LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

(ANSWER KEY)

I – MULTPLE CHOICE
1. A
2. C
3. A
4. C
5. B
6. C
7. A
8. C
9. D
10. B
11. D
12. B
13. B
14. D
15. B
16. C
17. B
18. A
19. A
20. C
21. B
22. A
23. D
24. A
25. D
26. B
27. D
28. B
29. A
30. A

II – ESSAY.
1. YES. The Supreme Court has countlessly ruled that the affidavit of withdrawal of
the disbarment case executed by a complainant does not automatically
exonerate the respondent. A case of suspensions or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack thereof of the complainant. What matters is
whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of
negligence has been duly proved. A proceeding of suspension or disbarment is
not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
respondent is a defendant, they are prosecuted solely for the public welfare.
They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the
official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. Hence, if the evidence on
record warrants that Atty. Fernandez did in fact violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, notwithstanding the motion to withdraw of Criselda, the
disbarment proceeding should proceed.

2. Jarred should not be allowed to be a member of the Philippine bar. As stated by

the Supreme Court in various cases, the practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management
of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients and all action
taken from them in matters connected with the law, where work done involves
the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions, constitute law practice. In the foregoing, although Jarred denies
signing pleadings as counsel, he did admit to giving legal advice to various
people even though he was fully aware that he was not yet considered as
 member of the Bar, even though he passed the bar examinations. Having held
out himself as counsel knowing that he had no authority to practice law, Jarred
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Bar.

3. NO. The title “attorney” or the abbreviation “atty.” Is only reserved to those who
pass the regular Philippine Bar. It is a well-settled fact that persons who pass the
Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only
practice in Shari’a Courts. Although persons who have passed the Shari’a Bar
and Philippine Bar, may be referred or considered as “counsellors”, in the sense
that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an
“attorney”. The title of “attorney” is reserved to those who, having obtained the
necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized
to practice law in this jurisdiction. Therefore, Adora cannot use the term
“attorney” in her dealings.

4. The case should be dismissed. Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that
the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not
advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to
advertise his talent skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that
high character of service to which every member of the bar is called. However, in
Atty. Raymundo’s case, aside from merely stating that she is a lawyer in her
videos, there are no other evidence that would substantiate Atty. Juan’s claims
that the former is actually advertising her expertise or soliciting legal business.