DAY 4 (PM) Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises Flashcards
(1) Atty. Mike started teaching Agrarian Reform and Taxation in June 2001 at the Arts and Sciences Department of the Far Eastern University. In 2005, he moved to San Sebastian Institute of Law where he taught Political Law. Is Atty. Mike exempt from complying with the MCLE for the 4th compliance period in April 2013?
(A) No, since he has yet to complete the required teaching experience to be exempt.
(B) No, because he is not yet a bar reviewer.
(C) Yes, since by April 2013, he will have been teaching law for more than 10 years.
(D) Yes, since he updated himself in law by engaging in teaching.
(A) No, since he has yet to complete the required teaching experience to be exempt.
(2) The acknowledgment appearing in a deed of sale reads: “Before me personally appeared this 30 August 2010 Milagros A. Ramirez, who proved her identity to me through witnesses: 1. Rosauro S. Balana, Passport UU123456; 1-5-2010/ Baguio City; and 2. Elvira N. Buela, Passport VV200345; 1-17-2009/ Manila. “Both witnesses, of legal ages, under oath declare that: Milagros A. Ramirez is personally known to them; she is the same seller in the foregoing deed of sale; she does not have any current identification document nor can she obtain one within a reasonable time; and they are not privy to or are interested in the deed he signed.” What is the status of such a notarial acknowledgment?
(A) Questionable since the notary public is not shown to personally know the principal party.
(B) Ineffective since it included parties not privy to the deed.
(C) Invalid since the evidence of identity is non-compliant with the notarial rules.
(D) Valid since it is a manner of establishing the identity of the person executing the document.
(D) Valid since it is a manner of establishing the identity of the person executing the document.
(3) Atty. Francisco’s retainer agreement with RXU said that his attorney’s fees in its case against CRP “shall be 15% of the amounts collected.” Atty. Francisco asked the trial court to issue a temporary restraining order against CRP but this was denied, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to question the order of denial. At this point, RXU terminated Atty. Francisco’s services. When the parties later settled their dispute amicably, CRP paid RXU P100 million. Because of this, Atty. Francisco came around and claimed a 15% share in the amount. What should be his attorney’s fees?
(A) Nothing because the compromise came after RXU terminated him.
(B) 15% of what CRP paid RXU or P15 million.
(C) A reasonable amount that the court shall fix upon proof of quantum meruit.
(D) Nothing since he was unable to complete the work stated in the retainer contract.
(C) A reasonable amount that the court shall fix upon proof of quantum meruit.
(4) Lee became a lawyer in 1988 under a claim that he is a Filipino like his parents. Efren sought Lee’s disbarment on the ground that he really is a Chinese. To prove he is a Filipino, Lee cited an Albay regional trial court’s final judgment in an action to recover real property which mentioned his citizenship as Filipino. This final judgment resulted in the correction of his birth records in a separate special proceeding to show he is a Filipino, not Chinese as there stated. Is Lee’s claim to Filipino citizenship valid?
(A) No, since the mention of his citizenship in the land case was just incidental.
(B) No, since those rulings were not appealed to the Supreme Court.
(C) Yes, because the rulings in his favor have become final and executory.
(D) Yes, since his parents are Filipinos based on what he said in his bar exam petition.
(A) No, since the mention of his citizenship in the land case was just incidental.
(5) Sheryl, Eric’s counsel, once asked for postponement and the court granted it since the opposing counsel, Bernadine, did not object. Eric then asked Sheryl not to allow any further postponements because his case has been pending for 8 years. When trial resumed, Bernadine moved to reset the trial because of her infant’s ailment. What must Sheryl do?
(A) Remind the Court that it has the duty to promptly decide the case.
(B) Interpose no objection since she too once sought postponement without Bernadine’s objection.
(C) Vehemently oppose Bernadine’s motion for being contrary to Eric’s wishes.
(D) Submit the motion to the Court’s sound discretion.
(D) Submit the motion to the Court’s sound discretion.
(6) In a verified complaint, Kathy said that Judge Florante decided a petition for correction of entry involving the birth record of her grandson, Joshua, who happened to be child of Judge Florante’s daughter, Pilita. Judge Florante insisted that he committed no wrong since the proceeding was non-adversarial and since it merely sought to correct an erroneous entry in the child’s birth certificate. Is Judge Florante liable?
(A) Yes, because Florante breached the rule on mandatory disqualification.
(B) No, because Judge Florante has no pecuniary interest in the proceeding.
(C) No, because it is true the proceeding was non-adversarial so it prejudiced no one.
(D) Yes, since the correction in the child’s record affects the details of birth of the child.
(A) Yes, because Florante breached the rule on mandatory disqualification.
(7) Which of the following statements best describes the distinct traditional dignity that the legal profession enjoys over other professions?
(A) People are quite dependent on lawyers for their skills in getting them out of trouble with the law.
(B) Its members strive to maintain honesty even in their private dealings.
(C) Its members earn by charging specified emoluments or fees.
(D) The profession is anchored on a fiduciary relation with the client.
(B) Its members strive to maintain honesty even in their private dealings.
(8) Raul sought Ely’s disbarment for notarizing a deed of sale knowing that four of the sellers were dead. Ely admitted that he notarized the deed of sale but only after his client assured him that the signatures of the others were authentic. Later, Raul moved to have the complaint against him dismissed on the ground that it was filed because of a misunderstanding which had already been clarified. This prompted the IBP to recommend the dismissal of the complaint. Can the dismissal be allowed?
(A) No, unless the complainant executes an affidavit of desistance.
(B) Yes, since no compelling reason remained to continue with it.
(C) Yes, but recall Ely’s notarial commission since the charge against him seems meritorious.
(D) No, given Ely’s admission that he notarized the document when some signatories were absent.
(D) No, given Ely’s admission that he notarized the document when some signatories were absent.
(9) When will Atty. Antonio’s notarial commission expire if he applied for and was given such commission on 12 November 2010?
(A) 31 December 2012
(B) 31 December 2011
(C) 11 November 2011
(D) 11 November 2012
(B) 31 December 2011
(10) Elaine filed a complaint against Fely before their barangay concerning a contract that they entered into. During conciliation, Fely came with Sarah, who claimed the right to represent her minor sister. The barangay captain let Sarah assist her sister. Eventually, the barangay issued a certificate to file action after the parties failed to settle their differences. When Sarah formally appeared as lawyer for her sister, Elaine filed an administrative complaint against her for taking part in the barangay conciliation and preventing the parties from taking meaningful advantage of the same. Is Sarah liable?
(A) No, because she has to represent her sister who was a minor.
(B) No, because the Court can always dismiss the case without prejudice to a genuine conciliation.
(C) Yes, because what Sarah did was deceitful and amounts to fraud.
(D) Yes, because as a lawyer, she is absolutely forbidden to appear in barangay conciliations.
(D) Yes, because as a lawyer, she is absolutely forbidden to appear in barangay conciliations.
(11) Which of the following will subject Atty. Lyndon, a Manila notary public, to sanctions under the notarial rules?
(A) Notarizing a verification and certification against forum shopping in Manila Hotel at the request of his Senator-client.
(B) Refusing to notarize an extra-judicial settlement deed after noting that Ambo, a friend, was delisted as heir when he was in fact one.
(C) Performing signature witnessing involving his brother-in-law and recording it in his register.
(D) Notarizing a deed of sale for someone he knew without requiring any proof of identity.
(C) Performing signature witnessing involving his brother-in-law and recording it in his register.
(12) Justice Frank, a retired Court of Appeals justice, appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of Landbank, a government bank, in a case involving the compensable value of the property taken from a landowner under the agrarian reform law. The landowner questioned Justice Frank’s appearance in the case, pointing out that the same is unethical and smacks of opportunism since he obviously capitalizes on his judicial experience. Is Justice Frank’s appearance in the case valid?
(A) Yes, because the law allows such appearance as long as the government is not the adverse party.
(B) No, because he cannot enjoy his retirement pay and at the same time work for a government institution.
(C) Yes, since Landbank does not perform government function.
(D) No, he should have waited for at least a year to avoid improprieties.
(A) Yes, because the law allows such appearance as long as the government is not the adverse party.
(13) On appeal, RTC Judge Rudy affirmed the MTC’s conviction of Lorna for violation of the bouncing checks law and awarded Agnes, the complainant, Php1.6 million in damages. Two years later, upon Lorna’s motion and after ascertaining that her counsel never received the court’s decision, Judge Rudy recalled the entry of judgment in the case, reversed himself, and absolved Lorna of guilt. Claiming an unjust judgment, Agnes filed an administrative complained against Judge Rudy, saying that it is plain from the circumstances that he connived with Lorna, her counsel, and the handling prosecutor. But she offered no further evidence. Rudy denied the charges and asserted that any error in his judgment is correctible only by an appeal, not by an administrative suit. Should Judge Rudy be disciplined?
(A) No, because Agnes’ complaint is merely based on suspicions and speculations.
(B) No, because Agnes has yet to establish that Rudy’s decision is plainly erroneous.
(C) Yes, because he gravely abused his discretion in recalling the entry of judgment.
(D) Yes, because reconsidering the judgment of conviction that the MTC and he earlier issued shows anomaly in Judge Rudy’s action.
(A) No, because Agnes’ complaint is merely based on suspicions and speculations.
(14) After Atty. Benny got a P2 million final judgment in his client’s favor, he promptly asked the court, without informing his client, to allow him a charging lien over the money in the amount of P500,000, his agreed fees. The Court issued a writ of execution for the whole judgment in Atty. Benny’s name with an order for him to turn over the excess to his client. Is Atty. Benny’s action correct?
(A) No, since his fees are excessive.
(B) Yes, since he was merely asserting his right to collect his fees.
(C) Yes, since he would anyway give the excess to his client after getting his fees.
(D) No, since he did not disclose to his client the matter of getting a charging lien and a writ of execution in his name.
(D) No, since he did not disclose to his client the matter of getting a charging lien and a writ of execution in his name.
(15) On 17 April 2006 NWD, a local water district entity, hired Atty. Chito as private counsel for a year with the consent of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). Shortly after, a leadership struggle erupted in NWD between faction A and faction B. Siding with the first, Atty. Chito filed several actions against the members of faction B. Eventually, the court upheld Faction B which thus revoked Atty. Chito’s retainer on 14 January 2007. With OGCC’s approval, NWD hired Atty. Arthur in his place. When Atty. Arthur sought the dismissal of the actions that Atty. Chito had instituted, the latter objected on the ground that his term had not yet expired and Atty. Arthur had no vacancy to fill up. Is Atty. Chito right?
(A) No, because Atty. Chito’s continued appearances in the cases was without authority since 14 January 2007.
(B) No, because Atty. Arthur would have violated the rule on forum shopping.
(C) Yes, because Atty. Chito’s retainer and authority remained valid until 17 April 2006.
(D) No, because Atty. Chito has the duty to expose the irregularities committed by the members of Faction B.
(A) No, because Atty. Chito’s continued appearances in the cases was without authority since 14 January 2007.
(16) Noel and Emily who were involved in a road accident sued Ferdie, the driver of the other car, for damages. Atty. Jose represented only Noel but he called Emily to testify for his client. During direct examination, Emily claimed that her injuries were serious when Atty. Jose knew that they were not. Still, Atty. Jose did not contest such claim. Ferdie later sued Emily for giving false testimony since her own doctor’s report contradicted it. He also sued Atty. Jose for foisting a false testimony in court. Is Atty. Jose liable?
(A) No, because he did not knowingly arrange for Emily to lie in court.
(B) Yes, because he did not advise his client to settle the case amicably.
(C) No, because Emily did not permit him to reveal the falsity to the court.
(D) Yes, because he knowingly let Emily’s false testimony pass for truth.
(D) Yes, because he knowingly let Emily’s false testimony pass for truth.
(17) In settling his client’s claims, Atty. Cruz received from the adverse party P200,000 in cash for his client. Which of the following is an IMPROPER way for Atty. Cruz to handle the money?
(A) Ask his client to prepare a check for his fees for swapping with the cash.
(B) Deposit the cash in his own bank account and later issue his personal check to his client, less his fees.
(C) Turn over the cash to his client with a request that the latter pay him his fees.
(D) Tell his client about the settlement and the cash and wait for the client’s instructions.
(B) Deposit the cash in his own bank account and later issue his personal check to his client, less his fees.
(18) Judge Cristina has many law-related activities. She teaches law and delivers lectures on law. Some in the government consult her on their legal problems. She also serves as director of a stock corporation devoted to penal reform, where she participates in both fund raising and fund management. Which of the following statements applies to her case?
(A) She should not engage in fund raising activities.
(B) Her activities are acceptable except the part where she is involved in fund management.
(C) She can teach law and deliver lectures on law but not do the other things.
(D) All of her activities are legal.
(C) She can teach law and deliver lectures on law but not do the other things.
(19) One of the foundation principles of the Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct is the importance in a modern democratic society of
(A) a judicial system that caters to the needs of the poor and the weak.
(B) public confidence in its judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of its judiciary.
(C) the existence of independent and impartial tribunals that have the support of its government.
(D) judges who are learned in law and jurisprudence.
(B) public confidence in its judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of its judiciary.
(20) After representing Lenie in an important lawsuit from 1992 to 1995, Atty. Jennifer lost touch of her client. Ten years later in 2005, Evelyn asked Atty. Jennifer to represent her in an action against Lenie. Such action involved certain facts, some confidential, to which Atty. Jennifer was privy because she handled Lenie’s old case. Can Atty. Jennifer act as counsel for Evelyn?
(A) No, but she can assist another lawyer who will handle the case.
(B) Yes, but she must notify Lenie before accepting the case.
(C) No, because her duty to keep the confidences of previous clients remains.
(D) Yes, but she cannot reveal any confidential information she previously got.
(C) No, because her duty to keep the confidences of previous clients remains.
