Case No 01.
HELD:
People vs Nadera
G.R. No. 131384-87, Feb. 2, 2000
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Elegio Nadera, Jr. has four children by his wife Daisy,
namely: Oleby, born on October 2, 1982; Maricris, bornon March 16,
1984; March Anthony, born on January 8, 1986; and Sherilyn, born on
September 27, 1987. 2 On September 22, 1991, Daisy left for a job in
Bahrain, and came home to the Philippines for vacation only in July 1993.
She then left again for Bahrain in September 1993 and did not return until
September 12, 1995. 3 On April 28, 1996, Oleby and Maricris, assisted
by a neighbor,Lita Macalalad, told their mother that they had been raped
by their father, herein accused-appellant. Thereupon. They went to the
police authorities of Naujan and filed a complaint against accused-
appellant. After preliminary examination, on June 6, 1996, four
informations charging accused-appellant with rape on various dates were
filed in the Regional Trial Court, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro.
Dr. Cynthia S. Fesalbon, Medical Officer IV of the Oriental Mindoro
Provincial Hospital, who conducted the medical examination of both
complainants, submitted a report on the result of Oleby and Maricris’
examination. Daisy Nadera, accused-appellant’s wife, also testified for the
prosecution. Her testimony focused on the dates of births of her children
and the fact that she was out of the country when the alleged rapes
occurred. She testified that she and her daughters filed a complaint for
rape against accused-appellant after discovering his hideous acts.
Thereafter, her children were subjected to a medical examination. 17 On
August 12, 1997, the prosecution formally offered its documentary
evidence and rested its case thereafter. Accused-appellant did not
present any evidence in his defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused, Elagio Nadera, was given proper defense by
his counsel.
1|Page
No. The cavalier attitude of accused-appellant’s counsel, Atty.Manolo A.
Brotonel of the Public Attorney’s Office, cannot go unnoticed. It is
discernible in (a) his refusal to cross-examine Oleby Nadera; (b) the
manner in which he conducted Maricris Nadera’scross-examination; and,
(c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also
to inform the accused of his right to do so, if he desires. Only faithful
performance by counsel of his duty towards his client can give meaning
and substance to the accused’s right to due process and to be presumed
innocent until proven otherwise. Hence, a lawyer’s duty, especially that of
a defense counsel, must not betaken lightly. It must be performed with all
the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the accused’s
fundamental rights.
Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and
protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-
appellant to be. The performance of this duty was all the more imperative
because the life of accused-appellant hangs in the balance. His duty was
no less because he was counsel deoficio.
Case No. 02.
Francisco vs. Portugal
A.C. No. 6155, March 14, 2006
FACTS:
SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M.
Joaquin (complainants) were convicted of the crimes of murder and
frustrated murder. They engaged the services of ATTY. JAIME JUANITO
P. PORTUGAL who filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but, was denied. Still, Atty. Portugal filed an Urgent
Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the
attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and filed with this Court a
Petition for Review on Certiorari. Thereafter, complainants never heard
from Atty. Portugal again despite their earnest efforts to reach him.
Checking on the status of their petition, complainants found out that the
petition was denied due to late filing and non-payment of docket fees and
said resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had already
been issued against them. Complainants filed before the Supreme Court
an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Portugal for violation of the Lawyer’s
Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence for alleged mishandling of
the petition which eventually led to its denial with finality. Atty Portugal
contends that he was not the original counsel of the complainants and
that he has already expressed through a form of a letter his intent to
withdraw as counsel of the complainants but he never received any reply
from them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Portugal committed gross negligence or misconduct
in handling the case and petitions of the complainants.
HELD:
YES, Atty. Portugal was guilty of gross negligence or misconduct. The
court believes that the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily
due to the gross negligence of Atty. Portugal. Atty. Portugal ought to know
that he was the one who should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not
the complainants. It should have been Atty. Portugal who undertook the
appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. He
should not have relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the
case. Atty. Portugal is not at liberty to abandon the case without
reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final
adjudication arises only from the client’s written consent or from a good
cause. Furthermore, after agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a
lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client never paid
any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it
is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Atty. Portugal was found guilty of the charge and
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.
2|Page
Case No. 03.
Villafuerte vs. Cortez
A.C. No 3455, April 14, 1998
FACTS:
Sometime in January 1987, complainant, upon the referral of Atty. Rene
A.V. Saguisag, went to the office of respondent lawyer to discuss his case
for "reconveyance" (Civil Case No. 83-18877). During their initial meeting,
complainant tried to reconstruct before respondent lawyer the incidents of
the case merely from memory prompting the letter to ask complainant to
instead return at another time with the records of the case. On 30 January
1987, complainant again saw respondent but still sans the records.
Complainant requested respondent to accept the case, paying to the latter
the sum of P1,750.00 representing the acceptance fee of P1,500.00 and
P250.00 retainer fee for January 1987. Respondent averred that he
accepted the money with much reluctance and only upon the condition
that complainant would get the records of the case from, as well as secure
the withdrawal of appearance of, Atty. Jose Dizon, the former counsel of
complainant. Allegedly, complainant never showed up thereafter until
November 1989 when he went to the office of respondent lawyer but only
to leave a copy of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 062160-CV, a case
for ejectment, which, according to respondent, was never priorly
mentioned to him by complainant. Indeed, said respondent, he had never
entered his appearance in the aforenumbered case. In its report, IBP-
CBD concluded that the facts established would just the same indicate
sufficiently a case of neglect of duty on the part of respondent. The CBD
rejected the excuse proffered by respondent that the non-receipt of the
records of the case justified his failure to represent complainant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Lawyer should be suspended from the
practice of law? Yes.
HELD:
The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship has already arisen
between respondent and complainant. His acceptance of the payment
effectively bars him from altogether disclaiming the existence of an
attorney-client relationship between them. It would not matter really
whether the money has been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No.
83-18877 or to include Civil Case No. 062160-CV, there being no
showing, in any event, that respondent lawyer has attended to either of
said cases. It would seem that he hardly has exerted any effort to find out
what might have happened to his client's cases. A lawyer's fidelity to the
cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities
that should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts
to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The
Code of Professional Responsibility has stated that a "lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence” decreeing further that he "shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without fault himself. He cannot
expect his case to be properly and intelligently handled without listening
to his own counsel and extending full cooperation to him. It is not right for
complainant to wait for almost two years and to deal with his lawyer only
after receiving an adverse decision. All considered, the Court deems it
proper to reduce the recommended period of suspension of the IBP from
three months to one month.
Case No. 04
Cruz vs Jacinto
A.C. No. 5235, March 22, 2000
FACTS:
Atty. Jacinto requested Spouses Cruz for a loan in behalf of a certain
Conception G. Padilla, who he claimed to be an old friend, to be secured
by a real estate mortgage. The spouses, believing and trusting the
representations of their lawyer that Padilla was a good risk, agreed to his
request and were presented by the latter with a Real Estate Mortgage
Contract and a TCT in the name of Concepcion G. Padilla. In turn, the
spouses gave him the amount he asked for. Upon maturity, the spouses
went to Padilla’s address to demand payment. However, there proved to
be no person by that name living therein. When the complainants verified
the genuineness of TCT with Register of Deeds, it was certified by the
said office to be a fake and spurious title. Further efforts to locate the
3|Page
debtor-mortgagor likewise proved futile. Evidence shows that Jacinto’s
secretary and housemaid took part in making it appear that the mortgage
was registered and the annotation to appear at the back of the TCT as an
encumbrance by making them falsify the signatures of the notary public
and the Deputy Register of Deeds respectively. A case for Estafa thru
Falsification of Public documents was filed against Atty. Jacinto but was
dismissed due to the Spouses’ voluntary desistance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ernesto Jacinto should be held liable even though
the complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public documents was
dismissed?
HELD:
Yes. While it may be true that the complaint for Estafa thru Falsification
filed against the Respondent had been dismissed, the dismissal was
because of the complainants voluntary desistance and not a finding of
innocence. It neither confirms nor denies Respondents non-culpability.
Furthermore, it is well-settled that disciplinary proceedings are "sui
generis", the primary object of which is not so much to punish the
individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice
by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and
to remove from the professions persons whose disregard of their oath
have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them
as members of the bar. Thus, disciplinary cases may still proceed despite
the dismissal of civil and/or criminal cases against a lawyer.
Undeniably, respondent represented complainants in the loan
transaction. By his own admission, he was the one who negotiated with
the borrower, his long-time friend and a former client. He acted not merely
as an agent but as a lawyer of complaints, thus, the execution of the real
estate mortgage contract, as well as its registration and annotation on the
title were entrusted to him. In fact, respondent even received his share in
the interest earnings which complainants realized from the transaction.
His refusal to recognize any wrongdoing or carelessness by claiming that
he is likewise a victim when it was shown that the title to the property, the
registration of the real estate mortgage contract, and the annotation
thereon were all feigned, will not at all exonerate him.
Case No. 05
Ylaya vs. Gacott
A.C. No. 6475, Jan. 30, 2013
FACTS:
Fe A. Ylaya filed a complaint against Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott who
allegedly deceived the complainant and her late husband, Laurentino L.
Ylaya, into signing a "preparatory" Deed of Sale that the respondent
converted into a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his relatives. Ylaya
alleged that she and her late husband are the registered owners 2 parcels
of land covered by TCT Nos. 162632 and 162633 located at Barangay
Sta. Lourdes, Puerto Princesa City. Prior to the acquisition of these
properties, TCT No. 162632 (property) was already the subject of
expropriation proceedings filed by the City Government of Puerto
Princesa (City Government) on May 23, 1996 against its former registered
owner, Cirilo Arellano. The expropriation case was filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan and Puerto Princesa, Branch 95, and was
docketed as Civil Case No. 2902. The RTC already fixed the price and
issued an order for the City Government to deposit P6,000,000.00 as just
compensation for the property.
The respondent briefly represented the complainant and her late husband
in the expropriation case as intervenors for being the new registered
owners of the property. The complainant alleged that the respondent
convinced them to sign a "preparatory deed of sale", but he left blank the
space for the name of the buyer and for the amount of consideration.
ISSUE:
WON respondent is liable for violating Canon 15, 16, 18 of the COPR.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 states:
4|Page
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Based on the records, we find substantial evidence to hold the respondent
liable for violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The facts of this case show that the respondent retained
clients who had close dealings with each other. The respondent admits to
acting as legal counsel for Cirilo Arellano, the spouses Ylaya and Reynold
at one point during the proceedings in Civil Case No. 2902.80
Subsequently, he represented only Reynold in the same proceedings,
asserting Reynold’s ownership over the property against all other claims,
including that of the spouses Ylaya.
We find no record of any written consent from any of the parties involved
and we cannot give the respondent the benefit of the doubt in this regard.
We find it clear from the facts of this case that the respondent retained
Reynold as his client and actively opposed the interests of his former
client, the complainant. He thus violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. We affirm the IBP Commissioner’s
finding that the respondent violated Canon 16. The respondent admits to
losing certificates of land titles that were entrusted to his care by Reynold.
According to the respondent, the complainant "maliciously retained" the
TCTs over the properties sold by Laurentino to Reynold after she
borrowed them from his office. Reynold confirms that the TCTs were
taken by the complainant from the respondent’s law office.
The respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to "hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Allowing a party to take the original TCTs of properties
owned by another – an act that could result in damage – should merit a
finding of legal malpractice. While we note that it was his legal staff who
allowed the complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not appear that
the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the
TCTs, we nevertheless hold the respondent liable, as the TCTs were
entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in
caring for his client’s properties that were in his custody.
We likewise find the respondent liable for violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03
for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Despite the respondent’s
admission that he represented the complainant and her late husband in
Civil Case No. 2902 and that he purportedly filed a Motion for Leave to
Intervene in their behalf, the records show that he never filed such a
motion for the spouses Ylaya. The complainant herself states that she
and her late husband were forced to file the Motion for Leave to Intervene
on their own behalf. The records of the case, which include the Motion for
Leave to Intervene filed by the spouses Ylaya, support this conclusion.
Case No. 06
Lim v. Villarosa
A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006
FACTS:
Respondents was the lawyer of Lumot A. Jalandoni, a Chairman or
President of Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC). Mrs. Jalandoni has two
sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuena married to her daughter, Carmen
J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein complainant married to
her daughter, Cristina J. Lim. Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni organized a
corporation namely the Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC) where she
owned almost ninety seven percent (97%). In other words, in reality,
Penta Resorts Corporation is a single proprietorship belonging to Mrs.
Jalandoni. The only property of the corporation is as above-stated, the
Alhambra Hotel, constructed solely through the effort of the spouses
Jalbuena on that parcel of land.
The respondent represented Mrs. Jalandoni in a civil case. Utmost trust
and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and
confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent. The latter was provided with all the
necessary information relative to the property in question and likewise on
legal matters affecting the corporation (PRC) particularly involving
problems which affect Hotel Alhambra. Said counsel was privy to all
transactions and affairs of the corporation/hotel. The respondent handled
the entire case and sometime presented Mrs. Jalandoni as a witness,
5|Page
eventually respondent filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Mrs.
Jalandoni without any approval or knowledge form the said client,
which resulted to irreparable injury to Mrs. Jalandoni because it
suffered unexpected defeat. Thereafter, spouse’s jalbuena was sued by
PRC for estafa, and the respondent represented the spouse’s jalbuena
before the city Prosecutor of Bacolod. In his contention the respondent
said there is a retainership agreement between them and Dennis
Jalbuena and that he cannot refuse to the said client.
A case was filed against the respondent, due to conflict of interest to his
clients and for not releasing the significant documents which belongs to
Mrs. Jalandoni or PRC and which was allegedly used for the benefit or
advantage of Spouses Jalbuena in the case filed against them by PRC.
ISSUE:
● Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases
represented and handled by respondent
● Whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of
record in Civil Case
HELD: Yes
1. 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.
The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof,
and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against
his first client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment.
 ● The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing
parties are present clients either in the same action or in a totally
unrelated case; the second part pertains to those in which the
adverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former
client in a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the
present controversy. The rule prohibits a lawyer from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a
former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the
same action or in totally unrelated cases. Jalandoni was
specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases
mentioned.
● An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being
retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for
his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting
with that of his client in the same general matter. The prohibition
stands even if the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it
material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have
been honest.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of
the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the
facts, constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to
disciplinary action.
Even respondents alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among
the family members was improper because the written consent of all
concerned was still required. A lawyer who acts as such in settling a
dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.
2. Canon 22 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good
cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his
client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which
event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is
recorded in the case. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without
the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court.
6|Page
He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party
at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the court
may treat the application as a mere scrap of paper. Respondent made no
such move. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999,
which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April 28,
1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty.
Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court,
supposedly in his place.
Case No. 07
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. NOS. 151809-12. April 12, 2005
FACTS
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered
financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial
support to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily
overdrawings on its current account with Central Bank. Despite the mega
loans GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. The Central
Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable
to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the
general public, and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding of
GENBANK’s assets was held where Lucio Tan group submitted the
winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the
CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANK’s
liquidation as mandated by RA 265.
After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover
the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies.
Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a
complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution against respondents
Lucio Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on
properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage of their close
relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned
respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former Solicitor
General Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that
Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank actively
intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently became Allied
Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former government
lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. The
Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying PCGG’s motion to disqualify
respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency
between respondent Mendoza’s former function as SolGen and his
present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse
to this court assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza
HELD:
1. The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of
Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest
problem when he acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents
et.al. before the Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of
whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to
disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing respondents et. al. The
key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of
“intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter”
or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case at bar
is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila.
The Court held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the
procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
7|Page
ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting, enforcing
or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations and laws,
or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent Mendoza
had nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate
GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied
Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the
sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not
include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent
Mendoza because his alleged intervention while SolGen is an
intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the
Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the
“intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of
Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to
influence the subject proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the
Code do not exist where the government lawyer does not act which can
be considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting
government or agency procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract
principles of law.” The court rules that the intervention of Mendoza is not
significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives
assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly
as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in
determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the
SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of
government.
Case No. 08
Samala v. Valencia
A.C. No. 5439 January 22, 2007
Facts:
Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for
Disbarment on the following grounds:
1. Serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for contending
parties
 2. Knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary
evidence
3. Initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental
fees.
4. Having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate
children.
Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of
suspension for 6 months. IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
the report and recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but increased
the penalty of suspension from 6 months to 1 year.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be suspended.
HELD: Respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and
violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. SUSPENDED for 3 years.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client. He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties
any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is
founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from
the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only
then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
The stern rule against representation of conflicting interests is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the attorney's
duty to represent his client with undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate
the client's confidence as well as from the injunction forbidding the
examination of an attorney as to any of the privileged communications of
his client
The Court held that a lawyer may not undertake to discharge conflicting
duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern
8|Page
rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste, which
springs from the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and
confidence. Lawyers should not only keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.
A conflict of interests also exists when the acceptance of a new relation
will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance thereof
Case No. 09
Abaqueta v. Florido
A.C. No. 5948, January 22, 2003
Facts:
Complainant Abaquieta filed this administration complaint against
respondent Atty. Florido for conflict of interest. Abaqueta engaged the
professional services of Atty. Florido in a special proceeding (In Re: Trazo
- 1st Case). Atty. Florido was able to file objections and comments to
inventory and accounting, registering complainants objection.
Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of
money against Abaqueta in a case entitled Milagros Yap Abaqueta v.
Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona (2nd Case). Respondent Atty.
Florido signed the complainant as counsel for Milagros Yap-Abaquetam
averring, that plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal
owners of those certain parcels of land. However, the parcel of land
referred to as conjugal party of the complainant and Milagro
Yap=Abaqueta are the very same parcel of land in the 1st case.In short,
respondent lawyer made allegations in the 2nd case, which were
contrary to and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for
complainant in the 1st case. Complainant also averred that respondent
Atty. Florido admitted that he was never authorized to appear as counsel
for Milagro in the 2nd case, and that Atty. Florido failed to indicate in the
complaint the true and correct address of herein complainant, which Atty.
Florido knew as far as August 2, 1990.
In Atty. Florido’s defense, he always acted in good faith in his professional
relationship with complainant in spite of the fact that they have not
personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the Complaint on
information and documents supplied by Mrs. Baclic, indicating that he was
sole and exclusive owner of the properties. Eight years later, long after
the 1st case was settled. And the and the attorney-client relationship
between complainant and respondent lawyers was terminated, Mrs.
Milagros through Mrs. Baclig, engaged his services to file the 2nd case,
Mrs. Baclig presented to him a deed of absolute sale dated July 7,1975,
showing that the properties subject hereof were not complainants
exclusive property but his conjugal property with his wife, the same
having been acquired during the subsistence of their marriage. Thus, in
all good faith, respondent alleged in the complainant that said properties
were conjugal assets of the spouses.
Atty. Florido further pointed out that his law firm handles on the average
eighty new court cases annually and personally interview four or five
clients, prospective clients and/or witnesses daily except Saturdays and
Sundays. It regularly closes to the public at 7:00 PM., but continues
sometimes until 8:30 PM. This has been going on for the last 25 years out
of respondents 33 years of private practice. The absence of personal
contact with complainant and the lapse of 8 years resulted in the oversight
and/or lapse of respondents memory that complainant was a former
client. Furthermore, the caption of the Special Proceedings (1st case) was
not in the name of complainant but was entitled , In the matter of the
Intestate Estate of Bonifacia Payahay Abaqueta. Respondent expressed
regret over the oversight and averred that immediately after discovering
that he formerly represented complainant in the 2nd case he filed a motion
to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff, which was granted by the trial court.
Complainant further countered that Atty. Florido’s conduct was geared
towards insuring a court victory for Milagros Yap wherein he deliberately
stated a false address of the complainant when he knew fully well that
complainants true and correct address was. By falsely stating and
concealing his true and correct address, respondent eventually
succeeded in obtaining a default judgement in favor of his client.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Florido violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR by representing
Milagros Yap
9|Page
HELD: Yes the reasons explained by respondent are hardly persuasive
to excuse his clear representation of conflicting interests in this case.
1. The investigating commissioner observed that the name
“Gamaliel Abaqueta” is not a common name. Once heard, it will
surely ring a bell in ones mind if he came across the name again.
2. Assuming arguendo that respondents memory was indeed faulty,
still it is incredible that he could not recall that complainant was
his client, considering that Mrs. Charito Baclic, who was
complainants attorney-in-fact and the go-between of complainant
and respondent in the Bonifacia Abaqueta case was the same
person who brought Milagros Yap Abaqueta to hi. Even a person
of average intelligence would have made the connection between
Mrs. Baclic and complainant under such circumstances.
3. The fact that the subject matter of the two cases are the same
properties could not have escaped the attention of respondent.
There is conflict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of
two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one
clint, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to
opposite it for the other client. In short, if he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. A
lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client.
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client
which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Indeed, as we
stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera, the relation of attorney and client is based on
trust, so that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery,
should be avoided.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
3 months. He is further ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and
diligence in the performance of his duties towards his clients and the
court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
Case No. 10
Gonzales v. Cabucana
A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006
Facts:
Gonzales was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages
filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City,
where she was represented by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA,
DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar
Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an
associate/partner.
A decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to pay
Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest and P 6,000.00 as
attorney’s fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ
of execution issued in connection with the judgment which prompted
Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff. Sheriff Gatcheco and
his wife went to the house of Gonzales, harassed her, and asked her to
execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint. Gonzales
thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation.
Complainant alleges that respondent should be disbarred from the
practice of law since respondent’s acceptance of the cases of the
Gatchecos violates the lawyer -client relationship between complainant
and respondent’s law firm. Notwithstanding the pendency of the case
where respondent’s law firm was still representing Gonzales, respondent
represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the
said spouses. She added that respondent prepared and notarized
counter-affidavits of the Gatcheco spouses. Respondent likewise acted
as their counsel in the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against them.
Respondent alleges that he never appeared and represented
complainant since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who
appeared and represented Gonzales in said case.
He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the
cases filed against them but claimed that his appearance is pro bono and
that the spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take
their case. He entered his appearance in good faith and opted to
represent the spouses rather than leave them defenseless. When the
10 | P a g e
Gatchecos asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the cases filed
against them by Gonzales were merely instigated by a high ranking official
who wanted to get even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the
said official in another case. The civil case filed by Gonzales where
respondent ’s brother served as counsel is different and distinct from the
criminal cases filed by complainant against the Gatcheco spouses, thus,
he did not violate any canon on legal ethics.
Issue: Whether or not Cabucana violated Rule 15.01 and 15.03 of the
CPR?
Held: Respondent is fined the amount of Two Thousand Pesos with a
stern warning that a commission of the same or similar act in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only
to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance
of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged
to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance
in the administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
As expounded in the case of Quiambao vs Bamba, The proscription
against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where
the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an
unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called
upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the
other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two
actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one
case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature
or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would
affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
The representation of opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated,
constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of
double-dealing which this Court cannot allow. Granting also that there
really was no other lawyer who could handle the spouses case other than
him, still he should have observed the requirements laid down by the rules
by conferring with the prospective client to ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client
then seek the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure of the
facts.
CASE NO. 11
Berbano vs Barcelona 2003
AC 6084
FACTS:
Berbano seeks the disbarment of Atty. Barcelona for Malpractice and
Gross Misconduct Unbecoming a Lawyer, Dereliction of Duty and Unjust
Enrichment. Barcelon is one of the heirs of Hilapo. Hilapo owns a lot in
Alabang which is being claimed by Filinvest in a case. The heirs of Hilapo
appointed Mr. Daen as their attorney-in-fact giving him authority to
prosecute their case. Mr. Daen was arrested on the strength of an expired
warrant of arrest and he was detained in jail. Since Mr. Daen needed the
assistance of a lawyer for his release, Atty. Barcelona was recommended.
Atty. Barcelona arrived in jail and Mr. Daen engaged his services to get
him out.
Atty. Barcelona told Berbano that if they could produce P50,000 he will
cause the release of Mr. Daen the following day. Since it was late in the
evening, Berbano couldn”t produce 50k. Atty. Barcelona insisted that he
must pay even just a little so Berbano gave him 15k. Atty. Barcelon went
to ChowKing and received the money there. Before he left, he asked
Berbano to meet him at Max”s Resto at around 12 noon. Atty. Barcelon
left because according to him, he would go see a justice from the SC who
could help the release of Mr. Daen. The next day, Berbano went to Max”s
Resto. He told Berbano that he just came from the SC and that he “fixed”
the case of Mr. Daen. Berbano was surprised because he did not have
with him any single document at the time. Berbano handed him a “pay-to-
cash” check for 24k. Atty. Barcelona said that Justices of the SC do not
accept checks but he accepted it saying that he will have the check
rediscounted.
11 | P a g e
The next morning, Atty. Barcelona called Berbano and said that he was
not able to rediscount the check and Berbano must produce the amount
of 5k and give it to him in Max”s Resto at 12 noon. Atty. Barcelona did not
show up. Atty. Barcelona then called their house and moved their meeting
to Mcdo. He was not there. His wife called Berbano to move the meeting
to their house. In their house, they gave 10k. They again met up with Atty.
Barcelona and gave him another 15k and 1k for gas. A week after, Daen
was still not released. When they called Atty. Barcelona”s house he
allegedly boarded a private plane to attend a peace talk with the Muslims.
Another week passed, Berbano saw Atty. Barcelona and said that he will
return the entire amount of 64k. But he never showed up and never
returned their calls.
ISSUES: 1. WON Atty. Barcelona should be disbarred?
HELD:
1. YES. Atty. Barcelona is guilty of culpable violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility: CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
for legal processes. CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times upholds the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of
the integrated bar. CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others.
CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall
account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client. Atty. Barcelona has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting
to clients that he has the proper connections to secure the relief they seek,
and thereafter, ask for money, which will allegedly be given to such
connections. In this case, he misrepresented to Berbano that he could get
the release of Mr. Porfirio Daen through his connection with a Supreme
Court Justice. Not only that, he even had the audacity to tell Berbano that
the Justices of the Supreme Court do not accept checks. It”s also not his
first time to be charged with and found guilty of conduct unbecoming a
lawyer. In a case filed by Gil Aquino, Atty. Barcelona misrepresented that
he could secure the restructuring of a loan though his connection with a
legal assistant named Gonzalo in PNB. He got 60k from Aquino but there
was no such employee by the name of Gonzalo. (nawalan na ng pera na
foreclose pa ang property) The Judiciary has been besieged enough with
accusations of corruption and malpractice. For a member of the legal
profession to further stoke the embers of mistrust on the judicial system
with such irresponsible representations is reprehensible and cannot be
tolerated. Atty. Barcelona made a mockery of the Judiciary and further
eroded public confidence in courts and lawyers
CASE NO. 12
NAKPIL v VALDEZ 1998
A.C. No. 2040
FACTS:
● Jose Nakpil and Carlos Valdes were friends since the 1950s. Due
to their friendship, respondent (CPA-lawyer) became the
business consultant, lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils.
● In 1965, Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer
residence in Moran St. , Baguio City. For lack of funds, he
requested respondent to purchase the Moran property for him.
They agreed that respondent would keep the property in thrust
for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Pursuant to the
agreement, respondent obtained 2 loans from a bank, in the
amounts of P65, 000 and P75, 000, which he used to purchase
and renovate the property. Title was then issued in respondent’s
name.
● Nakpils occupied the summer house. When Jose Nakpil died in
1973, respondent acted the legal counsel and accountant of
Jose’s widow. Respondent’s law form, Carlos J. Valdes & Assoc.
handled the proceeding for the settlement of Jose’s estate.
● Ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the
intestate proceedings. Respondent excluded the Moran property
from the inventory of Jose’s estate. He transferred his title to the
Moran property to his company, Caval Realty Corporation.
● Complainant sought to recover Moran property by filing with the
them CFI Baguio an action for reconveyance with damages.
During the pendencey of the action for reconveyance,
complainant filed this administrative case to disbar the
respondent.
Allegations of complainant:
● Respondent maliciously appropriated the property in trust
knowing that it did not belong to him
12 | P a g e
● Respondent’s auditing firm excluded the Moran property from the
inventory YET included the Moran property in the claims against
the estate the amounts P65k and P75k which respondent
represented as complainant’s husband’s loans applied “probably
for the purchase of a house and lot in Moran”
● Conflict of interest- Respondent’s law firm filed the petition for the
settlement of her husband’s estate in court, while respondent’s
auditing firm acted as accountant of both the estate and two of its
creditors.
ISSUE:
WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CANON 17).
HELD:
YES. In violation of the trust agreement, respondent claimed absolute
ownership over the property and refused to sell the property to
complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil. Respondent initially
acknowledged and respected the trust nature of the Moran property.
Respondent exercised bad faith in transferring the property to his family
corporation.
● Respondent’s act of excluding Moran property lack of fidelity to
the cause of his client (Canon 17)
If he truly believed that it was his, he should have formally presented his
claim in the intestate proceedings instead of transferring it to his own
company and concealing it from complainant. His misuse of his legal
expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical.
To make things worse, respondent through his accounting firm, charged
two loans against the estate as liability for the purchase and renovation of
the property he claimed for himself.
CASE NO. 13
ESPIRITU V. ULEP
AC. NO. 5808, May 04, 2005
FACTS:
In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu
and Ricardo Maon whereby Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon.
Espiritu handed the P50k to Atty. Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may
deliver it to Maon. Ulep failed to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter
he avoided talking to Espiritu. Espiritu then sought the assistance of the
local IBP chapter. Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for
five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP chapter then heard the
case ex parte and subsequently recommended Ulep’s suspension.
ISSUE: WON the recommendation is correct.
HELD: Yes. Ulep violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyer should hold in trust all money and properties of
his client that may come into his possession. In the case at bar, Ulep failed
to explain what he did with the money. The relation between attorney and
client is highly fiduciary in nature. Being such, it requires utmost good
faith, loyalty, fidelity and disinterestedness on the part of the attorney. Its
fiduciary nature is intended for the protection of the client. Money of the
client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly
and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or
be used by him. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them
are in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of
public confidence in the legal profession. The Supreme Court suspended
Ulep for 6 months and ordered him to pay the P50k plus interest
CASE NO. 14
ADRIMISIN V. UY 2000
AC. NO. 2591, 2006-09-08
FACTS:
Complainant alleges that on 12 July 1983, she was introduced by her
cousin, Pablo Adrimisin, to respondent. She needed the help of a lawyer
in having her son-in-law, Alfredo Monterde ("Monterde"), who was
charged with the crime of qualified theft, released from the Caloocan City
Jail. Complainant claims that respondent advised her to file a bail bond.
Complainant informed respondent that her only money was P500.
Complainant contends that respondent received the money, issued a
receipt and promised that Monterde would be released... from jail the
following day.
Complainant also alleges that respondent failed to keep his promise in
having Monterde released. Complainant went to respondent's office
several times but it seemed that respondent was avoiding her. Monterde
was later released upon settlement of the case with his employer.
13 | P a g e
Complainant claims that she demanded for the return of the P500 but
respondent failed to return this amount.
Respondent did not file any comment or answer. He only appeared in the
investigative hearings conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General
("OSG"). Respondent, in his testimony, claims he was not hired by
complainant as legal counsel. Respondent alleges complainant only...
asked his help to secure a bail bond.[3] Respondent admits he received
P500 for the bail bond and called up Carlos Alberto ("Alberto"), an
insurance agent. [4] Respondent claims he gave the P500 to Alberto.
However, the amount was not... sufficient to pay for the bond.
Respondent denies that he promised to have Monterde released
immediately.[6] Respondent claims he advised complainant to get back
her money directly from Alberto.
ISSUES:
for deceit and misrepresentation, respondent may be suspended or
disbarred
HELD:
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16 and Rule 18.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). The Code mandates
every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.[21]
Consequently, a lawyer should account for the money received from a
client. The Code also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him... liable.
A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf
of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.
Such act is a gross violation of general morality as... well as of
professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession
and deserves punishment
This is not the first-time respondent is found to have unlawfully withheld
and misappropriated money. In Igual v. Javier, the Court held that
respondent had unjustifiably refused to return Igual's money upon
demand and his absence of integrity... was highlighted by his "half-baked
excuses, hoary pretenses and blatant lies in his testimony before the IBP
Committee on Bar Discipline."
The Court suspended Javier from the practice of law for a period of one
month and ordered him to restitute the amount of P7,000.
In... that case, we reminded respondent that he was "expected to always
live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility for the relationship between an attorney and his client is
highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith."
CASE NO. 15
CELAJE VS ATTY. SORIANO
A.C. NO. 7418 ; OCTOBER 9, 2007
FACTS:
● A disbarment case filed against Atty. Soriano for gross
misconduct.
Andrea Celaje alleged that respondent asked for money to be put up as
an injunction bond, which complainant found out later, however, to be
unnecessary as the application for the writ was denied by the trial court.
Respondent also asked for money on several occasions allegedly to
spend for or to be given to the judge handling the case.
When complainant approached the judge and asked whether what
respondent was saying was true, the judge denied them and advised her
to file an administrative case.
IBP found respondent guilty of gross misconduct in his relations with his
client and recommended that he be suspended for three years.
Complainant alleged that she remitted to respondent amounts of money
totalling to more or less 270k but were not in writing.
There is no ill-motive at all on the part of complainant to fabricate charges
against respondent. Unfortunately, none of the 270k was ever
documented and therefore accuracy of the amounts could not be
established and sustained.
However, it was found that an amount of 5,800 from the 14,800 intended
for the injunction bond remains unaccounted for.
14 | P a g e
Complainant reiterated her accusations against respondent and
expressed that she had been aggrieved and misled by respondent.
According to complainant, this was made possible because she was not
aware of or knowledgeable on legal matters and practices.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of malpractice
HELD:
● The Court resolved to adopt the recommendation.
The CPR (Canon 16) mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession. He sahll
account for all money or property collected or received from his client and
shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.
It was established that respondent could not account for the 5,800 pesos
which was supposed to be part of the sum for the injunction bond.
Respondent’s failure to return the money to complainant upon demand
gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use to
the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.
As the Court pronounced, when a lawyer receives money from the client
for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to
the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. The attorney-client
relationship is highly fiduciary in nature. As such, it requires utmost good
faith, loyalty, fidelity, and disinterestedness on the part of the lawyer.
In Small v. Banares, the respondent was suspended for two years for
violating Canon 16 of the CPR. Considering the similar circumstances,
the respondent in this case was suspended for two years.
16. Marquez v. Meneses, Jr. 1999
FACTS:
● This is a complaint for misconduct and collection of
unconscionable fees filed against Atty. Menes by his client
Marquez.
 ● May 1963, Marquez was introduced by Atty. Peralta to Atty.
Meneses of Legaspi City, as a prospective client.
● Complainant retained the professional service of respondent to
prosecute a claim of P210 against Ruth Igdanes and Delfin
Igdanes in the Justice of the Peace Court of Camalig, Albay.
● The agreement was that complainant would pay a fee of P100.00
to respondent, whether the case was won or lost.
○ The case was ruled in favor of Marquez and was awarded
the claim with legal interest and P75 as attorney’s fees
● The agreement, however, was merely oral. Thereafter,
complainant advanced from time to time to respondent various
sums as fees, which totalled P75.00.
● The sheriff gave a partial satisfaction (P75) of the claim to
Marquez’s brother. Marquez asked her brother to give Meneses
P25 only but the latter got P75, the whole amount, as his fees but
the balance was only P25.
○ Meneses refused to return the overpayment of P50 and
contended that it was their agreement.
■ He claims that the agreement was that he would
be paid:
● P100 retainer fees
● Contingent fees equivalent to the
amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded
by the court.
ISSUE: Whether or not he is entitled to the P75 attorney’s fees aside
from the P100 retainer fees.
HELD:
It is improbable that Marquez would agree to pay both. Meneses
admitted that he accepted the case as an act of charity since he knew
Marquez was poor. He cannot deny that P175 as attorney’s fee is
unconscionable.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor
of his client is money held in trust and must be immediately turned over
to the latter.—It is well-settled that money collected by a lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client is money held in trust and
must be immediately turned over to the latter. Canon 11 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics, in force at the time material to this case, provides:
15 | P a g e
11. Dealing with trust property—The lawyer should refrain from any action
whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of
the confidence reposed in him by his client. Money of the client or
collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession
of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should
not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by
him.
By placing his personal interest above his client’s cause,
respondent clearly breached the trust reposed upon him.—Respondent
should have made an accounting with his client of the amount he
received, deducted the balance of the attorney’s fees due him, and turned
over the rest of the amount to his client. As the Solicitor General observed,
“if respondent was mindful of his ethics, he should at least have waited
until the judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 82 had made further payments
on the amount adjudged against them . . .” By placing his personal interest
above his client’s cause, respondent clearly breached the trust reposed
upon him.
Respondent guilty of breach of trust, hence meted a one (1)
month suspension from the practice of law and a fine of P50.00 plus legal
interest since January 1964.
17. Navarro v. Atty. Solidum 2014
FACTS:
● This is a complaint for disbarment by Navarro and Presbitero
against Atty. Solidum.
● On April 4 2006, respondent signed a retainer agreement with
Presbitero in consideration of P50k.
● May 2006, Presbitero’s daughter (Yulo) also engaged the
respondent’s services in consideration of 30% of the value of the
property once registered.
● May 25, 2006, respondent obtained a loan of P1M from Navarro
to finance his sugar trading business executed in an MOA.
○ 10% interest per month
 ○Secured by postdated checks and a real estate
mortgage.
● June 2006, he obtained an additional loan of P1M from Navarro,
also covered by an MOA with same terms and conditions.
● At the same time, he obtained a loan of P1M from Presbitero
covered by a third MOA with a different mortgage.
● He was able to pay the complainants totalling P900k but failed to
pay either the interests or the principal amount. They filed cases
for estafa and BP22.
● Nov 2006, his services was terminated by Presbito and he
withdrew as counsel for Yulo.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the CPR.
HELD:
● A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed
either in his professional or private capacity.
○ It is clear that respondent violated Rule 1.01 for
committing the ff. acts:
(1) signing drawn checks against the account of
his son as if they were from his own account;
(2) misrepresenting to Navarro the identity of the
lot he mortgaged to her;
(3) misrepresenting to Presbitero the true value
of the 263-square-meter lot he mortgaged to her;
(4) conspiring with Yulo to obtain the loans from
complainants;
(5) agreeing or promising to pay 10% interest on
his loans although he knew that it was exorbitant;
and
(6) failing to pay his loans because the checks
he issued were dishonored as the accounts were
already closed.
○ The test is whether his conduct shows him to be lacking
in good moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
● The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel
and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for
16 | P a g e
the money or property collected or received for or from his
client.
○ Respondent failed to perform this duty. IBP-CBD pointed
out that he received various amounts from complainant
but he could not account for all of them, violating Rule
16.01.
● A lawyer’s failure to return the excess money in his
possession gives rise to the presumption that he has
misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by, the client.
○ Responded had been negligent in accounting for the
money he received from his client Presbitero
○ Rule 16.04 violated which prohibits borrowing money
from a client unless the client’s interest is fully protected
or the client is given independent advice.
● Rule 16.04 presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the
lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege
on his obligation.
○ The respondent’s loan from Presbitero was secured by
an MOA, postdated checks and a real estate mortgage.
■ The value of the mortgage was misrepresented
■ Checks issued were from his son’s account –
later dishonored.
■ He later questioned the terms of the MOA (he
prepared it) on the ground that the interest rate
was unconscionable
○ Presbitero’s interest was not fully protected.
○ In his dealings with his client Presbitero, respondent took
advantage of his knowledge of the law as well as the trust
and confidence reposed in him by his client.
Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr. disbarred for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon
16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.04 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Solidum ordered to return advances (P50k) from Hilda S. Presbitero.
18. Yao v. Aurelio 2006
FACTS:
● This is a complaint for disbarment for alleged violations of CPR.
● Yao alleged that he retained services of Aurelio as his personal
lawyer since 1987; that Aurelio is the retained counsel of the
corporations of which Yao is a major stockholder; that Aurelio,
was also the brother-in-law of complainant’s wife, had in 1999 a
disagreement with the latter and thereafter respondent
demanded the return of his investment in the corporations but
when complainant refused to pay, he filed eight charges for estafa
and falsification against Yao, et. al.
● Yao alleged that the series of suits filed against him and his wife
is a form of harassment and constitutes an abuse of the
confidential information which respondent obtained by virtue of
his employment as counsel.
● IBP found him guilty of forum shopping when he filed identical
charges against Yao.
ISSUE: Whether or not Aurelio is guilty of forum shopping.
HELD:
● Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him.
○ NOTE: Fiduciary relationship between an attorney and
client.
○ The long-established rule is that an attorney is not
permitted to disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the latter
consents.
○ The obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets
of a client arises at the inception of their relationship.
○ The protection given to the client is perpetual and does
not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it
affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the attorney
and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client.
17 | P a g e
● Respondent’s act of filing multiple suits on similar causes of
action in different venues constitutes forum shopping. He
has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his
dealings with complainant and complainant’s companies for
his own end.
○ This highlights his motives rather than his cause of
action.
○ He took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get
back at the complainant.
● Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the
purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating
hostility against any person—most especially against a
client or former client.
○ Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their
dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio suspended from practice of law for six (6)
months.
19. Regala, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan 1996
FACTS:
● This case started from the case of PCGG v. Cojuango, Jr., et. al.
among which Regala, et.al. (herein petitioners) were defendants,
who were all then partners of ACCRA law firm.
● As members of ACCRA law, petitioners and private respondent
Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition
of the companies included in Civil Case No. 0033, and in keeping
with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-
stockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration
proceedings
● PCGG filed a “Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint” and
“Third Amended Complaint” (TAC) which excluded Roco as a
party-defendant (PCGG contends that he is excluded because he
will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as
 nominees/stockholder in the companies involved in the PCGG
Case No. 33).
● The petitioners were included alleging that they:
○ plotted, devised, schemed, conspired and confederated
with each other in setting up, through the use of the
coconut levy funds, the financial and corporate
framework and structures that led to the establishment of
UCPB, UNICOM, COCOLIFE, COCOMARK, CIC, and
more than twenty other coconut levy funded
corporations, including the acquisition of San Miguel
Corporation shares and its institutionalization through
presidential directives of the coconut monopoly.
○ That through insidious means and machinations, ACCRA
Investments Corp. became the holder of 15M shares of
UCPB (No. 44 out of 100 biggest stockholders of UCPB).
● PCGG set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion of
petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients;
(b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client
relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments
petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective
shareholdings.
● Sandiganbayan promulgated the Resolution, herein questioned,
denying the exclusion of petitioners in PCGG Case No. 33, for
their refusal to comply with the conditions required by respondent
PCGG.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion in not holding that the attorney-client privilege prohibits
ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their clients and other
information requested by PCGG.
HELD:
● In modern day perception of the lawyer-client relationship,
an attorney is more than a mere agent or servant because he
possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed
on him by his client.
○ A lawyer is also as independent as a judge, he is superior
from an ordinary agent.
18 | P a g e
○ He occupies a “quasi-judicial office” because he is an
officer of the court and exercise his judgment in the
course of choices of action to be taken favorable to his
client.
● In the creation of lawyer-client relationship there are rules,
ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it.
○ the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high
degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by
reason of necessity and public interest based on the
hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in
a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration
of justice.
● Generally, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse
to divulge the name or identity of his client. As a matter of
public policy, a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery.
○ EXCEPTIONS: When is client identity privileged?
○ Client identity is privileged where a strong probability
exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate
that client in the very activity for which he sought the
lawyer’s advice.
○ Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability his
identity is privileged.
○ Where the government’s lawyers have no case against
an attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s
name, the said name would furnish the only link that
would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
an individual of a crime, the client’s name is privileged.
● Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other
situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general
rule.
○ The content of any client communication to a lawyer lies
within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of
the legal problem on which the client seeks legal
assistance.
○ Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has
been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is
 intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has
been held to be privileged, since such revelation would
otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction.
● The lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and lawyer’s
loyalty to his client extends even after the termination of the
relationship.
The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at
bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least
two exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client’s
name would lead to establish said client’s connection with the very fact in
issue of the case, which is privileged information, because the privilege,
as stated earlier, protects the subject matter or the substance (without
which there would be no attorney-client relationship).
Sandiganbayan resolution is annulled and set aside. They are ordered to
exclude petitioners as parties-defendants.
20. Bautista v. Gonzales 1990
FACTS:
● Bautista charges Gonzales with malpractice, deceit, gross
misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.
● Bautista alleges that Gonzales committed the ff. Acts:
○ Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients,
namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha
Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to
pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent
fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in
litigation.
○ Acting as a counsel for the Fortunados and Lopez, Jr. in
a civil case where Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants.
○ Transferring ½ of the properties of the Fortunados, which
properties were the subject of a pending case.
○ Inducing the complainant, who was his former client, to
enter into a contract with him for the development of the
land he “acquired” into a residential subdivision, knowing
fully well that said property was sold at a public auction.
19 | P a g e
○ Submitting falsified documents purporting to be true
copies of an Addendum.
○ Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to
complainant who was his client;
○ Harassing complainant by filing several complaints
without legal basis.
○ Deliberately misleading the Court by making false
statements.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed the acts of
misconduct alleged by Bautista.
HELD:
● Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property or interest in
litigation is a breach of professional ethics and constitutes
malpractice.
○ Respondent prepared a Transfer of Rights signed by the
Fortunados. It assigned ½ of the properties for and in
consideration of the respondent’s legal services.
○ At the time it was executed, he knew that the properties
were the subject of a civil case pending before the CFI
since he was acting as the counsel for the Fortunados in
that case.
○ He clearly violated Art. 1491, Civil Code.
● Champertous agreements are against public policy
especially where the lawyer agrees to carry out the action at
his own expense in consideration of some bargain to have
part of the thing in dispute.
○ Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the
expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to
reimbursement.
○ The agreement between respondent and the
Fortunados, however, does not provide for
reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid
by him.
○ An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay
expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is
champertous.
 ■ Such agreements are against public policy
especially where, as in this case, the attorney
has agreed to carry on the action at his own
expense in consideration of some bargain to
have part of the thing in dispute.
■ The execution of these contracts violates the
fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his
client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanctions.
● A lawyer may represent clients of conflicting interest if such
clients knowingly consent to the dual representation after
full disclosure of the facts by counsel.—The Solicitor General
next concludes that respondent cannot be held liable for acting
as counsel for Eusebio Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-15490 while
acting as counsel for the Fortunados against the same Eusebio
Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-15143. The Court, after considering
the record, agrees with the Solicitor General’s findings on the
matter. The evidence presented by respondent shows that his
acceptance of Civil Case No. Q-15490 was with the knowledge
and consent of the Fortunados. The affidavit executed by the
Fortunados on June 23, 1976 clearly states that they gave their
consent when respondent accepted the case of Eusebio Lopez,
Jr. One of the recognized exceptions to the rule against
representation of conflicting interests is where the clients
knowingly consent to the dual representation after full disclosure
of the facts by counsel [Canon 6, Canons of Professional Ethics;
Canon 15, Rule 15.03, Code of Professional Responsibility].
Respondent suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months for “miserably failed to live up to the standards expected of a
member of the Bar.”
20 | P a g e
Case no. 21
Guevarra v. Calalang
A.M. No. 681 September 30, 1982
FACTS:
In a complaint for malpractice filed by complainant Eliseo Guevara, the
respondent Atty. Maximo Calalang was charged with having acquired by
transfer or assignment a parcel of land in violation of Article 1491 of the
Civil Code. Respondent Maximo Calalang died on August 8, 1978. His
death rendered the case moot and academic. However, the investigation
of the charges conducted during the respondent's lifetime indicates that
the charges filed against him have no merit.
According to respondent, under his agreement with Bernabe Flores, he
was to get for attorney's fees one-half (1/2) of what would be awarded to
Flores in Civil Case No. Q- 2171. Because of the agreement, he actually
paid to Flores only one-half of the total consideration of P18,348.45.The
agreement of respondent and Bernabe Flores is a contract for contingent
fee. It has already been held that contingent fee is not prohibited in the
Philippines and is impliedly sanctioned by the Canons of Professional
Ethics
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for misconduct and unethical
practice
HELD:
Even if the assignment of rights in question is considered an outright
purchase by the respondent of the subject lot or of the rights therein, still
respondent was not guilty of breach of professional ethics, misconduct or
malpractice by reason of said transaction. It is true that Canon No. 10 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics prohibits the lawyer from purchasing
any interest in the subject-matter of the litigation which he is conducting,
and Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code prohibits him from
acquiring by purchase or assignment the property and rights which may
be the object of any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession. But in those cases where these provisions were applied, the
rights or properties purchased by the lawyer were the very subject of the
litigation handled by him
It was not professional misconduct or unethical practice for the
respondent to acquire the rights and interests of his client to the 439
square meter parcel of land subject of the administrative charges because
the land was not involved in the litigation he was handling. The land was
acquired by Bernabe Flores in an execution sale conducted to satisfy the
judgment secured in the course of Civil Case No. 2171. The case handled
by the respondent was for damages.
Case no. 22
Mattus v. Villaseca
A.C. No. 7922 October 1, 2013
FACTS:
The complainant,German Bernardo D. Mattus and Dexter Aligan were the
accused in Criminal Case– a case for estafa thru falsification of public
document. The complainant and her husband, German, engaged the
services of Atty. Villaseca to represent them in the proceedings. The
complainant maintained that she and German were convicted due to Atty.
Villaseca’s gross and inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as
their counsel. Respondent was often absent during court hearings but still
collected appearance fees, frequently asked for postponements, failed to
ask for NBI examination of questioned documents, failed to file a demurrer
to evidence in spite of having been granted time to file the same, failed to
present evidence for the defense, failed to notify his clients of the dates
of presentation of the evidence for the defense and promulgation of
judgment, and indicated the wrong case number in the notice of appeal,
resulting in their conviction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross negligence in performing
his duties as a counsel
HELD:
The Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer owes fidelity
to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
21 | P a g e
confidence reposed in him." It further mandates that "a lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence." It also states that "a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."
Atty. Villaseca’s failure to present any testimonial, object or documentary
evidence for the defense reveals his lack of diligence in performing his
duties as an officer of the Court; it showed his indifference towards the
cause of his clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his
clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted efforts tore but
the presented prosecution evidence.
“His incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the
courts and society indicate a high degree of irresponsibility that casts
dishonor on the legal profession”. Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for 5 years.
Case no. 23
Ferrer v. Tebelin
A.C. No. 6590. June 27, 2005
FACTS:
Complainant Jesus Ferrer (Ferrer) sought the legal service of Atty. Jose
Allan Tebelin in order to claim for damages against Global Link
Multimodal Transport Inc. (Global Link) during a vehicular accident. Atty.
Tebelin agreed to render service and pursuance to this, he charged P5,
000 as acceptance fee to Ferrer. Ferrer thereafter filed a complaint
against Atty. Tebelin for allegedly abandoning his case and refusing to
talk and see him. For his part, Atty. Tebelin contends that he advised
Ferrer that it would take time, as he needs to talk to Global Link.
Conversely, he offered to return the P5, 000 and the records of the case.
The hearing of the case was set but Atty. Tebelin did not show up to the
scheduled hearings. Due to this, the case was acted on the pleadings and
reports. Based on the reports submitted by Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Atty. Tebelin appeared
and informed the Commission that he was willing to return the money to
Ferrer but he failed to do so. It was recommended that Atty. Tebelin be
suspended for 2 years for failure to perform his services.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Tebelin is liable for abandonment of his obligation as a
lawyer to his client
HELD:
Under Canon 18, a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Rule 18.03, on the other hand, provides that a lawyer shall not
neglect legal matters entrusted to him. In this case the respondent lawyer
has an obligation to his client.
The Court faults Atty. Tebelin for ignoring the notices of hearing sent to
him at his address which he himself furnished, or to notify the IBP-CBD
his new address if indeed he had moved out of his given address. His
actuation betrays his lack of courtesy, his irresponsibility as a lawyer.
This Court faults respondent too for welching on his manifestation-
undertaking to return the P5,000.00, not to mention the documents
bearing on the case, to complainant or his heirs. Such is reflective of his
reckless disregard of the duty imposed on him by Rule 22.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer who withdraws
or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, immediately turn over all
papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
Case no. 24
Baldado v. Mejica
A.C. No. 9120 March 11, 2013
FACTS:
On July 17, 2006, complainant Augusto P. Baldado filed a Complaint with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline,
charging respondent Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica with gross incompetence,
gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law for his failure to render
legal service to the complainant as mandated by Canon 17 and Canon
22 | P a g e
18, Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Complainant Augusto P. Baldado was a former member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar. He ran
and won in the 2004 National and Local Elections. Florentino C. Nival, a
losing candidate during the said elections, filed a Petition for Quo
Warranto questioning his qualifications as a candidate, as he was
allegedly an American citizen. Complainant hired the legal services of
respondent for the said case.Respondent filed an Answer, and later filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court
over the case due to the failure of Florentino C. Nival to pay the
appropriate filing or docket fee.
Complainant filed this administrative case against respondent.
Complainant contended that in handling his case, respondent committed
these serious errors: (1) Respondent improperly filed a Motion to Dismiss
after he had filed his Answer, allegedly due to lack of jurisdiction for failure
of therein petitioner Florentino C. Nival to pay the correct docket fees, but
the trial court denied said motion because a motion to dismiss is
proscribed after filing an Answer; (2) Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration from the denial of his Motion to Dismiss which was
denied for failure to attach the Notice of Hearing; (3) respondent filed a
second motion for reconsideration, which was again denied on the ground
that it was a prohibited pleading; and (4) Respondent refused to file a
Notice of Appeal from the Decision of the trial court on the Petition for Quo
Warranto without justification despite the advice and insistence of
complainant, and instead filed a petition for certiorari before the
COMELEC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross negligence, gross
incompetence, and gross ignorance of the law
HELD:
The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the Board of
Governors of the IBP that respondent is guilty of gross negligence, gross
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law for failing to appeal the
Decision of the trial court in the quo warranto case before the COMELEC
within the reglementary period.
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He owes entire devotion to the interest of the
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights,
and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing
be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally
applied. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not
only protects the interest of his client, he also serves the ends of justice,
does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community
to the legal profession. Respondent was suspended for 3 months.
Case no. 25
Dagohoy v. Atty. Sarmiento San Juan
A.C. No. 7944 June 03, 2013
FACTS:
Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in
connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the Court
of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy (Tomas), his client and the father of
complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and convicted of
theft. According to the complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for Atty.
San Juan’s failure to file the appellant’s brief.5 He further alleged that Atty.
San Juan did not file a motion for reconsideration against the CA’s order
of dismissal.6 The complainant also accused Atty. San Juan of being
untruthful in dealing with him and Tomas. The complainant, in this regard,
alleged that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real
status of Tomas’ appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for
its dismissal.
ISSUE:
23 | P a g e
Whether or not the respondent is liable for committing gross negligence,
in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the Court
of Appeals (CA)
HELD:
Atty. San Juan’s negligence undoubtedly violates the Lawyer’s Oath that
requires him to “conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of
(his) knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts
as to (his) clients[.]” He also violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We deny Atty. San Juan's
motion to lift the order of suspension. Atty. San Juan's self-imposed
compliance with the IBP's recommended penalty of three (3) months
suspension was premature. The Court resolves to SUSPEND from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year Atty. Sariento V. San Juan for
violating his Lawyer's Oath and Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a WARNING that the
commission of the same or similar act or acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
Case no. 26
Tan v. Lapak
G.R. No. 93707 January 23, 2001
FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Rosita Tan against Atty. Jose L. Lapak for
misconduct, based on respondent’s failure to file with this Court a petition
for review on certiorari of a resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing
complainant’s appeal. Complainant alleged that despite the fact that this
Court had granted respondent an extension of the time to file the petition
for review on certiorari and she had paid respondent his fee, the latter
nonetheless failed to file the petition in this Court. Complainant’s letter
was addressed to then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan.
Before Atty. Lapak, Ms. Rosita Tan was formerly represented by Atty.
Juanito Subia in Civil Case which was dimissed; then Atty. Marciano C.
Dating, Jr. entered his appearance after her original counsel, Atty. Juanito
Subia, had withdrawn for reasons only known to her; Atty. Marciano
Dating also withdrew later as Rosita Tan’s counsel and certain Leopoldo
P. San Buenaventura entered his appearance as new counsel in the
appealed case before the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent guilty of negligence and betrayal of his client’s trust and
confidence?
HELD:
Yes. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once
he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. Atty. Lapak should have been candid with complainant. He should
not have asked more at a time when nothing fruitful could be done
anymore. Rule 18.03 thereof provides that “A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.” If indeed his client’s cause was no longer worth
fighting for, the lawyer should not have demanded a fee and made
representations that there is merit in her case. He should have dealt with
his client with all candor and honesty by informing her that the period to
file the petition had already expired.
Despite having been granted an extension, however, respondent failed to
file the petition within the reglementary period. This constitutes a serious
breach. Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that “A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or
offering an explanation for his failure to do so.”
Atty. Jose L. Lapak is REPRIMANDED and ORDERED to refund to
complainant Rosita Tan the amount of P4,000.00. He is admonished
henceforth to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of
his duties towards his clients and the courts.
24 | P a g e
Case no. 27
Salonga v. CA
G.R. No. 111478 March 13, 1997
FACTS:
Private Respondent Izon, as President of Paul Geneve Corporation,
agreed into a joint venture enterprise with Petitioner Salonga, as owner of
Solid Intertain; and that is, both companies will form a new corporation.
This joint venture will then provide leasehold holding rights of the property
in Makati from the former to the latter.
Documents were prepared for the joint venture. Private respondent
signed the document, and it was then delivered to petitioner for his
signature. However, the said documents were not signed by the
petitioner.
With the memorandum of agreement still unsigned, not notarized, and in
the possession of petitioner, the latter transferred all his equipments to
the said property in Makati. Club Ibiza was thus opened and made
operational on the leased premises in question under Solid Intertain
Corporation.
Private Respondent was totally left out. Private Respondent filed a
complaint to Respondent RTC for specific performance with temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction with prayer for damages
against herein petitioners to enforce a memorandum of agreement that
was supposedly perfected between the parties. A TRO was then served
to petitioner which they referred to their counsel, Atty. Garlitos. Only the
private respondents appeared on the hearing for Injunction. Private
respondent sought to cite petitioner for contempt on grounds that the latter
disobeyed the temporary restraining order.
Petitioners again failed to appear on the second hearing for the motion for
writ of preliminary injunction. The court then acted, on the private
respondent’s motion and it was granted a few days after. Despite two
motions for extension, petitioner failed to answer the court. Due to failure
of petitioner to file an answer, private respondent submitted a third ex
parte motion to declare petitioner, as defendant in Default which the court
favorably acted.
A month after, RTC rendered a decision, holding the petitioner in default,
in favor of the private respondent. A few more months after, Petitioner
Salonga was adjudged guilty of civil contempt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Garlitos is guilty of gross negligence
HELD:
The court denied the motion of the petitioner, and in affirmed the decision
of the lower courts.
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Court notes that the previously
enumerated negligent acts attributed to petitioner's former counsel
Garlitos were in no way shown or alleged to have been caused by private
respondents. Atty. Garlitos neither connived nor sold out to the latter.
The court held that “Any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his
general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.
Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel may
result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them.
Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in cases
where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due
process of law, or when its application "results in the outright deprivation
of one's property through a technicality." None of these exceptions has
been sufficiently shown in the present case.”
The court held that counsel Garlitos was merely guilty of simple
negligence. Although his failure to file a timely answer had led to a
judgment by default against his clients, his efforts at defending their cause
were palpably real, albeit bereft of zeal.
25 | P a g e
Case no. 28
San Miguel Corp. v. Laguesma
G.R. No. 100485 September 21, 1994
FACTS:
Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) prays that the Resolution dated
March 19, 1991 and the Order dated April 12, 1991 of public respondent
Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma declaring respondent union as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the Magnolia sales
personnel in northern Luzon be set aside for having been issued in excess
of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner was being represented by Atty. Alvin C. Batalla of the Siguion
Reyna law office. Atty. Batalla withdrew petitioner's opposition to a
certification election and agreed to consider all the sales offices in
northern Luzon as one bargaining unit. At the pre-election conference, the
parties agreed inter alia, on the date, time and place of the consent
election. Respondent union won the election held on November 24, 1990.
In an Order dated December 3, 1990, Mediator-Arbiter Benalfre J. Galang
certified respondent union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
all the regular sales personnel in all the sales offices of Magnolia Dairy
Products in the North Luzon Sales Area.
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor. It claimed that Atty. Batalla
was only authorized to agree to the holding of certification elections
subject to the following conditions: (1) there would only be one general
election; (2) in this general election, the individual sales offices shall still
comprise separate bargaining units.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is bound by its lawyer's act of agreeing to
consider the sales personnel in the north Luzon sales area as one
bargaining unit.
HELD:
Petitioner claims that Atty. Batalla was merely a substitute lawyer for Atty.
Christine Ona, who got stranded in Legaspi City. Atty. Batalla was
allegedly unfamiliar with the collective bargaining history of its
establishment. Petitioner claims it should not be bound by the mistake
committed by its substitute lawyer.
We are not persuaded. The collective bargaining history of a company is
not decisive of what should comprise the collective bargaining unit.
Insofar as the alleged "mistake" of the substitute lawyer is concerned, we
find that this mistake was the direct result of the negligence of petitioner's
lawyers. It will be noted that Atty. Ona was under the supervision of two
(2) other lawyers, Attys. Jacinto de la Rosa, Jr. and George C. Nograles.
There is nothing in the records to show that these two (2) counsels were
likewise unavailable at that time. Instead of deferring the hearing,
petitioner's counsels chose to proceed therewith. Indeed, prudence
dictates that, in such case, the lawyers allegedly actively involved in
SMC's labor case should have adequately and sufficiently briefed the
substitute lawyer with respect to the matters involved in the case and the
specific limits of his authority. Unfortunately, this was not done in this
case. The negligence of its lawyers binds petitioner. As a general rule, a
client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only when the application
of the general rule would result in serious injustice should an exception
thereto be called for.
In the case at bench, petitioner insists that each of the sales offices in
northern Luzon should be considered as a separate bargaining unit for
negotiations would be more expeditious. Petitioner obviously chooses to
follow the path of least resistance. It is not, however, the convenience of
the employer that constitutes the determinative factor in forming an
appropriate bargaining unit. Equally, if not more important, is the interest
of the employees. In choosing and crafting an appropriate bargaining unit,
extreme care should be taken to prevent an employer from having any
undue advantage over the employees' bargaining representative. Our
workers are weak enough and it is not our social policy to further debilitate
their bargaining representative.
26 | P a g e
Case no. 29
Pitcher v. Atty. Gagate
A.C. No. 9532 October 8, 2013
FACTS:
Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of the late David B. Pitcher who
owned 40% of the shareholdings in Consulting Edge, Inc. In order to settle
the affairs of her deceased husband, complainant engaged the services
of respondent.
Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Bantegui, a major
stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss the settlement of David’s
interest in the company. Prior to another scheduled meeting, complainant
was prevailed upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the
premises. Bantegui expressed disappointment over these actions then
asked them to leave and refused to give them a duplicate key.
Respondent caused the change in the lock of the office door. This
prompted Bantegui to file a complaint for grave coercion. The
Prosecutor’s Office issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge
complainant and respondent. Respondent advised complainant to go into
hiding until he had filed the motions in court. However, respondent
stopped communicating with complainant. Failing to reach respondent,
complainant filed this administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent failed to exercise the
required diligence in handling complainant’s cause since he: first, failed
to represent her competently; and, second, abandoned his client’s cause
while the grave coercion case against them was pending.
Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code states:
CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
The Court found Atty. Gagate guilty of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of
three years.
Case No. 30.
Roldan vs Panganiban
A.C. No. 4552, Dec. 14, 2004
FACTS:
In his Comment, dated August 29, 1996, Atty. Noel alleges: Sometime in
1994, he agreed to represent complainant in recovering a one-half portion
of the ground floor of a house located at 1723 Pedro Gil St., Paco, Manila
which complainant bought from one Simplicia Villanueva represented by
her daughter Teresita Dalusong on November 28, 1986. A civil complaint
for recovery of ownership and possession was filed on February 8, 1994
with the RTC but upon the effectivity of the law expanding the jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) the case was transferred to the
MTC. From the evidence of the defendant, he honestly saw no need to
present a rebuttal evidence. The MTC rendered a decision dismissing the
case on the alleged ground that the identity of the subject matter of the
action was not clearly established. He filed an appeal in due time to the
RTC of Manila (Branch 43) and not with the Court of Appeals as stated in
paragraph 9 of the complaint. On November 13, 1995, he received a copy
of the RTC decision dated October 10, 1995, affirming the decision of the
MTC. Through the telephone, he informed the complainant about the
decision of the RTC. Complainant instructed him to prepare an appeal to
the higher court which actually refers to the Court of Appeals and not with
the Supreme Court as complainant claims. He advised the complainant
that he could find no error in the said decision and a further appeal would
be frivolous and without merit and requested the complainant to come
27 | P a g e
over so that he could discuss the matter with him. Whenever the
complainant went to the law office, he failed to see him because the latter
was still attending court hearings. The complainant asked for the records
of the case which was given by his secretary. Complainant never returned
the case folder to him, neither did he call up by phone, or see him
personally. He then assumed that the complainant had hired another
lawyer to handle the appeal. He was surprised when he received on July
18, 1996 a copy of the esolution of this Honorable Court dated June 19,
1996, requiring them to file their comment on the complaint of Jose A.
Roldan. We referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation. After hearing, IBP Investigating Commissioner
Manuel A. Quiambao submitted his Report and Recommendation
dismissing the complaint against Atty. Panganiban and imposing censure
to Atty. Noel. In a Resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP adopted
and approved the said Report and Recommendation.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was an attorney-client relationship between
Roldan and Panganiban?
2. Whether or not Atty. Noel is liable for his failure to file a petition to the
CA.
HELD:
1. From a careful reading of the records of this case, it appears that Atty.
Panganiban and Atty. Noel used to be law associates. However, Atty.
Panganiban went on leave from the practice of law since October 18,
1993 when he was designated as acting mayor of Laurel, Batangas[2]
due to the indefinite leave of absence filed by the mayor and by reason of
his election as mayor of the said municipality in 1995. The complainant
claims that he secured the services of Atty. Panganiban on January 6,
1994.[3] It is thus clear that Atty. Panganiban was not an active associate
of the law firm, since at that time, he was already on leave from the
practice of law. Moreover, the complaint filed in 1996 before the RTC for
Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages was prepared and
signed by Atty. Noel alone and not in any representation of any law firm.
In fact from the filing of the said civil case in the RTC, it was Atty. Noel
who represented the complainant. Not once did Atty. Panganiban appear
for the complainant nor did he sign any document pertaining with the
aforesaid case. Necessarily, the complaint against Atty. Panganiban must
be dismissed.
2. Yes. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.[7] If only Atty.
Noels position of not filing an appeal because it would only be frivolous
has been properly communicated to the complainant at the earliest
possible time so that the complainant would be able to seek the services
of another lawyer for help, it would have been commendable. A lawyers
duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his
clients success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.[8] But as it was, Atty.
Noels negligence as afore-discussed robbed the complainant of the
opportunity to at least look for another lawyer for professional help and
file an appeal, after all, it is the client who finally decides whether to appeal
or not an adverse decision.
We cannot also accept the reasoning of Atty. Noel that he should not be
expected to file an appeal for the complainant because their lawyer-client
relationship ended with the RTC decision. First, a lawyer continues to be
a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated either
by the act of his client or his own act, with permission of the court. Until
such time, the lawyer is expected to do his best for the interest of his
client.[9] Second, Atty. Noel admitted that complainant instructed him to
file an appeal with the higher court. Even assuming that their contract
does not include filing of an appeal with the higher courts, it is still the duty
of Atty. Noel to protect the interest of the complainant by informing and
discussing with the complainant of the said decision and his assessment
of the same. A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law.[10] It is the obligation of counsel to comply with his clients
lawful request. Counsel should exert all effort to protect the interest of his
client.
28 | P a g e
Case No. 31.
Ong vs. Grijaldo
A.C. No 4724, April 30, 2003
FACTS:
Ong engaged the services of respondent as private prosecutor in a
criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. During one of
the hearings of the case, the accused offered to amicably settle their civil
obligation to complainant by paying the amount of P180,000.00 which
was accepted by Atty. Grijaldo.100k in cash was given to Ong and a check
for 80k. Consequently, Ong was prevailed by Grrijaldo to sign an affidavit
of desistance but she instructed the latter not to file it in court until the
check is cleared.
Upon presentment of the check, it was dishonored. When she went to the
Court to have some update about the case, she was surprised to discover
that it was already dismissed 3 months ago. When Ong confronted
respondent, he admitted to her that he had already received the amount
of P80,000.00 from the adverse counsel but he used the same to pay for
his financial obligations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated his oath of office and duties as
counsel when he approached his clients opponent and offered to delay
the case in exchange for money
HELD:
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of
respondent. However, the IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty
of disbarment and recommended instead respondents’ indefinite
suspension from the practice of law for grossly immoral conduct and
deceit. The Supreme Court ordered disbarment.
It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence
reposed in him by his client, the complainant. Were it not for complainants
vigilance in inquiring into the status of her case, she would not have
known that the same had already been dismissed.
Respondent used the money which he received from Atty. Reyes to pay
for his own obligations which violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall hold in trust
all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Furthermore, respondent violated his oath of office and duties as counsel When a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in court, all
when he approached his clients opponent and offered to delay the case notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney and not
in exchange for money.Finally, respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly to the client. Hence a notice given to the client and not to his attorney is
ignoring the directives of this Court to file his comment constitutes utter not a notice in law.
disrespect to the judicial institution. The rule in this jurisdiction is that the client is bound by the negligence or
Case No. 32 failings of counsel. It is the duty of an attorney to himself and to his clients
Republic vs Judge Arro to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly
G.R. No. L-48241, June 11, 1987 all judicial notices during his absence from his address of record. The
attorney must so arrange matters that communications sent by mail,
addressed to his office or residence, may reach him promptly. The
FACTS:
negligence of a counsel’s secretary in failing to note down the trial date
On May 16, 1969, the petitioner filed a complaint entitled "Republic of the
on his desk calendar is negligence and failings of counsel in having a
Philippines v. Isabelo I. Pacquing and Carmen B. Pacquing," for the
negligent secretary — said circumstances not constituting excusable
collection of deficiency taxes based on the income tax returns filed by the
negligence. This rule, however, is not without exception. In the case of
respondents spouses, for the years of 1956, 1957 and 1958. After private
an irresponsible lawyer who totally forgot about the case and failed to
respondents filed their answer to the original complaint through the
inform his client of the decision, this Court held that the client should not
assistance of their counsel, Atty. Vicente Garcia, petitioner filed, with
be bound by the negligence of the counsel.
leave of court an amended complaint, increasing the income tax
deficiency sought. Private respondents moved to dismiss the amended
Under the peculiar circumstances of the instant case the negligence
complaint. On June 7, 1973, respondent court denied the motion to
of the counsel is far from excusable. Atty. Vicente Garcia who was the
dismiss. Private respondents’ Answer to the original complaint was
counsel of private respondents went to the United States of America but
adopted as their Answer to the amended complaint. After trial on the
had a clerk in-charge of his office. The copy of the decision was received
merits, defendants were then ordered to pay the plaintiffs.
on December 19, 1977 by said clerk. He did not do anything about the
same so the reglementary period of appeal lapsed. It can be assumed
On December 19, 1977, notice and a copy of the decision was delivered
that said clerk received appropriate instructions from Atty. Garcia as to
at the office of Atty. Vicente Garcia, which was received by his clerk. On
what to do with any processes, orders or notices that maybe received or
January 19, 1978, there being no appeal taken, petitioner filed a motion
otherwise that no such instruction were given. In either case there is
for execution of the judgment. Meanwhile, on January 23, 1978, private
inexcusable negligence. Private respondents have no one to blame
respondents, thru another counsel, Atty. Alberto Lumakang, filed a Notice
except their lawyer. They are bound by the negligence and failings of their
of Appeal with a motion for extension of time 9 to submit record on appeal.
lawyer. And the appeal not having been interposed within the
Petitioner filed an opposition on the ground that the copy of the decision
reglementary period, the decision has now become final and executory.
was duly received by Atty. Garcia’s clerk and that from the date of said
receipt thereof, the thirty (30) day period for appeal had already lapsed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent erred in his decision.

HELD:
29 | P a g e