Skip to content
VVocatus · Bar Exam Practice
← All Legal & Judicial Ethics questions
Legal & Judicial Ethics

2017 Bar — Legal & Judicial Ethics

16 questions from the 2017 Philippine Bar examination in Legal & Judicial Ethics, with suggested answers.

Start the 2017 questions →
Q. I

A. Brando & Luzon Law Office had a retainer agreement with Gregory, a businessman with shady connections. Gregory was recently charged in the RTC in Manila with money laundering in relation to an illegal drugs syndicate using Cable Co., his holding company, as its money laundering conduit. The members of the Brando & Luzon Law Office assigned to handle Gregory's account, including yourself, were implicated in the money laundering case for their role in the incorporation of Cable Co. and in the active management of its business affairs. In a bid to fortify the case against Gregory and the others, the public prosecutor approaches you (as the least guilty person who will qualify for a discharge as a state witness) and offers to make you a state witness. Should you accept the offer? Explain your answer. B. Under the facts of the preceding question, assume that you had resigned from the Brando & Luzon Law Office prior to the filing of the money laundering case against Gregory and the others, and that you were not implicated in ' the case. However, you had assisted in handling the Cobra Co. account during your time with the law firm. Cobra Co. was largely owned by Cable Co. The public prosecutor handling the case against Gregory and the others asks you, as a former member of the Brando & Luzon Law Office, to help strengthen the case for the Government, and hints that you may be implicated in the case if you do not cooperate. What is your legal and ethical course of action? Explain your answer.

Q. II

A. Pedro Tigas, a known toughie, asked Atty. Chloe to meet with him in the Jollibee Res- taurant in Harrison Plaza because he wanted to seek her legal advice on an important matter. Atty. Chloe had once before been consulted by Pedro Tigas, who had then paid her well. When they met in Jollibee Restaurant, he confided his planned assassination of Pepeng Taga, his rival for control of the neighborhood in San Andres Bukid, Manila. He wanted her to represent him should he be apprehended for the assassina- tion. Atty. Chloe did not agree, and left the restaurant in a hurry before Pedro Tigas could utter anything more. A few days afterwards, Pepeng Taga was killed near his house in San Andres Bukid, Manila. The police follow-up team arrested Pedro Tigas on the basis of testimony by at least two residents that they had heard him saying two days before the killing that Pepeng Taga would not live beyond 48 hours. Should Atty. Chloe reveal to the police investigator what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant without violating the confidence of the latter as a client? Explain your answer. B. Assuming that the meeting between Pedro Tigas and Atty. Chloe in Jollibee Restaurant occurred after the killing of Pepeng Taga, and in that meeting Pedro Tigas expressly admitted to Atty. Chloe in strict confidence as his lawyer that he had shot Pepeng Taga. Is Atty. Chloe ethically bound to reveal the admission of Pedro Tigas to the police investigator what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant? Explain your answer.

Q. VIII

A. Sancho Mahilig went to the office of Atty. Charm to engage her legal representation in the criminal case for adultery that the husband of his socialite friend had brought against him in the City Prosecutor's Office in Manila. Atty. Charm thoroughly interviewed Sancho in her office with only Linda, the secretary/steno- grapher of Atty. Charm, the only other person present. On that occasion, Sancho candidly informed Atty. Charm about his illicit affair with the socialite wife, and gave many details. Linda faithfully recorded the interview. During the trial of the criminal case for adultery, the trial prosecutor requested the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of the record of the interview and a subpoena ad testicandum to compel Linda to testify on the admission of the affair by Sancho. Atty. Charm objected to the request on the basis of lawyer-client confidentiality. If you were the trial judge, how will you resolve the objection of Atty. Charm? Justify your answer. B. Prosecutor Regan was designated to represent the State during the trial of an action to declare the nullity of a marriage. He realized soon enough, however, that the counsels of the parties were very competent and sincere in doing their work for their respective clients. Thus, Prosecutor Regan, mindful of his large caseload of preliminary investigations, and believing that his attendance at the trial was superfluous, decided not to attend the trial anymore so that he could devote more time to the work back in his office. Explain whether or not the decision of Prosecutor Regan to miss the trial of the action to declare the nullity of the marriage was warranted.