2018 MOCK BAR

EXAMINATIONS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL
ETHICS

October 7, 2018 1:00 P.M.

- 3:30 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS
1. This Questionnaire contains four (4) pages. Check and
make sure that your Questionnaire has the correct number
of pages. You may write on your Questionnaire a~ you
answer the questions.

Read each question very carefully and write your answers in

your Bar Examination Notebook in the same order of the
questions. Answer the essay questions legibly, clearly and
concisely. Write your answers only on 'the front of every page of
your Notebook. If the front pages are not sufficient continue at
the back of the first page and so on. Start ev.ery number on a
separate page, but an answer to a sub• question under
the same number may be written continuously on the same
page and on the immediately succeeding pages until the
answer is complete. Follow the numbering sequence of the
Questionnaire in your answers.

2. Your answers should demonstrate your ability to analyze

the facts, apply the pertinent laws and ·jurisprudence, and
arrive at sound and logical conclusions. Answers· must
fully explain even if the questions do not expressly
require explanations. A "Yes" or "No" answer sans
explanation or discussion will not be given full credit.

3. Marking of your Notebook with your name or other

identifying signs or 'symbols extraneous to the subject
matter of the questions may be considered as cheating and
may disqualify you.

Good luck!

YOU CAN BRING HOME THE

QUESTIONNAIRE.

ACADEMICUS
REVIEW CENTER
2018 Mock Bar
Examinations

I.

The SC issued Show Cause Resolution requiring 37 law professors

why they should not be disciplined for using foul and abusive
language in criticizing its decision in Vinuya case, thus:

"a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the

Highest Court of the land;"
"dismissal on the basis of polluted sources;" .
"supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the SC for even
the most basic values of decency and respect"

Can law professors invoke Academic Freedom as defense in administrative

proceeding for their intemperate statement?

No. While lawyer-professors are guaranteed academic freedom, it is

not inconsistent with academic freedom for this Court to subject
lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct
and speech in a pending case, even if purportedly done in their
capacity as teachers. In Cayetano vs. Monsod, lawyers when they
teach law, are considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike
professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers who do not
teach laws, respondents are bound by their oath to uphold the ethical
standards of the legal profession. (Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
to the SC, AM 10-10-4-SC, March 8, 2011)
II

Atty. Daquis filed on behalf of complainant a Petition for Nullity of

Marriage without the latter's consent and forged her signature.
Respondent also signed the petition as her counsel, when in fact Atty.
Daquis was not her counsel but that of her husband. Is Atty. Daquls
liable for malpractice?

Yes. Atty. Daquis violated the Code of Professional Responsibility that

prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct (Canon 1, Rule 1.01). Atty. Daquis owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court (Canon 10) nor shall he do any
falsehood, or consent to the doing of any in court. He shall not
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. (Rule 10.01).
He shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts (Canon 15, Rule
15.03)

In this case, Atty. Daquis committed acts supposedly representing a

client without the consent or even against the knowledge of the latter.
He even engaged in an interest conflicting with a person who trusted
him. Hence, Atty. Daquis must be penalized by malpractice. (Tamaray
vs. Daquis, January 26,, 2016)

III

After issuance of the entry of judgment, counsel for defendant, Atty. Jose,
filed no less than twelve (12) motions in connection with such entry of
judgment. He also filed several original cases in various courts if only to.
forestall the Implementation of the writ of execution issued in the same case.
Are Atty. Jose's actions proper?
No. Under the Lawyer’s Oath (Rule 1.03, Canon 1), a lawyer
shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or delay any man’s cause. Because a lawyers is an officer of
the court called upon to assist in the administration of justice,
any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the
administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him. (Salabao vs. Atty. Villaruel,
August 24, 2015).
IV
Atty. Chua helped Wilma, best friend of Atty. Chua's law school classmate,
in drafting of criminal complaint-affidavit. Atty. C hua also· gave her
personal opinion on the matter. Atty. Chua received part of attorney’s
fees Wilma paid to her counsel, but did not officially serve as Wilma's
counsel and did not appear in all the hearings of the case. Is there lawyer-
client relationship between Atty. Chua and Wilma?

Yes. “Documentary formalism” is not an essential element in the

employment of an attorney because the contract may be express or
implied. To establish relation, it is enough that advice and assistance
of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession. Further, acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship. (Ruby vs. Atty. Bayot, February 23, 2013)
V

Complainant hired Atty. Galing as regards. the dishonored checks issued

by Manila Councilor Arlene Koa. Atty. Galing drafted and sent demand
letter, then filed criminal complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22.
Complainant was surprised to see Atty. Galing during the preliminary
investigation appearing as counsel for Ms. Koa. Atty. Galing argued that no
l awyer-client relationship existed as there was no professional fee paid
him. Further, he drafted the demand letter as personal favor to a close
friend. Is there lawyer-client relationship established by Atty. Galing?

Yes. Lawyer-client relationship can exist despite close friendship

between complainant and respondent. Such relationship is established
the moment complainant sought legal advice.

Drafting of demand letter, further, affirms such relationship

Absence of monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from

complying with prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting
interests (Justo vs. Atty. Galing, November 16, 2011)

VI

Atty, H was the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Regional

Director in Cebu City. He was charged with grave misconduct
and was suspended for 6 months. Several CHR employees
questioned his continuance in office during his suspension, but
A tty. H argued his work in the CHR did not constitute practice of
law as it involved administrative work in government. Is Atty. H
correct?

No. The exercise of the powers and functions of the CHR

Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the
Regional Director must be an attorney – a member of the bar
in good standing and authorized to practice law. When the
Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she
is disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the
Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to the
position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended
lawyer must desist from holding the position of Regional
Director. (Lingan vs. Atty/s Calubaquib, et al,. June 30,
2014)
 VII

Atty. Era drafted for Samson demand letters, complaint

affidavit and filed an estafa case against Sison. Samson and Sison
entered into a compromise agreement in the civil aspect of the
criminal case. Later, Samson was surprised to see Atty. Era
already representing Sison in the same estafa case. Atty. Era
contended that his professional relationship with Samson ended
when Samson and Sison entered into compromise agreement.
Decide.

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by

written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the
facts. (Rule 15.03). Termination of lawyer-client relationship
does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with his former client. Even after severance of the
relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will adversely
affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer
previously represented the client. (Samson vs. Atty. Era, July 16,
2013)

VIII.

In settling his client's claim, Atty. Cortez received from the adverse
party P200,000.00 in cash for his client. Thereafter, Atty. Cortez
deposited the cash in his own bank account and later issued .his
personal check to his client, less his fees. Is Atty. Cortez's action
justifiable?
No. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession and account for all money
or property collected or received for or from his client. (Rule 16.01
and Canon 16, CPR). Specifically, a lawyer should keep the funds of
his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him. (Rule 16.02, Canon 16, CPR). Hence, Atty. Cortez’s action is
not justifiable.
IX.
After Atty. Arguendo got a P2 million final judgment in his client's
favour, he promptly asked the court, without informing· his client,
to allow him a charging lien over the money in the amount of
P500,000.00, his agreed fees. The court issued a Writ of Execution
for the whole judgment in Atty. Arguendo's name with an order to
turn over the excess to his client. Is Atty. Arguendo's action
correct?
No. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
whenever they are due the latter. And the law states that he
shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees, by
giving notice promptly to his client. (Rule 16.03, Canon 16,
CPR). In this case, Atty. Arguendo obtained the money from
final judgment, without informing his client about such final
judgment in the first place, and his intention to apply part of
the judgment to his charging lien. Hence, Atty. Arguendo’s
action is not correct.
X
 Complainant paid Atty. Mendoza attorney's fees and expenses, but
failed to perform the work .for three (3) years and refused to
return the fees and expenses so paid. Atty. Mendoza in his
comment invoked his retaining lien. What is Atty. Mendoza required
to do if he fails to perform his duties despite collecting fees?
If a lawyer collects money from client for particular purpose,
he must account how the money was spent, or return the
same if not spent. Otherwise, misappropriation is presumed.
His retaining lien must have these elements: 1) lawyer-client
relationship; 2) lawful possession of funds, documents, etc.; 3) unsatisfied
claim for attorney’s fees. Accounting and notice to client are also required.
(San Pedro vs. Atty. Mendoza, December 10, 2014).

XI.
.
Complainant alleged that as retained counsel, Atty. De la Rosa
borrowed the amount of P2,500,000 and promised to pay with
interest. Upon demand,, Atty. Dela Rosa not only refused to pay,
but alleged that it was another person who actually borrowed
the money. Is Atty. Dela Rosa’s action justified?

No. Lawyer-client relation is imbued with trust and confidence.

A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or
by independent advice. Thus, borrowing is abuse of
confidence and the Canon presumes that client is
disadvantaged by the lawyers‘ ability to use all legal
maneuverings to renege on his obligation. (Concepcion vs.
Atty. Dela Rosa, February 3, 2015)

XII.
Atty. Lacaya entered into a written contingent fee for P20,000
in case Cadavedo prevails in a case. Later, Atty. Lacaya orally
asked for one-half of the property subject of the case as attorney's
fees. He caused the subdivision of the lot and got the more
valuable half thereof. Is Atty. Lacaya's action correct?

No. The Civil Code forbids lawyers from acquiring, by sale or

assignment, property subject of litigation [Article 1491 (5), Civil
Code). This Agreement is known as “champerty”, the receipt of
a share of the proceeds of litigation by the intermeddler. The
written agreement providing for contingent fee of P20,000
should prevail over the real agreement providing for one-half
of the subject lot. Hence, the transfer of the disputed one-half
portion and the agreement are prohibited and void by reason
of public policy. (Cadavedo vs. Lacaya, January 15, 2014)

XIII

Atty. Z was appointed as Associate Solicitor at the Office of the

Solicitor General (OSG). He informed his client in a civil case about
his government appointment and his client agreed to his withdrawal
from the case as counsel. How can a lawyer withdraw from a
pending case?
 The lawyer must obtain the consent of his client and file with
the court a motion for withdrawal of appearance as counsel.
The motion to be effective must be approved by the court,
even if the client has already consented to the counsel’s
withdrawal.

XIV

Draft a Notice of Hearing in litigated motion filed by Atty. A for

Atty. B in a pending civil case before RTC Tagbilaran City, Branch
271.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 271
TAGBILARAN CITY, BOHOL

JUAN CRUZ,
Pe
titioner,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 13-
0846

VENANCIO IGNACIO
Resp
ondent.
x--------------------
-----x

NOTICE OF HEARING

ATTY B
(Counsel for the respondent)
No. 7 Almond Street, Apple Village 1
Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Please be notified that the above-entitled case is set for hearing

on 5 November 2018 at Nine (9) o’clock in the morning before
this Court holding office at the Ground Floor, Hall of Justice Bldg.,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol Province.

MATTERS TO BE HEARD: MOTION FILED BY COMPLAINANT,

through ATTY. A
 WITNESS the HON. PEN MEDINA, Presiding Judge of this
Court, this 16th day of October, 2018 in the City of Tagbilaran, Bohol.

ATTY. MARIA LASQUIÑAS

Branch Clerk of Court

XV

Draft a Verification and Certification of Juan Cruz as petitioner in a civil case.

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIIFCATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, JUAN CRUZ, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married and a resident of #701
Tramo St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Las Pinas City after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state the following:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
3. I have read the instant Petition in its entirety and all the averments and
contentions contained therein are true and correct to the best of my own personal
knowledge;
4. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding has been filed
and is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
5. If I should thereafter learned that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom.

IN TRUTH WHEREFORE, I have here unto set my hand and affixed my

signature this _____ day of October, 2018 in Tagbilaran City.

JUAN CRUZ

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of December, 2017

at Las Piňas City, affiant exhibiting to me her ___________________.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc No. _________
Page No._________
Book No._________
Series of 2018_____

XVI

Draft an Explanation in a motion filed by Atty. C.

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 271
TAGBILARAN CITY, BOHOL

JUAN CRUZ,
Pe
titioner,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 13-
0846

VENANCIO IGNACIO
Resp
ondent.
x--------------------
-----x

EXPLANATION
COMES NOW, JUAN CRUZ by himself and in his behalf, unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits his Explanation

and alleged :

1. That, on October 7, 2018, a Decision was issued by this

Honorable Court dismissing my case for lack of merit;

2. That I have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Decision

within which to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration on the

said Decision dismissing my case.

3. That I received the Decision only on October 15, 2018

and thus, I have until October 30, 2018 to file an appeal or a

motion for reconsideration of the Decision;

 4. That I filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 26,

2018 within the reglamentary period of filing the same under the

Revised Rules of Court;

5. That a hearing was scheduled on October 30, 2018 to

which I failed to attend the same;

6. That the reason why I was not able to attend was

because my child was sick and I have to attend to him and bring

him to the hospital on the said date;

7. That I beg the indulgence of this Court to allow and

schedule the hearing on my motion preferably on November 3,

2018 so as to hear my side in consonance with due process of

law.

WHEREFORE, in view of the above disquisition, it is

respectfully prayed that the instant Explanation be NOTED and

that another schedule be made to hear my motion.

Las Piñas City, October 30, 2018.

JUAN CRUZ

-END-

- GOOD LUCK ·