BASIC LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

RUBIS, JOHN RUSS P. | 18-08973 | russrubis4@gmail.com

For Topic IV (syllabus):

1. ) What were the acts committed by Atty.Torres in violation of Canon 1 and

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
For Canon 1, Torres was found in participation, consent to, and failure to advise
against, the forgery of Ting-Dumali’s signature, therefore violating Rule 1.01 of
canon 1:
Rule 1.01, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.”
Additionally,
For Canon 10, Torres covered the act of forgery of his wife by presenting a false
testimony. Therefor violating Rule 10.01 of canon 10:
Rule 10.01, “A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.”
2. ) What is the “revolving door” as explained in the PCGG vs Sandiganbayan
Case?
"Revolving door" refers to the practice by which lawyers and other professionals
temporarily join the government from the private sector before leaving it for high
fees in private practice, where they can take advantage of the knowledge,
connections, and influence gained while working for the government.
3. ) Explain Adverse-interest conflicts and congruent-interest representation
conflicts. Use the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion of Justice
Callejo as your reference.
A former government lawyer is prohibited from representing a client in private
practice under the "adverse-interest conflict" rule if the case is significantly linked
to one that the lawyer handled while working for the government and if the
interests of the current and former clients are adverse. It must be noted that all
lawyers are subject to the "adverse-interest conflict" rule, which prohibits them from
accepting new clients or representing them if the interests of their previous and
current clients are adverse and the issues at hand are same or closely related.
On the other hand, the "congruent-interest representation conflict," is particular to
former government lawyers and does not actually involve a conflict of interest
because it forbids the attorney from representing a private practice client even if the
interests of the former government client and the new client are completely parallel. 
4. ) What were the acts committed by Atty. Tolentino in violation of Canons 1.03,
2.03 and 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
For Canon 1, Labiano tried to negotiate with a client in exchange for a loan to avail
their services instead of the other firm. This is a form of champerty, by which being
violative to Rule 1.03 of CPR:
Rule 1.03 – “A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.”
For Canon 2, Tolentino solicits cases for the purpose of gain thru his paralegal
Labiano, thus, violating Rule 2.03 of CPR:
Rule 2.03 – “A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.”
For Canon 3, Tolentino thru his paralegal was allegedly printing a calling card
which constitutes as a form of advertisement of their “financial assistance”, thus
violates Canon 3 of CPR:
Canon 3 - “A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.”
It has been in practice that the practice of law is not a business, it is a profession; in
which prohibits lawyers from advertising their legal talents and capacities to gain
clients.
5. ) What were the acts committed by Atty. Tumulak in violation of Canon 1, 1.01
and 1.02?
For Rule 1.01, Tumulak, accompanied by uniform guards, was alleged to have been
engaged in an illegal and forcible intrusion and taking control of a property. Thus,
violating Rule 1.01, Cannon 1 of CPR:
Rule 1.01 – “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.”
For Rule 1.02, Prior to the said illegal and forcible intrusion, Tumulak has been
discharging his role as the assignee since the time of the execution of the deed of
assignment. He has been preparing documents and transactions which led to the
said illegal and forcible intrusion. Thus, violating Rule 1.02, Cannon 1 of CPR:
Rule 1.02 – “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.”