PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

FIRST EXAM

Atty. Ivy B. Lurica

1. X was elected as Mayor of the Municipality of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in the May 2013
elections. His opponent, Y, filed an election protest against him before RTC Digos After deciding
in favor of Y, the RTC issued an Order dated granting his motion for execution pending appeal,
viz.:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal is GRANTED.

The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court [(COC)] is hereby directed to issue a Writ of Execution Pending
Appeal after the lapse of twenty (20) working days to be counted from the time [complainant's]
counsel receives a copy of this Special Order, if no restraining order or status quo order is
issued pursuant to Section 11 (b),4 Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07- 4-15-SC.

Distressed, X filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
seeking a TRO against the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. In an Order, the
COMELEC issued a TRO, directing the RTC Judge, in her official capacity as Presiding Judge of the
RTC, to cease and desist from enforcing the Order, effective immediately. Accordingly, the RTC
issued another Order, pertinent portion of which reads:

In view thereof, the OIC-Branch [COC] is directed NOT TO ISSUE a Writ of Execution in
accordance with the Order until further notice. 11 Despite the TRO and the RTC's February 25,
2014 Order, respondent, as counsel of Villarosa, filed five (5) manifestations addressed to the
COC insisting on the writ's issuance. Notably, he did not serve copies of these manifestations to
the other party.

In these manifestations, Atty T claimed that his client received the RTC's January 15, 2014 Order
on January 18, 2014, and counting from said date, the twenty-day period ended on February
12, 2014. Since the COMELEC only issued the TRO on February 13, 2014, the TRO no longer had
any effect. Respondent further asserted that the TRO was addressed only to the RTC Judge, and
not to the COC; therefore, the COC is not bound by the TRO. For these reasons, respondent
insisted that the COC could legally issue the writ of execution pending appeal.

The COC eventually issued a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal addressed to the sheriff.
However, complainant only found out about respondent's manifestations when the sheriff
attempted to serve the writ on him. Soon thereafter, complainant filed the disbarment
complaint.

In his complaint, complainant argued that respondent violated his ethical duties when he
misled and induced the COC to defy lawful orders - particularly, the COMELEC's TRO and the
RTC's February 25, 2014 Order.

Was there a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility? If yes, what provisions were
violated?

2. Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Sophie, convinced his clients
to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the witness Nika attesting that Atty Y tried to
prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s
services instead, in exchange for a loan of ₱25,000. Complainant also attached Atty Y's calling
card.

Was there a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility? If yes, what provisions were
violated?
3.

On October 14, 2002, Atty. Pretty filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to
disqualify Analie Miro from taking the 2019 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.

In the Petition, Atty Pretty alleges that Analie did not disclose in her Petition to take the 2019
Bar Examinations that she has five pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Digos City namely: Criminal Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral
Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

Furthermore, Atty Pretty alleges that Analie has been using the title "Attorney" in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Digos City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar.

Should Analie be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys in the event
that he passes the Bar Examinations?

4. April Ty, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ty, a Chinese citizen, and Pia A. Bagumbayan, a
Filipino, was born in Pantucan, ComVal on April 1964. Since her birth, Ty has resided in the
Philippines.

On 17 July 1998, Ty, after having completed a Bachelor of Laws course at Cor Jesu College, filed
an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of the Supreme Court, she
was allowed to take the Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that she must submit to the
Court proof of her Philippine citizenship.

Ty complied with the said resolution.

Due to the peculiar circumstances surrounding. Ty's case, the OSG recommends the relaxation
of the standing rule on the construction of the phrase "reasonable period" and the allowance of
Ching to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625 prior to taking his oath as a
member of the Philippine Bar.

On 27 July 1999, Ty filed a Manifestation, attaching therewith her Affidavit of Election of

A. Since Ty has already elected Philippine citizenship on 15 July 1999, has she elected Philippine
citizenship within a "reasonable time."?

B. Does her election of the Philippine citizenship retroact to the time she took the Bar Exam?

5. What is a shyster?

6. Y, who is a businessman, and Atty. X are good friends. Due to their closeness, Atty. X was able
to borrow ₱300,000.00 from Y, which amount was intended to refurbish Atty. X's law office.

Months after, Y got into a contractual dispute with Z, one of his business partners. Hence, Y
sought the legal services of Atty. X for the filing of the proper action against Z. In consideration
for his legal services, Y paid Atty. X an acceptance fee of ₱50,000.00.
Unfortunately, Atty. X and Y's relationship turned sour. Thus, all communications between them
were cut, and worse, Atty. X failed to file the required initiatory pleading against Z on the date
agreed upon. Aggrieved, Y filed an administrative complaint, seeking that Atty. X be sanctioned
and that the ₱50,000.00 acceptance fee and the ₱300,000.00 personal loan be returned to him.

A. What administrative violation/s did Atty. X commit, if any? Explain. (3%)

B. May Y's prayer for the return of the ₱50,000.00 acceptance fee and the ₱300,000.00
personal loan prosper? Explain.

7. Atty. U was being investigated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines regarding a complaint
for immorality filed by his wife, Y. Pending resolution of the case, complainant Y filed an
affidavit of desistance and withdrawal of the complaint on the ground that she mistakenly filed
the complaint out of jealousy.

What is the effect of Y's filing of an affidavit of desistance and the withdrawal of her complaint
in the administrative case against Atty. U? Explain.

8. Carlos contracted two marriages: the first was with Consuelo, whom he left in the province,
and the second was with Corinne in Manila, with whom he had six (6) children. Both women
were unaware of Carlo's marriage to the other.

When Carlos entered law school, he met Cristina, a classmate, to whom he confided his marital
status. Not long after, Carlos and Cristina became involved in an extramarital affair, as a result
of which Carlos left Corinne and their children. During Carlos and Cristina's senior year in law
school, Consuelo passed away. After their admission to the bar, Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina
decided to get married in Hong Kong in a very private ceremony. When Corinne learned of
Carlos and Cristina's wedding in Hong Kong, she filed a disbarment case against Atty. Carlos and
Atty. Cristina on the ground of gross immorality. Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina raised the
following defenses:
a) the acts complained of took place before they were admitted to the bar; and

b) Atty. Carlos' marriage to Corinne was void ab initio due to his subsisting first marriage with
Consuelo, and they were free to marry after Consuelo died.

Rule on each defense.

9. In what instances can the law student practice law?

10. On 28 April 2010, the decision of the case Vinuya v Executive Secretary was promulgated
with Justice Mariano del Castillo as its ponente. Motion for reconsideration was filed by the
petitioner’s counsel on various grounds but most notably on the ground that not only did the
ponente of the case plagiarised at least 3 books and articles in discussing the principles of jus
cogens and erga omnes, but have also twisted such quotations making it appear contrary to the
intent of the original works. The authors and their purportedly plagiarized articles are: 1) Evan J
Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens published in 2009 in the Yale
Journal of International Law; 2) Christian J. Tams’ Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in
Internation Law published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005; and 3) Mark Ellis’
Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime published in the Case Western Reserve
Journal of Internation Law in 2006. Thereafter, news regarding the plagiarism by the Supreme
Court spread over the media and the original authors wrote letters to the Chief Justice
expressing discontent by the questioned act of Justice del Castillo.

On 27 July 2010, the UP College of Law faculty members gave their opinion on the matter of
plagiarism by issuing an article titled “Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” signed overall 37 faculty members. In said article,
the faculty expressly gave their dismay saying that the court had the hopes of relief from those
“comfort women” during the war “crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and
misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the Land.”
In the article, it was stated that plagiarism, as appropriation and misrepresentation of another
person’s work as one’s own, is considered as “dishonesty, pure and simple.” Hence, it was
argued that since the decision in the Vinuya case form part of the Philippine judicial system, the
Court, in fine, is allowing dishonesty to be promulgated. Furthermore, the plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the Vinuya case undermines the judicial system of our country and is a dirt
on the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court, the article sought for the resignation of
Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.

In response to the said article, the Court issued a resolution stating that the remarks and choice
of words used were such a great insult to the members of the Court and a threat to the
independence of the judiciary, a clear violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and the Rules 1.02 and
11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thereafter, the Court ordered the signatories
to show cause on why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for such alleged
violations.

In fulfillment of the directive by the Court, the signatories passed a Common Compliance
stating therein that their intention in issuing the article in question “was not to malign the Court
but rather to defend its integrity and credibility and to ensure continued confidence in the legal
system” by the words used therein as “focusing on constructive action.” Also, it was alleged
that the respondents are correct in seeking responsibility from Justice del Castillo for he,
indeed, committed plagiarism thus, rectifying their issuance of the article. Furthermore, the
respondents argued that the article in question is a valid exercise of the freedom of expression
as citizens of a democracy, and an exercise of academic freedom.

What is the procedure for filing of disbarment cases against erring lawyers ?