St.

Dominic Savio College

SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)

BASIC LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1st Semester, AY 2023 – 2024
FINAL EXAMINATION
Atty. Regine Juliene G. Roque, J.D.

Instructions:
As future lawyers, you will encounter different clients and situations that
will test your capacity and values in order to come up with decisions.
The following cases will test your ability to identify the various ethical
dilemmas.
Support your answers with legal basis. Avoid responding using a one-
sentence -pattern. Put yourself in the shoes of the lawyer/ Supreme
Court, and imagine the possible decisions you may have to make.
Upload your answer in Google Classroom as a PDF file on or before
December 13, 2023, at 10 p.m. (20 POINTS EACH.)

CASE NO. 1

In 2015, Atty. Charles was appointed as a member of the Board of

Directors of St. Dominic Savio Cooperative. In 2018, after a two-year tenure
as a director, he was designated as the corporate secretary of the
aforementioned cooperative. Between 2019 to mid-2020, he held the
position of general manager at the cooperative. Simultaneously, he
served as a legal counsel in several criminal and civil cases of the
cooperative. However, in 2022, Atty. Charles filed an action for
reconveyance and quieting of title with damages against St. Dominic Savio
Cooperative on behalf of Tampon Institute Inc., using the information
that he acquired while serving as the cooperative counsel. The
cooperative then filed a verified complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Charles. In his defense, Atty. Charles claimed that in 2020, when
the cooperative refused to pay his salary and attorney’s fees, he severed
his professional relationship with it. The IBP then conducted an
investigation and came up with a report and recommendation that: Atty.
Charles violated the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability with the aggravating circumstance
of a pattern of misconduct consisting of seven court appearances
against his former client, the cooperative, and non-payment of annual
dues and non-compliance with MCLE. If you are one of the Justices of the
Supreme Court, how will you rule on the report and recommendation
of the IBP against Atty.
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)

Charles? Cite all the pertinent violations of Atty. Charles in the

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Answer: If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I shall find in favor of the IBP's
suggested penalties, which include disbarment or other appropriate
consequences given the seriousness of the violations and the requirement for
maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.

The following is the violation of Atty. Charles under CPRA:

 Section 18. (a) A lawyer shall maintain the private confidences of a former
client even after the termination of the engagement, except upon the
written informed consent of the former client, or as otherwise allowed
under the CPRA or other applicable laws or regulations, or when the
information has become generally known. (b) A lawyer shall not use
information relating to the former representation, except as the CPRA or
applicable laws and regulations would permit or require with respect to a
current or prospective client, or when the information has become
generally known. (c) Unless the former client gives written informed
consent, a lawyer who has represented such client in a legal matter shall
not thereafter represent a prospective client in the same or related legal
matter, where the prospective client’s interests are materially adverse to
the former client’s interests.

 Section 27. A lawyer shall maintain the confidences of the client, and shall
respect data privacy laws. The duty of confidentiality shall continue even after
the termination of the lawyer- client engagement

With this rules that Atty. Charles violated, Therefore, his disbarment against
practice of law should be granted.

CASE NO. 2

Catherine engaged the services of Atty. Jayson in an annulment case filed

against the former’s estranged husband. Atty. Jayson then assured
Catherine that her annulment case would be granted since the Judge
assigned to the case is his neighbor and churchmate. Pending the
annulment case, Atty. Jayson, who is defending Catherine, had a
distinct and significant connection with her. Therefore, he pursued
Catherine, his client, romantically. The two entered into a relationship
and had a sexual desire with each other. Marc, the estranged husband
of Catherine, knew the relationship between the two and deliberately
object the annulment case. Marc then initiated a disbarment case
against Atty. Jayson. Notwithstanding the subpoena issued by the
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)
IBP, Atty. Jayson refused to submit his answer and even posted on his
Facebook and Instagram account that the alleged complaint filed
against him by Marc should be dismissed since Catherine consented
to their relationship, and they are loving each other. And, no one could
ever try to separate them, even the Supreme Court. Rule on this. Cite all
the pertinent violations of Atty. Jayson under CPRA.

Answer: Under CPRA, The pertinent violations of Atty. Jayson is the

following:

Under the RESPONSIBLE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA:

 Section 37. A lawyer shall ensure that his or her online posts, whether made
in a public or restricted privacy setting that still holds an audience, uphold
the dignity of the legal profession and shield it from disrepute, as
well as maintain respect for the law.
 Section 38. A lawyer shall not knowingly or maliciously post, share,upload
or otherwise disseminate false or unverified statements, claims, or commit
any other act of disinformation.
 Section 40. A lawyer shall not reveal, directly or indirectly, in his or her
online posts confidential information obtained from a client or in the
course of, or emanating from, the representation, except when allowed by
law or the CPRA.

Under CANON III – FIDELITY

 Section 3. A lawyer-client relationship is of the highest fiduciary character.
As a trust relation, it is essential that the engagement is founded on the
confidence reposed by the client on the lawyer. Therefore, a lawyer-client
relationship shall arise when the client consciously, voluntarily and in good
faith vests a lawyer with the client’s confidence for the
purpose of rendering legal services such as providing legal advice or
representation, and the lawyer, whether expressly or impliedly, agrees to render
such services.
 Section 14 (2). there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence or
professional judgment or with the lawyer-client relationship.
 Section 16. A lawyer shall not have dating, romantic, or sexual relations
with a client during the engagement, unless the consensual relationship
existed between them before the lawyer-clientrelationship commenced.

CASE NO. 3

Four (4) different administrative disciplinary complaints were filed

against Atty. Capistrano and Atty. Lim (of C.L. Law Firm). All of which
involved serious breaches of fiduciary duties to their clients. Henrick
brought the first administrative case against them in 1989 as a result of
their refusal to send the P6,000,000 sale proceeds, despite numerous
demands. Henrick won the civil case; however, Atty. Capistrano and
Atty. Lim did various machinations just to avoid the remittance of money.
Thus, it resulted in their indefinite suspension.
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)
In the 1998 case, it was alleged that Atty. Capistrano and Atty. Lim
deposited the client's money in their own personal accounts instead of
using it for the purpose for which it was given to him. Despite demands
made by the client, they failed to return the money. The Court took
into account their previous case in determining the penalty to be
imposed. It decided to disbar the two lawyer In 2007, another complaint
was filed against Atty. Capistrano for his failure to institute an action for
a case of land recovery. In addition, he did not reimburse his client for
the money they paid. On the other hand, a complaint was filed against
Atty. Lim for promising to his client that the case will be in the latter’s
favor if the same will pay him P2,000,000, of which half will be given
to the judge. But the client lost his case. The court considered
the fact that Atty. Capistrano and Atty. Lim practiced law despite
their indefinite suspension and once again imposed a disbarment penalty.

Later on, sometime in 2009, another complaint was filed against Atty. Lim
for maliciously commenting on his friend’s post with the words, “BAKLA
KA! WALA KA PAGLALAGYAN DITO!" and “Salot ka sa Lipunan!”. And
Emily filed a lawsuit against Atty. Capistrano for publishing false
information and spreading rumors. Hence, the Supreme Court again
imposed a disbarment penalty against the two lawyers.

In 2022, Atty. Capistrano and Atty. Lim filed before the Supreme Court
a plea for clemency. This plea was made 24 years after their indefinite
suspension from their first case and when they were already in
their 70s. They stated that they had atoned for his indiscretion.
Should the plea for clemency be granted? Why or why not?

Answer: Yes, because under the rules, A lawyer who has been disbarred cannot
file a petition for judicial clemency within a period of five (5)
years from the effective date of his or her disbarment, unless for the most
compelling reasons based on extraordinary circumstances, a shorter period is
warranted. Upon the lapse of the said five (5)-year period, or earlier if so
permitted by the Court, a disbarred lawyer
becomes eligible to file a verified petition for judicial clemency. Atty. Capistrano
and Atty. Lim filed a plea for clemency after the 24 years of disbarment. It was
already done within the period of 5 years. Therefore, the petition of plea for
clemency of Atty. Capistrano and Lim be granted.

CASE NO. 4

Complainants Cherry, Roel and Cecille are employees of JD

Condominium Corp. in Taguig City where respondent Atty. Nathalia
resides. In 2008, complainants filed a complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Nathalia for her unruly and offensive behavior towards
residents and employees of the condominium, which stemmed from
various incidents from 1995 to 2007. These events can be
summarized in this manner:
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)
“Atty. Nathalia kept asking “impertinent personal questions”, knocking
on their doors, and using offensive language. Another tenant
complained that Atty. Nathalia kept entering units undergoing repairs
because of her fear that people were damaging the building. The keys
hanging on the door of one unit lost the day she entered the unit.

The latest incident involved Atty. Nathalia shouting at the condominium

employees and using offensive language. She accused the maintenance
personnel of destroying the building and the security guards of trying
to destroy her car. She also started shouting that the condominium
residents were prostitutes. The condominium employees trued to pacify
her, even calling her brother, Dr. Nicolo, to intervene.”

Since 2003, Atty. Nathalia has refused to pay any of her association
dues. Also, since 2000 she’s living with Antonio, who is a married man,
and introduced themselves as husband and wife. And, even proud that
the marriage between Antonio and his legal wife was just a piece
of paper which should not be recognized.

Atty. Nathalia submitted a position paper before the Integrated Bar of

the Philippines (IBP) where she neither admitted nor denied the
allegations. Nonetheless, she sought refuge in her long years of
service as a State Prosecutor. In her position paper, she expressed
that: “I do not believe that the three complainants are my equal,
therefore, for reasons above stated x x x I move for the outright
dismissal of the complaint charge x x x against me”

The IBP Commissioner concluded that respondent may have mental

issues, thus he simply recommended that Atty. Nathalia be
reprimanded for her conduct. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the report and recommendation of the Bar
Commissioner. The Supreme Court believed that a mere reprimand was
not enough to punish respondent for her misbehavior. Thus, a
resolution found Atty. Nathalia liable for violation of Canon 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and was suspended from practice
of law for a period of 6 months with warning that repetition of the
same shall be dealt with more severely. The copy of resolution was
received by Atty. Nathalia on April 21, 2014. On May 2016, Atty. Nathalia
personally appeared before this Court with handwritten letter and
copy of her service record and requested for lifting of her suspension
order.

The bar Confidant through Atty. Roxanne advised Atty. Nathalia to file
the necessary motion and submit a sworn statement that she did not
practice law during the period of her suspension. Atty. Roxanne even
assisted Atty. Nathalia for a copy of Court’s Resolution on various
disbarment cases as guide, but the latter questioned the former’s
authority and asserted that such requirements did not apply to her. In
addition, Atty. Nathalia sent a handwritten letter to Atty. Roxanne
alleging that she had served in government for long time before her
retirement and even claimed that she studied law under Former
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)
Associate Justice Leonen and that she worked briefly with godchild of
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Yvez. The OBC recommended that the request
for lifting of Atty. Nathalia’s suspension be denied because she refused
to submit the sworn statement to prove that she did not practice law
during her suspension. Supreme Court denied prayer of Atty. Nathalia
until she has complied with the submission of required sworn
statement and necessary certifications and clearances. When Atty.
Nathalia made follow up for the status of her request on lifting of
suspension order, Atty. Roxanne approached Atty. Nathalia in a politely
asked what she can do for her. Atty. Nathalia asked for the action of
the Supreme Court on her letter regarding the lifting of suspension.
Atty. Roxanne then explained to Atty. Nathalia that her request has
been denied. Atty. Nathalia, in a disrespectful and arrogant tone,
directed Atty. Roxanne to read the entire records of the case from page
one to end. Atty. Roxanne was caught by surprise of Atty. Nathalia's
demeanor, and she told her not to insult her. Lamentably, Atty. Nathalia
continued to speak in an offensive tone and uttered: "BRUHA KA; 00,
BRUHA KA; PUTANG INA MO; YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE LEGAL
PROFESSION; KONTING BRAINS NAMAN; CLERK KA LANG; YOU DON['T]
KNOW YOUR WORK; YOU DON[']T KNOW YOUR JOB; ARE THOSE
JUSTICES PASSERS UNDER R.A. 1080 [?]" The incident was forwarded
to the Supreme Court, and the latter order to require her to submit her
comment on the Incident Report but Atty. Nathalia refused to file her
comment.

The OBC, in a Report and Recommendation recommended the

following actions: 1) the respondent's request for lifting of the order
of suspension should be denied; and 2) the respondent be disbarred
from the practice of law and her name be stricken from the roll of
Attorney. RULE ON THIS CASE. Cite all the pertinent violations of Atty.
Nathalia under CPRA
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)
Answer: If I were a judge of this case, I will deny the request of Atty. Nathalia in
lifting her order of suspension due to multiple inappropriate actions and
language against few persons involved and Atty. Nathalia must be disbarred in
practicing law.

Atty. Nathalia’s violation under CPRA is following:

 Section 2. A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other
government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act
with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the
bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s
fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in
public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.
 Section 6. A lawyer shall not harass or threaten a fellow lawyer, the latter’s
client or principal, a witness, or any official or employee of a court,
tribunal, or other government agency.
 Section 15. A lawyer shall observe propriety in all dealings with officers
and personnel of any court, tribunal, or other government agency, whether
personal or professional. Familiarity with such officers and personnel that
will give rise to an appearance of impropriety, influence, or favor shall be
avoided. A lawyer shall not make claims of power, influence, or
relationship with any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government
agency. .
 St. Dominic Savio College
SCHOOL OF LAW
Quirino Hiway, Pangarap, Caloocan City (North)

CASE NO. 5

After signing the Roll of Attorneys, Atty. Dimapakali made a Facebook Page
with the name “Atty. Dimapakali, Magaling na Abogado. Walang Talo!" On
said Facebook page, Atty. Dimapakali would post advertisements
like “GUSTO MO BA MA-ANNUL? MESSAGE NA! 3
Months LANG! WALANG APPEARANCE, SIGURADO SA PSA!” in order to
engage clients. In order to have favorable decisions, he submits falsified
documents before the court and even asks a person to be his witness, even
though said person is not related in any way to the case. Atty.
Dimapakali is even claiming that he is a bar topnotcher, even though
he is not. Also, in order to destroy the reputation of his colleague (who
was his former girlfriend and cheated on him), Atty. MAH HINHIN, he
created an alter account and posted malicious accusations against
Atty. Mah Hinhin, such as the latter, is a highly paid lawyer because she
always had a one-night stand with her client(s). Should Atty.
Dimapakali be disbarred? Cite all the pertinent violations of Atty.
Dimapakli under CPRA.

Answer: If I were the judge, Atty. Dimapakali should be disbarred due to his
inappropriate actions and false information that spread through social media.
With this, his actions has fall a lot of violations under CPRA:

 Section 10. A lawyer shall avoid all forms of impropriety when presenting
or confronting a witness.

 Section 17. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit, or appear to

solicit, legal business. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, advertise
legal services on any platform or media except with the use of dignified,
verifiable, and factual information, including biographical data, contact
details, fields of practice, services offered, and the like, so as to allow a
potential client to make an informed choice. In no case shall the permissible
advertisement be self-laudatory.

 Section 37. A lawyer shall ensure that his or her online posts, whether made
in a public or restricted privacy setting that still holds an audience, uphold
the dignity of the legal profession and shield it from disrepute, as well as
maintain respect for the law.

 Section 38. A lawyer shall not knowingly or maliciously post, share, upload
or otherwise disseminate false or
unverified statements, claims, or commit any other act of disinformation.

 Section 39. A lawyer shall not create, maintain or operate accounts in social
media to hide his or her identity for the purpose of circumventing the law
or the provisions of the CPRA.

--nothing follows-