CASE EXAMINATION
Case No. 1
IBP Davao requested you to render free legal aid to BARANGAY TREASURER BUDOTS
REVILLA in the case for Malversation of Public Funds filed against him by the
Ombudsman. However, Budots confessed to you that he actually used the barangay
funds. He loaned these to the barangay health workers who needed money to make
ends meet during the pandemic. Budots was then preventively suspended from his
office, leaving him with no source of income.
Will you defend him? State your reason and cite your legal basis.
Yes, I will defend him. Under Canon 14, a lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy. In this case it was IBP Davao who requested me to render the free legal aid to
Barangay Treasurer Budots Revilla, who was preventively suspended from office leaving
him with no source of income. According to Rule 14.02, a lawyer shall not decline,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio as amicus
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid. I shall serve as Revilla’s lawyer professionally and
competently because under Rule 14.04, a lawyer who accepts the cause of a person
unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.
Can a lawyer decline to accept a losing case? Explain with legal basis.
No. A lawyer cannot decline to accept a losing case. Under Rule 2.01, a lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed. A losing
case, for me, is not a valid reason. First of all, a lawyer is not a judge who can give a
verdict whether a case is winning or losing. Second, not knowing all the facts of the
case and on how the other party will present theirs is also pre-empting the case. Lastly,
if all lawyers decline losing cases, which is subjective to them at this point, then who
would take up those cases. Justice will not be achieved by this end because prejudging is a form of injustice. Consequently, under Rule 2.02, even if the lawyer does
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Cite one instance when you can refuse to represent Budots Revilla in this case. Provide
legal basis.
Under Rule 14.03, a lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client,
as in this case since Revilla had no source of income due to being preventively
suspended, unless he is not in a position to carryout the work effectively or competently
or he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective client. For instance, during the time that I
was requested by IBP Davao to render free legal aid to Revilla, I was indisposed
because of a prior commitment and Revilla, at that time, needed the legal aid
immediately. Another instance could be is that I newly entered the government service
as a lawyer which IBP Davao does not know yet. So, there would be a conflict of
interest between who I work for (the government) and Revilla’s case.
Case No. 2
ATTY. RICO BWANCO was the legal counsel of Joggle Innovative Marketing. To become
a member thereof, Atty. Rico required prospective “investors” to issue blank, postdated
checks to cover their monthly investment of PhP5,000.00, for which they were assured
a 400% return the following month. Before the maturity of the checks, Atty. Rico would
ask the member if it was funded. If the member answers in the negative, Atty. Rico
would then fill out the check in the amount of PhP50,000.00, representing the member’s
monthly investment, 20% interest rate, attorneys’ fees, damages, and other charges, and
then encash it. Atty. Rico would then file a criminal case against the delinquent member
for issuing a bouncing check in violation of B.P. Blg. 22. One of Atty. Rico’s victims,
Maris Bacal, complained Rico to the IBP. During the investigation, Atty. Rico raised the
following defenses: 1) he cannot possibly be charged since the Usury Law has been
repealed and the Central Bank allows the imposition of any rate of interest. Moreover,
the filing of B.P. 22 cases was a legal remedy he can avail of; and 2) the charges
against him concern his personal conduct and has nothing to do with the practice of his
profession, thus, the IBP has no jurisdiction.
How do you dispose of Atty. Rico’s arguments? Rebut each one in sequence and provide
legal basis.
Atty. Rico, in his arguments, said that he cannot possibly be charged since the Usury
Law has been repealed and the Central Bank allows the imposition of any rate of
interest. While it is true that there are currently no ceilings set for the imposition of
interest rates in view of Central Bank Circular No. 905, series of 1982 (which suspended
the effectivity of the Usury Law), the Supreme Court already ruled that imposition of
usurious interest rates is illegal. Even if both parties agreed to a rate, the legality or
illegality of the contract stipulation entered by the parties is subject to the court’s
determination. The imposition of unconscionable interest rates is contrary to morals, if
not against the law. As stated in the Civil Code Article 1409, these contracts are
inexistent and void ab initio or void from the beginning. Hence, said contract
stipulations cannot be ratified nor can the right to set up their illegality as a defense be
waived.
Moreover, Atty. Rico contends that the filing of B.P. 22 cases was a legal remedy he can
avail of. The investment scheme, however, is questionable. While it is true that Maris
Bacal issued blank checks, it is because it was required by Joggle Innovative Marketing.
Bacal can use this as a defense aside from the fact that it was Atty. Rico who wrote the
absurd amounts to use the checks in the filing of the cases.
Atty. Rico also said that the charges against him concern his personal conduct and has
nothing to do with the practice of his profession, thus, the IBP has no jurisdiction. Under
Canon 1, a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process. Particularly under Rule 1.01, a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. To this Atty. Rico is guilty.
He cannot say that his personal conduct is different from his practice of profession. He
uses the title, “Atty.’ In his dealings, so his being a lawyer lends him credibility which he
should not misuse and disabuse.
What Atty. Rico did was illegal, immoral and deplorable as a member of the Bar. He
took advantage of his profession. In this case, Atty. Rico took it upon himself to pretend
to be the victim and the counsel as well for the company pretending to be the “victim”,
when in fact what they were dealing was an investment scam. Atty. Rico is also guilty
of violating Rule 1.3 (a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause), because for his and the company’s
corrupt motives, he has proceeded a cause against the “investors” who were the true
victims in this case.
Case No. 3
ATTY. GERALD WANDERSON represented his wife, Bea Malonzo, in the Libel case that
the latter filed against Julia Claretto. During trial, Atty. Gerald was smitten by Julia, with
whom he eventually begot twins in 2018. In 2019, Bea discovered Gerald’s affair; in fact,
it became known not only by Gerald’s officemates, but by the community, as pictures of
his illicit relations with Julia were in several social networking sites. Since then, Gerald
never returned home. He abandoned Bea and the educational plan and support of their
children were subsequently cut off. Worse, Atty. Gerald became a co-counsel in the
Libel case of Julia. In his defense, Atty. Gerald denies having any extramarital affair, but
admits having fathered Julia’s twins. In fact, it was only in 2020 when, after he had
already converted to Islam and divorced Bea, that he married Julia. As a matter of fact,
the Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for Adultery filed against him. Meanwhile, on
his engagement as co-counsel, he alleges that he only helped Julia in making her
Judicial Affidavits, and no confidential information was disclosed.
Can Atty. Gerald be disbarred even if the Adultery case against him was dismissed?
Explain your reason and provide legal basis.
Yes, Atty. Gerald can be disbarred even if the Adultery case against him was dismissed.
One ground for disbarment of lawyers is the violation of the lawyer’s oath. When Atty.
Gerald became a lawyer, he took this oath. Thus, he is expected to abide by it. However,
because of his actions, he has violated the part of the oath which states, “I… will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients… He represented his wife, Bea, in the libel
case against Julia. Then, he became a co-counsel to Julia, the opposing party. Thus,
he has not conducted himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to his client, Bea. His
conduct is questionable even if he claims that he only helped Julia in making Judicial
Affidavits and no confidential information was disclosed.
Likewise, he violated Canon 15 (a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and locally in all
his dealings and transactions with his clients), because there is a clear conflict of
interest when he took on being the co-counsel of Julia in the same case.
If Atty. Gerald did not commit immorality and abandoned his family, is there another
ground to discipline him? Cite legal basis.
The grounds for disbarment are 1) deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office; 2) grossly immoral conduct; 3) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; 4) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and 5) violation
of the lawyer's oath. Atty. Gerald, if he did not commit immorality and abandoned his
family (which is questionable), he could be disciplined on the ground of violation of the
lawyer’s oath.