[Answer/discuss the question below, or see 2017 bar exam Legal and Judicial Ethics Instructions; 2017 Legal and Judicial Ethics questions: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16; See also 2017 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]
Pedro Tig_as, a known toughie, asked Atty. Chloe to meet with him in the Jollibee Restaurant in Harrison Plaza because he wanted to seek her legal advice on an important matter. Atty. Chloe had once before been consulted by Pedro Tigas, who had then paid her well. When they met in Jollibee Restaurant, he confided his planned assassination of Pepeng Taga, his rival for control of the neighborhood in San Andres Bukid, Manila. He wanted her to represent him should he be apprehended for the assassination. Atty. Chloe did not agree, and left the restaurant in a hurry before Pedro Tigas could utter anything more.
A few days afterwards, Pepeng Taga was killed near his house in San Andres Bukid, Manila. The police follow-up team arrested Pedro Tigas on the basis of testimony by at least two residents that they had heard him saying two days before the killing that Pepeng Taga would not live beyond 48 hours. Should Atty. Chloe reveal to the police investigator what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant without violating the confidence of the latter as a client? Explain your answer. (4%)
Explain whether or not Atty. Frank’s argument is justified. (4%)
Assuming that the meeting between Pedro Tigas and Atty. Chloe in Jollibee Restaurant occurred after the killing of Pepeng Taga, and in that meeting Pedro Tigas expressly admitted to Atty. Chloe in strict confidence as his lawyer that he had shot Pepeng Taga. Is Atty. Chloe ethically bound to reveal the admission of Pedro Tigas to the police investigator what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant? Explain your answer. (4%)