Midterm and Final Examinations for Legal Ethics

Name of Student:
1.
a. The elements of forum shopping are:
a. Identity of parties – this element is very important to identity who the
persons involved in the issue or at least all persons in a given law suit
represent the same interests in both actions.
b. identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts
c. the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under consideration.
b. Sub Judice is a Latin term which refers to matters under or before a judge or
court; or matters under judicial consideration. In essence, the sub judice rule
restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial
proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in
general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench.
In addition to that, a law practitioner is prohibited to give comments and shall not
disclose any information while a judicial proceeding is pending before a court, nor
shall any person in general give any commentaries of the same.
c. According to CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Rule 12.08 A
lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like. Furthermore, on matters no pertaining to above, it must
be avoided by a lawyer at all cost, otherwise, he will violate the code of
professional responsibility.
b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case
to another counsel. This is another exception to the rule, if and when the
testimony of a lawyer is indispensable to ensure justice in a trial, but during this
time, he may handover the case to another lawyer while trial is ongoing.

2. The Appellate Court’s decision of Indirect Contempt against Atty. Romina does
not involve moral turpitude because, the Court said,” One was found guilty of indirect
contempt does not involve moral turpitude because, one who is only expressing his
opinion that involves public interest through a newspaper or any other means that
involves broadcasting through the media cannot be considered as an act of baseness,
vileness or depravity. Therefore, I conclude that the decision of the Appellate Court of
indirect contempt to Atty. Romina, does not involve moral turpitude.

3. No, Atty. F cannot be held administratively liable under the Code of

Professional Responsibility because under Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Since Atty. F expressed his anger thru a motion for reconsideration, that alone cannot
make him administratively liable because the rule says that, a lawyer can only be liable
by use of offensive or improper language through his professional dealings and in this
case filing a for a motion for consideration accusatory in nature is not in the scope of
professional dealings. Furthermore, as per definition of a motion for reconsideration, it
shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which
shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.  
A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the
judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to
law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to
provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. The
commissioner shall decide whether to grant such motion or not, notwithstanding the
offensive contents therein.

4. No, I could not agree to the arrangement proposed by my secretary cousin

because that would be in violation of Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Since the work
offered will be as notary public in a big university where there will be issuance of an
affidavit of loss; that deed alone would constitute the practice of law. And when there is
division of profits arising from practice of law, there is a violation of the rule mentioned
above. Furthermore, the rule says that a lawyer cannot divide or stipulate to divide a fee
for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, therefore, I cannot divide it
with my cousin the legal fees arising therefrom, because that would mean that I will be
transgressing the Code of Professional Conduct.

5. Yes, Atty Lebron Tatum can be held administratively liable because Rule 7.03
states that A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Since, alighting from your vehicle and
saying to a fellow driver, “wa makaila sa ako?” and then slapping the person would
constitute a scandalous behavior that would discredit or degrade the legal profession. It
would also mean that Atty. Lebron Tatum is not fit anymore to practice law, because
being fit to practice the same is continuous and is merely a privilege and not a matter of
right.
6. Yes, Atty. B violated Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility because, the rule says that, a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified
person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the bar in good standing. And since the secretary of the firm is an unqualified person
who was delegated in an act that only a lawyer could perform, the aforementioned rule
was violated. Furthermore, letting your secretary sign documents on your behalf, an act
that only a lawyer could perform, and the secretary is not a member of the bar; you
would be transgressing the Code of Professional Conduct.

7. Yes, Atty. Ivana Alawi transgressed the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility because as the rule says, A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS
AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Since Atty. Alawi
stipulated in her Appellant’s brief that the judge in the RTC court who rendered the
appealed decision as an ignorant senior citizen judge, and the complainant as someone
who is uneducated and ill-mannered, she is in clear violation of the code because she
disrespected the judge and the complainant. Furthermore, the rule says that a lawyer
must maintain the respect due to the courts, and not only to the latter but to the judicial
officers therein, that is why Atty. Alawi transgressed the Code of Professional
Responsibility by being disrespectful in her Appellant’s brief towards the judge and the
complainant.

8. Yes, the complaint will prosper because Atty. Jafar violated many rules stipulated
in the Code of Professional Responsibility to name a few:
a. Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
b. CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENTS.
c. CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT
AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
REPOSED IN HIM.

Since Atty. Jafar failed to file the appellant’s brief, within the reglementary
period without justifiable reason, he violated Rule 12.03. Furthermore, Atty.
Jafar was not loyal to his client by receiving a generous amount in exchange
for not filing the Appellant’s brief, he also violated Canon 15 as well as Canon
17 for being dishonest and disloyal to his client.