Teodoro R. Rivera vs. Atty.
Sergio Angeles good moral character without any mention of the pending case against him. The
A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000
Facts: Atty. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of Teodoro Rivera and 2 others in a
civil case. Rivera and his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable decision. Atty. Angeles
received almost PhP 42,999 from one of the defendants in the case as partial
fulfillment of the judgement against the latter. Atty. Angeles, however, never told
his clients of the amount he had received and never remitted the same to him,
leaving them to discover such fact on their own. Rivera and his co-plaintiffs filed an
administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angeles.
Held: GUILTY. Atty. Angeles was not disbarred but the Court ruled that his act
amounted to serious misconduct. The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance
of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer’s equipment in the
practice of his profession. For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for
the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays
their trust and confidence. The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be
paid for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should not be
exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his
clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses
everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. For deceit in dealing with his
client, Atty. Angeles was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
Tan vs Sabandal B.M. No. 44 February 24, 1992  Narido has an edge over the labor case.
Facts: Petitioner files a motion for reconsideration after the court allows
respondent to finally take oath and practice the law profession after considering his
plea for forgiveness and showing willingness to reform along with testimonials
attesting to his good moral character among which is a testimonial by the IBP
Zamboanga. Petitioners contend that such testimonial was only signed by its
President, a counsel for the in-laws of Sabandal, without the authorization of the
IBP Board members. The court allowed the IBP to manifest testimony to certify as
to the good moral character of the respondent and asked for a comment from the
RTC Judge in Zamboanga. Members of the IBP manifested that they see no
impediments as to the moral character of Sabandal while the RTC Judge informed
the court of the civil case against the respondent concerning the mortgaged land
which he secured for a free patent which turned out to be a swampland and not
susceptible for acquisition for a free patent. The civil case however was settled
amicably and the respondent was not charged of any crime. Subsequently, Tan
already forgave the respondent and withdrew her opposition for the taking of oath
of office of the respondent while the other 2 petitioners leave upon the court to
decide.
ISSUE: WON Sabandal should be allowed to take oath of office
RULING: The court ruled that in the development of the case, they find Sabandal to
have concealed the civil case brought against him in the course of his series of
petitions to be allowed to take oath together with the testimonies attesting to his
court finds this as manipulative and gross dishonesty on the part of the respondent.
Although there were testimonials on his good moral characters those were made
without any knowledge of the case against him. The commission of his offense itself
is devoid of honesty. With the practice of law a matter of privilege and not as a
right, they find respondent unfit to be a member of the law profession therefore it
recalled the court resolution of allowing the respondent to take oath. 
Flora Narido vs Atty. Jaime Linsangan
58 SCRA 85 – Legal Ethics – Mutual Bickering Between Opposing Counsels 
FACTS: This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Rufino Risma represented
Flora Narido, an indigent client against her employer Vergel De Dios, the client of
Atty. Jaime Linsangan. During the proceedings in the trial court, Atty. Risma
vehemently opposed the submission of a certain affidavit executed by De Dios
because, in the belief of Risma, said affidavit is perjured. He threatened Atty.
Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in court, they shall file a disbarment case
against him. The affidavit was filed and so Risma and Narido filed an administrative
case against Linsangan.
Linsangan on the other hand filed a separate administrative case against Risma
where he accused Risma of instigating his client to file an administrative case
against him; that said administrative case is groundless; that it was only filed to
spite him and is just a mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure that Risma and
ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Solicitor General where it
was recommended that both administrative cases are not well merited.
In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that De Dios’ affidavit is perjured. Or if even so, there is
no showing that Linsangan was in bad faith for it was not proven that he has the
intention of misleading the court.
In the administrative case against Risma, it was not proven that he instigated
Narido. It was Risma’s zeal in protecting his client’s interest that made him to
convince Narido to file an administrative case against Linsangan. There was no bad
faith on the part of Risma. He even advanced the expenses because Narido is
indigent.
HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that he shall
collect 15% from whatever amount they shall collect from De Dios as a result of the
labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, he’s only allowed to collect a maximum of 10%. He’s advised to
keep abreast of said law.
 
Atty. Casiano Laput v Atty. Francisco Remotigue et al
6 SCRA 45 – Legal Ethics – Client Grabbing 
Facts: In 1952, Atty. Laput was retained by Nieves Barrera as counsel in a testate
proceeding. He remained as counsel for three years. But in January 1955,  Atty.
Fortunato Patalinghug filed his written appearance as new counsel for Barrera.
When Laput found out about Patalinghug’s appearance, he voluntarily asked the
court to be relieved as counsel for Barrera on February 5, 1955. On February 7,
1955, Atty. Remotigue also filed his appearance as additional counsel for Barrera.
Laput is now charging the two lawyers of unethical and improper appearances for
Barrera; that they influenced her to replace Laput as her counsel; that they caused
her to disauthorize him as counsel for her; that the purpose of said lawyers is to
embarrass Laput to the officials and employees of the corporations owned by the
estate subject of the testate proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is encroachment of client in the case at bar.
HELD: No. It was found out that Barrera herself caused the filing of a pleading to
discharge Laput as her counsel. Barrera did this because she lost trust and
confidence in Laput. She lost trust in Laput because she found out that there were
some dividend checks that were supposed to be sent to her but Laput took said
checks as his own hence she felt cheated.
Thereafter, she went to the law office of Remotigue and Patalinghug where she
arranged a contract. The fact that Laput voluntarily asked the court to discharge
him as counsel for Barrera after Patalinghug filed his entry of appearance showed
Laput’s acquiescence to Patalinghug’s appearance as counsel for Barrera.  This
should estop petitioner from now complaining that the appearance of Atty.
Patalinghug was unprofessional. On the part of Remotigue, there can be no
irregularity for he filed his entry of appearance only after Laput was discharged as
counsel for Barrera.
CAMACHO v PANGULAYAN
FACTS
§   9 students of AMA were expelled for having apparently caused to be published
objectionable features or articles in the school paper
§   Denial of the appeal to AMA President Aguiluz gave rise to Civil Case 97-30549
§   CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the expelled students in an action for the
Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injuction in the said civil case
§   While the civil case was still pending, letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were separately executed by the expelled students without the
knowledge of CAMACHO
§   CAMACHO filed a complaint against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN AND
ASSOCIATES Law Firm (lawyers of AMA) because without his knowledge they
procured and effected on separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of
apology and Re-admission Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required
them to waive all kinds of claims they may have with AMA
§   CAMACHO averred that such an act was unbecoming of any member of the legal
profession warranting either disbarment or suspension
§   PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were executed for the
sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case
ISSUE  W/N PANGULAYAN AND ASSOCIATES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED/DISBARRED
HELD    YES
RATIO
§   It would appear that when individual letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements were formalized, CAMACHO was already the retained counsel of the
expelled AMA students
§   PANGULAYAN and associates having full knowledge of this fact still proceeded to
negotiate with the expelled AMA students and their parents without at least
communicating the matter to their lawyer CAMACHO
§   This failure of PANGULAYAN and associates, whether by design or oversight, is an
excusable violation of the canons of profession ethics and in utter disregard of a
duty owing to a colleague
§   The excuse that agreements were executed for settling the administrative case
was belied by the Manifestation which states “9 signatories agreed among others to
terminate ALL civil, criminal and administrative proceedings they may have against
AMA arising from their previous dismissal”
§   Hence, PANGULAYAN should be suspended for 3 months
DOCTRINE
A lawyers should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with
a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him but should only deal with his counsel.  It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to
mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise
him as to law.
Tan Tek Beng vs Atty. Timoteo David
126 SCRA 389 – Legal Ethics – Malpractice – Solicitation of Cases 
FACTS: In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into an
agreement whereby Tan Tek Beng will supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange
thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of the attorney’s fees collected as
the latter’s commission. Atty. David also agreed not to deal with clients supplied by
Tan Tek Beng directly without the latter’s consent. The agreement went sour due to
allegations of double-cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David
before the Supreme Court but did not seek the enforcement of their agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.
HELD: Yes. The agreement between Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng is void because it
was tantamount to malpractice which is “the practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers” Sec. 27,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or
dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical
meaning to the term “malpractice”.
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law
is a profession, not a business. “The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by
himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional”.
On the agreement to divide the attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court noted: No
division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon
a division of service or responsibility.
On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal with clients supplied by Beng
directly: The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited
by any law agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and
lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid
all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such
intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his client should be personal, and the
responsibility should be direct to the client. . . .”