1.

It is evident in the Linsangan case that the respondents were not able to handle their client’s money with
great extent of heedfulness. Corollary, respondents manifested their absence of good faith when they
appropriated for themselves more than what is allowed under their agreement. They have showed that
the payment of their professional fees is far more principal than their devoutness of accounting and
returning what is proper to their client. Furthermore, they were not able to observe preservation of their
client’s money. Both, flagrantly and blatantly violated the confidences entrusted to them, which speaks
volume that they do not give high regard to their bounden-duties as members of the legal profession.
Clearly, they have violated rule Rule 16.01 & 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. Letter A is a prohibited act of advertisement in the legal profession. It constitutes a violation of Rule 2.03,
Canon 2 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility. In the case of Ulep v. Legal Clinic, the Supreme
Court said that ‘’the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to
be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.’’

3. Atty. Adaza’s major fault was his implied assumption that he is exempted from the MCLE requirement
due to the fact that he did not received any notifications from the MCLE Office. Furthermore, He did not
bother to make follow-up on the status of his application for exemption, which have resulted to his non-
compliance and bad standing. Clearly, Atty. Adaza had been remiss in his responsibilities as a member
of the IBP by failing to comply with the provisions of Bar Matter No. 850. His application for exemption
for the First and Second Compliance Periods was filed after the compliance periods had ended, which
audibly reflects his intentions of not obeying the rules.

4. If a lawyer-public officer commits a misfeasance, it’s his office who has the responsibility to conduct
inquiry regarding the complaint. In the case of Collantes v. Renomeron, it is the NLTDRA, now, LRA,
specifically, the Administrator, in his capacity as the head of agency, who has the power to conduct fact
finding. The charges was elevated to the Secretary of Justice Mr. Ordoñez for his perusal. After due
investigation, Sec. Ordoñez found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct. Sec. Ordoñez
recommended to Pres. Corazon Aquino the dismissal of Atty. Renomeron from service evident with an
Administrative Order. Corollary, it is the Executive Department which has the primary jurisdiction to
discipline such public officer. In the case of Ali v. Bubong, wherein the respondent have committed an
infraction of the Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although the general rule is that a
lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he
committed as a government official, he may, however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct
constitutes a violation of his oath as member of the legal profession. The ill-conceived use of his
knowledge of the intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice
law which constitute malfeasance. In this regard, through the recommendations from the IBP, the
complaint was elevated to the Supreme Court resulting to the disbarment of Atty. Bubong. Hence, it is
the Supreme Court who holds full control over all lawyers.

5. No, it is not proper. If Atty. Gray will represent Yellow in court, that would constitute a violation of the
expressed provision of Rule 15.01, Canon 15 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility, for it might
result to a conflict of interest. Atty. Gray, during his incumbency as a Prosecutor, have acquired
knowledge and network detrimental to the case, which will enable him to propel Yellow’s endeavour, if
Yellow’s case is accepted. In the case of Gonzales v. Cabacuna, the Supreme Court said that ‘’ It is well-
settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid
the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.’’