POINTERS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

2016 BAR EXAMINATIONS

By:

PART A: THE VELASCO CASES

THE LAWYER AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY

CORAZON T. NEVADA v. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA (A.C. No. 7591,

March 20, 2012)

Question: Can a lawyer who entered into a contract of lease with a third person be
held liable for representing himself as the Administrator of his client’s hotel without
having a Special Power of Attorney executed in his favor?

Answer: Yes. The lawyer can be held liable for gross misconduct. Gross misconduct is a
transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence, or the corrupt or persistent violation of the
law or disregard of well-known legal rules.

The acts of misrepresenting himself to be authorized to enter into a contract of

lease, and even receiving the benefits of the said contract constitute gross
misconduct. Therefore, the lawyer can be found liable.

FIDUCIAY DUTY UNDER CANON 16, CPR

Question: Ms. Corzo Nevada delivered to Atty. Casuga pieces of jewelries woth
more than P300,000.00 in te course of her dealings with him. She asked him to
ell them on her behalf. However, despite repeated demands, Atty. Casuga failed
to deliver back to Ms. Nevada the jewelries or the proceeds of the sale.

Can Ms. Nevada file a disbarment case against her Atty. Casuga even if there is no
lawyer-client relationship between them?

Answer: Yes. Rule 16.03 of the CPR demands that a lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. The lawyer
was duty-bound to return them upon demand. The absence of a lawyer-client
relationship between Atty. Casuga and Corazon does not exonerate the former.
Both the CPR and case law penalize not only malpractice and dishonesty in
the profession, but also gross misconduct not connected with the professional duties
of the lawyer.

Therefore, Atty. Casuga can be held accountable for breach of his fiduciary duty.

UPHOLDING THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL POFESSION

VICTORIA C. HEENAN v. ATTY. ERLINA ESPEJO (A.C. NO. 10050,

December 3, 2013) Question: Can a lawyer be held administratively liable for
issuing worthless checks?
Answer: Yes. Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform teir duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to their clients. The fact that the lawyer obtained the loan
and issued the worthless checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney of the
complainant is of no moment.
Therefore, for issuing worthless checks, the lawyer may be held administratively
accountable. (Lawyer was suspended for three years. She died while serving her
suspension.)