Preview only show first 10 pages with watermark. For full document please download





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 on au!ter. 0u1a -leae not uilty but t!erea/ter -ri2ately a1itte to C!ristine t!at !e i co11it t!e cri1e c!are. a. *n li!t o/ 0u1a3s 0u1a3s a1ission, a1ission, !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 triunal, 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 a1ission a1ission 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 aov aoveme 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 favorale to Zuma. ** n 199-, carama, 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 carama was the review of a lease agreement and representation of carama as a complainant in a ouncing chec&s case. carama 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 carama: and 45 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 carama ecause the Canons of Professional =thics 4Canon <5 and the Code of Professional Responsiility 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 carama. *** *umledore, a noted professor of commercial law, wrote an article on the su?ect of letters of credit which was pulished in the IBP Journal . a. Assu1e !e e2ote a sini/icant -ortion o/ t!e article to a co11entary on !o t!e "u-re1e Court s!oul ecie a -enin case in2ol2in t!e a--lication o/ t!e la on letters o/ creit. #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 pulic statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse pulic opinion for or against a party.! s a lawyer, *umledore should not have made such statements regarding a pending case so as not to influence the court in deciding the case or giving the pulic the impression that the court was influenced y his commentaries, should the court arrive at a decision similar to that of  *umledore#s comments. b. Assu1e Du1bleore i not inclue 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. *umledore#s commentary in the /P ?ournal is not unethical. Ahat the CPR prohiits is the ma&ing of pulic statements regarding pending cases efore the courts. *umledore#s article in the /P Bournal is aout a decided case already. 3nce a case has een decided, it is already open for   pulic consumption hence anyone can criticie or ma&e &nown their opinions regarding the conclusion of the case. *? Chester as&ed aarni to handle his claim to a sieale parcel of land in Dueon 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 favorale 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 ecie by t!e Reional (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/ie4 E5-lain. >89 @es, the refusal is ?ustified. Canon 20 of the CPR states that $a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonale fees.! lthough under a contingent fee agreement lawyers are entitled to greater remuneration ecause of  the possiility of receiving nothing at all, the fee charged must still e fair, reasonale and conscionale. n this case, the 170 million fee is e)cessive and unconscionale. b. Assu1e t!ere as no settle1ent an t!e case e2entually reac!e t!e "u-re1e Court !ic! -ro1ulate a ecision in /a2or o/ C!ester. (!is ti1e C!ester re/use to con2ey to Laarni @8 o/ t!e litiate lan as sti-ulate on t!e roun t!at t!e aree1ent 2iolates Article @>@ o/ t!e Ci2il Coe !ic! -ro!ibits layers /ro1 acuirin by -urc!ase -ro-erties an ri!ts !ic! are t!e obect o/ litiation in !ic! t!ey take -art by reason o/ t!eir -ro/ession. *s t!e re/usal usti/ie4 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 favorale ?udgment is otained. +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 reasonale fee. ? 'he vendor filed a case against the vendee for the annulment of the sale of a piece of land. a. Assu1e t!e 2enee obtaine a su11ary u1ent aainst t!e 2enor. ;oul t!e counsel /or t!e e/enant 2enee be entitle to en/orce a c!arin lien4 E5-lain. >89  "o, vendee#s counsel would not e entitled to enforce a charging lien.  charging lien to e enforceale 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 2enee3s counsel at t!e -retrial con/erence an !is ise use o/ 1oes o/ isco2ery, t!e 2enor as co1-elle to 1o2e /or t!e is1issal o/  t!e co1-laint. *n its orer t!e court si1-ly rante t!e 1otion. ;oul your anser 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 nhiition praying that Budge uis inhiit himself from trying, hearing or in any manner acting on all cases, civil and criminal, in which tty. igail is involved and handling. "!oul Fue Luis in!ibit !i1sel/ as -raye /or by Atty. Abiail4 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 Responsiility 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. use%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 prolem. *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 prohiited 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 prohiited 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 oviates 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/enant succeein 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-ene layer orkin as an ine-enent leal assistant to at!er in/or1ation an secure ocu1ents /or ot!er layers 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 pulic that calls for the professional ?udgment of a lawyer, the essence of  which is his educated aility to relate the general ody and philosophy of law to a specified legal  prolem. 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 prohiited to practice the legal profession therefor he cannot engage in the mentioned acts. c. A sus-ene layer alloin !is nonlayer sta// to acti2ely o-erate !is la o//ice an conuct 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 memer 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 -enin -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 disursements 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 une /e1ale layer carryin on a clanestine a//air it! !er une 1ale !airresser. 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 memership to the /P and default in payment for one year shall warrant for the removal of the memer 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 layers 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 reasonaly 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