to the instrument or document
that is to be notarized; (b) Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title,
interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by the Notarial Rules and by law; or (c) Is a
spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within
the fourth civil degree [Sec. 3, Rule IV]. Violation of (c) may disqualify a person from being a notary public but is
insufficient ground for disbarment [Jandoquile v. Revilla, A.C. 9514, (2013)]

Q17: Spouses D filed an ejectment case against spouses E. Upon verification, spouses E discovered that their
family home, which was previously named after E’s parents, was cancelled in favor of the spouses D, by virtue
of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Spouses E however denied the execution of such a Deed of Sale. Atty. C, who
notarized the document miserably failed to explain how the Deed ended up in his notarial books. His specimen
signature was different from the purported signature in the Deed. Can spouses E have Atty. C’s notarial
commission revoked?
A17: Yes, while there may be reasons to give Atty. C the benefit of the doubt as to who signed the Deed, the Court
does not and cannot lose sight of the fact that he still failed in ensuring that only documents which he had
personally signed and sealed with his notarial seal, after satisfying himself with the completeness of the same and
the identities of the parties who affixed their signatures therein, would be included in his notarial register. This
also means that Atty. C failed to properly store and secure his notarial equipment in order to prevent other people
from notarizing documents by forging his signature and affixing his notarial seal, and recording such documents
in his notarial books, without his knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence. [Castel v. Ching, A.C. 11165
(2017)]

Q18: Patty sued lawyer Roseller for allegedly notarizing an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy that she supposedly
executed when in truth she never did and that the signature and the community tax certificate she allegedly
presented are not hers. Roseller admits that he drafted the affidavit for his client and notarized it without the
required personal appearance, upon the client’s assurance that Patty signed the document. As a result,
Roseller's client benefited from the falsified affidavit, as it contributed to the illegal transfer of her property
to the lawyer’s client. What penalties can be imposed upon the erring Roseller?
I. Suspension from the practice of law for a year
II. Revocation of his notarial commission
III. Prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately.

5
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

IV. Disbarment for such fraudulent and deceitful conduct

A18: All, except IV. When a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is
meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of 2 years, and suspension from the practice of law for 1 year. [Agbulos v. Viray, G.R. No.
7350 (2013)]

Q19: The Supreme Court received a letter calling it to look into the morality of Judge Rio asserting that it is of
public knowledge in the city that Judge Rio is living scandalously with a woman, not his wife; and he is
involved with cockfighting or gambling. No evidence was attached to the letter-complaint. The complainant
never appeared, and nothing was brought forth during the investigation. Judge Rio admitted only that he was
separated de facto from his wife and that he found “for himself a suitable young lass whom he occasionally
goes out with in public and such a fact is not a secret around town.” He too admitted that he reared fighting
cocks. May Judge Rio be disciplined under the circumstances?
A19: Yes, since publicly going out with another woman violates the Canon on Propriety. A judge is the visible
representation of the law and of justice. He must comport himself in a manner that his conduct must be free of a
whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his official duties but also as to his behavior
outside his sala and as a private individual. His character must be able to withstand the most searching public
scrutiny because the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the
people's faith in the judicial system. [Wilfredo F. Tuvillo v. Judge Henry Laron, A.M. MTJ-10-1755; Melissa J. Tuvillo
v. Judge Henry Laron, A.M. MTJ-10-1756, (2016)]

Q20: Judge P failed to decide an ejectment case within the 30-day reglementary period, such that 10 months
have lapsed and still no decision has been issued. Judge P cited his desire to have a perfect decision, his being
distracted with other issues and matters in the office, his failure to send a soft copy to the Clerk of Court
because of a low internet connection and a slow printer, as reasons as to his failure to issue a decision. Should
Judge P be charged with Gross Inefficiency?
A20: No. A judge is expected to keep his own listing of cases and to note therein the status of each case so that
they may be acted upon accordingly and without delay. He must adopt a system of record management and
organize his docket in order to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of business. He is
guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision which is a less serious charge. [Trinidad Gamboa-Roces vs. Judge
Ranhel Perez, A.M. MTJ-16-1887, (2017)]

Q21: Judge Luisa, prior to her appointment to the probate court, was a partner in Flery and Lisa Law Firm
(FLLF). At the time of Luisa’s appointment, FLLF had pending, before the court to which Luisa was appointed,
numerous matters in which requests were being made for allowances for attorney's fees. When Luisa left
FLLF, she was received a cash settlement. She has no further financial interest in any matter handled by FLLF.
Luisa is now being asked to rule on these requests for allowances for attorney's fees. Is it proper for Luisa to
rule on these requests?
A21: No, because Luisa was associated with FLLF when these matters were pending.

Q22: Atty. A is the counsel on record of Mr. Z and Mr. Y in a civil case for sum of money against Mr. X. The trial
court rendered judgment in favor of Mr. X. Pending appeal, Mr. and Mrs. X asked Atty. A as counsel for a
criminal case they want to file against Mr. Y for arson. Atty. A accepted. Mr. Z filed an administrative case
against Atty. A for violation of Canon 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflict
of interest. Atty. A poses the defense that he did not violate the Canon as the civil case filed Mr. Z and Mr. Y
against Mr. X is not related with the criminal case to be filed by Mr. and Mrs. X against Mr. Y. Is Atty. A correct?
A22: NO, he is not correct. 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. The prohibition also
applies even if 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. To be held accountable under this rule, 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 [Aninon v. Sabitsana, Jr., A.C. No. 5098 (2012)]

Q23: Atty. B was retained as counsel by Ms. W in an unlawful detainer case she filed against Mr. V, an indigent.
While this case was pending, Mr. U, the cousin of Mr. V, filed a criminal case for attempted murder against

6
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

Mr. V. Mr. V sought the assistance of the PAO, but the PAO was already retained as counsel by Mr. U.
Desperate, Mr. V asked Atty. B for assistance, saying that he has no other person to turn to. Feeling pity for
Mr. V, Atty. B agreed. Ms. W found out about this and filed an administrative case against Atty. B. Will the
claim prosper?
A23: YES. While there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation they cannot be made to
labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one. Granting also that there really was
no other lawyer who could handle Mr. V’s case other than him, still Atty. B should have observed the requirements
laid down by the rules by conferring with the prospective client to ascertain as soon as practicable whether the
matter would involve a conflict with another client then seek the written consent of all concerned after a full
disclosure of the facts. For failing to do so, Atty. B exposed himself to the charge of double-dealing, in violation of
Canon 15 of the CPE [Gonzales v. Cabucana, A.C. No. 6836 (2006)]

Q24: Who are absolutely disqualified from practicing law in the Philippine?
A24: The following are absolutely disqualified from practicing law in the Philippines:
• Judges and other officials or employees of superior courts as [Sec. 35, Rule 148, ROC];
• Officials and employees of the Office of the Solicitor General [Sec. 35, Rule 148, ROC];
• Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago vs. Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705 (2006)];
• President, vice-president, cabinet members, their deputies and assistants [Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution];
• Chairmen and members of constitutional commissions [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution];
• Members of the Judicial Bar Council [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution];
• Ombudsman and his deputies [par. 2, Sec. 8 (2), Art. X, 1987 Constitution];
• All governors, city and municipal mayors [Sec. 90(a), RA 7160];
• Civil service officers or employees whose duties require them to devote their entire time at the disposal of the
government [Catu vs. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738 (2008)];
• Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their legal profession.

Q25: Atty. A is a notorious gambler. To fund his addiction, he asked Atty. B for a loan. Atty. B, being a good
friend of Atty. A, lent him P1M. They agreed that the loan will be paid after a year. A year after, Atty. B
demanded payment, but Atty. A was unable to pay. Atty. A asked for an extension of time to pay, but Atty. B
refused. Atty. B filed a collection suit against Atty. A. Subsequently, he also filed a disbarment case against
Atty. A. Can Atty. A be disciplined in this case?
A25: No. A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay his or her loan obligation [Toledo v. Abalos, A.C. 5141
(1999)]. However, if there is unwarranted obstinacy in evading the payment of a debt, such constitutes misconduct,
and the lawyer may be disciplined in such a case [Constantino v. Saludares, A.C. No. 2029 (1993)].

Q26: What are the primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from a business?
A26:
1. Duty of public service: emolument is only a by-product
2. Relation as officer of the court to the administration of justice
3. Relation to client: highest degree fiduciary [Lex Pareto 2017]

Q27: Atty. C was disbarred. After 10 years of being a model citizen, he filed for judicial clemency. While his
petition was pending, a civil case for sum of money was filed against him. He decided to represent himself in
the litigation. Is this allowed?
A27: Yes. Pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 138, ROC, a party may conduct his litigation in person. A lawyer who has been
disbarred or otherwise disqualified to practice law can validly prosecute or defend his own litigation as much as
that of a layman.

Q28: Atty. D moved to Australia. Subsequently, she married an Australian citizen and denounced her
Philippine citizenship, and became a naturalized Australian citizen. After 10 years, her husband divorced her.
She returned to the Philippines and re-acquired her Philippine citizenship. Does she also re-acquire her
membership in the Philippine Bar?
A28: Yes. Under R.A. 9225, once she re-acquired Philippine citizenship, she also re-acquired her membership of
the Philippine Bar. However, she cannot automatically resume in the practice of law because the same law
provides that she must first apply with the proper authority (i.e. the OBC in the SC) for a license or permit to engage
in such practice.

7
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

Q29: Who may be appointed as counsel de officio?

A29: The following may appointed as counsel de officio:
(1) A member of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend
the accused;
(2) In localities without lawyers:
(a) Any person resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability [Sec. 7, Rule 116, ROC];
(b) A municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch, subdivision or instrumentality of the
government within the province [Sec. 1, PD 543].

Q30: May a lawyer decline to act as counsel de officio?

A30: A lawyer may decline to act as counsel de oficio only for serious and sufficient cause (Rule 14.02, CPR). Some
of the justified grounds for refusing being designated as counsel de officio are:
1. The lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently [Rule 14.03, CPR]
2. The lawyer is in a position of conflict of interest [Rule 14.03, CPR]
3. The lawyer has been assigned too many de officio cases already
4. The lawyer is prohibited from practicing by reason of his public office.
[Lex Pareto 2017]

Q31: When is there a conflict of interest?

A31: 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
[Quiambao v. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708 (2005)].

Q32: M is a working law student and member of the MVP Labor Union. M entered her appearance as
representative of the said union before the Labor Arbiter in a case for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages,
and non-payment of ECOLA benefits against TALO Corporation. Atty. N, counsel for the corporation, objected
to M’s appearance on the ground that she is merely a law student, and thus, her appearance is not authorized,
unless she is supervised by a lawyer. Is Atty. N correct?
A32: No, Atty. N is not correct. Art. 228, Labor Code expressly authorizes non-lawyers to appear before the NLRC
or any Labor Arbiter in representation of their organization or members thereof.

Q33: Atty. O has been legally separated from his wife for years. He started dating Ms. P, who knows about
Atty. O’s marital status. After a few months, they started living together. However, their relationship
eventually turned sour, and they separated. Ms. P filed a disbarment case against Atty. O for grossly immoral
conduct. Atty. O posed the defense that Ms. P is in pari delicto, and therefore, the case should be dismissed.
Is Atty. O correct?
A33: No. The Court has consistently held that extra-marital affairs is a disgraceful and immoral conduct that would
subject a lawyer to disciplinary action. While Ms. P is not entirely blameless, that she is complicit in the immoral
affair against her co-principal does not make the case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. P is in pari
delicto. The issue is not about Ms. P’s acts but Atty. O’s conduct as an officer of the Court and his fitness to continue
as a member of the Bar [Samaniego v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 7022 (2008)].

Q34: R is the accused in a criminal case. The trial court found him guilty. Through Atty. Z, his counsel, he
appealed. R, through his mother, asked Atty. T to replace Atty. Z as counsel, as R found Atty. Z to be negligent.
Atty. T agreed to take up R’s case. Atty. T, thus went to the appellate court to ask for the records of the case.
Atty. W, the clerk of court, refused, saying that Atty. T had no authority to inquire on such records. Atty. T
argued that he was now the counsel of R and that he will be entering his appearance once he gets the records
of the case. Atty. W did not heed to Atty. T’s request, upsetting the latter and prompting him to utter some
invectives to Atty. W. Atty. W thus filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. T. Atty. T posed the defense that
he acted in good faith, as he only wanted to obtain the records of the case so that he could represent R with
zeal and diligence. Will Atty. T’s defense be upheld?

8
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

A34: No. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from R to represent him, Atty. T had
no right to impose his will on Atty. W, the clerk of court. His act constituted an encroachment upon the legal
functions of the counsel of record of the case, in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. It does not matter whether he
did so in good faith. In addition, he acted rudely towards an officer of the court; such act violates Rule 7.03 [A
lawyer shall not engaged in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life behave in scandalous manner to discredit the legal profession], Canon 8 [A lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel], and Rule 8.01 [A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper], CPR [Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, A.C. No. 6396 (2005)].

Q35: Atty. F represented ABC Corporation, the respondent in an illegal dismissal case on appeal in the NLRC.
The NLRC rendered its decision against the corporation. Atty. F filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion
for Inhibition, alleging therein that the NLRC was extremely biased and ignorant of the applicable laws and
regulations to the case. Mr. E, the complainant in the labor case, filed a complainant for disbarment against
Atty. F for violation of Rule 11.03, CPR. Atty. F poses the defense that the NLRC is not a court, and therefore,
Rule 11.03, which prohibits the use of scandalous, offensive or menacing language before the courts, does not
apply. Rule.
A35: The defense of Atty. F has no merit. The Supreme Court has held that, “A lawyer’s language should be
forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession. Submitting pleadings containing countless insults against the NLRC and attacking both its moral and
intellectual integrity, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. Respondent’s assertion
that the NLRC not being a court, its commissioners, not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the
judiciary; and that consequently the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v.
Gordolla, the Court held that the respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC, he
nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not to his client
but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law and
ethics. Respondent’s argument that labor practitioners are entitled to some latitude of righteous anger is
unavailing. It does not deter the Court from exercising its supervisory authority over lawyers who misbehave or fail
to live up to that standard expected of them as members of the Bar.” [Ng v. Alar, A.C. No. 7252 (2006)]

Q36: State the lawyer’s oath.

A36: I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same;

I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and

I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

So help me God.

Q37: What are the main requirements for instituting disciplinary or disbarment proceedings against
attorneys?
A37: The requirements are 1) a verified complaint stating clearly and concisely the facts complained of and 2)
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts.

Q38: Describe how disciplinary proceedings against judges are initiated.

A38: Disciplinary proceedings against judges may be initiated either (1) motu propio by the Supreme Court, (2)
upon the verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged

9
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) Upon an anonymous complaint,
supported by public records of indubitable integrity.

The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting
violations of standards of conduct prescribed for judges, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct [Sec.
1, Rule 140, ROC].

Q39: What are the duties of an attorney under the Rules of Court?
A39: Sec. 20, Rule 38 provides that it is the duty of an attorney to:
(1) maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws
of the Philippines;
(2) observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(3) counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;
(4) to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent
with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;
(5) maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and
to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business except from him or with his knowledge
and approval;
(6) abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
(7) not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any
man’s cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(8) never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, and
(9) in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

Q40: Atty. H, as counsel of S, sent a demand letter for separation pay against W. The demand letter contained
threats that Atty. H will file multiple cases – criminal and civil – against W if the latter fails to heed the
demands of his client. Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards, W
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. H. Atty. H contends that the contents of the demand letter
cannot be used in evidence against him as it is covered by the privileged communication rule and that the
writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition and that the laws allow and encourage the
settlement of disputes. Is Atty. H correct?
A40: No. It is true that the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction;
however, the letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file
retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with Atty. H’s client’s claim for separation pay.
The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters
of this nature are definitely proscribed by the CPR. Atty. H cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged
communication rule under which a private communication executed in the performance of a legal duty is not
actionable. The privileged nature of the letter was removed when respondent used it to blackmail complainant
and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client [Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298 (2007)].

Q41: Pending before the CA 1st Division, where CA Associate Justice Juan is sitting, is an appeal regarding an
RTC ruling which ordered the dismissal of the complaint of Mr. D. The RTC decision was penned by Judge
Pedro, who was newly appointed to the position. Prior to his appointment to the CA, Justice Juan was the RTC
judge in the branch that rendered the said decision; in fact, he even heard some parts of the trial involving Mr.
D’s case. Mr. D’s counsel thus moved for the compulsory disqualification of Associate Justice Juan, alleging
that the latter has been placed in a position where he had to review his own decision. Is Mr. D’s counsel
correct?
A41: No, Mr. D’s counsel is not correct. An Associate Justice who only partly presided over a case in the trial court
and who did not render the final decision cannot be said to have been placed in a position where he had to review
his own decision and, as such, was not legally bound, on this ground, to inhibit himself as ponente of the case.
However, he should voluntarily inhibit himself because his earlier involvement in the case constitutes a just or valid
reason under par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court [Sandoval v CA, G.R. No. 106657 (1996)]

10
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

Q42: What are the powers a notary public?

A42: A notary public can perform the following notarial acts:
1. Acknowledgments;
2. Oaths and affirmations;
3. Jurats;
4. Signature witnessings; and
5. Copy certifications (Sec. 1(a), Rule III, Notarial Rules).

A notary public is also authorized to Certify the affixing of signature by thumb or other mark on an
instrument or document presented for notarization [Sec. 1(b), Rule III, Notarial Rules]

Finally, a notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark
on an instrument or document [Sec. 1(c), Rule III, Notarial Rules]

Q43: Who are exempted from complying with the MCLE requirements?
A43:
1) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of
Executives Departments
2) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
3) 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
4) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice
5) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General
6) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel
7) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions
8) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of
the Office of the Ombudsman
9) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions
10) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten years
accredited law schools
11) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lectures of the
Philippine Judicial Academy
12) Governors and Mayors
13) Those who are not in law practice, private or public
14) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.

Q44: What are 2 concepts of attorney’s fees? Differentiate.

A44: The 2 concepts of attorney’s fees are 1) ordinary concept and 2) extraordinary concept. The ordinary concept
of attorney’ fees is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer for the legal services he has rendered to a client;
its basis of this compensation is the fact of employment by the client. On the other hand, the extraordinary concept
of attorney’s fees is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing
party in litigation; its basis is any of the cases authorized by law and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client
– unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof.
Q45: Ms. F is the defendant in a case for unlawful detainer. She retained Atty. G as counsel. Ms. F lost in the
trial court. Atty. G seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Upon reading the trial
court’s Decision and Resolution and going through the records of the case, Atty. G was convinced that the
chances of getting a reversal on appeal was unlikely. Thus, he decided not to file an appeal without informing
Ms. F. When Ms. F found out, she filed a complaint for the discipline of Atty. G. Atty. G invokes Rule 19.03,
CPR as a defense, saying that it is within his exclusive control on whether or not an appeal as regards should
be filed. Is Atty. G correct?
A45: Atty. G is not correct. What is meant by Rule 19.03 is that matters of law (i.e. all the proceedings in court to
enforce the remedy, to bring the claim, demand, cause of action, or subject matter of the suit to hearing, trial,
determination, judgment, and execution) are within the exclusive control of the attorney [Belandres vs. Lopez Sugar
Central Mill, G.R. No. L-6869 (1955)]; this does not mean that the discretion on whether or not an appeal should

11
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

be taken is within the attorney’s control. Such is a matter of substance, which he, as an attorney, may not impair,
compromise, settle, surrender, or destroy without his client's consent. Even if the lawyer was honestly and sincerely
protecting the interests of his client, he still does not have the right to waive the appeal without the knowledge
and consent of his client [Abay v. Montesino, A.C. No. 5718 (2003)]. Furthermore, Rule 18.04, CPR mandates that
a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case.

Q46: Atty. C represented Ms. D in her complaint for payment of sum of money against Mr. E. After trial,
judgment was rendered in favor of Ms. D. Mr. E failed to appeal so the trial court’s decision became final.
Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff levied on Mr. E’s a small parcel of land. Pursuant
to their contingent fee contract, Ms. DD executed a deed of assignment in favor of Atty. CC ½ of the said land.
Is the assignment valid?
A46: Yes. The assignment to a lawyer of a portion of the property levied on by the sheriff for the satisfaction of a
judgment in favor of his client does not violate Art. 1491, NCC if the property was not involved in litigation handled
by the lawyer [Daroy vs. Abecia, A.C. No. 3046 (1998)]. In this case, the case where Atty. C represented Ms. D did
involve what was formerly Mr. E’s land.

Q47: Mr. V filed a disbarment complaint with the IBP against his counsel Atty. I for allegedly representing
conflicting interests which caused him to lose a certain sum of money. While this was pending, Atty. I
apologized to Mr. V, and offered to pay for the losses incurred by Mr. V. Mr. V accepted the apology and the
offer. Thus, Mr. V filed a Motion to Withdraw the Disbarment complaint. Atty. I moved for the dismissal of the
disbarment case. Should the case be dismissed?
A47: No. The withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the
IBP and of this Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar. The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought
the matter to the attention of the Court. [Quiachon v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9317 (2014)].

Q48: True or false: After serving his/her period of suspension, the suspended lawyer automatically allowed
to engage in the practice of law. Explain.
A48: False. The order of suspension of the lawyer must first be lifted. Upon expiration of the period of suspension,
the suspended lawyer should 1) file a sworn statement with the court, through the OBC, stating that he/she has
desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension, and
2) furnish the IBP local chapter and to the executive judge of the courts where the said lawyer has pending cases,
and/or where has appeared as counsel copies of the sworn statement. [Maniago v. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472 (2010)].

Q49: What factors are taken into consideration charging reasonable compensation for an attorney’s services?
A49: The factors are given in Rule 20.01, CPR as follows:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved
c) The importance of the subject matter
d) The skill demanded
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client form the service
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established, and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

Q50: Atty. P, as punong barangay, called for conciliation meetings between Mr. E and Mr. G because of their
dispute as regarding a loan extended by the former to the latter. The parties failed to arrive at an amicable
settlement. Thus, Atty. P issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Mr. E filed suit
for collection of money against Mr. G. Can Atty. P enter his appearance as counsel of either of the parties?
A50: Yes, but subject to the approval from the head of his Department, as required by the civil service laws. Under
Sec. 90, RA 7160, while certain local elective officials (like governors, mayors, provincial board members and
councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to practice their profession or engage in any
occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay.
Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession.
However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required

12
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL & JUDICIAL ETHICS PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

by civil service regulations. Also, Rule 6.03, CPR does not apply because this only applies to former government
lawyers. [Catu vs. Rellosa, A.C. 5738 (2008)]

13