Case Study

CASE STUDY IN PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
BY:
Bunagan, Kristel Mae

Constantino, Camille
Dacanay, Erwin
Dadhwal, Raamah Elisha
Dumocloy, Jesa
CASE STUDY 1
1. NO. I will not testify in the present case, based on the following circumstances, to wit: First, a
CCTV footage has been taken out from the scene of the crime and it was able to identify Eppy as
the one who assaulted the girl. Prescinding from this, my testimony will not be indispensable
since it is merely corroborative evidence hence, justice will still be served by the fact that direct
and conclusive evidence can already be used. Second, my membership in the fraternity taints my
credibility and impartiality in the disposition of the case. Lastly, as a member of the fraternity,
brotherhood is the very essence of which loyalty and integrity is expected on me. If I were to
testify in favor of the victim, I will not only be going against my brother Eppy but of the whole
organization that we both belong. As a consequence of which also, my family’s safety will be
compromised. In case I will testify in favor of Eppy, the only way to do so would be to perjure
myself and the court as a lawyer, considering that I know the truth of the matter.
2. I will rather advise Eppy that we should settle the case directly with the victim’s counsel
considering that first, as a lawyer it is my duty to keep the balance of interest between my
client’s cause and that of the opposing parties. Secondly, this will avoid inconvenience and
heavy cost of trial since if the case will pursue it will only prolong the agony of investing time
and effort in attending hearings. Lastly, this will put an end to the controversy involving the
fraternity vis-à-vis making sure that the safety of my family will not be compromised.
3. My theory will be to establish that the victim was alcoholic and promiscuous. However, I will
not pursue the same line of questioning. I will modify it instead to further strengthen my theory
considering that under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics states that:
“A lawyer should always treat adverse witnesses and suitors with fairness and due
consideration, and he should never minister to the malevolence or prejudices of a client in
the trial or conduct of a cause. The client cannot be made the keeper of the lawyer's
conscience in professional matter. He has no right to demand that his counsel shall abuse
the opposite party or indulge in offensive personalities. Improper speech is not excusable
on the ground that it is what the client would say if speaking in his own behalf.”
The cross-examination question will be as follows:
How are you today witness?

How old are you?
What did you have for dinner?
Do you drink alcohol?
When was the first time you drink alcohol?
How often do you usually drink alcohol?
How will you describe your alcohol tolerance?
Rate from 1 as the lowest tolerance and 10 as the highest.
Why say so?
Have you had an experience passing out after a drinking spree?
What do you usually drink?
How much alcohol can you drink in one occasion?
What is your favorite alcoholic drink?
Do you usually go to parties?
How often?
Do you party alone or with company?
Until what time do you usually party?
What do you usually wear at parties?
At night of the incident:

Why were you there?
Who invited you to this party?
What were you wearing?
Did you drink?
What drink did you have?
How much did you drink?
You said you were invited by _______, who else did you interact that night?
So you remember seeing Eppy that night?
Do you remember talking to him?
Where were you when Eppy approached you? What were you doing?
What did you talk about?
What was the conversation like?
Do you remember talking to someone else?
Can you describe the surroundings when you were talking to Eppy?
Do you find Eppy attractive?
Can you describe what an attractive man for you is?
What was your reaction when Eppy approached you?
How long did the conversation last?
What were the parting words that Eppy said to you?
Where were you that time?
Do you remember anything else from that night?
4. I will inhibit myself from the case as the Judge based on four factors: impartiality, integrity,
undue pressure and avoidance of appearance of impropriety. As a member of the fraternity, my
position will be put to doubt because brotherhood emanates therefrom. More so that loyalty is
expected to each and every brother of the fraternity. Concomitantly, Canon 12 of the Code of
Judicial Ethics provides:
“A judge should not, unless it is unavoidable, sit in litigation where a near relative is a party or of
counsel; and he should not suffer his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly
influence him or enjoy his favor, or that he is affected by the rank, position, or influence of any
party.”
It is thus proper to inhibit myself from the case to avoid improper disposition of the case so that
justice shall be served properly.
CASE STUDY NO. 2
1. I will advise Michael to go through formal adoption proceedings. Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that: “A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” In this case,
simulation of birth is clearly against the law. Although, Republic Act No. 11222 provides for the
rectification of simulated births, such act only applies if it was done in pursuit of the child’s best
interest and that the simulated parents have treated the child in question as their own. Michael’s
purpose in simulating the child’s birth is clearly for his own benefits to cover-up the moment of
weakness that happened at one night which runs counter to the child’s best interest.
2. I will decline on Michael’s request to draft the contract as this is against the law provided
under Article 2035 of the Civil Code which expressly states that future support cannot be the
subject of a compromise. Moreover, this is in consonance with the lawyer’s duty to the society to
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes as provided in Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
I will rather remind Michael that he is duty bound and mandated by the law to support the child
as part of his obligation as the father regardless of the execution of any contract or compromise
for the same. He can, however, enter into a contract with Hannah as to her financial needs from
the time of the child’s birth as there is no law prohibiting it.

Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE STUDY IN PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Bunagan, Kristel Mae

The cross-examination question will be as follows:

How are you today witness?

At night of the incident:

CASE STUDY NO. 2

You might also like