Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

VILLANUEVA, JAY PEE M

Friday, 5:30-8:30PM, Summ 2014-2015

5 June 2015
Arbiter

Roma
1. a.

Yes, Simeon may be disbarred.

Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provide that
deceit is a ground for disbarment. Moreover,
under the Code of Professional Responsibility,
a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes. Rule 1.01, Canon 1
also adds that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest or deceitful act.
The crime of estafa is a crime involving moral
turpitude, which reflect dishonesty and
deceit; thus, can be a ground for disbarment.

b.

Not necessarily.
Acquittal in a criminal charge does not
necessarily amount to dismissal of a
disbarment case, which is administrative in
nature. Disbarment is a separate proceeding
which employ different degree of proof, and is
sui generis in that it is neither purely criminal
nor purely civil. It is investigative in nature to
delve into the conduct of one of the members
of the bar.
Thus, Simeon is acquitted of the estafa case
filed against him, the disbarment proceedings
will proceed independently and will not
automatically be dismissed.

2. Atty. Hydes defense is not valid.

Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
In this case, having sex videos is conduct
unbecoming for a lawyer. He cannot argue that
the sex videos belong to his private life that has
nothing to do with his practice of law. As explicitly
mentioned in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he should not act in a scandalous
manner whether in his public or private life. Thus,
his defense is not valid.
3. No, the case will not prosper.
In the case of Arciaga vs Maniwang, the Supreme
Court ruled that mere intimacy between a lawyer
and woman with no impediment to marry each
other, and who voluntarily cohabited and had two
children is neither so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant a
disbarment against the member of the bar.
In this case, Cliff does not have legal impediment
to marry. No marriage occurred between him and
Greta despite the fact that they both signed a
marriage contract, which was later shown to Greta
to have been signed by an alleged solemnizing
officer. Being a former student of law, Greta
should have known that the events that
transpired between her and Cliff could not be
considered a marriage. But despite the very
glaring irregularity, she still consented to going
with Cliff in a honeymoon and had two children
with him. There was consent on the part of Greta
and Cliff could not have employed deceit nor force
in asking Greta to go on a honeymoon with him.

Thus, the case for disbarment should not prosper

for lack of sufficient ground.
4. Rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility
pertaining to private affairs of the lawyer, but can
nonetheless subject erring lawyer to disciplinary
action:
a. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
b. Rule 7.03, Canon 7 A lwyer shall not engage
in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether
in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
5. Yes, Judge Cerdo and Atty. Cocodrilo violated the
law.
Under Article 1491, Paragraph 5, justices, judges,
prosecuting attorneys, clerks of court, and other
officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice cannot acquire by
purchase, even at a public or judicial action,
either in person or through the mediation of
another, the property and rights in litigation or
levied upon an execution before the court within
whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective function. This prohibition likewise
applies to lawyers with respect to the property
and rights which may be the object of any
litigation in which they may take part by virtue of
their profession.
Moreover, Rule 5.02, Canon 5 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall refrain
from financial and business dealings that tend to
reflect adversely on the courts impartiality,
interfere with the proper performance of judicial

activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or

persons likely to come before the court.
In this case, Judge Cerdo is directly connected
with the subject property as the judge who
rendered judgment on a case involving the
property he bought. Atty. Cocordilo is the lawyer
for the litigant property developer, thus, also
directly involved with the case. Both of them
violated the law and committed acts of
impropriety.