Question A.3, 2019 Legal Ethics Bar Exam

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor

A.3.

(Question A.3, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2019 Bar Exam)

Pending resolution of a high-profile case against him, Justice K uttered, in a public forum hosted by a local Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapter, his comments on the perceived bias of the court against him, as well as on the issues raised by the complainants, his defenses, and the commentaries published by some local newsmen in relation to the case. This is only one instance of his many appearances in different gatherings of such nature in order to defend his public image.

(a) Did Justice K, in his capacity as a lawyer, commit any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility? If so, what rule did Justice K violate? Explain. (3%)

(b) Arguing that he should be treated as any other ordinary litigant in the said case, may Justice K validly claim that his comments were made in a purely private capacity and hence, not subject to administrative sanction? Explain. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) Yes. Answer

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. This is the sub judice rule. Rule

In the case at bar, Justice K as a lawyer made public statements in various public forums pertaining to a pending case against him. His comments on the bias of the court against him, on the issues raised by the complainants, his defenses, and on the commentaries published by local newsmen, all have a tendency to arouse public opinion for him and/or against the other party. Apply

Thus, Justice K committed a violation. Conclusion

(b) No. Answer

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Rule

In the case at bar, Justice K as a lawyer engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law after violating the sub judice rule. His claim that he did so in a purely private capacity is not valid as the prohibition extends even unto a lawyer’s private life. Apply

Thus, Justice K cannot validly claim that his comments were made in a purely private capacity and hence not subject to administrative sanction. 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 principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)

Share:

WhatsApp
Telegram
Facebook
Twitter
Subjects

Political Law, Labor Law

1A. Employer-employee relationship

1. Employer-employee relationship Question of fact. The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of

J. Right to Association

The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to

E. Discipline of members

Frequency: ★★☆☆☆ 1. Parliamentary (Internal) Rules Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence

M. Quasi-offenses

Frequency: ★★★★★ 1. Imprudence and negligence a. Reckless imprudence RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE: Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an

M. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Frequency: ★★★★☆ 1. Crimes a. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals 1st Mode 1)

G. Crimes against persons

Frequency: ★★★★☆ CHAPTER 1: DESTRUCTION OF LIFE SECTION 1 – PARRICIDE, MURDER, HOMICIDE 1. Parricide ELEMENTS: 1) A person is killed; 2) The deceased is

D. Anti-Hazing Act of 2018

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Hazing” – refers to any act that results in physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or

L. Crimes against honor

Frequency: ★★★★★ GENERAL PROVISIONS 1) Persons responsible Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or

E. Lawyer’s Oath

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as

error: Content is protected.