1962 Bar Examination questions (Continuation) Legal ethics and practical exercises

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: 1962 Bar Examination questions (Continuation) Legal ethics and practical exercises
Language: English
Year: 1962
Subject: Legal ethics -- Philippines -- Examinations, questions, etc.; Bar examinations -- Philippines
Rights
Fulltext: attorney consulted with Leon but as they did not have any money to make the journey to Tokyo, they did not go there besides the fact which they noted that the taking of the rleposition was not at all authorized by the trial Court in 1\laniln for Juan's attorney also forgot to secure that authority thru a motion; therefore, after the deposition had been taken in Tokyo and trial came to be he!d in Manila, Leon's attorney objected to its admission for said lack of previous authorization from the trial court. How do you decide the question? V. (a) What difference is there between manner of service of summons and that of subpo.ena and what is the reason fo1· the difference? (b) What do you mea n by an ordet' 1umc pro time? What rule, if any, authorizes its issuance? (c) Distinguish, if there is any distinction, between a restraint order and a pi·eiiminary injunction. VI. An American sailor having arrived at the port of Manila, goes on shore leave; he is seen by a taxi dancer at a night club and she entices him to go with her to a pleasure house and while there, the taxi dances robs him of his money; the sailor complains to the police who arrest the dancer and F'iscal charges her i11 the Municipal Couit and sha is there convicted hut she appeals to the Court of First ln!>tance ::.nt pending appeal, the American £ailor leaves for Americ3 F-O that when trial was called in the Court of First Instance, he was no longer available; therefore, the Fiscal soug1lt the presentation of the notes taken by the Municipal Judge during the trial of the case as secondary proof of the testimony of the sailor; these notes were attached to the record and the Municipal Judge could be called to identify them; the Fiscal contended that they could be admitted because there were no stenographic notes since the Municipal Conrt is not a Court of record. Defense however contends that the procedure was wrong and the evidence incompetent. How would you decide the question of the admissibility of said notes of the Muncip!!.l Lludge? VII. Conrado loaned money to Dionisio who executed a deed of real estate mortgage unto Conrado and the mortgage was duly registered, but when the loan fell due, an<l notwithstanding the demands of Conrado, the Joan was not paid; t-herefore, Conrado sent a final letter of demand unto Dionisio informing him that should he not still pay, Conrado would file action to collect ; upon receipt of that letter, Dionisio in turn filed an action to annul the mortgage on the ground of lack of consideration. (a) If, in such a situation, Conrado filed an answer to the complaint for annulment, setting forth his defenses and then pending the case, he institute<! an independent action for foreclosure of the mortgage, but Dioni£io moved to dsmiss it on the ground of pending act-ion, how would you rule in the motion to dismiss? (b) If Comado did not file the independent action for foreclosure but just presented his answe1· with defenses in the complaint for annulment and the case was decided in his favor, declaring the mortgage valid, and after the judgment had become final, it was then when Conrado filed his complaint for foreclosure but Dionisio met it with a motion to dismiss on the ground of ba.r by former judgment contending thP.t Conrado had in his favor an altern3tive cause and failed to avail of the right to foreclose by filing it as a counterclaim in the action to annul, how would you decide Dionisio's motion to dismiss? VIII. Nestor brought an action to foreclose a mortgage on a par· eel of land against Olimpia; the latter upon receipt of the summons realized that the document was a forgery; there· fore, he went to the Fiscal and complaineci to him, and the F'iscal instituted after investigation, a. criminal charge for falsificat ion against Nestor but the crntention of Nestor was that the civil case was a prejudicial question and should first be tried and the Court sustained him; and the finat judgment in the foreclosure suit was that the documenL was forged as contended by Olimpio; whereupon, the Fiscal moved to hear the crimjnal case, but unfortunately, Olimpia died in the meantime, and so the Fiscal sou;:tht to pr('· sent his testimony in the civil case in which he testified that the signature in the deed was a fo1·gery, and alw the decision in the civil ca$e upholding the contention of Olimpio that it was indeed a forgery, but the defense of Nestor objects to the competency of both proofs contending that they were incompetent, besides being irrelevant in the crimina.l case. How do you <lecide? IX. In a criminal action for serious physical inJui·ies thru reek• less imprudence, t he defendtmt chauffeur was convicted and sentenced to pay damages to the injured party; the latter secured execution against the chauffeur but he turned out to be insolvent according to the sheriff's return; whereupon, the offended party filed a civil action for subsidiary civil liability against the employer of the chnuffeu t· which wcs a. public service transportation company and in tlH! trial of the civil case, attorney of pla.intiff presented the same sheriff's i·eturn to pro".e the insolvency of the chauffrur without calting the sheriff himself to testify on how he came to find out that the cha.uffeur was insolvent; therefore, attorney for defendant transportation company objected to the admission of the return calling the attention of the Court tha!. the sheriff was present and could be called and cross-examined and the return was therefore clearly hea.rsay anti deprived him of the chance to cross examine. How do you decide on the admissibility of the return? X. (a) Is there any difference or there is none between "public document" and "official entry?" Expbin you1· answer. (b) When do the Rules permit and when do they not permit, proof of bad character by !)articular wrongful acts? Give t.he reason for the Rules. LEGAL ETHICS '"d PRACTICAL EXERCISES I. (a) What are the duties of an attorney? (b) According to the Supteme Court, what ari, the circumstances to be considered in determining the compensation of a.n attorney? IL According to the Canons of Legal Elhics: (a) H ow far may a lawyer go in supporting a client's cause? (b) What is the lawyer's duty in its last analysis? lll. Acting upon a complaint filed by three leading bar associations to the effect that evil practices, more specifically, "ambulance chasing" or pen;onal injuries or damage suits, seemed to be spreading to demoralizing extent, with the consequence that the poor were 01ipressed and the ignornnt taken advantage of, retainers often on extra.vagant terms solicited and paid for, a practice not limited to lawyers for claimants but likewise 'availed of by lawyers for defendant!i and with the added result that the calendars became congestecl and clogged, the Supreme Court designated the Solicito1 General to conduct an investigation of such practices described in the petition and :my other practice obstructive or hannful to the administration of justice, wit.h instruction to ma.kc a report and recommendation within ninety day::, One of the witnesses cited wa.s a lawyer, X, a member of the Bar for more than twenty years, who was asked amon ~ others, who were his law office associates and' employees, whether he had been paying police officials and hospital personnel for referring cases to him. · He was also asked to produce all his records of litigations for damage suits and and to explain if some of those records were missing. Law(Con tinued next page) Page 286 LAWYERS JOURNAL September 30, 1962 Hl62 BA R (Continued front w1ge 286) yer X objected, first, to the validity of the inquiry as a whole, there being no specific complaint against him and, scc011d, to the above ques~ions on the gt·ound of his r ight not to incriminate himself. Ruic on his objections with reaTV. (a) According to Rule 127, what conduct on the part of an attorney may be punished as contempt? (b) In the long, protracted hearing of the majO:' Communi:'.;t lea<lers before J udge Medina, counsel for t he accused persisted in making Ieng, repetitious, and unsubstantial arguments, objections, and protests; repeatedly make charges of bias and prejudice; a nd persisted in asking quei;tions on matters already ruled c.s exduded. \Vould such conduct constitute contempt'? Reason out your answer. V. (a) What is the extC!nt of an attonrny's aut.hority to bind his clients according to the Rules )f Court? (b) It appears that having been adjudicated n 1i2 m1dividcd share in a farm land, plaintiffs were able to ootail1 a writ of execution on a specific portion of the lot which they themselves had selected. The execution admittedly departed materially and radically from the te11or of the judgment, but the plaintiffs asserted that the counsel for defendants gave his assent . \Vas such an assent binding on his clients? Reason out your anVI. (a) On what grnunds may a member of the Bat· be remO\'C d or suspended by the Supreme Court? (b) It was shown that Attorney X was prosecuted and convicted in three criminal cases for having solicited, charged and received as fees, amounts in excess of the limit fixed by Republic Act No. 145 for the preparation, presentation and prosecution 'Jf benefit claims by thref' war veterans. Thereafter, disbarmer:t proceedings were SUPRE.l!E COURT (Conti1111ecl from page 279) by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 month::i and I clay of prision mayo1·. The case is before us on appeal by certiorari taken by Sergio del Rosario, It appears that, after showing to complainant Apolinado del Rosario the Philippine one-peso bills Exhibits C, E and G and the P hilippine two-peso bill Exhibit H, and inducing him to believe that the same were counterfeit paper money m:mufactured by them, although in fact they were genuine treasury notes of the Philippine Government one of the digits of each of which had been al!f"red and changed, the aforementioned defendants had succeeded in obtaining Pl,700.00 from said complainant, in the City of Davao, on June 23, 1955 for the avowed purpose of financing the manufacture of more counterfeit treasury notes of the Philip pine!!. The only question raiSed in this appeal is whether the possession of said Exhibits C, E, and H constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Pena! Code. Appellant maintains that, being genuine tl'easury notes of our g-0vernment, the possession thereof cannot be illegal. We find no merit in this pretense, 1t is not disputed that a pvrtion of the last digit 9 of Serial No. F -796926Hl of Exhibit C, had been ernsed and o :hanged so as to read 0 and that similar erasures an<l changes h11d been made fo the penultimate digit 9 in Serial No. F-79692691 of Exhibit G, .and in the last digit !) of Serial No. D-716329 of Exhibit H. A rt ides 168 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code read: ART. 168. Illegal possession a1ul use of false trea81try brmk 1 wtes and other i1i.stl"u.msnts of cl'edit. - Unl1~ss the a<'t be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the precei]ing a1·ticles, any person who shall knowing-ly use or have in possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsific<l inst-ruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles. instituted against him. Should he be disbarred? Why? VIL (a ) Jn a disbarment proceeding, it was shown that respondent, a member of the Bar, was pi·eviously convicted of murder and with his co-de:fendants was sentenced to life imprisonment, which decision was t hereafter affi!'mcd on review by the Supreme Court. After serving part of the sentence, respondent was granted a conditional pardon, the unexecuted portion t hereof being remitted. At about the same time, the widow of the deceased filed a · verified complaint before the Supreme Court praying that he be disbarred. Respondent pleaded the conditional pardon and sought the dismissal of the disbarment Pl'Oceeding. How would you rule? Explain. (b) Prepare a chattel mortgage, VIII. In outline form, prepare a complaint or petition: (a) Contesting the validity of a legislative Act. (b) Contesting the validity of an executive orcler. (c) Contesting the validity of a municipal ordinance. IX. Prepare habeas corp11s petitions : (a) Seeking the custody of a minor. (b) Seeking the release of a person detained without formal charges having been filed against him. (c) Seeking reli~f from a judgment or order of a cou1t of record. X. (a) Prepare a petition fol' certiornri as a special civil action. (b) In outline forn1, prepare a petition for ccrtiontri to the Sup!'eme Court appealing from a judgment of the Court of Appeals. (c) You represent a F ilipino industrialist desirous or establishing a factory near Manila. He was able to loc3te such a site with the owner willing to part with such property at practically give away prices as long as he is paid in cash. Draw up a contract Ol' deed, as tht- case may be, to enable your client to obtain t he site. " ART. 169. How forgery is committed.- The forgery Tc- , fered to in this section may be committed by any of the following means : 1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or nry instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document. 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering J;y any means the figures, letters, words or signs contai1•ed therein." It is clear from this provision that the possession r.f genuine treasury notes of the Philippines wherein any of ''the figures, letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure and alteration, and with '!"he intent t-0 use such notes, as they were used by petitioner hert>in and his codefendants in the manner adverted to above, is puni!>hable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 160, subdivision ( 1) , of the Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398: U.S. vs, Solito, 36 Phil., 785). Being in accordance with the facts and the !aw, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Sergio <lei Rosario. IT IS SO ORDERED. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera and De Leon, JJ., concurred . Pa1·edes, J. took no part. OMISSION In the case of Caraballo vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-15080, April 25, 1962 published on. page 213 of t hf: July 31, Hl62 issue of the Lawyers Journal, on line 28 between the words ''and" an<l "his" th& following words were inad\·ertently omitted: "b.i;; wife ~raciela G. C:ir~ b~Uo live, al le~s that he and''. September 30, 1962 LA WYERS JOURNAL Page 287
pages: 286-287