GROUP NO. 6 Dy, Blake Clinton Atty. Elba Cruz Garcia, Rosette PALE Guilin, Ayes!a "unico, #a. Corazon $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ %&&' LEGAL E()*C" BAR E+A#
* C!ristine as a--ointe counsel de oficio /or 0u1a, !o as accuse o/ ra-in !is on au!ter. 0u1a -leae not uilty but t!erea/ter -ri2ately a1itte to C!ristine t!at !e i co11it t!e cri1e c!are. a. *n li!t o/ 0u1a3s 0u1a3s a1ission, a1ission, !at !at s!oul C!ristine C!ristine o4 E5-lain. E5-lain. 789
Christine should suggest to Zuma that he should plead guilty to the crime as charged. Canon 19, Rule 19.02 of the CPR states that :a lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or triunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.! b. Can C!ristine C!ristine isclose t!e a1ission a1ission o/ 0u1a to t!e court4 court4 ;!y or !y not4 %89
"o, Christine cannot disclose Zuma#s admission to the court. Canon 21, Rule 21.02 of the CPR provides that $a lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information ac%uired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full &nowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.! Christine Christ ine can cannot not dis disclo close se the admi admissi ssion on wit without hout vio violat lating ing the aov aoveme ementi ntioned oned cano canon. n. 'he information disclosed is in the nature of a privileged communication, hence, she cannot disclose it to the court without Zuma#s consent. c. Can C!ristin C!ristinee it!ra it!ra as counse counsell o/ 0u1a s!oul s!oul !e insist insist in oin oin to trial4 trial4 E5-lain E5-lain.. 789
Christine cannot withdraw as counsel of Zuma. Canon 1(, Rule 1(.01 of CPR states that $a lawyer $a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter#s race, se). creed or status of life, or ecause of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.! *espite the admission of Zuma, Christine cannot withdraw as Zuma#s counsel ecause Zuma is still conside cons idered red inn innocen ocentt unt until il pro proven ven gui guilty lty.. +ur +urther ther,, the there re may e mit mitiga igatin ting g cir circums cumstan tances ces tha thatt Christine may raise as a defense that is favorale to Zuma.
n 199-, carama, a telecommunications company, signed a retainer agreement with /ianca ophia aw 3ffice 4/ 5 for the latter6s legal services for a fee of P2,000 a month. +rom 199- to 2001, the only service actually performed y / for carama was the review of a lease agreement and representation of carama as a complainant in a ouncing chec&s case. carama stopped paying retainer fees in 2002 and terminated its retainer agreement with / in 2007. n 2008, 'emavous, anot another her tele telecom commu muni nica cati tions ons compa company ny,, re%ue re%uest sted ed / to act act as its its couns counsel el in the the foll follow owin ing g transactions 4a5 the ac%uisition of carama: and 45 the ac%uisition of uper;<, a company engaged in the power usiness. *n !ic! transactions, i/ any, can Bianca < "o-!ia La O//ice re-resent (e1a2ous4 E5-lain /ully. =89
/ianca ophia aw 3ffice cannot represent 'emavous in the ac%uisition of carama ecause the Canons of Professional =thics 4Canon <5 and the Code of Professional Responsiility 4Canon 175 provide that a lawyer shall not represent parties with adverse interests to one another. =ven though their relationship had already een terminated the Code further provides 4Canon 215 that a
lawyer should safeguard the confidences of his former client. n the case of ac%uisitions, / would definitely have an undue advantage 4Rule 21.02;.0>5, or to appear to have such, in assisting 'emavous6 ac%uisition of its former client due to its prior relationship. n contrast, as to the case of uper;<, / may represent 'emavous ecause such a transaction is in no way connected to its prior relationship with carama.
*umledore, a noted professor of commercial law, wrote an article on the su?ect of letters of credit which was pulished in the IBP Journal . a. Assu1e !e e2ote a sini/icant -ortion o/ t!e article to a co11entary on !o t!e "u-re1e Court s!oul ecie a -enin case in2ol2in t!e a--lication o/ t!e la on letters o/ creit. #ay !e be sanctione by t!e "u-re1e Court4 E5-lain. >89
@es, he may me sanctioned y the court. Canon 1>, Rule 1>.02 provides that $a lawyer shall not ma&e pulic statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse pulic opinion for or against a party.! s a lawyer, *umledore should not have made such statements regarding a pending case so as not to influence the court in deciding the case or giving the pulic the impression that the court was influenced y his commentaries, should the court arrive at a decision similar to that of *umledore#s comments. b. Assu1e Du1bleore i not inclue any co11entary on t!e case. Assu1e /urt!er a/ter t!e "u-re1e Court ecision on t!e case !a attaine /inality, !e rote anot!er IBP Journal article, issectin t!e ecision an e5-lainin !y t!e "u-re1e Court erre in all its conclusions. #ay !e be sanctione by t!e "u-re1e Court4 E5-lain. 789
"o, he may not e sanctioned y the court. *umledore#s commentary in the /P ?ournal is not unethical. Ahat the CPR prohiits is the ma&ing of pulic statements regarding pending cases efore the courts. *umledore#s article in the /P Bournal is aout a decided case already. 3nce a case has een decided, it is already open for pulic consumption hence anyone can criticie or ma&e &nown their opinions regarding the conclusion of the case.
Chester as&ed aarni to handle his claim to a sieale parcel of land in Dueon City against a well; &nown property developer on a contingent fee asis. aarni as&ed for 17E of the land that may e recovered or 17E of whatever monetary settlement that may e received from the property developer as her only fee contingent upon securing a favorale final ?udgment or compromise settlement. Chester signed the contingent fee agreement. a. Assu1e t!e -ro-erty e2elo-er settle t!e case a/ter t!e case as ecie by t!e Reional (rial Court in /a2or o/ C!ester /or [email protected] Billion. C!ester re/use to -ay Laarni [email protected]& #illion on t!e roun t!at it is e5cessi2e. *s t!e re/usal usti/ie4 E5-lain. >89
@es, the refusal is ?ustified. Canon 20 of the CPR states that $a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonale fees.! lthough under a contingent fee agreement lawyers are entitled to greater remuneration ecause of the possiility of receiving nothing at all, the fee charged must still e fair, reasonale and conscionale. n this case, the 170 million fee is e)cessive and unconscionale. b. Assu1e t!ere as no settle1ent an t!e case e2entually reac!e t!e "u-re1e Court !ic! -ro1ulate a ecision in /a2or o/ C!ester. (!is ti1e C!ester re/use to con2ey to Laarni @8 o/ t!e litiate lan as sti-ulate on t!e roun t!at t!e aree1ent 2iolates Article @>@ o/ t!e Ci2il Coe !ic! -ro!ibits layers /ro1 acuirin by -urc!ase -ro-erties an ri!ts !ic! are t!e obect o/ litiation in !ic! t!ey take -art by reason o/ t!eir -ro/ession. *s t!e re/usal usti/ie4 E5-lain. >89
'he refusal is not ?ustified. 'he transfer of the land to aarni would not violate rticle 1(91 of the Civil Code ecause said article does not cover contingent fee agreements. 'his is ecause in a contingent fee agreement a
transfer would only occur in case a favorale ?udgment is otained. +urther, the case reached the upreme Court which means that aarni spent so much time on the case and much of her s&ills were demanded hence the 170 million is a fair and reasonale fee.
'he vendor filed a case against the vendee for the annulment of the sale of a piece of land. a. Assu1e t!e 2enee obtaine a su11ary u1ent aainst t!e 2enor. ;oul t!e counsel /or t!e e/enant 2enee be entitle to en/orce a c!arin lien4 E5-lain. >89
"o, vendee#s counsel would not e entitled to enforce a charging lien. charging lien to e enforceale there must e a ?udgment for money. n the case at ar, there was no mention of a ?udgment for money in favor of the vendee thus vendee#s counsel cannot enforce a charging lien. Fowever, if there would e a ?udgment for money vendee#s counsel would e entitled to enforce the charging lien. b. Assu1e, t!rou! t!e e5cellent ork o/ t!e 2enee3s counsel at t!e -retrial con/erence an !is ise use o/ 1oes o/ isco2ery, t!e 2enor as co1-elle to 1o2e /or t!e is1issal o/ t!e co1-laint. *n its orer t!e court si1-ly rante t!e 1otion. ;oul your anser be t!e sa1e as in uestion a94 E5-lain. 789
Gendee#s counsel would still not e entitled to enforce a charging lien. dismissal on motion of the plaintiff would certainly not include a ?udgment for money. 'herfore, the counsel cannot enforce a charging lien.
tty. igail filed administrative cases efore the upreme Court against Budge uis. 'hereafter, tty. igail filed a Hotion for nhiition praying that Budge uis inhiit himself from trying, hearing or in any manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which tty. igail is involved and handling. "!oul Fue Luis in!ibit !i1sel/ as -raye /or by Atty. Abiail4 E5-lain /ully. 689
"o. /eing the su?ect of an administrative case is not one of the grounds for dis%ualification of a ?udge from handling case provided y the Code of Budicial Responsiility in Canon > Rule 12.
n need of legal services, "i&o secured an appointment to meet with tty. Fenry of Fenry Heyer aw 3ffices. *uring the meeting, "i&o divulged highly private information to tty. Fenry, elieving that the lawyer would &eep the confidentiality of the information. use%uently, "i&o was shoc&ed when he learned that tty. Fenry had shared the confidential information with his law partner, tty. Heyer, and their common friend, private practitioner tty. Canonigo. Ahen confronted, tty. Fenry replied that "i&o never signed any confidentiality agreement, and that he shared the information with the two lawyers to secure affirmance of his legal opinion on "i&o6s prolem. *id tty. Fenry violate any rule of ethicsI =)plain fully. 4=85
Canon 21 provides that an attorney shall preserve the confidence of his client and further articulates this point in Rule 21.0>;.0( y clarifying that he may not disclose such information to outside agencies without the consent of his client and that he may disclose such information to firm partners unless prohiited y his client. n the case of tty. Heyer, he was a firm partner and as such is covered y Rule 21.0( and not eing e)plicitly prohiited y "i&o Fenry committed no wrong in giving information to him. Fowever in the case of tty. Canonigo who was not in any way connected to the firm Fenry committed a gross violation of Rule 21.0>. n either case the mere entry into the attorney;client relationship oviates the need for a confidentiality agreement.
tate, with a rief e)planation, whether the lawyer concerned may e sanctioned for the conduct stated elow. a. ilin a co1-laint t!at /ails to state a cause o/ action, t!ereby resultin in t!e e/enant succeein in !is 1otion to is1iss. 789
@es. Canon 1-, Rule 1-.02 states that $ lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without ade%uate preparation.! lawyer should have e)ercised diligence and made ade%uate preparations to ascertain that the complaint stated a cause of action to prevent the dismissal of the complaint. b. A sus-ene layer orkin as an ine-enent leal assistant to at!er in/or1ation an secure ocu1ents /or ot!er layers urin t!e -erio o/ !is sus-ension. 789
@es. Jnder the law, only lawyers in good standing can perform or engage in the practice of law. n the case of Cayetano vs. Honsod, the Court held that the practice of law involves rendering serice to the genral pulic that calls for the professional ?udgment of a lawyer, the essence of which is his educated aility to relate the general ody and philosophy of law to a specified legal prolem. Clearly, the act of wor&ing as a legal assistant in gathering information and securing documents for other lawyers is within the scope of practicing law. suspended lawyer is temporarily prohiited to practice the legal profession therefor he cannot engage in the mentioned acts. c. A sus-ene layer alloin !is nonlayer sta// to acti2ely o-erate !is la o//ice an conuct business on be!al/ o/ clients urin t!e -erio o/ sus-ension. 789
@es. Canon 9, Rule 9.01 states that $a lawyer shall not delegate to any un%ualified person the performance of any tas& which y law may only e performed y a memer of the ar in good standing.! . Hee-in 1oney !e collecte as rental /ro1 !is client3s tenant an re1ittin it to t!e client !en aske to o so. 789
@es. Canon 1<, Rule 1<.01 provides that $a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.! lawyer should account for all money he collected immediately. Fe should not wait that the client would as& or demand for the money. e. Re/usin to return certain ocu1ents to t!e client -enin -ay1ent o/ !is attorney3s /ees. 789
"o. Rule 1>-, ection >8 of the Rules of Court states that $an attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disursements have een paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.! Fence, he may &eep the documents pending payment of his attorney#s fees. /. An une /e1ale layer carryin on a clanestine a//air it! !er une 1ale !airresser. 789
"o. /oth parties are of age and %ualified to marry each other hence the affair is not one which is grossly immoral. t is not so corrupt nor so unprincipled to warrant sanction from the court. . Not -ayin t!e annual *BP ues. 789
@es. *efault in payment of /P dues for < months shall warrant suspension of memership to the /P and default in payment for one year shall warrant for the removal of the memer in the Roll of ttorneys.
tate, with a rief e)planation, whether the ?udge concerned may e sanctioned for the conduct stated elow. a. Re/usin to in!ibit !i1sel/ alt!ou! one o/ t!e layers in t!e case is !is secon cousin. 789
"o. Jnder Canon >, Rule >.12 a ?udge should ta&e no part in a proceeding where the ?udge#s impartiality might reasonaly e %uestioned. 3ne of the cases would e where the ?udge is related y consanguinity or affinity to counsel within the fourth degree. second cousin is a relative within the