I. Michael is an incoming fourth year student in the UP College of Law.

While vacationing in the province, his father, who is a wealthy farmer in their province, told him that some of their relatives have conspired to oust their family from their land by forging a deed of sale to make it appear that Michaels father sold their land to their relatives. Michaels father decided to file a case against the scheming relatives and to save on expenses, Michael appeared as his fathers counsel in the case. To ensure his eligibility to appear, Michael asked the Barangay Captain, who was an uncle, to act as his supervising lawyer. The Barangay Captain agreed. The court proceedings dragged on because of numerous delaying tactics employed by the relatives lawyer so Michael, in order to continue with the case, did not enroll the following school year and instead filed a Leave of Absence with the College of law.
1. Which among the following must Michael show before he can act as his fathers counsel? a) a degree in law b) an authorization to practice issued by the college and duly signed by the dean c) successful completion of his third year as prescribe in the curriculum d) all his pleadings was filed in the case was signed by a lawyer designated by the court 2. From the foregoing facts, Michael cannot validly appear as counsel for his father, why is this so? a) because a law student cannot practice law b) because a law student can only practice law when he represents himself in court c) because a law student cannot represent a relative in practice d) because his supervising lawyer is not accredited by the UP College of Law 3. Suppose Michael validly appeared as counsel for his father, which of the following is a true statement? a) communications received by him from his father regarding the case is privileged b) he is solely liable for the mistakes he committed as counsel c) He can only demand reasonable compensation for his services d) He must personally sign all pleadings and motions to be filed in court 4. Suppose Michael is enrolled in his fourth year and under a legal program of the college with a supervising lawyer accredited by the law school, can he now validly represent his father in court? a) Yes because he now satisfies all the requirements of the law b) No because he must still pass his law courses during the fourth year c) No because he must still get the approval of the dean of the college in order to practice d) No because his father is a wealthy person

II. Pedro was charged with crime of murder before the RTC. He sought the help and advice of Atty. Juan regarding his case. After a lengthy discussion with the lawyer, during which Atty. Juan presented a detailed strategy to win the case after learning all the details of the events leading to the murder charge, Pedro declared that he was impressed by Atty. Juans knowledge of the law and is considering hiring him. The day after his meeting with Atty. Juan, Pedro met with Atty. Tomas from whom he learned that Atty. Juan has a history of losing murder charges when he represents the accused. A subsequent background check on Atty. Juan confirmed the information from Att. Tomas. In light of this, Pedro hired Atty. Tomas instead. Unbeknownst to Pedro, Atty. Juan who was confident that he will get Pedro as his client already entered his appearance before the proper court as Pedros counsel and filed an answer to the complaint. The chapter of the IBP to which Atty. Juan belongs filed a disbarment case against him before the Supreme Court.
1. From the foregoing facts, which of the following statements is true? a) Pedro is liable for damages to Atty. Juan b) Atty. Juan is liable for damages to Pedro

c) Atty. Juan is subject to disbarment only d) Atty. Juan is subject to suspension 2. If a petition for Atty. Juans suspension is filed by Pedro, which of the following courts cannot entertain the petition? a) Sandiganbayan b) Supreme Court c) Court of Appeals d) RTC 3. Suppose a disbarment proceeding was filed against Atty. Juan, which of the following rights is he not entitled to? a) notice of the charges against him b) opportunity to file an answer in all instances c) to produce witnesses in his own behalf d) to be heard by himself or counsel 4. The disbarment case filed by the IBP is a) Valid, because the IBP can institute disbarment proceedings motu propio in all instances b) Valid, because the IBP can institute disbarment proceedings motu propio if before the Supreme Court c) Invalid, because only the Supreme Court can institute disbarment proceedings d) Invalid, because Pedro did not file a complaint against Atty. Juan

III. The case of forcible entry between Brothers Tom and Tommy is pending appeal before the court of appeals. Tom, the plaintiff won in the trial court. Two sets of witnesses were instrumental for Toms victory before the lower court. The first consist of his wifes cousins who were their neighbors in the property subject of the suit and the second set consists of Toms parents who were living with them at that time. During the trial before the lower court, both sets of witnesses failed to appear on the date indicated in the subpoena so the court had such witnesses arrested to secure their attendance in court. Through their respective testimonies, it was found out that Toms parents failure to appear was because they did not want to testify against their other son Tommy whom they consider as their favorite son. The neighbors on the other hand failed to appear because they received the summons only on the day after the scheduled date of their appearance. Tommys appeal from the decision of the trial court was dismissed upon a finding by the CA that the appeal was frivolous.
1. Toms neighbors are a) Liable for costs of the warrant of arrest only b) Liable for the cost of the warrant of arrest and their arrest c) Not liable for any cost in light of their non appearance d) not liable for the cost of the warrant of arrest only 2. Toms parents are a) Liable for costs of the warrant of arrest only b) Liable for the cost of the warrant of arrest and their arrest c) Not liable for any cost in light of their non appearance d) not liable for the cost of the warrant of arrest only 3. From the foregoing facts, the CA can impose double costs against Tommy

a) and can order Tommy only to pay such costs b) and can order Tommys lawyer only to pay such costs c) and can order either Tommy or his lawyer to pay such costs d) and can order either Tommy, his lawyer, or Tom to pay such costs 4. If it was Toms action that was dismissed by the RTC for lack of jurisdiction a) the RTC must impose costs against Tom only b) the RTC must impose costs against Tommy only c) the RTC can impose costs against Tom, Tommy, or their respective lawyers d) the RTC can impose costs against Tom and/or Tommy

IV. Luis was an employee in a glue factory. He suffered respiratory ailments due to the nature of his work. He filed an action for damages against his employer Mr. Lee. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Macapagal. Upon investigation, Mr. Lees counsel, Atty. Padilla, found out that one Ms. David, who is Mr. Lees fiance, is Judge Macapagals granddaughter. Atty. Padilla made an objection to the competency of Judge Macapagal to try the case.
1. Is the objection valid? a. Yes because the judge has a pecuniary interest in the case b. Yes because Ms. David, who is a relative of the judge, has pecuniary interest in the case c. No because Ms. David, is not in any way related to Luis, the claimant in this case d. No, because Ms. David is not a relative of Mr. Lee 2. If the following statements were true, which is not a ground for a valid objection against the competency of judge Macapagal to try the case? a. Judge Macapagal is a partner of Mr. Lee in the glue business b. Judge Macapagal is married to Fatima, a creditor of Luis c. judge Macapagal is the best friend of Fatima, a creditor of Mr. Lee d. judge Macapagal is the adoptive father of Atty. Padilla 3. Assuming that Judge Macapagal is the father of Luiss wife, which of the following statements is true? a. Judge Macapagal is absolutely disqualified from hearing the case b. Judge Macapagal is qualified to hear the case if all partied agreed thereto in writing c. Judge Macapagal is not qualified to hear the case d. Judge Macapagal is disqualified from hearing the case only when all the parties object to his competence 4. From the facts stated above, can Judge Macapagal voluntary inhibit from hearing the case? a. Yes, for just and valid reasons b. Yes, because he is related to Mr. Lees fiance c. No, because he has no ground to inhibit as expressly enumerated in the Rules d. No, because there must first be a hearing to determine his competence to try the case

V. ABC Company and XYZ Company are both retainer clients of Atty. Domingo. He is the Corporate Secretary of ABC Company. He represents XYZ Co. in the pending litigation cases. XYZ Co. wants to file a civil case against ABC Co. and has requested Atty. Domingo the case.
1. Based on the facts above, which of the following statements is true? a. Atty. Domingo may decline to handle the case b. Atty. Domingo is absolutely prohibited to handle the case c. Atty. Domingo may decline to handle the case if XYZ Co. consents d. Atty. Domingo may decline to handle the case if ABC Co. consents 2. If Atty. Domingo decided to decline the case, which of the following will justify his action a. written prohibition from ABC Co. for him to appear b. written consent of ABC and XYC Co. for him not to handle the case c. ground of conflicting interest d. ground of potential loss of confidence from one of his clients 3. Atty. Domingo may accept the case if a. ABC Co. gives its consent in writing b. ABC Co. and XYZ Co. give their consent in writing c. Atty. Domingo made a full disclosure of the facts to both his clients d. ABC Co. and XYZ Co. gave their written consent after Atty. Domingos full disclosure of the facts 4. Assuming that Atty. Domingo made a full disclosure of the facts to both his clients, and both clients gave their written consent to his handling of the case, may Atty. Domingo still decline to handle the case? a. Yes, handling a case is entirely discretionary on the part of the lawyer b. Yes, on ground of conflicting interests c. No, he has no reason to decline handling the case d. No, he is absolutely disqualified from going against the wishes of his client