1. Berbano v.

Barcelona 2003 (Malpractice, Dereliction of Duty, and Unjust

Enrichment)
 Atty. Barcelona 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. Atty. Barcelona told Berbano that if they could produce
P50,000 he will cause the release of Mr. Daen. (Berbano only payed 15k because it
was late)
 Atty. Barcelona left because according to him, he would go see a justice from the SC
who could help him fix the case for the release of Mr. Daen. Berbano handed him a
“pay-to-cash” check for 24k. Atty.
 Atty. Barcelona was not able to rediscount the check and further pressed Berbano
for more money (10k and 15k the next day + 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. (He
was never hear of since)
 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 is disbarred

2. Nakpil v. Valdez 1998 (Lack of Fidelity to Client)

 Atty. Valdez acted as both the legal counsel and accountant for Jose Nakpil’s widow.
Jose Nakpil (deceased) occupied a summer home in Moran St., Baguio City.
 But for lack of funds, Nakpil and Atty. Valdez agreed that respondent would keep the
property in thrust for the Nakpils until Nakpil could buy it back (Nakpil and Valdez
were childhood friends)
 Ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings. Atty.
Valdez excluded the property from the inventory of Jose’s estate. He transferred his
title to the Moran property to his company, Caval Realty Corporation.
 Respondent maliciously appropriated the property in trust knowing that it did not
belong to him.
  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.
 CANON 17 – Respondent’s act of excluding Moran property shows lack of fidelity to
the cause of his client. His misuse of his legal expertise to deprive his client of the
Moran property is clearly unethical.

Atty. Valdez is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year

3. Espiritu v. Ulep 2005 (Lack of Fidelity ot the Client and Unjust Enrichment)
 An agreement was reached between Espiritu and Maon wherein the latter was
entitled to 50k.
 Espiritu’s legal counsel, Atty. Ulep, was tasked to deliver the money to Maon. Ulep
failed to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter he avoided talking to Espiritu.
 Espiritu thereafter, sought the help of the local IBP chapter. 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.
 CANON 16 – 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.

Atty. Ulep is suspended for 6 months and ordered to pay the P50k plus interest

4. Adrimisin v. Javier 2006 (Deceit and Misrepresentation)

 Adrimisin enlisted the help of Atty. Javier to have his son-in-law, Monterde, released
from the Caloocan City Jail (Monterde was charged with qualified theft).
 Atty. Javier advised Adrimisin to file a bail bond. Complainant contends that Atty.
Javier received the money, issued a receipt, and promised that Monterde would be
released from jail the following day.
 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.
 Complainant claims that she demanded for the return of the P500 but respondent
failed to return this amount. Atty. Javier claimed that he gave the P500 to Alberto, an
 insurance agent. Atty. Javier claims that he advised complainant to get the money
from Alberto.
 CANON 16 – The Code mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
 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.

Atty. Javier is suspended from the practice of law for six months and the restitution of P500
to Complainant

5. Celaje v. Atty. Soriano 2007 (Gross Misconduct)

 Celaje alleged that respondent asked for money to be put up as an injunction bond,
which was, however, 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.
 The judge denied having accepted any money from Atty. Soriano and advised Celaje
to file an administrative case to the IBP.
 Complainant alleged that she remitted to respondent amounts of money totalling to
more or less 270k but were not in writing. However, it was found that an amount of
5,800 from the 14,800 intended for the injunction bond remains unaccounted for.
 CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession. He shall 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.

Atty. Soriano was suspended for two years

6. Marquez v. Meneses Jr. 1999 (Misconduct and Collection of Unconscionable Fees)

 Atty. Meneses was referred to Marquez through a certain Atty. Peralta. Marquez
retained the services of Atty. Meneses and they both agreed to a fee of P100
whether the case was won or lost (oral agreement only).
  The case was ruled in favor of Marquez and was awarded the claim with legal
interest and P75 Attorney’s fees.
 The sheriff gave a partial satisfaction of the claim (P75) to Marquez’s brother. He
then gave P75 to Atty. Meneses. Complainant claimed that it was overpayment.
 Atty. Meneses claimed that their agreement was that he would be paid P100 retainer
fees and any Atty.’s fees awarded by the court.
 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.
 CANON 11 – 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
 By placing his personal interest above his client’s cause, respondent clearly
breached the trust reposed upon him

Atty. Meneses is suspended for one month and a fine of P50 plus legal interest

7. Navarro v. Atty. Solidum 2014 (Disbarment, Canon 16)

 Respondent signed a retainer agreement with Presbiterio worth P50k
 Respondent obtained a loan of P1M from Navarro to finance his sugar trading
business executed in an MOA.
 He obtained an additional loan of P1M from Navarro, also covered by an MOA with
same terms and conditions. He then 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.
 A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or
private capacity.
 CANON 16 – The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his
client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected
or received for or from his client.
 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

Atty. Solidum is disbarred from the practice of law

8. Yao v. Aurelio 2006 (Forum Shopping, Fidelity to Client)
 Atty. Aurelio is the retained counsel of the corporations of which Yao is a major
stockholder.
 Aurelio was also the brother-in-law of complainant’s wife. In 1999, Aurelio had a
disagreement with the latter and thereafter respondent demanded the return of his
investment in the corporations.
 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
 IBP found him
 uilty of forum shopping when he filed identical charges against Yao.
 CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him.
 Respondent’s act of filing multiple suits on similar causes of action in different
venues constitutes forum shopping.

Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.

9. Regala et al. v. Sandiganbayan 1996 (Client Identity Privilege)

 This case started from the case of PCGG v. Cojuango, Jr., et. al. (among which,
Regala, et. al. were defendants, who were all 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
 The petitioners were alleged to have conspired and confederated with each other to
set up, through coconut levy funds, the financial structures which led to the
establishment of UCPB, UNICOM, COCOLIFE, COCOMARK, CIC
 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.
 In the creation of lawyer-client relationship there are rules, ethical conduct and duties
that breathe life into it (fiduciary duty).
 Generally, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
identity of his client
 Client Identity Privilege – 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.

Sandiganbayan resolution is annulled and set aside. They are ordered to exclude petitioners
as parties-defendants.

10. Bautista v. Gonzales 1990 (Malpractice, Unjust Enrichment)

 Bautista charges Gonzales with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation
of lawyer’s oath.
 Bautista alleged that Gonzales committed acts of treachery and disloyalty to his
client, deliberately misled the Court by making false statements, harassed the
complainant by filing several complaints without any legal basis, submitted false
documents purporting to be copies of an Addendum, transferred ½ of the properties
of the Fortunados (his clients), which properties were the subject of a pending case,
among others.
 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.
 Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property or interest in litigation is a breach of
professional ethics and constitutes malpractice.
 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.
 CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
Atty. Gonzales is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
11. Guevarra v. Calalang 1982 (Purchasing interest in the subject-matter of litigation)
 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
 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.
 Respondent had an agreement with Bernabe Flores; wherein, Calalang paid Flores
only one-half of the total consideration of P18,348.45 (Contingent Fee)
 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 (same as Art. 1491 of the Civil Code)
 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

The case handled by the respondent was only for damages