Flashcards Studio

Under A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, Sec. 2 Repealing Clause states: “All rules, regulations, and interpretations inconsistent with this Code are repealed.” In 2023, the Bar charges Atty. Santos for acts of professional misconduct arising from 2020–2021, where he simultaneously represented Client Omega and owned a substantial stake in Firm Theta that directly competed with Omega’s matter, creating a potential conflict of interest. The old CPRA rules in effect during 2020–2021 prohibited representation where a lawyer has a direct financial interest adverse to the client and required disclosure; CPRA amendments enacted in 2022 broadened disqualifying conflicts and imposed stricter disclosure standards. The Bar contends Sec. 2 repeals inconsistent rules and that liability for the 2020–2021 misconduct should be governed by the amended CPRA, despite the conduct occurring before the repeal but discovered after. The defense argues that (i) Sec. 2 is an express repeal of inconsistent rules but does not expressly provide retroactivity; (ii) acts predating the repeal should be governed by the old CPRA; (iii) pending or completed disciplinary proceedings should be governed by the law in force at the time of conduct or time of discovery, depending on the transitional approach chosen by the Court. Which statement best explains the effect of Sec. 2 on pre-existing CPRA rules and the proper treatment of Atty. Santos’s 2020–2021 misconduct and the related disciplinary proceedings?