Case No.

NEMESIO & CARIDAD FLORAN vs. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA

A.C. NO. 5325/February 9, 2016/Per Curiam

CANON 12. A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT

HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.

Facts:

On September 8, 2000, Spouses Floran filed a complaint-

affidavit against Atty. Ediza for deceiving the spouses when he
asked the latter to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a
portion of their land to him. Apparently, when the sale of the land of
the spouses pushed through, Atty. Ediza received half of the amount
of the proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled the spouses
into thinking that he would register, using the same proceeds, the
remaining portion of their land. These actions, which deprived the
spouses of their property, showed Atty. Edizas behaviour as
unbecoming a member of the legal profession.

The Court suspended Atty. Ediza from the practice of law for 6
months and directed him to return to the spouses the two sets of
documents that he used to misled them into signing, and ordered
Atty. Ediza to pay the spouses the amount of P125,463.38,
representing the amount he deceived them into paying him, with
legal interest from September 8, 2000 (date of the filing of the
complaint) until fully paid.

However, years had passed since the Court promulgated its

Decision dated October 19, 2011 and Atty. Ediza has yet to comply
with the Courts directives. The Court issued numerous Resolutions
requiring him to comply with the Decision and show cause why he
should not be disciplinary dealt with or be held in contempt for his
failure to abide by the Courts orders. Atty. Ediza repeatedly and
blatantly disregarded and defied these orders from the Court.
Instead, Atty. Ediza responded by (1) claiming ignorance over the
documents stated in the Decision and adjudged the documents as
mere fictional; (2) alleging newly discovered evidence; (3)
demanding to stay the execution of the decision; and (4) reporting
that he has complied with the order of suspension without submitting
any required certifications from the IBP and Office of the Executive
Judge.
Issue:

Duty of a lawyer to assist the court in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice.

Ruling:

Atty. Ediza, having violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility by committing grave misconduct and wilful
insubordination is disbarred.

The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a

privilege clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes
substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the
profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of
the most important functions of the State the administration of
justice as an officer of the court. To enjoy the privileges of
practicing law, lawyers must adhere to the rigid standards of mental
fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, and faithfully comply
with the rules of the legal profession. Clearly, Atty. Edizas conduct
has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession.
 Case No. 2

LINDA VILLARIA-RIESENBECK vs. ATTY. JAYNES ABARRIENTOS

A.C. NO. 6238/November 4, 2004/Justice Quisumbing

CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT

AND SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN
HIM.
CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.

RULE 18.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT LEGAL MATTER

ENTRUSTED TO HIM, AND HIS NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH SHALL RENDER HIM LIABLE.

CANON 19. A LAWYER SHALL NOT REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Facts:

On September 11, 2000, the complainant filed a verified letter-

complaint with the IBP against Atty. Jaynes Abarrientos on the
ground of professional misconduct and neglect of duty.

The complainant averred that she engaged the services of the

respondent lawyer in a civil case she had elevated to the Court of
Appeals. The case was unfortunately decided against her so she
asked the respondent to prepare a Motion for Reconsideration. She
paid him P5,000 for the motion with the understanding that if it
became necessary to file a petition for review with the Supreme
Court, she will pay him another P5,000.00 for the petition. However, it
was revealed to the complainant that the motion was denied and
the period to file the petition had expired, thus she had lost all her
hopes concerning the case.

The IBP found respondent to have violated Canons 17 and 18

of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended to the
Court that the latter be suspended for 4 months. He was likewise
ordered to refund the P5,000 which the complainant paid for the
petition.
Ruling:

Atty. Abarrientos is found liable for serious misconduct and

negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. He is
suspended from the practice of law for four months, with warning
that commission of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely. He was also ordered to refund the amount of P5,000 to
complainant.

Needless to emphasize, a lawyer must not keep a client in the

dark as to the status of and developments in the clients case. The
lawyer is obliged to respond within a reasonable time to a clients
request for information. A client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of
the mode or manner by which that clients interest is defended or
why certain steps are taken or omitted. A lawyer who repeatedly
fails to answer the inquiries or communications of a client violates the
rules of professional courtesy and neglects the clients interests.
 Case No. 3

ANGELITO RAMISCAL & MERCEDES ORZAME vs. ATTY. EDGAR ORRO

A.C. NO. 10945/February 23, 2016/Justice Bersamin

CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT

AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED
IN HIM.

CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE

AND DILIGENCE.

RULE 18.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER

ENTRUSTED TO HIM, AND HIS NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME TO THE CLIENTS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

RULE 18.04. A LAWYER SHALL KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF THE

STATUS OF HIS CASE AND SHALL RESPOND WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
TO THE CLIENTS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

Facts:

Complainants engaged the legal services of respondent to

handle a case in which they were the defendants seeking the
declaration of the nullity of title to a parcel of land situated in the
province of Isabela.

Upon receiving the P10,000 acceptance fee from them, the

respondent handled the trial of the case until the RTC decided in
their favour. However, on appeal by the plaintiffs and upon receipt
of the appellants brief, the respondent requested from the
complainants an additional amount of P30,000 for the preparation
and submission of their appellees brief in the CA.

The CA reversed the decision of the RTC and respondent did

not inform the Ramiscals of the adverse decision of the CA, which
they only learned from their neighbours. Their efforts to
communicate with the respondent were initially in vain and when
they finally reached him, respondent asked for an additional P7,000
as fee in filing a motion for reconsideration without telling them that
such motion would already be belated. Even so, they paid him the
amount sought and to their dismay, they later discovered that he
did not file the motion for reconsideration, hence, the decision
attained finality resulting in the loss of their property.
 Consequently, the Ramiscals brought an administrative
complaint against the respondent wherein IBP Commissioner Hector
Almeyda rendered his findings to the effect that the respondent
violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and recommended his suspension from the practice
of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors modified the
recommendation of the Commissioner of the penalty by increasing
the period of suspension to two years. The Court agreed with the
IBPs findings.

Issue:

Fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client.

Ruling:

Atty. Orro was found guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rules

18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he
was suspended from the practice of law for two years with a stern
warning that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.

It Is beyond debate that the relationship of the lawyer and the

client becomes imbued with trust and confidence from the moment
that the lawyer-client relationship commences, with the lawyer
being bound to serve his clients with full competence, and to attend
to their cause with utmost diligence, care and devotion. To accord
with this highly fiduciary relationship, the client expects the lawyer to
be always mindful of the formers cause and to be diligent in
handling the formers legal affairs. As an essential part of their highly
fiduciary relationship, the client is entitled to the periodic and full
updates from the lawyer on the developments of the case. The
lawyer who neglects to perform his obligations violates Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Case No. 4

CHERYL VASCO-TAMARAY vs. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS

A.C. NO. 10868/January 26, 2016/Per Curiam

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR
LEGAL PROCESSES.

RULE 1.01. A LAWYER SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST,

IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT.

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY

AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

RULE 7.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT

ADVERSELY REFLECTS ON HIS FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW, NOR SHALL
HE, WHETHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LIFE, BEHAVE IN A SCANDALOUS
MANNER TO THE DISCREDIT OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH

TO THE COURT.

RULE 10.01. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO ANY FALSEHOOD, NOR

CONSENT TO THE DOING OF ANY IN COURT, NOR SHALL BE MISLEAD
OR ALLOW THE COURT TO BE MISLED BY ANY ARTIFICE.

CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND

LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

RULE 15.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS

EXCEPT BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL CONCERNED GIVEN AFTER A
FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS.

CANON 17. A LAYWER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CASUE OF HIS CLIENT

AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED
IN HIM.

Facts:

The complainant filed a complaint-affidavit before the IBP

alleging that respondent filed, on her behalf, a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage without her consent and forged her
signature on the petition. She also alleged that Atty. Daquis signed
the petition as counsel for petitioner referring to her. Complainant
stated that Atty. Daquis was not her counseo but that of her
husband, Leomarte Tamaray and to support her allegation, she
attached the affidavit of one Maritess Marquez-Guerrero.

The court finds respondent violated Canons 1, 7, 10 and 17 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge against
respondent for violation of Canon 15 was dismissed.

Ruling:

The lawyers oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the
laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out
of court from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to
conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients.
Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and
maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of
emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that
the core values of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness are
emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. In
this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow
the court to be misled by any practice.

The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an

obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal
and fervor in the protection of the clients interest. The most
thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in order to
safeguard the interest of the client. The honor bestowed on his
person to carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking the
Lawyers Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys. Rather, such honor
attaches to him for the entire duration of his practice of law and
carries with it the consequent responsibility of not only satisfying the
basic requirements but also going the extra-mile in the protection of
the interests of the client and the pursuit of justice.
 Case No. 5

FEDERICO SUNTAY vs. ATTY. RAFAEL SUNTAY

A.C. NO. 1890/August 7, 2002/Justice Bellosillo

RULE 21.01. A LAWYER SHALL NOT REVEAL THE CONFIDENCES OR

SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EXCEPT:

a) WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE CLIENT AFTER ACQUAINTING HIM OF THE

CONSEQUENCES OF THE DISCLOSURE;
b) WHEN REQUIRED BY LAW;
c) WHEN NECESSARY TO COLLECT FEES OR TO DEFEND HIMSELF, HIS
EMPLOYEES RO ASSOCIATES OR BY JUDICIAL ACTION.

RULE 21.02. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF HIS

CLIENT, USE INFORMATION ACQUIRED IN THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT, NOR SHALL HE USE THE SAME TO HIS OWN
ADVANTAGE OR THAT OF A THIRD PERSON, UNLESS THE CLIENT WITH
FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSENTS THERETO.

Facts:

This complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant against

his nephew, Atty. Rafael Suntay, alleging that the latter was the
formers legal counsel, adviser and confidant who was privy to all his
legal, finance and political affairs. However, since they parted ways
because of politics and respondents overweening political
ambitions, respondent had been filing complaints and cases against
complainant, making use of confidential information gained while
their attorney-client relationship existed, and otherwise harassing him
at every turn. Apparently, Atty. Rafael Suntay acted as counsel for
clients in cases involving subject matters (two fishponds) regarding
which he had either been previously consulted by complainant or
which he had previously helped complainant to administer as the
latters counsel and confidant.

From the facts of the case, it is clear that respondent made use
of the information he gained while he was the lawyer of
complainant as basis for his complaint for the building of illegal dikes.
His possession and examination of Transfer Certificate of Title and the
blueprint plan provided him the information that there used to be
two creeks traversing the fishpond covered by the title. Since he
helped in the administration of the fishpond, he also came to know
that the two creeks had disappeared. Thus, he gained the data
which became the basis of his complaint when he was a lawyer and
part administrator of complainant. Under the circumstances, there is
a violation of professional confidence.

The IBP found respondent guilty as charged and

recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for
two years for immoral conduct. The Court finds the IBP
recommendation to be well taken.

Issue:

Privilege communication of attorney-client relationship.

Ruling:

Atty. Rafael Suntay is suspended from the practice of law for

two years for violating the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship
and for unethical conduct.

A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his

clients even after termination of the attorney-client relation.

Communications between attorney and client are, in a great

number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled
relevant and irrelevant, secret and well known facts. In the
complexity of what is said in the course of the dealings between an
attorney and a client, inquiry in the nature suggested would lead to
the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might
only further prejudice the complainants cause.