Question 12, 2018 Legal Ethics Bar Exam


(Question XII, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2018 Bar Exam)

From February to November 2004, Atty. Calumpang, in fraudulent connivance with brokers, convinced Corinna to deliver to him advance money for the titling of a beachfront property in Caramoan. Six (6) months had elapsed and Atty. Calumpang had made absolutely no progress in the titling of the land. He also could not return the advance money paid by Corinna because he had converted the money to his personal use. After almost a decade, and the property could still not be titled in Corinna’s name, she filed an action with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) in 2014 for deceit, malpractice, and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar. In his defense, Atty. Calumpang asserted that, since the acts complained of took place more than 10 years ago, the case had already prescribed.

Rule on the defense of Atty. Calumpang. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

Atty. Calumpang’s defense is not valid. Answer

Under jurisprudence, administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. Rule

In the case at bar, the fact that the acts of complained of took place more than 10 years ago does not affect the administrative case against Atty. Calumpang since it is imprescriptible. Apply

Thus, the defense of Atty. Calumpang is not valid. Conclusion


(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and


System-based bar exam review mentoring program to improve your bar exam preparation

© 2022 BARMENTOR.PH. All Rights Reserved.

error: Content is protected.