XIII

Atty. Hyde, a bachelor, practices law in the Philippines. On long weekends, he

dates beautiful actresses in Hong Kong. Kristine, a neighbor in the Philippines, filed
with the Supreme Court an administrative complaint against the lawyer because of
sex videos uploaded through the internet showing Atty. Hydes sordid dalliance with
the actresses in Hong Kong.
In his answer, Atty. Hyde [1] questions the legal personality and interest of
Kristine to institute the complaint and [2] insists that he is a bachelor and the sex
videos relate to his private life which is outside public scrutiny and have nothing to do
with his law practice.
Rule on the validity of Atty. Hydes defenses. (5%)

Suggested Answer:
(a) The legal personality and interest of Kristine to initiate the complaint
for disbarment is immaterial. A disbarment proceeding is sui generis,
neither a civil nor a criminal proceeding. Its sole purpose is to
determine whether or not a lawyer is still deserving to be a member of
the bar. In a real sense, Kristine is not a plaintiff; hence, interest on
her part is not required.

(b) Atty. Hydes second defense is untenable. His duty is not to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 of
the CPR, as well as his duty not to engage in scandalous conduct to the
discredit of the legal profession under Rule 7.03, is applicable to his
private as well as to his professional life.


XIV
Marlyn, a widow, engaged the services of Atty. Romanito in order to avert the
foreclosure of several parcels of land mortgaged by her late husband to several
creditors. Atty. Romanito advised the widow to execute in his favor deeds of sale over
the properties, so that he could sell them and generate funds to pay her creditors. The
widow agreed. Atty. Romanito did not sell the properties, but paid the mortgage
creditors with his own funds, and had the land titles registered in his name. Atty.
Romanito succeeds in averting the foreclosure. Is he administratively liable? Reasons.
(3%)

Suggested Answer:
Yes, Atty. Romanito is administratively liable. The basic facts in this case
are the same as the facts in Hernandez v. Go (450 SCRA 1 [2005]), where the
Supreme Court found the lawyer to have violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, and disbarred him. The Supreme Court held that a
lawyers acts of acquiring for himself the lots entrusted to him by his clients are,
by any standard, acts constituting gross misconduct. The lawyer in that case was
disbarred.

XV
Atty. Wilmar represented Beatriz in a partition case among heirs, and won.
When Wilmar demanded payment of attorneys fees, Beatriz refused to pay. Wilmar
sued Beatriz for the unpaid attorneys fees and obtained a favorable judgment.
Thereafter, Beatriz filed an administrative complaint against Wilmar claiming that he
lied when he stated in his claim for attorneys fees that the subject of the partition
case involved the entire estate of the deceased when, in fact, it covered only 50%
thereof. Wilmar set up the defenses that [1] Beatriz filed the complaint only to delay
the execution of the judgment ordering her to pay attorneys fees and [2] Beatriz
engaged in forum-shopping. Are the defenses of Atty. Wilmar tenable? Explain. (4%)

Suggested Answer:
The defenses of Atty. Wilmar are tenable.
(1) The claim of Beatriz that he lied when he stated in his claim for attorneys
fees that the subject of the partition case involved the entire estate,
should have been raised in the suit for collection filed by Atty. Wilmar. It
is clear that Beatriz is trying to delay the execution of a final judgment.

(2) Yes. Beatriz engaged in forum shopping. There is forum-shopping when as
a result of a decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in
another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari, raising
identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. There is identity of
subject matter, causes of action and issues between the civil case brought
by Atty. Wilmar and the administrative case brought by Beatriz.