DAY 4 (PM) Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises Flashcards
(39 cards)
I.
Define the following term:
a. counsel de oficio
I.
Define the following term:
b. counsel de parte
I.
Define the following term:
c. amicus curiae
I.
Define the following term:
d. attorney of record
II.
In open court, accused Marla manifested that she had already settled in full the civil aspect of the criminal case filed against her in the total amount of P58,000.00. Marla further alleged that she paid directly to private complainant Jasmine the amount of P25,000.00. The balance of P33,000.00 was delivered to Atty. Jeremiah, Jasmine’s lawyer, evidenced by a receipt signed by Atty. Jeremiah himself.
However, Jasmine manifested that she did not receive the amount of P33,000.00 which Marla turned over to Atty. Jeremiah. Despite Jasmine’s requests to turn over the money, Atty. Jeremiah failed to do so. It was only after Jasmine already filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jeremiah that the latter finally paid the P33,000.00 to the former, but in three installment payments of Pl1,000.00 each. Atty. Jeremiah claimed that he decided to hold on to the P33,000.00 at first because Jasmine had not yet paid his attorney’s fees.
Is Atty. Jeremiah administratively liable? Explain.
III.
Maria and Atty. Evangeline met each other and became good friends at zumba class. One day, Maria approached Atty. Evangeline for legal advice. It turned out that Maria, a nurse, previously worked in the Middle East. So she could more easily leave for work abroad, she declared in all her documents that she was still single. However, Maria was already married with two children. Maria again had plans to apply for work abroad but this time, wished to have all her papers in order. Atty. Evangeline, claiming that she was already overloaded with other cases, referred Maria’s case to another lawyer. Maria found it appalling that after Atty. Evangeline had learned of her secrets, the latter refused to handle her case.
Maria’s friendship with Atty. Evangeline permanently turned sour after Maria filed an administrative case against the latter for failing to return borrowed jewelry. Atty. Evangeline, on the other hand, threatened to charge Maria with a criminal case for falsification of public documents, based on the disclosures Maria had earlier made to Atty. Evangeline.
a. Was the consultation of Maria with Atty. Evangeline considered privileged?
III.
Maria and Atty. Evangeline met each other and became good friends at zumba class. One day, Maria approached Atty. Evangeline for legal advice. It turned out that Maria, a nurse, previously worked in the Middle East. So she could more easily leave for work abroad, she declared in all her documents that she was still single. However, Maria was already married with two children. Maria again had plans to apply for work abroad but this time, wished to have all her papers in order. Atty. Evangeline, claiming that she was already overloaded with other cases, referred Maria’s case to another lawyer. Maria found it appalling that after Atty. Evangeline had learned of her secrets, the latter refused to handle her case.
Maria’s friendship with Atty. Evangeline permanently turned sour after Maria filed an administrative case against the latter for failing to return borrowed jewelry. Atty. Evangeline, on the other hand, threatened to charge Maria with a criminal case for falsification of public documents, based on the disclosures Maria had earlier made to Atty. Evangeline.
b. What are the factors to establish the existence of attorney-client privilege?
IV.
The Lawyer’s Oath is a source of obligation and its violation is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
State in substance the Lawyer’s Oath.
V.
Judge Ana P. Sevillano had an issue with the billings for the post-paid cellular phone services of her 16-year-old daughter for the last three consecutive months. Although Judge Sevillano had been repeatedly calling the Customer Service Hotline of Universal Telecoms, the billings issue was never fully settled to Judge Sevillano’s satisfaction. Finally, Judge Sevillano wrote the National Telecommunications Commission a letter of complaint against Universal Telecoms, using her official court stationery and signing the letter as “Judge Ana P. Sevillano.”
Did Judge Sevillano violate any professional or ethical standard for judges? Justify your answer.
VI.
Casper Solis graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from Achieve University in 2000 and took and passed the bar examinations given that same year. Casper passed the bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath together with other successful bar examinees on March 19, 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). He was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys on May 24, 2001 but he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys sent by the Office of the Bar Confidant after he went home to the province for a vacation. Since taking his oath in 2001, Casper had been employed by several law firms and private corporations, mainly doing corporate and taxation work. When attending a seminar as part of his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education in 2003, Casper was unable to provide his roll number. Seven years later in 2010, Casper filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Casper alleged good faith, initially believing that he had already signed the Roll before entering PICC for his oath-taking on March 19, 2001.
a. Can Casper already be considered a member of the Bar and be allowed to use the title of “attorney”? Explain.
VI.
Casper Solis graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from Achieve University in 2000 and took and passed the bar examinations given that same year. Casper passed the bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath together with other successful bar examinees on March 19, 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). He was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys on May 24, 2001 but he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys sent by the Office of the Bar Confidant after he went home to the province for a vacation. Since taking his oath in 2001, Casper had been employed by several law firms and private corporations, mainly doing corporate and taxation work. When attending a seminar as part of his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education in 2003, Casper was unable to provide his roll number. Seven years later in 2010, Casper filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Casper alleged good faith, initially believing that he had already signed the Roll before entering PICC for his oath-taking on March 19, 2001.
b. Did Casper commit any professional or ethical transgression for which he could be held administratively liable?
VI.
Casper Solis graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from Achieve University in 2000 and took and passed the bar examinations given that same year. Casper passed the bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath together with other successful bar examinees on March 19, 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). He was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys on May 24, 2001 but he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys sent by the Office of the Bar Confidant after he went home to the province for a vacation. Since taking his oath in 2001, Casper had been employed by several law firms and private corporations, mainly doing corporate and taxation work. When attending a seminar as part of his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education in 2003, Casper was unable to provide his roll number. Seven years later in 2010, Casper filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Casper alleged good faith, initially believing that he had already signed the Roll before entering PICC for his oath-taking on March 19, 2001.
c. Will you grant Casper’s Petition to belatedly sign the Roll of Attorneys? Why?
VII.
Cite some of the characteristics of the legal profession which distinguish it from business.
VIII.
Engr. Gilbert referred his friends, spouses Richard and Cindy Maylupa, to Atty. Jane for the institution of an action for partition of the estate of Richard’s deceased father. In a letter, Atty. Jane promised to give Engr. Gilbert a commission equivalent to 15% of the attorney’s fees she would receive from the spouses Maylupa. Atty. Jane, however, failed to pay Engr. Gilbert the promised commission despite already terminating the action for partition and receiving attorney’s fees amounting to about P600,000.00. Engr. Gilbert repeatedly demanded payment of his commission but Atty. Jane ignored him.
May Atty. Jane professionally or ethically promise a commission to Engr. Gilbert? Explain.
IX.
a. Explain the doctrine of quantum meruit in determining the amount of attorney’s fees.
IX.
b. Identify the factors to be considered in determining attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit basis.
X.
The spouses Manuel were the registered owners of a parcel of land measuring about 200,000 square meters. On May 4, 2008, the spouses Manuel sold the land for P3,500,000.00 to the spouses Rivera who were issued a certificate of title for said land in their names. Because the spouses Rivera failed to pay the balance of the purchase price for the land, the spouses Manuel, through Atty. Enriquez, instituted an action on March 18, 2010 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for sum of money and/or annulment of sale, docketed as Civil Case No. 1111. The complaint in Civil Case No. 1111 specifically alleged that Atty. Enriquez would be paid P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees on a contingency basis. The RTC subsequently promulgated its decision upholding the sale of the land to the spouses Rivera. Atty. Enriquez timely filed an appeal on behalf of the spouses Manuel before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found for the spouses Manuel, declared the sale of the land to the spouses Rivera null and void, and ordered the cancellation of the spouses Rivera’s certificate of title for the land. The Supreme Court dismissed the spouses Rivera’s appeal for lack of merit. With the finality of judgment in Civil Case No. 1111 on October 20, 2014, Atty. Enriquez filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
Meanwhile, the spouses Rivera filed on November 10, 2014 before the RTC a case for quieting of title against the spouses Manuel, docketed as Civil Case No. 2222. The spouses Manuel, again through Atty. Enriquez, filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 2222 on the ground of res judicata given the final judgment in Civil Case No. 1111.
Pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 2222, the RTC granted on February 9, 2015 the motion for issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 1111 and placed the spouses Manuel in possession of the land. Atty. Enriquez, based on a purported oral agreement with the spouses Manuel, laid claim to Y2 of the land, measuring 100,000.00 square meters with market value of Pl,750,000.00, as his attorney’s fees. Atty. Enriquez caused the subdivision of the land in two equal portions and entered into the half he appropriated for himself.
Based on the professional and ethical standards for lawyers, may Atty. Enriquez claim Yi of the land as his contingency fee? Why?
XI.
Atty. Belinda appeared as counsel for accused Popoy in a case being heard before Judge Tadhana. After Popoy was arraigned, Atty. Belinda moved for a resetting of the pre-trial conference. This visibly irked Judge Tadhana and so before Atty. Belinda could finish her statement, Judge Tadhana cut her off by saying that if she was not prepared to handle the case, then he could easily assign a counsel de oficio for Popoy. Judge Tadhana also uttered that Atty. Belinda was wasting the precious time of the court. Atty. Belinda tried to explain that she was capable of handling the case but before she could finish her explanation, Judge Tadhana again cut her off and accused her of always making excuses for her incompetence. Judge Tadhana even declared that he did not care if Atty. Belinda filed a thousand administrative cases against him.
According to Atty. Belinda, Judge Tadhana had also humiliated her like that in the past for the flimsiest of reasons. Even Atty. Belinda’s clients were not spared from Judge Tadhana’s wrath as he often scolded witnesses who failed to respond immediately to questions asked of them on the witness stand.
Atty. Belinda filed an administrative case against Judge Tadhana.
Do the acts of Judge Tadhana as described above constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct? Explain.
XII.
a. What is the best form of advertising possible for a lawyer?
XII.
b. What are the allowable or permissible forms of advertising by a lawyer?
XIII.
In a land registration case before Judge Lucio, the petitioner is represented by the second cousin of Judge Lucio’s wife.
a. Differentiate between compulsory and voluntary disqualification and determine if Judge Lucio should disqualify himself under either circumstance.
XIII.
In a land registration case before Judge Lucio, the petitioner is represented by the second cousin of Judge Lucio’s wife.
b. If none of the parties move for his disqualification, may Judge Lucio proceed with the case?
XIV.
Identify and briefly explain three of the canons under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
XV.
Jon served as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of PBB Cars, Inc. (PBB), a family-owned corporation engaged in the buying and selling of second hand cars. Atty. Teresa renders legal services to PBB on a retainer basis.
In 2010, Jon engaged Atty. Teresa’s services for a personal case. Atty. Teresa represented Jon in a BP Big. 22 case filed against him by the spouses Yuki. Jon paid a separate legal fee for Atty. Teresa’s services.
Jon subsequently resigned as CEO of PBB in 2011. In 2012, Atty. Teresa filed on behalf of PBB a complaint for replevin and damages against Jon to recover the car PBB had assigned to him as a service vehicle. Atty. Teresa, however, had not yet withdrawn as Jon’s counsel of record in the BP Big. 22 case, which was still then pending.
Jon filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Teresa for representing conflicting interests and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Teresa countered that since the BP Blg. 22 case and the replevin case are unrelated and involved different issues, parties, and subject matters, there was no conflict of interest and she acted within the bounds of legal ethics.
Is Atty. Teresa’s contention tenable? Explain.