2.

In this case, the violation of due process has been actively offered when a counsel de officio was
assigned on his case, however, due to his request approved and consented, his opportunity towards
legal aid has not been consumed. Under the Canon of Law, it is proper that one must have availed the
aid of a lawyer to have her represent in Court so that proper proceedings and defense will be properly
established. In the case of Ma Galing, it is right that he will refute the decision given by the RTC since he
has not availed the right to have an attorney, however his defense on the ignorance of the law will not
prosper since he has a sufficient knowledge of the case and of the law.

3. Atty. Ramon, being the counsel of Lisa must not have given the legal aid to the other party. It is clear
that the law, under the Canon of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must not entertain any opposing
party especially when the other party has already acquired the assistance of other lawyer. The act
committed by Atty. Ramon, settling and meddling with the case is considered to be unethical. The
influence and intervention is not lawful and valid on part of the other party, since he have used it with
an ill intention to outsmart a fellow lawyer and also to swayed the decision of the Judge. The law strictly
uphold that a lawyer shall strictly observe such professionalism without any mental reservation to do
fraud or dishonest acts, and as a lawyer to Lisa, she must decide according to her understanding that the
acts committed by Atty. Ramon is unlawful and unethical in the legal profession and to her as his client

4. Under the Canon of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall remain faithful, loyal and honest to his
client. The existence of their privileged communication must extend even until the death of the client. It
is rightful that the client, Zuma musT feel the confidence to his counsel de oficio and by keeping such
promise of not disclosing such statements or confession is of greatest consideration.

1) As his Attorney, I will remain faithful and silent as to what his confession, however, I will explain
to Zuma, the consequences of the denial or admission given by him in Court. No matter what his
decision in terms of the admission, I will still defend Zuma to his case to the best of my
knowledge and understanding of law.
2) No. I cannot disclose the admission to the Court and I will maintain the confidence entrusted by
Zuma to me even after our lawyer-client relationship. The matters declared to me must remain
between us alone and it will be protected since we are under our right to privileged
communication against the others.

5. Mr. Nol, at any means has the right to decide whether what and whose lawyer he wants to avail since
it is provided on our law that any man can avail of the legal aid according to his liking or preference.
Under the Canon, the same is also observed and respected by the lawyer no matter how far the case to
a client they have handled or represented. It must be understood that such confidence is vital to the
client-lawyer relationship, and this must uphold the duty of a lawyer to maintain his allegiance to the
truthfulness and acknowledgement of law and his duties. As the previous lawyer of Mr. Nol, it is his right
to know the decision of the Court. The Canon defined that such duties to inform and discuss the Court
and Case transaction is important role of the lawyers and it is rightful that Mr. Nol must know this even
at the end of their professional relationship.

6. The Retainer Agreement must be embodied all to the parties agreeing to the condition. In this case,
RXU has the right to dismiss any legal assistance that they think as not needed or good in their end.
However, on the case of RXU and the lawyer, a contract has been established and produced, and same
shall be binding to both of the parties, making it clear that the lawyer shall be entitled to the 15%
amount during his services to RXU. Since he was terminated and the parties decided to settle such
dispute amicably, no legal right is now impose against RXU. The Court has also recognized that the
lawyer is not entitled. Under the Canon Law, a lawyer must not engage to any transaction which is only
after payment or awards because of such case winnings. The Retainer Agreement will not prosper and it
is up to the RXU whether they will give any “favor or gratitude” to the lawyer for all the assistance given
but aside from that all legal fees covered and entitled to the lawyer shall be given except to the Retainer
Agreement.

7.Under the Canon and law, the duty of the lawyer is to adhere, protect and guide his clients all
throughout his extension of assistance rendered and as per Client’s request, it is proper that the lawyer
must do all of his efforts and knowledge to grant without giving any false hopes to his client. The lawyer
must opposed and explain to his client all the necessary steps included in the proceedings but if, the
opposition has not been granted, it must also be proper that Eric will know the result and condition of
the case at Court, for as a lawyer, it is of his utmost duty to inform and keep his client knowledgeable
about the pendency of the case.

8. No. Atty. Benny’s action is improper. In Canon of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must not
engage into acts resulting to unlawful, dishonest, deceitful or immoral on its face for it will affect thye
relationship and intention of the profession being the legal aid of his client. Atty. Benny must have
informed his client into any means all the necessary and supposed to be actions that will be rendered or
render to the Court. The law is strict on its context that a lawyer must uphold all kinds of ethics and
professionalism as part of the Legal profession so as to his primordial duty to the client and to the
community.