PORTA, MIGUEL JAIME M.

11781106
LJEPE Review Atty. Ed Carillo

Assignment 4 Answers

1. YES, Atty. Pink IS LIABLE under the circumstances.

The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides in Canon 11 thereof that “A lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.”1 Further, the Court has had opportunity to reiterate this rule in In re: Vicente
Sotto2. The Court held that a mere criticism or comment on the correctness (or wrongness) of a Court
decision may be tolerated for as long as it is constructive. However, “to hurl the false charge that this
Court has been for the last years committing deliberately "so many blunders and injustices," would
tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the
members of this court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice.”3

In this case, the statement of Atty. Pink imputing biases and ignorance of the law on the Court’s
justices tend to put the latter in disrepute. This in turn affects the confidence that the public has on
the legal system. Therefore, Atty. Pink is liable.

2. BOTH the prosecutor and the attorney vulnerable to discipline.

Canon 11 of the CPR prescribes that a lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts
and to judicial officers. This means that lawyers cannot whimsically ridicule court officers without
disciplinary consequences. The case of In re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorred4
aptly states “free expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one’s irrational
obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates.”5

In this case, the statements of both the prosecutor and the attorney are derogatory and were directed
to ridicule the officers of the Court. The term “gay” was used in a context intended to demean the
judges on the first floor, while the second-floor judges were called “corrupt”. Thus, both the
prosecutor and judge are vulnerable to discipline.

3. YES, BOTH Tony and Atty. Paul are liable under the circumstances.

The Law Student Practice Rule, or Rule 138-A provides that law student practitioners (LSPs) are not
allowed to ask for or to receive compensation for services rendered under the Clinical Legal
Education Program (CLEP). Further, supervising lawyers (SLs) are required to supervise over the
LSP’s conduct and work throughout the program. The SL is responsible for the acts committed by the
LSPs in connection with the cases under CLEP.

In this case, Tony was in clear violation of Rule 138-A. The rule clearly prohibited the LSP from asking
for compensation, in whatever manner, for services rendered during CLEP. Further, Atty. Paul was
present, but failed to correct the inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour of the LSP. Therefore,
failing to adhere to the rule, both Tony and Atty. Paul are liable.

1 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, canon 11.

2 In re: Vicente Sotto, 21 January 1949.
3 Ibid.
4 In re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC, 22 July 2005.
5 Ibid.