Mid-Term Exam

for
Basic Legal & Judicial Ethics
JD - (Sec. A) (Atty. Lubaton)

Student : Jason Maguad Roquero

Decide and critic the decision for Case 1-11. Specify your view whether you agree with
reservation, agree without reservation, or if you have an alternative view.

1. MAURICIO C. ULEP vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.: EN BANC, Bar Matter No. 553; 17 June 1993
Answer:
I agree on the court decision. The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent,
The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any
advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A"
and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or
transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.
On the decision of the court, I admire the way they ask the opinion of the other association and
not just relying on their own opinion and answer or decision on the case. For me, the court is
showing a great respect on the opinion of the association by consulting their answers to the
issue.
The best Answer that I cited is coming from Philippine Lawyers Association-
1.The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law.
-Yes, it true that they engage in the practice of law even though they claim that it is just "legal
support services" because the nature of the service that they will provide is the same as the act
of a lawyer who will practice law. So given that this is a business institution, the proprietor
should answer this malpractice and face the judgement of the court.
2. Such practice is unauthorized;
- Yes, it is authorize for the reason that should ask for a permit to the honorable court in its
jurisdiction and the service should not be absurd and contrary to the law of our country. The
service that they offer is showing the loophole of our laws and it is misleading.
3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading and patently
immoral; and
- Yes, this is considered unethical and misleading because it will give a different view on the
Family law, that the divorce is only allowed for a specific scenario if the husband and wife is
composed of Filipino and foreigner. It misleads whose who don’t have the knowledge of law
and it is ruining the family as basic institution that is being protected by our constitution.
4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to suppress and punish the Legal Clinic and its
corporate officers for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and
immoral advertising.
Yes, correct. It is within the power of the court to discipline the people involved in the running
of such institution.
So Overall, I agree to the decision of the court to stop and The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or
causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement that is unauthorized, misleading
and patently immoral, that will stain the reputation of the Philippine Justice system.

2. PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MAXIMO B. USITA, JR. and WILFREDO C. ANDRES vs. THE HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL DIVISION: EN BANC, G.R. NOS. 154297-300; 15 February 2008
Answer:
I agree on the decision of the court that the petition is dismissed for being moot.
On the Other hand, I am not in contrary to the claims and the reasoning of PAO about the
accused are not indigent persons; hence, they are not qualified to avail themselves of the
services of PAO. However, the accused, former President Joseph Estrada, relieved the services
of his counsels on nationwide television. Subsequently, the counsels of record of co-accused
Jose Estrada withdrew, and both accused were adamant against hiring the services of new
counsels because they allegedly did not believe in and trust the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan had the duty to decide the cases, but could not proceed with the trial since
counsel did not assist the accused.
In my view, we already know that everybody or the whole state is against the accused former
president and no one wants to stand by him as his counsel, and as a source of government, PAO
is the only department where we have lawyer to stand for those who can afford the lawyers
service. Given that they can afford and former president is not indigent, still it Is not a
reasonable for him to stand by himself without any help from a counsel. It will also be a
violation of his right to have a counsel under Miranda Rights.
In addition, the court is correct that it is their duty as members of the Bar and officers of the
court to assist the court in the efficient administration of justice. And the government is paying
for their jobs as counsel, so there should be no reason for them to refuse on the assigned job or
duty without any valid and fair reason.
3. HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY" FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME, LEO FALAME and JERRY FALAME
vs. ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO: SECOND DIVISION, ADM. CASE NO. 6876; 7 March 2008
Answer:
I agree on the decision of the court to the respondent Atty. Edgar J. Baguio is found GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests and meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND. He is further
admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession and to bear
in mind that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
A lawyer may not act as counsel for a party whose interest conflicts withc with one another
that of his present or former client as provided in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The lawyer should be consistent in holding the good faith and with no intention
to represent conflicting interests.
In addition to the termination of attorney-client relationship has no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The client's
confidence one confirmed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional
employment or even the death of the client, we will have to remain loyal to him.

4. SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA: FIRST DIVISION,
A.C. No. 7907; 15 December 2010
Answer:
I agree on the decision of the court. And I love the way the court says these phrases;
"On a final note, it must be stressed that whenever a lawyer accepts a case, it deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether or not it is
for a fee or free."
This is very simple to understand that once you agreed on a case to be handled, and then
devote your time and attention to help in resolving the case of the client. If you were in doubt
or is not ready or not confident to help in resolving the case, then might as well, be honest to
tell the reasons to your client and if you can endorse them to your colleage who is more
confident to handle the case. Don’t ever leave the client hanging on nothing, helpless on the
cases and issues that they are facing.
I also apply my own motto in life that “ ln everything you do, you do give your best” for the
reason that, if you failed, then you have no regrets because you know for a fact that you have
given your best to win the game.
"The lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the
latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the
law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it
the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A
lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his
client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect
of the community to the legal profession."
I agree on this phrase mention by the court, that cdin order for us to maintain the respect in the
institution that we belong, we must maintain the legal profession in the community.
So all in all, these 2 long phrases can be considered as the lesson learn in this case, that
whenever, we accept a clients case, see to it that we devote our time and effort for our works
and we must show love and respect to what we are doing because the rights of the client lies in
our hands, again whether it is a fee based or pro bono service.

5. REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO: EN BANC, A.C. No.

10537; 3 February 2015
Answer:
I agree on the decision of the court. “ The Recommendations and Resolution of the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated March 21, 2014 is ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
act shall be dealt with more severely. This decision is immediately executory.”
In this case, the Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility clearly provided.
We have to make sure that the relationship between a lawyer and a client is with utmost trust
and confidence. Lawyers were expected to exercise the necessary diligence and competence in
managing cases entrusted to them. We were task not only to provide legal advices but also to
represent the client in front of the court.
Our client expect us to represent them with the highest confidence especially if they are a high
paying client or even an indigent client, as we are lawyer and din their eyes, we deserve to be
respected very well.

6. JILL M. TORMIS vs. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES: SECOND DIVISION, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-RTJ]; 4 February 2015
Answer:
I agree on the court decision to reprimand with the penalty and give warning to the Judge
Paredes.
A little facts of the case says that Jill charged Judge Paredes with grave misconduct. Jill was a
student of Judge Paredes in Political Law Review at the Southwestern University Cebu City. She
averred that sometime in August 2010, in his class discussions, Judge Paredes named her
mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis (Judge Tormis) as one of the judges involved in the marriage
scams in Cebu City. Judge Paredes also mentioned in his class that Judge Tormis was abusive of
her position as a judge, corrupt, and ignorant of the law.
The issue mentioned above is just one of the issues presented din this case. But the bottom line
here is that as a lawyer of judge, we must maintain confidentially of the issue avoid disparaging
comment on other judges or lawyers or even your co- lawyer as this issue is applicable to
everybody. Don’t ever, divulge any misleading information that will stain the reputation of the
others.
Conduct unbecoming of a judge is classified as a light offense but still the damage to the
reputation of the other judge can’t be erase in the view of the others who heared it. So I agree
on the decision of the court to provide warning and imposed a penalty for the misconduct of
the judge.

7. ARTHUR S. TULIO vs. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN: THIRD DIVISION, A.C. No. 7110; 20 April
2016
Answer:
I agree on the decision of the court that the respondent Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin is GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of six (6) months, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will
be dealt with more severely.
 Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. His highest
and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to himself.
The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another,
or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.
This is almost related to case number 3, which deals with the loyalty of a lawyer to its client,
and that loyalty can’t be measured up until the death of the client. We must maintain and
protect the clients perpetually with his information’s and should remain loyal till the end.
Because doing this switching of clients, breaks the trust of society to the lawyers, the respect
that we gain is being narrowed by the legal and professional ethics that is not being followed.

8. RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA vs. ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN: EN BANC, A.C.
No. 8208; 10 January 2018
Answer:
The complainant asserted that respondent committed the following:
(1) serious and gross misconduct in his duties as counsel for himself;
(2) violated his oath as lawyer for [a] his failure to observe and maintain respect to the courts
(Section 20(b), Rule 138, Rules of Court); [b] by his abuse of judicial process thru maintaining
actions or proceedings inconsistent with truth and honor and his acts to mislead the judge by
false statements (Section 20(d), Rule 138);
(3) repeatedly violated the rules of procedures governing intra-corporate cases and maliciously
misused the same to defeat the ends of justice; and (4) knowingly violated the rule against the
filing of multiple actions arising from the same cause of action.
I agreed on the decision of the court that “the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors dated September 28, 2013.
Accordingly, Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan is found GUILTY of violating The Lawyer's Oath
and The Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a
similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.”
The Lawyers Oath is already complete in its sense. It is giving us an idea on how a lawyer
should be;
Fist, a Lawyer should be Loyal to the country and will make sure to maintain allegiance to the
republic, so there should be no room for treason or any crime against safety and security of the
nation.
Laywer should support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities. This is simply means that a lawyer must be a good example of an
obedience citizen. Lawyer must be a role model in the society in terms of following the rules
and regulation and implemented by the authorities.
Lawyer should not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or
give aid nor consent to the same. Meaning to say, as a lawyer, we are equipped with a deeper
know of law and jurisprudence, so we must not gross neglect the law when it comes to
understanding and implementing it.
This line "will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients" it simply means that we must service the public or any person in need to the best of our
knowledge and ability even though its not for monetary purposes.
In this last line, "I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation" it means that we accept this noble profession voluntarily without any hesitation.
And the last part of it is asking the help of the Divine Power to help us to fbecome
knowledgeable with what we are doing. It is not neccesarry that a laywer must be religious but
we must at least belive in the almight God who is the hiegtest Judge of all men and its doing, for
he just and fair in everything.
So, If we will have to take a look at the lawyers Oath, it is already complete, in its sense when it
comes to knowing the conduct of a lawyer on how we should act to become worthy of this
profession. It already has the essentials skills or competencies that a lawyer should have in
order for them to serve and be given a title of an Attorney. Also, this Lawyers Oath is not just a
word or phrase to be spoken in front of the court or the camera but this should be
implemented heart fully.
In this case, I agreed that this is complete violation of the lawyers Oath especially on the line
that “not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same.”

9. MARILU C. TURLA vs. ATTY. JOSE M. CARINGAL: EN BANC, A.C. No. 11641; 12 March 2019
Answer:
The court decision is that Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for three (3) years. This is just fair enough for someone who is not respecting the process
provided by the IBP.
When Atty. Caringal indicated that he was MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and motions he filed,
although in fact he was not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which was also disrespectful of
the courts. He undoubtedly placed his clients at risk, given that pleadings with such false
information produce no legal effect[31] and can result in the expunction of the same.
Undeniably, he did not stay true to the cause of his clients and actually violated his duty to
serve his clients with competence and diligence.
When we accept the privilege given to us by the court this privilege or rather rights that was
given to us has a corresponding obligation. And that obligation must be fulfilled because the
court also relay on us that we are up to date with the changes in the laws and that what we are
practicing is still in compliance with what the law is required.
Following and complying to the rules of court also connotes that we respect the court and that
we must do whatever it is demanded from us because it will serve as our protection as well in
time that we were questioned by anybody when it comes to our credibility and confidence as a
defender of the rights.

10. ROSALIE P. DOMINGO vS. ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN: EN BANC, A.C. No. 12475; 26 March
2019
Answer:
Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan is GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan is also ordered to return to complainant Rosalie P. Domingo the amount
of P50,000.00, as legal deposit to cover the expenses related to the expected litigation, and
P100,000.00, as cash advance chargeable against his appearance fees and other fees, with
interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of the receipt of this Decision until full
payment.
Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan is also hereby meted a FINE in the amount P5,000.00 for disobedience to
the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline.
These decision of the court is agreeable because it’s really a digrace in the of the law and the
lawyers to have some like him to awe money from the client and at the same time to give false
document which is definitely a lie. This is really a serious gross misconduct on the part of the
lawyer and, not just negligence but might be intentional.
I agree to the court that this is just a lame excuse to tell anybody that the messenger commits
mistake and falsify the document because as a lawyer you already have the knowledge of how
to know when your document is fake or real.
If it not your intention to commit the mistake, then I think it easy for you to return the money
being loan to the the client. For me, its really a bad image to show your client that you as a
lawyer is not financially stable. Yes given that this might be our bread and butter, but it should
not be up to the extent that we owe money from the client. We might do that to our
colleagues or relative but should not be done to clients as it will show a bad image of you and
not only you but to the whole associations of lawyers.

11. REV. FR. JOSE P. ZAFRA III, vs. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN: EN BANC, A.C. No. 12457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5128); 2 April 2019
Answer:
Court emphasizes that the practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such, must
bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the
lawyer's public responsibilities.[11] Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer
worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and of the public, it becomes not only the right
but also the duty of the Supreme Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the
privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw that privilege.
This is very agreeable, just like what I mentioned in the other case above that being a lawyer
given with the license to practice law in profession is not a right but it is privilege given to us.
So by merely not following the decision of the court when and when not to practice law, is a
clear violation of code of professional ethics that should merit a reprimand.
As a lawyer, we should focus on the case only and to the issues related to the case that we
handle, we should not look into the other technicalities of the person or we should not take it
personally, as we are all human beings with limitations and difficulties in life. So as a lawyer, we
should not ruin the whole life or the opponent of our clients, lets just work on professional way.
I agree to the court to provide reprimand for the reason that this should be stop and will not
happen again in other lawyers in the future. This is will serve as a warning to other lawyers that
our justice system does not condone bad behaviors that will ruin the reputation of the whole
justice system.