Philippine Bar Exams Legal Ethics Questi PDF

Preview

Summary

1990 BAR EXAMINATIONQuestion No. 1:Mrs. Amy Dizon’s husband was killed in a traffic accident. She wants to sue the bus company for damages but she cannot afford a lawyer. She approached Atty. Larry Rio who agreed to handle the case without any retainer’s fee or expenses on her part, on the condition...

Description

1990 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1: Mrs. Amy Dizon’s husband was killed in a traffic accident. She wants to sue the bus company for damages but she cannot afford a lawyer. She approached Atty. Larry Rio who agreed to handle the case without any retainer’s fee or expenses on her part, on the condition that in case of recovery of damages, he shall get 33% of the award by the court. Is this arrangement valid and permissible? Decide with reasons.

Answer: In the recent case of Angel L. Bautista vs. Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales, Adm. Matter No. 1625, February 12, 1990, the Supreme Court held that the lawyer shall defray all the expenses of the suit, “it is contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigations (See also Tule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility). The Court added that “although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement.” And, “an agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous” and “against public policy especially where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expenses in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute.” The arrangement between Amy Dizon and Atty. Larry Rio, which provides that the latter will handle the case without any retainer’s fee or expenses on her part, can be taken to mean that the lawyer will carry out the case at his own expenses without reimbursement. On the basis of the foregoing decision of the Supreme Court, such an arrangement is invalid. However, the contingent fee contract is not prohibited by the law and is impliedly sanctioned. A contingent fee is however closely supervised by the court to safeguard the client from unjust charges, and its validity depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed under the circumstances of the case. A contingent fee of 33% of the amount of recovery may be reasonable if the bus company fights the case until the Supreme Court and the litigations are hard-fought and long drawn: it may be unreasonable if the bus company agrees to compromise. But the fact that a contingent fee is unreasonable does not preclude the lawyer from being paid his fees on quantum merit basis.

Question No. 2: Your services as a lawyer are engaged by John Dizon to defend him from the charges of malversation of public funds before the Sandigan Bayan. John confessed to you that he actually misappropriated the amount charged but she said it was out of extreme necessity to pay for the emergency operation of his wife. Will you agree to defend him? State your reason.

Answer: I will agree to defend him, notwithstanding his confession to me that he actually misappropriated the amount. Rule 14.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of the person. One of the duties of an attorney is that he should, in the defence of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honourable means regardless of his personal opinion as to guilt of the accused, present every defence that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life liberty but by due process of law. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and if the prosecution fails to discharge such burden, the lawyers can always invoke the presumption of innocence for the acquittal of his client. If the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the lawyer can strive to lower the penalty by presenting mitigating circumstances, for he is not necessarily expected to sustain the client’s innocence. A lawyer is an advocate, not a judge, and if he has rendered effective legal assistance to his client as allowed by law, he can rightfully say that he has faithfully discharged his duties as a lawyer, even if the accused is found guilty by the court.

Question No. 3: 1. A judge had been seen having a lunch with a litigant with a case pending before him in a court. He was also seen at the race track placing bet on certain horses. How would you evaluate the behaviour of the judge? Explain. 2. Discuss the propriety of a judge standing as sponsor at the wedding of the son of the litigant his court? Answer: 1. The judge behaviour is highly improper. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial

Conduct requires that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Rule 2.01 of the same code provides that the

judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. His having lunch with a litigant with a case pending before him in court violated such rule and gives the adverse party cause to complain against his impartiality.

His going to race track to a place a bet on certain horse puts the judiciary personified by him in a bad light. For the personal behaviour of a judge, not only upon the bench but also in everyday life, should be above reproach and free from the appearance of impropriety. His judicial office circumscribes his personal conduct and imposes a number of restrictions, which he must observe faithfully as the price he has to pay for accepting and occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice. 2. For the reason stated above stated, a judge’s standing as sponsor at the wedding of the son of a litigant in his court is highly improper for it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he is disposed to resolve the case in favour of such litigant. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judge is eroded, and the due administration of justice suffers thereby. It is also a violation of the letter and spirit of rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states that the prestige if judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interest of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

Question No. 4: 1) Would it be proper for the judge to accept a donation of a lawyer’s table and chairs for his sala from the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)? Explain your answer. 2) May a judge properly solicit for his promotion the endorsement of the local chapter of the IBP to the Judicial and Bar Council? Explain your answer.

Answer: 1) It would be proper for a judge to accept the donations of a lawyer’s table and chairs for his sala from the local chapter of the IBP because the donation comes from an organization of lawyers whose duty, among others, is to help in the proper administration of justice. Accepting the donation is not for the personal benefit of the judge but for providing physical facilities for the administration of justice, which is the concern by both the judge and the IBP local chapter. What is prohibited is accepting presents or donations from litigants or from particular lawyers practicing before him.

2) A judge may not properly solicit for his promotion the endorsement of a local chapter of the IBP to the Judicial and Bar Council because it will give the impression that his promotion is not purely on merit, and the judge may feel beholden to the particular officers of the local chapter which may, in the future, influence him in the dispositions of cases handled by such officers as counsels for litigants. Moreover, considering his position, the local chapter officers may not be able to refuse such solicitation even if they believe that he is not qualified for promotions. The judge should stand by his own ability, qualifications and fitness, without exerting extra efforts on his part to influence the local chapter to endorse his promotion. The local chapter should, on its own and without solicitations from the judge, make its own assessment and appraisal of the judge’s qualifications and fitness for promotion, and if it is convinced that the judge possesses the required qualifications, it is the duty of the local chapter to make known such assessment to the Judicial and Bar Council.

Question No. 5: 1) What would you comment be about a judge who, whenever he promulgates a decision, invites representatives of the print and broadcast media to his sala for the purpose of having the promulgation televised, and that in the process, he gives interviews although he does not discuss his personal views on the merits of the case? Explain your answer. 2) How far should a judge allow publicity of the proceedings and decisions of his court? Explain your answer.

Answer: 1) The judge’s conduct is improper; Canon II Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory. A judge should conduct proceedings in court with fitting dignity and decorum and in such a manner as to reflect the importance and seriousness of the inquiry to ascertain the truth. Allowing television coverage of the promulgation of the decision would detract the dignity of the court proceedings, degrade the court and create misconception in the public mind. His giving interviews, even if he does not discuss his personal views on the merits of the case, have no other purpose than to seek publicity for personal vainglory, which is prohibited. 2) A judge may allow publicity by letting his actuations as a judge and his decisions speaks for themselves, without any comment on his part. What makes publicity improper is the employment of traditional dignity of the

court proceedings and of the judge himself. Good, efficient, speedy and correct administration of justice on his part has a way of publicizing itself

and catching public attention, and the publicity thereby generated is a normal by-product of efficient discharge of his duties, which is proper.

Question No. 6: A lawyer charged his clients P10,000.00 for filing fees pertaining to the complaint he filled in court. He actually spent only P1,000.00. He did not account for the balance. 1) May his client charge him for misconduct as a member of the Philippine Bar? Explain your answer. 2) Suppose that the lawyer should be charge, how and where should the complaint be filled? Explain your answer.

Answer: 1) The client may charged hid lawyer with misconduct for not accounting for the balance of P9,000.00. It is well settled that where the client gives his lawyer money for a specific purpose, such as to pay the docket fees for the filling of an action in court, so much of the money not used for the purpose belongs to the client and the lawyer holds it in trust for him. And it is the lawyer’s duty to promptly account for all the money received from his client. For this reason, the lawyer’s failure to account for the balance of the money not spent for filling fees will render him liable for misappropriation, which is a ground for disbarment. 2) The client may file a verified complain for disbarment against his lawyer. His verified complain shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of person or persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and /or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. The client may file complaint directly with the Supreme Court, in which case at least 18 copies thereof shall be filled, and the Supreme Court may refer the complaint to the IBP Boards of Governors for appropriate action, such as assigning the complaint to an investigator, or to the Solicitor General or court officer or judge for investigation when the interest of justice requires. The client may, however, file his complaint, in six copies, with the IBP Board of Governors, which will then assign the case to an investigator for investigation, or with the Secretary of a local chapter of the IBP, which will in turn transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors from assignment to an investigator. (Rule139-B of the rules of Court).

Question No. 7:

Atty. Chito Subretodo was retained by Buddy Capilla to handle his case in the Securities and Exchange Commission. There is a tax angle so Sobretodo consulted Atty. Romy Collado, a tax expert, and for his assistance shared 50% of the retainer fees with Collado? Is this proper? Explain your answer.

Answer: There is no impropriety in the sharing of attorney’s fees with tax expert Atty. Romy Collado. This delegation of work and not delegation of a case. As long as Atty. Sobretodo is responsible to his client, Buddy Capilla, even if he delegated the research work to atty. Collado, there is no impropriety in said arrangement. What is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility is splitting of Attorney’s fees with a non lawyer.

Alternative Answer: a) The propriety of Atty. Chito Sobretodo consulting Atty. Romy Collado on the tax aspect of the case depends on the circumstances obtaining. The attorney-client relationship existed between Atty. Chito Sobretodo and Buddy Capilla only, and not with Atty. Romy Collado. If Atty. Romy Collado is an assistant, associate or law partner of Atty. Chito Sobretodo and if the client, Budy Capilla, has not prohibited Atty. Chito Sobretodo from consulting his assistant or law partner, then Atty. Romy Collado on the tax angle of the case. As a general rule the employment of Atty. Chito Sobretodo as a lawyer for Buddy Capilla is deemed a retainer of any member of Atty. Sobretodo’s law firm. However, Atty. Romy Collado is an independent lawyer; Atty. Chito Sobretodo cannot properly consult Attorney Romy Collado on the tax angle of the case without the consent of his client, Buddy Capilla, because the consultation will involve revelation of the client’s secrets, privilege communications or affairs, secret or undisclosed. Moreover, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that is not qualified to render, but he may render such service if, with the consent of his clients, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Since Atty. Collado has rendered services, Atty. Sobretodo can very well share 50% of his fees with Atty. Collado, the matter of fee

division being between the two lawyers only because the client is not asked to pay additional amount for Collado’s services as tax expert. b) Division of fees among lawyers is allowed provided there is division of labor and the client consents (Rule 20.02, Canon 20). Hence the sharing between Sobretodo and Collado is proper provided the client’s consent is obtained.

Question No. 8: In a civil case before the Regional Trial Court between Mercy Sanchez and Cora Delano, Sanchez engaged the services of the Reyes Cruz and Santos Law Offices. Delano moved for the disqualification of the Reyes Cruz and Santos Law Offices on the ground that Atty. Cruz is an incumbent senator.

Answer: As judge, I will require that the name of Atty. Cruz, an incumbent Senator, be dropped. From any pending filed in court or from any oral appearance for the law firm by any other member of the law firm, and should the law firm refuse, I will disqualify the law firm. My reasons are as follows: Article VI, Sec.14 of the 1877 Constitution provides that “no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi judicial and other administrative bodies.” What is prohibited is personal appearance of the Senator, Atty. Cruz, and for as long as the Senator does not personally appear in court of Mercy Sanchez, the prohibition does not apply. Personal appearance includes not only arguing or attending a hearing of a case in court but also the signing of pleading and filing it in court. Hence, the Senator should not allow his name to appear in pleadings filed in court by itself or as part of a law firm name, such as Reyes Cruz and Santos Law Offices, under the signature of another lawyer in the law firm, nor should allow the firm name with his name therein to appear as counsel through another lawyer, without indirectly violating the constitutional restriction, because the signature of an agents amounts to a signing by the Senator through another lawyer is in effects his appearance, the office of attorney being originally one of agency, and because the Senator cannot do directly what the Constitution prohibits directly. The lawyer actually appearing for Mercy Sanchez should drop the name of Atty. Cruz from any pleading or from any oral appearance in the court; otherwise the law firm could be disqualified. Moreover, Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer in government from using his public position to promote or advance his private interests, and the Senator’s name appearing in pleadings or in appearances by other lawyers in the

law firm’s client, which can only be avoided by dropping the name of the Senator from the firm name whenever it appears in court.

1992 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1: Atty. V. Suarez represented Altamarino in an ejectment case against Orbido. Judgement was rendered in favor of Altamarino and Orbido vacated the property forthwith. Subsequently, a case for annulment of Altamarino’s title over the property subject of the ejectment case was filed by Orbido who is now represented by Atty. Suarez. Altamarino filed a motion for disqualification of Atty. Suarez for representing conflicting interest as the latter was his lawyer in the ejectment case against attorney and client relationship between her and Altamarino had already terminated and that she did not obtain any confidential information regarding Altamarino’s title in handling the ejectment case, which is different from the present case for annulment of title. Rule on the motion for disqualification of Atty. Suarez should be granted.

Answer: The motion for disqualification of Atty. Suarez should be granted. Atty. Suarez violated Canon 14, rule 14.02 prohibiting lawyers from appearing for conflicting interest. Atty. Suarez is opposing his former client in a related suit. Although the ejectment case had already terminated in favor of Altamarino who was his client, he had already required information concerning the ownership of property. An attorney who appears for opposing clients in the same or related actions put himself in that awkward position where he will have to oppose on behalf of the other client. He cannot in all situations give disinterested advice to both clients.

Alternative Answer: Atty. Suarez is not disqualified on the ground of conflicting interest. It is true that the employment of a lawyer in a subsequent case involving former client would result in a conflicting interest if the two cases are related. In the present case however, the two cases are not related. An ejectment case involves issue of physical possession (Possession de facto): whereas the second case involves a question on the issue of ownership or title.

Question No. 2:

Prosecutor Daniel Marquinez was assigned to handle a case for homicide. After interviewing the witnesses for the prosecution and asking them to narrate to him the incident that caused the death of the victim, he came to the conclusions that the accused was really guilty. However, the version of one eyewitness showed that the accused acted in self defence.

If you were the prosecutor, would you place said eyewitness on the witness stand? Why?

Answer: Under the ordinary rules on trial technique, the prosecutor should not place the eyewitness stand. However, based on the real mission of a lawyer who is to assist the court in the administration of justice, the prosecutor is bound to present the eyewitness in order that the court can properly appreciate the evidence and to decide on the real merit of the case. A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. He is the representative not of an ordinary party...