Allia M.

Luzong
JD1
Basic Legal Ethics
June 16, 2021

I. I would not accept Atty. Abante’s reasoning. While Section 3, Rule 7 of BM850 allows for
lawyers to be exempted from the MCLE given that they provide good cause, Atty. Abante
failed to provide his good cause within the parameters set by BM850. He could have done as
the provision had declared by filing first a verified request for exemption of compliance
without resorting to the deception of sending his secretary to the seminars.

II. No, Atty. Bueno had violated Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
prohibits lawyers from doing any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Though his
small billboard included the advertisement of his copier services, these were merely
incidental and framed as an incentive to contract his services for the preparation of pleadings.
Thus, it is not in keeping with ethical and professional practice.

III. Attys. Castor and Dela Cruz and Judge Empacho violated Rule 13.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. By extending his desire to meet Judge Empacho to talk about a
case pending before him, Atty. Castor had extended extraordinary attention to him in order to
dubiously advance his client’s cause. Atty. Dela Cruz is also liable for having facilitated the
interaction and Judge Empacho himself may be subject to administrative action. The latter
finds basis in the case of Gallo vs. Cordero, where Judge Jose Cordero opened himself to
charges of partiality and bias by meeting with the accused.

IV. Lawyers have 9 Duties as provided in Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Courtl;
a. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution
and obey the laws of the Philippines.
b. To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
c. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and
such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
d. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only
as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
e. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's
business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
f. To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor
or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which
he is charged;
g. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
 h. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
i. In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless
of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law
permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of
law.

V. The actions taken by the IBP chapter and local lawyers was a violation of the duties of a
lawyer in Section 20 (h) of Rule 138 of Rules of Court and a violation of Rule 14.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Firstly, as lawyers, they are not permitted to decline to
represent a person due to their own beliefs of the guilt of a person. Further they are bound to
not reject, for personal considerations, the cause of one who is defenseless.

Who could be more defenseless than a man whom no one will represent in court? His
inability to engage the services of an out-of-town lawyer point to Frankie being an indigent
person who does not have the financial means to select a private lawyer for himself. Should
one of them be appointed to represent him, as provided in Section 12, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, and they decline to represent him still, it would be a violation of Rule 14.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which bars lawyers from declining, without serious
and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio.

VI. Yes, the appearance of Justice Godofredo for a government bank is unethical. Section 35 of
Rule 138 of Rules of Court provides for those attorneys who may not practice. Among these
are judges of the superior courts. Being a retired justice, Justice Godofredo had previously
served on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. Thus, the representation made
was unethical.

VII. No, he should have informed his client first so that they may discuss the matter and deal with
it in private. Under Rule 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is to
avoid controversies with his clients and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice, or fraud. None of these are present in the situation.

VIII. He can file an administrative case against Atty. Leon for violation of Section 20 (g) of the
Rules of Court and Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of the Code of Professional responsibility.

The first is due to the fact that he had encouraged Joey to file a case against KBank which
Joey then lost. Adding insult to injury, Atty. Leon was also the counsel of KBank, violating
the second provision that obliges him to inform Joey that there was direct conflict between
the interests of Joey and his existing client, KBank. Further, since no information have been
provided to Joey nor KBank, he represented conflicting interests without the written consent
of either party to the suit.

IX. Atty. Omar had committed two improprieties with regards to Rules 14.01 and 14.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. As to the former, his beliefs regarding Mario’s guilt do
not give him sufficient basis to decline representing Mario. Worst still, his refusal to
 represent Mario even though he was appointed as counsel de oficio was a clear violation of
Rule 14.02.

X. No, for the reason that Mr. Paul was still engaged in the practice of law. Section 1 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court provides that only persons duly admitted as a member of the bar
may practice the law. Mr. Paul, having been found unqualified to practice law in the
Philippines, is not a lawyer.

The case of Cayetano vs, Monsod had established that any activity, whether in or out of court,
that requires the use of legal knowledge, training, and experience is already a practice of law.
A counselor such as himself is one who provides legal advice and deals with legal issues,
making use of his legal training and knowledge. Though he may no longer be appearing in
court, his involvement in counseling meant he is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

XI. Yes, he may still collect compensation for his services. Established in our jurisprudence is the
principle of quantum meruit. The said principle allows for the recovery of payment that is of
reasonable value in relation to the services rendered by the attorney.

XII. The determination of the compensation shall be guided by Rule 20.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It can be made, among others, on basis of the time spent and
extent of services rendered, on the difficulty of the questions of law involved in the case, of
the skill demanded from the lawyer, or of the loss of other employment when taking the case.

XIII. Yes, as the client is merely serving his best interest in a manner not contrary to law. Under
Rule 18.01, the Code of Professional Responsibility allows for collaborating counsel to join
in a legal service. As long as there are no conflicts of interest of which the client is not made
aware nor inability to work together with co-counsel, as stated in Rule 22.01, then the client
is free to appoint additional counsel to his aid.

XIV. Yes, the original client may withdraw his services from the case should there be an inability
to work with co-counsel that would be detrimental to the case as stated in rule 22.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It is provided in Rule 22.02 that when he does withdraw
from a case, he must return all papers and property of his client. He must also cooperate for
the transfer of all information regarding the case with the new counsel. During this time, he
shall be given by the client a retainer lien.

XV. A. Yes, he may refuse to honor it. Article 1977 of the Civil Code provides that agency is
limited to acts of administration even if the principal should state he grants unlimited
authority. Thus, the attorney did not have the authority to enter unreservedly into the
agreement without his client’s consent.

B. No, seeing as the cause for his withdrawal would be with justifiable cause for dismissal on
the behalf of the client. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court only allows for the
attorney to recover the full compensation if his dismissal would be without justifiable cause.
There being one, he may not recover the full amount stipulated in their contract.