BAR QUESTIONS- LEGAL ETHICS

[grifter]

BAR EXAMINATIONS 2005
LEGAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL EXERCISES
Page 1of 7
25 September 2005
2 P.M. -- 5 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire consists of sixteen (16) numbers contained in seven (7) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on the same and immediately succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat the question.HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

GOOD LUCK!!!

PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS SET
WARNING: NOT FOR SALE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE

- I -

Multiple choice. Choose the correct answer. Write the letter corresponding to your answer.

(1.) Which of the following need not be verified?

a) Petition for Certiorari;

b) Interpleader;

c) Petition for Habeas Corpus;

d) Answer with compulsory counterclaim;

e) All pleadings under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
(2%)

(2.) Which of the following statements is false?

a) All administrative cases against Justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

b) Administrative cases against erring Justices of the Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan, judges, and lawyers in the government service are not automatically treated as disbarment cases.

c) The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio, or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring lawyers including those in the government service.

d) The filing of an administrative case against the judge is not a ground for disqualification/inhibition.

e) Trial courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of offenses committed by justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts. (2%)

(3.) On which of the following is a lawyer proscribed from testifying as a witness in a case he is handling for a client:

a) On the mailing of documents;

b) On the authentication or custody of any instrument;

c) On the theory of the case;

d) On substantial matters in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice. (2%)

- II -

Mike Adelantado, an aspiring lawyer, disclosed in his petition to take the 2003 Bar Examinations that there were two civil cases pending against him for nullification of contract and damages. He was thus allowed to conditionally take the bar, and subsequently placed third in the said exams.

In 2004, after the two civil cases had been resolved, Mike Adelantado filed his petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys before the Supreme Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant, however, had received two anonymous letters: the first alleged that at the time Mike Adelantado filed his petition to take the bar, he had two other civil cases pending against him, as well as a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 22; the other letter alleged that Mike Adelantado, as Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairperson, had been signing the attendance sheets of (SK) meetings as "Atty. Mike Adelantado."

a) Having passed the bar, can Mike Adelantado already use the appellation "attorney"? Explain your answer. (3%)

b) Should Mike Adelantado be allowed to take his oath as a lawyer and sign the Roll of Attorneys? Explain your answer. (3%)

- III -

Atty. Kuripot was one of Town Bank's valued clients. In
recognition of his loyalty to the bank, he was issued a gold credit card with a credit limit of P250,000.00. After two months, Atty. Kuripot exceeded his credit limit, and refused to pay the monthly charges as they fell due. Aside from a collection suit, Town Bank also filed a disbarment case against Atty. Kuripot.

In his comment on the disbarment case, Atty. Kuripot insisted that he did not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, since his obligation to the bank was personal in nature and had no relation to his being a lawyer.

a) Is Atty. Kuripot correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

b) Explain whether Atty. Kuripot should be held administratively liable for his refusal to settle his credit card bill. (3%)

- IV -

You had just taken your oath as a lawyer. The secretary to the president of a big university offered to get you as the official notary public of the school. She explained that a lot of students lose their Identification Cards and are required to secure an affidavit of loss before they can be issued a new one. She claimed that this would be very lucrative for you, as more than 30 students lose their Identification Cards every month. However, the secretary wants you to give her one-half of your earnings therefrom.

Will you agree to the arrangement? Explain. (5%)
- V -

Judge Horacio would usually go to the thingypits on Saturdays for relaxation, as the owner of the thingypit is a friend of his. He also goes to the casino once a week to accompany his wife who loves to play the slot machines. Because of this, Judge Horacio was administratively charged. When asked to explain, he said that although he goes to these places, he only watches and does not place any bets.Is his explanation tenable? Explain.(5%)

- VI -

A business man is looking for a new retainer. He approached you and asked for your schedule of fees or charges. He informed you of the professional fees he is presently paying his retainer, which is actually lower than your rates. He said that if your rates are lower, he would engage your services.

Will you lower your rates in order to get the client? Explain. (5%)

- VII -

(1.) Judge Segotier is a member of Phi Nu Phi Fraternity. Atty. Nonato filed a motion to disqualify Judge Segotier on the ground that the counsel for the opposing party is also a member of the Phi Nu Phi Fraternity. Judge Segotier denied the motion.

Comment on his ruling. (5%)

(2.) In an intestate proceeding, a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in favor of a Regional Trial Court Judge was filed by one of the heirs. Another heir opposed the petition on the ground that the judge is disqualified to become an administrator of the estate as he is the brother-in-law of the deceased.

Rule on the petition. (5%)

- VIII -

Due to the number of cases handled by Atty. Cesar, he failed to file a notice of change of address with the Court of Appeals. Hence, he was not able to file an appellant's brief and consequently, the case was dismissed. Aggrieved, Atty. Cesar filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the appeal and to set aside the entry of judgment on the ground that he already indicated in his "Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief" his new address and that his failure to file a notice of change of address is an excusable negligence.

Will the motion prosper? Explain. (5%)

- IX -

Darius is charged with the crime of murder. He sought Atty. Francia's help and assured the latter that he did not commit the crime. Atty. Francia agreed to represent him in court. During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses whose testimonies convinced Atty. Francia that her client is guilty. She confronted his client who eventually admitted that he indeed committed the crime. In view of his admission, Atty. Francia decided to withdraw from the case.Should Atty. Francia be allowed to do so? Explain. (5%)

- X -

Atty. Yabang was suspended as a member of the Bar for a period of one (1) year. During the period of suspension, he was permitted by his law firm to continue working in their office, drafting and preparing pleadings and other legal documents but was not allowed to come into direct contact with the firms' clients. Atty. Yabang was subsequently sued for illegal practice of law. Would the case prosper? Explain. (5%)

- XI -

Atty. Japzon, a former partner of XXX law firm, is representing Kapuso Corporation in a civil case against Kapamilya Corporation whose legal counsel is XXX law firm. Atty. Japzon claims that she never handled the case of Kapamilya Corporation when she was still with XXX law firm.

Is there a conflict of interest? Explain. (5%)

- XII -

Pending before the sala of Judge Magbag is the case of CDG versus JQT. The legal counsel of JQT is Atty. Ocsing who happens to be the brother of Atty. Ferreras, a friend of Judge Magbag. While the case was still being heard, Atty. Ferreras and his wife celebrated their wedding anniversary. They invited their friends and family to a dinner party at their house in Forbes Park. Judge Magbag attended the party and was seen conversing with Atty. Ocsing while they were eating at the same table.

Comment on the propriety of Judge Magbag's act. (5%)

- XIII -

Gerry Cruz is the owner of a 1,000-square meter lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12345 located in Sampaloc, Metro Manila. Gerry decided to sell the property but did not have the time to look for a buyer. He then designated his brother, Jon, to look for a buyer and negotiate the sale. Jon met Angelo Santos who expressed his interest to buy the lot. Angelo agreed to pay P1 Million for the property on September 26, 2005.

a) Draft the Special Power of Attorney to be executed by Gerry Cruz, as principal, in favor of his brother Jon, as agent, authorizing the latter to sell the property in favor of Angelo Santos. (7%)

b) Draft the Deed of Sale of Real Property. (7%)

- XIV -

Draft a withdrawal of counsel without conformity of client. (6%)

- XV -

Draft a Notice of Appeal. (6%)

- XVI -

Draft a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. (6%)

NOTHING FOLLOWS