ATENEO DE MANILA LAW SCHOOL

LEGAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Atty. Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat

Block 2-C, Second Semester

Academic Year 2017-2018

LEGAL ETHICS FINAL EXAMINATION

Oral Examination

Instructions

As lawyers, you will be confronted with situations that will test your values and force you to
make tough choices. The purpose of the oral examination is to test your ability to apply the Commented [1]: yup like this one. dapat nag aaral ng
model for ethical decision-making and to arrive at an ethical decision after considering all pubcorp pero ano tong ginagawa namin ugh
available information and weighing all factors and possible options.

Each havrutah team will be tested on 1 out of the 2 given case studies, which will be
selected randomly on the day of the oral examination. The team will be given a period of
30 minutes to deliberate on a specific question pertaining to the selected case study, and
30 minutes for the oral examination proper.

In preparing for the oral examination, as a team, brainstorm and identify the various ethical
dilemmas posed by the case study, the various lawyers involved in the scenario, and how
the ethical dilemmas affect them. Put yourselves in the shoes of the lawyers, and imagine
the possible decisions you may have to make in light of the client’s situation and wishes.

CASE STUDY # 1: The Case of The Mighty Corporation

Mighty Traders’ Corporation (MTC) is a corporation engaged in the merchandising

and trading business whose principal office prior to August 17, 2015 was at No. 353
Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City.

Republic Glue Corporation (RGC) is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of

industrial glues, vulcanizing cement, rubber cement, leather dressings, leather varnishes
and cutting dies, most of which need highly inflammable and flammable solvents for their
manufacture into finished products, such as “Tuluol”, “Pegasol” and “Barsol”, among Commented [2]: wala bang filasol
others. Specifically, the manufacture of leather dressings and leather varnishes required Commented [3]: Next havrutah case yun HAHAHA
as an element the chemical substance known as “nitrocellulose,” a highly flammable
substance. Before August 17, 2015, the principal office of MGC was No. 355 Aurora
Boulevard, Quezon City, adjoining that of MTC.

On August 17, 2015, at about 11:30 a.m., a fire, preceded by explosions, broke out
from the Adhesives Department of RGC. The fire gutted not only the principal office of
RGC but likewise the adjoining building of MTC.
 On January 5, 2016, MTC filed a complaint for damages against RGC with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City alleging that the fire was “caused by the fault or
negligence of defendant and/or its employees in not taking the necessary precautions to
avoid damage to others and in failing to comply with the requirements of the authorities
relative to the use and storage of highly inflammable goods and materials like
nitrocellulose which is needed in the manufacture of its products.” The complaint seeks
from RGC the payment of compensatory damages in the amount of P25 million, with legal
interest from the filing of the complaint, plus exemplary damages, counsel fees, expenses
of litigation and the costs of suit. See Annex “A.”

Upon receipt of the summons and the complaint, RGC referred it to Magdangal and Commented [4]: uy si jolina ba to
Matatag Law Offices (“M & M Law Offices”), its retained counsel. RGC pays the M & M Commented [5]: *croo croo*
Law Firm a monthly retainer of P20,000 under a retainer agreement. See Annex “B.”

It is the policy of the M & M Law Offices that for non-retainer clients a case referral
must be carefully evaluated and must be rejected if the Litigation Department is of the view
that the client’s position is not meritorious. But for retainer clients like RGC this policy is
relaxed and M & M Law Offices feels obligated to accept the referral even if the Litigation
Department has misgivings about the merits of the case.

The referral of RGC was referred to a team of three lawyers who immediately
proceeded to interview the principal operating officers of the client and the prospective
witnesses. The legal team first met with Mr. Ruben Santos, the President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Principal Stockholder of RGC. It was RGC’s official position that that the
cause of the fire was of “undetermined origin” or “accidental in origin of undetermined
source,” probably due to an electrical short circuit. Mr. Santos told the team that he had
already made arrangements for them to meet with their prospective witnesses.

The legal team conducted an ocular visit of RGC’s premises and interviewed the
following prospective witnesses presented by RGC management to testify that the
probable cause of the fire was an electrical short circuit:

1. Mr. Nicolas Salazar – He will testify that long before the fire RGC had
stopped the manufacture of leather dressings one of the ingredients of which is
nitrocellulose and that at the time of the fire the nitrocellulose supply of RGC had
already been consumed.

2. Mr. Pedro Garcia – He will testify that on August 17, 2005, at about 11:00
a.m., he was conferring with his boss at the conference room when they heard the
ringing of the alarm bell. They then hurriedly went out and he saw the three
electrical wires in RGC’s premises parallel to the two meter wide alley at the height
of about 8 to 10 meters burning and their insulations were peeling off and were
burning rapidly towards their opposite ends.

3. Gil Salas, As an expert witness, he will testify that the excessive heating of
electrical wire caused by such electrical wire’s carrying electrical current beyond its
rated capacity may cause fire. Example: When a motor connected to an electrical
wire becomes overloaded and the motor is damaged, short circuit may occur inside
the motor causing the same to draw a larger amount of electric current causing the
electrical wires to carry current beyond their rated capacity and the insulation
thereof will burn and this starts the fire.

The legal team also obtained a copy of the fire report from the Bureau of Fire
Protection. The report said, among others, that a series of explosions had been heard
immediately before the fire had broken out in the RGC premises. With this information, the
legal team started to have serious doubts on the merits of the case, especially on the
issue of the presence of nitrocellulose in RGC’s premises and whether it was the cause of
the fire. They felt that the client’s prospective witnesses were not fully disclosing the truth
and that MTC’s complaint is meritorious.

It came to the attention of the legal team that MTC would most likely present the
following two principal witnesses to testify during the trial:

1. Manuel de los Santos, a former employee of RGC, who will testify as follows:

(a) Before August 17, 2015 he recommended to, and caused the importation by RGC,
of four (4) drums of nitrocellulose which was stored in RGC’s Adhesive Manufacturing
Department and that he was the one who supervised the use of the same.

(b) He had been advising RGC that the drums of nitrocellulose be stored in a
separate building outside the main building of the company.

(c) When his employment was terminated by RGC sometime in June 2015, there
were still two (2) drums of unused nitrocellulose stored in the premises of MGC.

2. Reynaldo Reyes, also a former employee of RGC, who will testify as follows:

(a) On August 17, 2015, while working in the Adhesive Department of RGC, he
saw that something was smoking inside one of the drums stored in the premises.

(b) He hurriedly ran to the office of Mr. Oscar Cervantes, his boss, the one in
charge of the Adhesive Department, to tell him about the smoking drum.

(c) Mr. Cervantes and he immediately went to where the smoking drum was. Mr.
Cervantes told him and the other employees who by then had also rushed to the
scene not to tinker with the drum because it contained nitrocellulose and that it
might explode and for them to remove anything located around the drum that might
catch fire.

(d) Shortly after Mr. Cervantes had warned them, the drum exploded. 


When the team handling the case interviewed Mr. Oscar Cervantes – who had
resigned from RGC after the fire – he refused to testify for RGC for the purpose of
contradicting the story of Mr. Reynaldo Reyes about the incident.

At this point, the evidence was overwhelming that a drum in RGC’s premises
exploded and that this started the fire. When the legal team met with Mr. Santos again,
they raised this matter with him. He begrudgingly admitted that the cause of the fire was
the explosion of the drum containing nitrocellulose, but said that settlement of the case
was totally out of the question. He told the legal team that he wanted to get this case “out
of the way ASAP, using all possible means.”

ANNEX A

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

QUEZON CITY BRANCH 78

MIGHTY TRADERS’ CORPORATION

Plaintiff

- versus - Civil Case No. 35460

REPUBLIC GLUE CORPORATION

Defendant

x—————————————————————x

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, respectfully alleges that:

1. Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines,
with principal place of business and offices in Quezon City as borne by its Articles of Incorporation.
Defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with principal offices
at No. 150 Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong, Rizal, where it may be served with summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court.

2. At all times material to this case, plaintiff was essentially a trading firm while defendant
was essentially a manufacturing firm and both firms had their offices and trading/manufacturing
spaces at Mighty Traders’ Compound at 353 - 355 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City.

3. On or about August 17, 2005, a fire exploded from the Adhesives Department of the
defendant at 355 Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City, where it stored highly inflammable materials
such as but not limited to toluol, pegasol, nitro-cellulose that it used in the manufacture of rubber
cement, adhesives, sodium silicate, glue, varnish, and the like, as a result of which the adjacent
offices and building of the plaintiff, together with the contents thereof consisting of various
merchandise, finished goods, raw materials, machinery and equipment in use and other
equipment belonging to plaintiff were totally lost or destroyed.

4. The said fire was caused by the fault or negligence of defendant and/or its employees in not
taking the necessary precautions to avoid damage to others and in failing to comply with the
requirements of the authorities relative to use and storage of highly inflammable goods of materials.

5. As a result of the said fire that was caused by the fault or negligence of the defendant
and/ or its employees, the plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of at least P2,142,599.50,
itemized as follows:

Estimated Merchandise Inventory P1,507,503.24

Loss
FIXED ASSETS:

Cost Depreciation Net

Building P335,000.00 P163,798.89 P171,201.11

Cement Machinery 9,000.00 5,127.03 3,872.97

 Furniture & Fixtures 61,000.00 41,987.09 19,012.91

Medical Equipment 1,500.00 987.39 512.61

Office Mach & Equipment 74,000.00 40,536.68 33,463.32

PVC Machinery 227,000.00 109,395.46 117,604.54

Shop Mach & Equipment 123,000.00 73,125.95 49,874.05

Tools & Equipment 32,000.00 27,646.23 4,353.77

Construction Equipment 10,000.00 4,198.79 5,801.21

P 872,500.00 P 466,803.51 P405,696.49

Less: Salvage Value of Building P6,000.00

P399,696.4
9
Others:
PVC Materials & Products Stock P173,000.0
0
Cement Materials & Products Stock 313,000.00
Shop & IRS Matrials & Products Stock 130,000.00
Unused Office Supplies, Stamps
& Medical Supplies 15,032.06 

P 631,032.06
Total Estimate Fire Loss P 2,538,231.79


Deduct: Insurance Proceeds 395,632.29


Net : Fire Loss P 2,142,599.50

6. By reason of the fault of negligence of the defendant and/or its employees that caused the
mentioned fire, defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the aforesaid amount of at least P2,142,599.50.

7. To serve as an example for the public good and as a deterrent against similar actuations,
defendant should be made liable for exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00.
 8. In bringing this suit, plaintiff was constrained to retain the services of counsel for a fee
and to incur expenses of litigation in the amount of P300,000.00.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the

defendant to pay the plaintiff the following amounts:

1. P2,142,599.50 with legal interest from the date of filing of this Complaint until fully

paid;

2. P500,000.00 as exemplary damages;

3. P300,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.

4. The costs of suit.

Plaintiff also prays for such other reliefs just and equitable in the premises.

Manila for Quezon City, 05 January 2016.

ANNEX B

RETAINER AGREEMENT

Gentlemen:
 We have the honor to propose this retainer agreement for our engagement as legal
counsel for Republic Glue Corporation, (the “Corporation”). Upon your acceptance of this
proposal, the services of M & M Law Offices, through its different Service Departments, namely,
the Retainer, Intellectual Property (Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights), Corporate and Special
Projects, Labor, Immigration, Litigation (including Administrative Litigation, Arbitration and
Admiralty) and Tax Departments, as well as the services of our Cebu and Davao Branches, shall
be available to the Corporation, subject to the following terms:

Effectivity Date1: _______________

Retainer Fee:2 = Twenty thousand pesos (PhP 20,000.00) per month, or Sixty
Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) per quarter, plus 12% value added tax, payable quarterly in
advance within the first five (5) days of the first month of each calendar quarter. This amount
is tentatively fixed at this time since it is difficult for you and us at this stage to determine the
volume of work, the nature of services to be rendered and the complexities of the problems that
you may be encountering. Such retainer amount will be subject to adjustment upon mutual
agreement of the parties if our periodic review of the engagement indicates that economic
conditions or the volume of retainer work necessitate such adjustment.

Services Covered by the Retainer Fee: The retainer fee will cover the legal services
required in the ordinary course of the Corporation’s business, such as consultations, advice and
preparation of simple contracts and opinions, but shall not cover legal services (including the
drafting and/or review of contracts and/or the rendering of opinions) which will require extensive
studies or time involvement by our lawyers, or assistance at negotiations with, or representation
before, any governmental instrumentality. In the event our periodic review of the engagement
indicates that the services rendered under this paragraph substantially exceed the amount of
retainer fees paid, we reserve the right to send you additional retainer fee billing(s).

Other Services Subject to Separate Billings: All services required of us other than those
included above, such as litigation in court or appearance before legislative, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies or officials, other extraordinary legal services, as well as the services of our Cebu
and/ Davao Branches, shall be subject to separate special billings at a rate based upon, among others,
the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required, the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved, the importance of the subject matter, the skills demanded and the amount involved
in the project or controversy, and the benefits resulting to the client from the service. We shall inform
you whenever a particular case, project or matter you refer will be deemed by us as not covered by the
retainer fee and, therefore, subject to separate special billings. However, we will take the retainer
relationship into account and whenever we feel that the services covered by the retainer agreement are
not being fully availed of, we will make appropriate adjustments to billings described in this paragraph.
We reserve the right to make our own assessment of cases and/or other matters

1 The effectivity of this agreement shall be subject to our receipt of (a) your written conformity to this retainer agreement, and (b) the
initial retainer fee within fifteen (10) days from date hereof. (You may immediately fax to us an advance copy of the duly conformed to
retainer agreement and send the original thereof to us by courier.)

2 Subject to an additional amount corresponding to the applicable VAT in accordance with Republic Act No. 9337 and its
implementing regulations.

referred to us for purposes of determining the proper disposition of the referral. We shall send you on a
regular basis a statement of account for our services which are subject to separate special billings.

Delivery of Legal Services: Generally, a team of at least three (3) lawyers - composed of a
Supervising Partner, a Partner or Senior Associate in-charge, and one or more assisting Associates - is
assigned to every retainer client and to every case or project referred to the Firm. Our policy of creating
a team of lawyers for every retainer client and for every referral, we believe, promotes superior work
and also ensures, among others, that more than one lawyer will be responsible for any matter referred
to us, whether covered by the scope of our retainer services or otherwise, and that any member of the
assigned team of lawyers can take over the role of another who may not be available at any particular
point in time. The members of the assigned team of lawyers do not work in isolation within our Firm.
From time to time, they may have to consult with members of the other service groups in our Firm, i.e.,
the Corporate and Special Projects Department, Tax Department, Labor Department, Litigation
Department, Immigration Department, and Intellectual Property Department.

Out-of-pocket Expenses: Ordinary out-of-pocket expenses such as telex, facsimile, word

processing, machine reproduction and transportation expenses, as well as per diems and
accommodation expenses (which are at least business class for our lawyers) incurred in
undertaking work for you outside the Metro Manila area, and other special out-of-pocket expenses
you may authorize us to incur (which shall always be cleared with you in advance), shall be for
your account. In this connection, we would request you to deposit with us the amount of
P20,000.00 to cover such out-of- pocket expenses. Our Accounting Department will regularly
render a report on these expenses and, if necessary, request a replenishment of the deposit.

Interest Charges: Unpaid legal fees shall be charged two percent (2%) interest per month
starting thirty (30) days after your receipt of the first billing. Further, any amount advanced by the
Firm for your account shall be charged two percent (2%) interest per month from the date the
amount was disbursed.

Conflict of Interest: In case any matter should arise between you and another client of
this office, by virtue of which we might have a conflict of interest under the code of professional
responsibility which binds all lawyers, we reserve the right to inhibit ourselves from representing
you and/or our other client(s) insofar as that particular matter is concerned.

Termination: This retainer contract is subject to termination by either party on sixty (60)
days notice in writing.

If the foregoing meets with your approval, please indicate your conformity in the space
provided hereinbelow and return to us a signed duplicate original of this letter for our files.

We look forward to being able to work with you closely and to servicing your legal requirements.

Very truly yours,

MAGDANGAL & MATATAG LAW OFFICES

By: ATTY. CONSUELO MATATAG

Managing Partner

CONFORME:

REPUBLIC GLUE CORPORATION

By:

MR. RUBEN SANTOS

President and General Manager

Relevant Ethical Issues Resolution/Stand

Rule/Law

M&M counsel
Canon 1 Rule RGC’s insistence that they are not willing to settle
1.04 CPR even though they were admittedly in the wrong Commented [6]: A lawyer shall encourage his clients
to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a
Canon 19 Rule RCG Pres told the legal team that he wanted to get fair settlement.
19.03 CPR this case “out of the way ASAP, using all possible
means. Commented [7]: A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling the case.
 RETAINER AGREEMENT
Canon 14 Rule For non-retainer clients a case referral must be
14.01 CPR carefully evaluated and must be rejected if the
Litigation Department is of the view that the client’s
position is not meritorious. But for retainer clients
like RGC this policy is relaxed and M & M Law
Offices feels obligated to accept the referral even if
the Litigation Department has misgivings about the
merits of the case.
Canon 22 Rule This retainer contract is subject to termination by
22.01 CPR
either party on sixty (60) days notice in writing.
Canon 44 of the
If ground is not meritorious case? BUT they have
Canon of
agreement, assuming na it was signed na…
Professional obligatory force lol
Ethics
VAT + interest charge
Out of pocket expenses
Alam ko may isang method/scheme of payment na
dapat si client magshoulder ng filing fees, docket
fees but NOT transpo, fax fees, etc
Separate billings
Canon 18 Rule The retainer fee will cover the legal services
18.01 Rule 18.03 required in the ordinary course of the Corporation’s
business, such as consultations, advice and
preparation of simple contracts and opinions, but
shall not cover legal services (including the drafting
and/or review of contracts and/or the rendering of
opinions) which will require extensive studies or
time involvement by our lawyers
CASE STUDY # 2: The Case of the Blood Brothers
DG and Eppy were best friends since college. They were both only children, and
treated each other as the blood brothers that they never had. When they both went to law
school, they decided to join the same fraternity, OSM, in order to cement their friendship
and bond.
Commented [8]: A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the latter's
race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
THO NOT SURE bec not crim case so no guilt
Parang pwede!!! But not on the ground na not meritorious
case. Kasi diba sabi ni pres “using all possible means”
Commented [9]: A lawyer may withdraw his services
suggesting na even illegal means
in any of the following case:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the matter he is
handling;
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not
promote the best interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer
renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment
effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for
the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public
office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Commented [10]: Withdrawal from employment as
attorney or counsel.
Commented [11]: A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain
as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on
the matter.
Commented [12]: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
 Even though DG and Eppy entered law school in the same year, DG was more
focused on his law studies, and took great care to not let his frat activities get in the way of
his academics. He graduated on time with honors, and passed the Bar on his first take,
bringing much pride to his family and his frat and brods. Eppy, on the other hand, chose to
focus on frat activities, which took away considerable time from his studying. He had to
drop a number of subjects, which pushed back his graduation by a couple of years.
Nevertheless he took pride in that he never failed a subject, and that his brods were loyal
to their frat and to him.

Even though their paths diverged after DG’s graduation, Eppy nevertheless made it
a point to keep DG in the loop on any of their frat activities and parties. On his part, DG did
his best to be at the frat gatherings as much as he could unless out-of-town hearings
prevented him from coming back in time.

Sometime December 2015, DG and Eppy were at the annual OSM Christmas ball.
As could be expected, food and alcohol flowed profusely, and people were in a festive
mood. DG and Eppy took the opportunity to drink to their heart’s content since Christmas
was just a few days away. Eppy, spotting a pretty girl from across the room, nudged DG
saying, “Check her out. I’m going to score with her tonight.” Eppy had always had a eye for
pretty girls, and DG laughed, saying, “Good luck, pare. You’ll need it!” With drink in tow,
Eppy made his way towards the girl, leaving DG to fend for himself.

Eppy disappeared for some time after that. At around 2 a.m., as DG prepared to
leave, Eppy came back in a hurry, looking somewhat disheveled. Just as DG was about to
ask what happened, Eppy told him, “Pare, let’s get out of here.” Thinking it was just a case
of Eppy having had too much alcohol and a good time, he left it at that, and left the party
with Eppy.

A few days later, DG came across an article in the newspaper, talking about how a
pretty co-ed had been found naked and unconscious on the evening of their OSM
Christmas Ball, not very far from where they had had it. The co-ed had been found
unconscious, her hair disheveled, bra pulled out of her dress, dress pulled off over her
shoulders and up above her waist. When she was found, she was butt naked, legs spread
apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object.

The newspaper had published a picture of the unconscious woman, with her face
pixelated so as to make her unrecognizable. DG realized, with a shock, that it was the
pretty girl that Eppy had pointed out to him on the night of the party.

Sometime later, CCTV cameras in the area were able to identify Eppy as the one
who had assaulted the girl. Eppy was criminally charged.

Eppy tapped his fraternity brod, Jigo, a practicing lawyer specializing in criminal
defense cases, to be his lead defense counsel. They mobilized a team of brods to help out

with the defense. Eppy, wanted to personally be involved in the strategizing of his case, as
his future as a lawyer depended on it.

The case was raffled to Judge Jose Santos, who was a prominent alumnus and
brod of OSM Fraternity. It turned out that the victim was a baptismal god-daughter of
Judge Santos, and a student leader and honor student at another law school.

In Eppy’s defense, Atty. Jigo stated, among others that the victim was: (a)
practically an alcoholic, (b) promiscuous, (c) crazy/out of her mind, and (d) really wanted to
hook up.
 During the trial, Atty. Jigo cross-examined the victim, asking the following questions
in rapid succession:

How old are you?

How much do you weigh?

What did you eat that day?

Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No,
not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you
drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink?

Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly?

What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’d you do when you
got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that?

What does this text mean? Who were you texting?

When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside?

Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really
be-cause on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring.

Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you
black out?

Did you party at frats?

Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him?

When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating?
What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him?

Do you remember what time you woke up?

You didn’t notice any abrasions, right?

Do you remember any more from that night?

The ordeal of the cross-examination left the victim in a state of shock and
depression for several weeks.
 Commented [13]: A judge shall not allow family,
social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office
shall not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge.
Commented [14]: He should abstain from participating
in any judicial act in which his personal interests are
involved. If he has personal litigation in the court of
which he is judge, he need not resign his judgeship on
that account, but he should, of course, refrain from any
judicial act in such a controversy

Relevant Ethical Issues Resolution/Stand Commented [15]: No judge or judicial officer shall sit
in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is
Rule/La pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
w otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within
the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
JUDGE counsel within the fourth degree, computed according
to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been
Canon 2 rule Judge Jose Santos as alumnus of the fraternity and as Should inhibit. Pwede bang sabihin na fraternities executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or
2.03 Code of godparent of the victim are known for their “loyalty” and even though in which he has been presided in any inferior court
Judicial sabihin na nating may integrity talaga si judge, when his ruling or decision is the subject of review,
Conduct even appearance of impropriety is not allowed. without the written consent of all parties in interest,
signed by them and entered upon the record.
Canon 28 Also, culture of pamilee dun sa girl. Godparent
Canons of siya nung victim. Parang kahit ano maging A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
Judicial Ethics decision niya magkakaron ng appearance of
impropriety and bias kasi connected siya sa both.
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
Rule 137 Sec Pwede rin bang sabihin na conflict of interest? reasons other than those mentioned above.
1 ROC Hahahaha IDK.
Commented [16]: Kinship or influence of parties and
No. 12 Code Yup yup either way/party, pag nagrule sya counsel.
of Judicial mukhang biased
Ethics A judge should not, unless it is unavoidable, sit in
litigation where a near relative is a party of counsel;
Canon 2 Sec. Demeanor of the judge while the trial was ongoing. The judge has the duty to call out the lawyers and he should not suffer his conduct to create the
3 New Code should there be any unprofessional conduct impression that the person can unduly influence him or
of Judicial exhibited in court. (Re the manner of cross- enjoy his favor, or that he is affected by rank, position,
Conduct examination by the lawyer) or influence of any party.
Commented [17]: Judges should take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or
court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the
judge may have become aware.
 ATTY. JIGO
Canon 12 Eppy’s defense as espoused by Atty. Jigo “Practically an alcoholic, (b) promiscuous, (c)
Rule 12.07 crazy/out of her mind, and (d) really wanted to Commented [18]: A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat
CPR hook up.” Abusive and harassment siya. or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Completely irrelevant sa case.

Canon 12 The questions asked during the cross-examination

Rule 12.07
Commented [19]: A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat
CPR
or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Canon 11
Rule 11.03
Commented [20]: A lawyer shall abstain from
Canon 18 scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
Canon of behavior before the Courts.
Professional
Ethics
Commented [21]: Treatment of witnesses and litigants

A lawyer should always treat adverse witnesses and

suitors with fairness and due consideration, and he
DG (just in case) should never minister to the malevolence or prejudices
of a client in the trial or conduct of a cause. The client
What should have been done by DG after finding out that it can not be made the keeper of the lawyer's conscience
was Eppy who was with the girl the night she was raped in professional matter. He has no right to demand that
his counsel shall abuse the opposite party or indulge in
Canon 19 In the scenario that DG would be asked to be counsel for offensive personalities. Improper speech is not
Canon of Eppy, and DG is a material witness. excusable on the ground that it is what the client would
Professional say if speaking in his own behalf.
Ethics
Commented [22]: Appearance of lawyer as witness for
Whether accept case or refer Refer to other lawyer his client

MEJ MAAM’S POSITION: Refer kasi obvious guilty; parang di
sya nag agree with the people na nagsabi na accept case
kasi innocent until proven otherwise, need ng counsel ni brod,
brod kasi etc
Can’t provide the best defense = and inability to
provide the best legal service is a ground to
withdraw from the case
When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to
merely formal matters, such as the attestation or
custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave
the trial of the case to other counsel. Except when
essential to the ends justice, a lawyer should avoid
testifying in behalf of his client.