ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Legal Ethics Course Outline

I. INTRODUCTION / PRELIMINARIES a. Requirement of Good Moral Character i. In the matter of James Joseph Hamm, 211 Ariz 458, 123 p.3d 652, 2005 ii. Rolly Pentecostes vs Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, A.M. No. P07-2337, August 03, 2007 iii. Father Ranhilio C. Aquino et al vs. Atty. Edwin Pascua A.C. No. 5095, November 28, 2007 iv. Administrative case filed against Judge Jaime V. Quitain, JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007 v. Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs. Atty Ismael F. Mejia, Adm Case No. 2984, August 31, 2007 vi. GSIS vs. Hon. Vicente A. Pacquing, AM No. RTJ-04-1831, February 2, 2007 vii. Velez vs. Atty. De Vera A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006 viii. Cynthia Advincula vs. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, AC No. 7204, March 07, 2007 b. Rehabilitation from criminal conduct and good moral character * In the matter of James Joseph Hamm (supra) 9. Tucson Rapid Transit Co vs. Rubiaz, 21 Ariz, 221, 231, 187 P.568, 572 (1920) 10. In re: Petition to disqualify Atty. Leonardo De Vera, AC No. 6052, December 11, 2003 11. IRRI vs NLRC, GR No. 97239, May 12, 1993 12. Roberto Soriano vs. Atty Manuel Dizon, AC 6792, January 25, 2006 c. Passing the bar and the practice of law 13. Aguirre vs Rana, BM 1036, June 10, 2003 d. What is practice of law? 14. Cayetano vs. Monsod, GR No. 100113, September 3, 1991 15. Cruz vs Atty. Cabrera, AC No. 5737, October 25, 2004 16. Ruthie Lim-Santiago vs Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio, AC No. 6705, March 31, 2006 e. Law student and practice of law * Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138-A, Section 34

17. Cruz vs. Mina, GR No. 154207, April 27, 2007 f. Membership in the IBP 18. In re: Atty. Marcial Edillion, AM 1928, August 3, 1978 g. Exemption from payment of IBP dues? 19. Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo Jr. BM 1370, May 9, 2005 20. Santos Jr vs Llamas, AC 4749, January 20, 2001 h. Citizenship Requirement 21. Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, B.M. 1678, December 17, 2007 * 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. 12, par 14 i. j. k. l. II. Lawyers Oath Why is a lawyer an Officer of the Court? Read pages 1-30, Legal Ethics by Pineda, 2009 edition Rules of Court, Rule 138

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY a. Canon 1 i. Rule 1.01 22. Tapucar vs Atty. Tapucar, AC No. 4148, July 30, 1998 23. Acejas III vs PP, GR No. 156643, June 27, 2006 ii. Rule 1.02 24. Donton vs. Dr. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006 25. Velez vs. Atty. De Vera, AC No. 6697, July 25, 2006 Rule 1.03 26. Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, AC No. 6672, September 4, 2009 27. Atty. Vitriolo et al vs Atty Dasig, AC No. 4984, April 01, 2003 Rule 1.04 28. Sa Si III vs NLRC, GR No. 104599, March 11, 1994

iii.

iv.

b. Canon 2 i. Rule 2.01 ii. Rule 2.02 29. Santiago vs. Atty. Rafanan, AC No. 6252, October 5, 2004 iii. Rule 2.03 * Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, (supra) iv. Rule 2.04

c. Canon 3 30. Atty. Khan Jr. vs Atty. Simbillo AC No. 5299, August 19, 2003 i. Rule 3.01 * Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, (supra) * Atty. Khan Jr. vs Atty. Simbillo (supra) ii. Rule 3.02 31. BR Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. vs CA GR No. L-41862, February 7, 1992 iii. Rule 3.03 iv. Rule 3.04 d. Canon 4 e. Canon 5 f. Canon 6 32. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang, AC No. 6788, August 23, 2007 33. Gisela Huyssen vs Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707, March 24, 2006 * Ruthie Lim-Santiago vs Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio (supra) i. Rule 6.01 34. Cuenca vs CA, GR No. 109870, December 1, 1995 ii. Rule 6.02 35. Ali vs Atty. Bubong, AC No. 4018, March 8, 2005 36. Olazo vs. Justice Tinga, AM No. 10-5-7-SC, December 07, 2010 iii. Rule 6.03 * Gisela Huyssen vs Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez (supra) * Olazo vs. Justice Tinga (supra) g. Canon 7 i. Rule 7.01 * Rodolfo M. Bernardo vs Atty Ismael F. Mejia (supra) ii. Rule 7.02 iii. Rule 7.03 h. Canon 8 37 December 4, 2009 i. Rule 8.01 ii. Rule 8.02 Que vs. Atty. Revilla Jr. AC No. 7054,

Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino, (supra)

i. Canon 9 i. Rule 9.01 37. PP vs. Hon Maceda, GR No. 89591-96, January 24, 2000 38. Zeta vs. Malinao, AM No. P-220, December 20, 1978 39. Tan and Pagayokan vs. Balajadia, GR No. 169517, March 14, 2006 ii. Rule 9.02 40. Lijauco vs. Atty. Terrado AC No. 6317, August 31, 2006 41. Plus Builders Inc. vs. Atty. Revilla Jr. AC No. 7056, September 13, 2006 Class Policies: Attendance is checked at 10:15am. Please make an effort to be on time so as not to disrupt the class. Each student is allowed a maximum of four (4) absences. On the fifth, the student is considered FA failed due to absences. If a student is called to recite and he or she is absent, the student will get a recitation grade of 65. Keep mobile phone in silent mode. If the phone will cause disruption of class, every student present will get a grade of 75 for one recitation. Every week, ten (10) cases will be submitted in digest form, following the format below: o Facts (Relevant to the assigned topic) o Issue o Decision (Ratio decidendi) Submission of cases in digest form will be graded as follows: Quantity (30%) ten cases every week as listed in the syllabus; total of 75 cases for the entire semester Quality (40%) neatness, legible handwriting, grammar and English construction, relevance to the topic Timeliness (30%) o on or before the date due for submission 100% o submitted on the following week after its due date 85% o submitted on the 2nd following week after its due date75% o beyond two (2) weeks late 65% Deadlines: June 27, 2011 cases 1 to 10 July 4, 2011 - cases 2 to 20, etc.