1H_VILLAS, SEAN_BLJE

1.
It is the continuous rendition of legal services both inside and outside the court.

2.
No. To say that it is a right means that it is available and mandatory to give to anyone who
desires it. The practice of law is a privilege because it is not given, it is earned. One must first
accomplish the necessary requisites such as passing the bar, taking the oath and signing in the
roll of attorneys before he is given the privilege to practice law

3A.
No. Merely passing the Bar Exams alone does not constitute the privilege to present oneself as
counsel in front of the court. It is necessary that he first take the oath and sign in the roll of
attorneys before he is officially vested with the power to practice law

3B.
It depends. Law students have the privilege to present themselves in court, and so if he appears
as a law student while satisfying all the necessary requirements for such conditions, then he
may appear in the MeTC.

4.
It is necessary that the law be interpreted with flexibility. If the threshold for plunder is an amount
of 50 million pesos and Atty. Arghie was proven to have accepted a bribe of 49,999,999 pesos,
then a mere 1 peso difference can not justify his acquittal. It cannot be claimed that the recent
conviction is irrelevant, since the fact remains that he has acted with gross immorality for
accepting the bribe and a mere 1 peso difference does not exclude him from a proper moral
conviction, considering as well his previous charge of reckless imprudence. He still has
49,999,999 pesos in his pocket, and so it is obvious that the decision of the court must be
reversed.

5.
a. 1) The authority to administer changes in the Bar Exams
b. 1) Passing the Bar Exams and 2) signing in the Roll of Attorneys
c. 1) As a law student, 2) any person who wants to represent himself,
d. 1) Incumbent members of the Senate who are attorneys, and 2) Mayors who are
attorneys
6.
A. He may successfully file a complaint for libel against Atty. Badon. Although officers of the
court during litigation are vested with Privilege of Communication, they are still forbidden
to use insulting and defamatory language especially when it is baseless or irrelevant to
the case. Not only did he defame the opposing counsel, but also the presiding judge for
not dismissing the case which could fall under contempt of court. The Privilege of
Communication is given so that proper dialogue for the purpose of ensuring justice may
 be performed without fear of a libel charge, and that this privilege must not be abused
through the inclusion of unnecessary and irrelevant defamatory language.
B. “Bare faced liar”, “Sinister, forked-tongued advocate for the evil republic”, and the
accusation towards the judge of “corrupt motives and gross ignorance of the law”, cannot
be protected by Privilege of Communication. The case at hand is ongoing, meaning
there has been no decision whether Atty. Badon’s claims are true or not, and so
defamatory language for an undetermined verdict cannot be deemed as relevant to the
furthering of justice. If he really wanted to deliver his thoughts to the opposition, he
should have done so in a civil and professional manner, because again, the defamatory
language used is unnecessary and provides no relevance. As such, he is susceptible to
discipline and ethical accountability.
7.
It is indeed unconstitutional. The issue here is the trespassing of the separation of powers. The
Supreme Court and the Congress are equals in the legal hierarchy, and so the Congress cannot
pass a bill that would direct the Supreme Court to any action. The Supreme Court in this case
acts in autonomy and should not be influenced by the Congress through a Bill. Any changes
within the administration of the Bar Exams is within the exclusive authority of the Supreme
Court, and that this power cannot be overwritten by a Bill from the Congress.

8.
It need not be proven that the two indulged in intimate acts. The mere fact that they had a
previous relationship and that he stays at her house “to save expenses”, as well as his
willingness to indulge himself in a circumstance where intimacy between an attorney and a
client may develop already constitutes an ethical and professional violation as an attorney to his
client. An attorney and his client cannot commit to intimate acts unless the two had an already
established relationship prior to his legal service, and even so, the issue remains as
Yheng and Atty. Paulo are no longer in a relationship because the latter is married while the
former is separated. As such, an administrative complaint may prosper.

9.
a. No. The establishment of the IBP is already an act of the Congress, meaning even if
Coun. Manyaog’s argument was logical, he did not consider the fact that it is the
Congress itself that vested IBP the power to collect dues from its members.
b. It would not prosper. If his proposal was approved by the Supreme Court, that would be
a direct invalidation of IBP’s existence. It would literally render them useless, since every
locality could just follow his actions and exempt themselves from the fees which are
being used to sustain the organization. If Coun. Manyaog’s proposal gets approved by
the Supreme Court, then it would eventually dissolve the IBP for lack of funds. The
Supreme Court will not approve his proposal.
c. There is one choice – leave the IBP, thus surrendering his title as an attorney.

10.
a. It is included in the CPRA’s section of rules on Social Media that a defamatory post,
even if private, constitutes a violation.
 b. It cannot account for freedom of speech due to the harshness of his statements,
considering the fact that his insults were in contempt against gender, which is a specific
violation in the CPRA’s section of social media use.

Both of his arguments cannot be given merit. He is liable for administrative charges.