VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR.

SOCORRO F. MANAS, and TRINIDAD NORDISTA, Complainants, v.

ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, Respondent.

Facts:
Complainants are officers of the Far Eastern University Faculty
association. They allegedly expelled a Paulino Salvador from the
association to which the latter brought up to DOLE a complaint of illegal
dismissal. Complainants then engaged the legal services of the respondent
as their counsel to the case. DOLE ruled that complainants fully reinstate
Mr. Salvador to his position with all the rights and privileges appurtenant
thereto.
Subsequently, Mr. Salvador filed a complaint with the RTC that prays
for payment for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.
The complainants counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case by res judicata
and lack of jurisdiction of the RTC, for this is a matter cognizable by DOLE.
The RTC then dismissed the case.
However, Salvador filed a motion to reconsider dismissal and the RTC
reinstated the case, requiring therein respondents, herein complainants to
file an answer within a non-extendable period of fifteen days. Instead of
filing an answer, the counsel, respondent herein filed motion for
reconsideration and again the dismissal of the case which was denied. To
correct his mistake, he then filed a petition for certiorari to CA.
Despite the denial of his motion to reconsider and re-dismissal of the
case, he still didn’t submit a reply obligatory by the court. Hence upon
Salvador’s motion, the complainants were declared in default and Salvador
started presenting evidences ex-parte.
The respondent to further control the situation filed a motion to set
aside default and cease ex-parte but to no avail. Upon investigation, the
court ordered against the herein complainants to pay damages to Mr.
Salvador.
 The complainants with succor of the herein respondent elevated the
case to CA, to which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Upon
careful review of the events that led to the decision, the complainants were
convinced that their counsel committed negligence in not filing an answer
to Salvador’s motion that put them to a disadvantage in the case.
An administrative complaint was submitted against the respondent
but the respondent argued in two separate conflicting reasons that he was
“a very busy person”, that he was under the “pressure and volume of legal
work” and that the failure is caused by his “overzealousness.” He also
added that the complainants were on a ‘losing cause’ anyway, and though
even it will be proved that he became negligent on his duties, it will not be
the hinge to why the court ruled against them otherwise.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed culpable negligence that
caused the latter declared in default and judgment rendered against them
on the basis of the plaintiff’s evidence.

Ruling:
Yes. As provided in Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, “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.”
It is evident that the lawyer’s arguments regarding his actions that
resulted disadvantage to his clients are unmeritorious and are just mere
excuses for in two separate events, he had given two not just different but
totally conflicting answers. The first one was an admission that he forgot to
file due to his ‘overwhelming volume of work,’ and the second was it’s that
his ‘overzealousness’ caused by his belief that the courts committed a
reversible error basing that the complaint was twice dismissed before.
 Though, whichever his true reason is, he violated Rule 18.03 thereof
which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
On his other defense, that the Court’s discretion is inevitable and his
negligence have nothing to do with such decision, stating that his clients
where anyway in a ‘losing cause,’ he violated Rule 15.05. It expressly
states that “A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.” Thus by
commenting such against his clients’ interests are clear understating the
prospects of the case. It could’ve been just an excuse, too, because if he
believed it to be a losing cause, he shouldn’t have troubled himself filing
for a petition for certiorari and motion to dismiss for the case.
Lawyers as chosen champions and confidants for a conflict sincerely
brought to by a client with confidence that the former shall uphold their
rights to the extent of their legal means and capabilities shall never
disappoint the character expected to them by the latter. It is his moral
obligation and duty to believe on what he is fighting for and carefully,
mindfully care for what has to be done rightfully for the avoidance of
erroneous litigations.
Thus, the court ruling against the respondent, reprimanded and
admonished him to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his
clients.
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant, vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO V.
POTENCIANO, respondent.

Facts:
The complainant and her sister, Perigrina Cantiller, were involved in
two separate cases. One of the respondents in a case of ‘ejection’ against
them and secondly of her sister as plaintiff on ‘reconveyance with
damages.’ Both cases involve the apartment being rented by the
complainant and her sister. Both cases was ruled against them and they
have been served a notice to vacate the rented premises within four days
upon receipt of said notice. Desperate, they consulted a Sheriff Pagalunan
which then introduced the siblings to the respondent, Atty. Humberto V.
Potenciano, which took the position as their counsel.
The respondent prepared a petition entitled "Annulment of
Judgment, Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and/or Status Quo Order, etc." that is ‘poorly and hastily’ drafted
according to the complainant, in order to forestall the severance of their
tenancy on the controversial premises. The complainant was assured that
they will be issued restraining order by the presiding judge handling the
case because it is his ‘friend.’ Respondent then asked for payment of
P1000.00 which the complainant paid for this service.
The petition is filed within the RTC and when it was assigned to this
Judge who was a ‘friend’ to the respondent, the former asked the latter to
withdraw as counsel on ground of their friendship.
The respondent then went to the house of the complainant and
demanded P 2000.00 as bribe to the other judge who will issue the
restraining order. However, the sisters were only able to raise P 1000.00
which they immediately gave to the respondent. The respondent later
informed that he could not locate the judge that will handle the case but
aggressively demanded for the balance on the P 2000.00 bribe, to which
the sisters gave their last $10.00 money.
 Sometime after filing the first case, the respondent convinced the
sisters that they need to file a second suit to help them retain possession
of the apartment, requiring them to provide P 10,000.00 to be deposited at
Treasury of Court as ‘purchase price’ of the apartment and another P
1000.00 as attorney’s fees. At the same date, a second case entitled
"Specific Performance, Annulment of Simulated or Spurious Sale with
Damages," was filed.
However, after hearing the preliminary injunction on the first case,
the respondent withdrew from the case, without having the decency to
advice the complainants to find a new lawyer resulting them to not find a
replacement lawyer. The complainants lost their complaint and second one
was dismissed for being identical to the first one.
The complainants found that there is no P 10,000.00 deposit made to
Treasury of the Court and upon demanding the return of money from the
respondent have received no reply. Hence, complainant lodged this
administrative complaint against herein respondent.
Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of the two cases
was done in good faith and that the allegations of complainant relative to
the administrative charge against him are all lies, product of one's
imagination and only intended to harass him.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's interests culpable of appropriate punishment deemed
by the court.

Ruling:
Yes. As explicitly stated in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.” In the case at bar, the respondent has taken
advantage of the client’s desperation, thus being dishonest by making false
promises to them and deceives them in order to gain monetary capital. In
review of the facts of the case, the respondent’s intent is not to uphold the
client’s interests but to milk them dry.
His services were engaged by complainant with confidence that their
contentions would be legally sought by him with warm zeal. Instead, he
poorly prepared statements to support his client’s claim and made the just
for the show to get more money. By facts of the case, he seemed not to
genuinely care about the issues at bar, for in the middle of the
proceedings, he inhibited himself from the case without concern of the fate
of the now lawyerless clients. A lawyer’s duty, however was not only to
prepare the pleadings but to represent his client until the termination of
the cases with outmost zeal. This he failed to do.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and
beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. It is never similar to a
business proposition, for in fact it is a matter of justice and public interest.
After considering the circumstances present in this case, the Court
found that the respondent, Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano, guilty of the
charges against him and hereby suspends him from the practice of law for
an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has
rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law and is
hereby ordered to return to complainant the sum of eleven thousand pesos
(P11,000.00) with legal interest from the date of this resolution until it is
actually returned.
RODOLFO MILLARE, petitioner, vs. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z.
MONTERO, respondent.

Facts:
The mother of the petitioner, Pacificia Millare is involved in a civil
case of ejection against some Elsa Dy Co to which the respondent acted as
counsel. The mother of the petitioner obtained favorable judgement from
the MTC to which the then private respondent was ordered to vacate the
premises. The counsel then filed an appeal to the RTC to which Co, failed
to pay supersedeas bond and the rentals adjudged by the MTC. RTC ruled
in toto with the MTC.
The CA dismissed the respondent’s appeal. According to CA, the
respondent should’ve filed a petition for review and not an appeal.
The MTC’s ruling then became final and executory.
Respondent admitting his mistake, filed for a motion for annulment of
action which was dismissed. Several repetitive appeals and motion have
been made - all dismissed, by the respondent in order to delay the writ of
execution issued by the MTC.
The complainant filed an administrative case against the respondent
for malpractice and prayer for disbarment.

Issues:
Whether or not the respondent committed grave abuse of judicial
process to forestall the execution of a judgement.

Ruling:
Yes, he committed grave abuse of judicial process to forestall the
execution of a judgement. Clearly, it was the client’s partiality that wants to
delay the judgement for his judgement and the respondent willfully and
knowingly abused the judicial process evidenced by the number of appeals,
complaints and petition, to delay execution of judgement to his client’s
advantage. It is expressly stated in the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Rule 19.03, that lawyers shouldn’t allow his client to dictate the procedure
in handling the case. In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Within the
bounds of law, a lawyer has the power to use arguable construction of law
or rules to his client’s advantage given that its purpose was not to advance
a claim unwarranted by the law.
The final and executory judgement can be appealed only under two
circumstances. The Judgement was rendered by a court outside its
jurisdiction or of that the judgement was rendered through fraudulent
accords, to which has not been contested nor proven in the appeals and
petitions submitted. It was understandable that the Court will resort to
incessant dismissal of the petition. This is clearly just a tactical move by the
respondent to delay execution of judgement and violating Rules 12.02 and
12.04 stating, “A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause,” and “shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.”
Respondent has made a mockery of the judicial processes and
disregarded canons of professional ethics in intentionally frustrating the
judgment executed.
Adopting IBP’s recommendation, court have ruled suspension from
the practice of law for a year against the respondent for malpractice and
grave abuse of judicial processes.
Erlinda Abragan et.al,. vs. Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez

Facts:
Petitioners herein sought the legal services of the respondent, for a
case involving Forcible Entry with Petition for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and Damages. After the case has won, writ of execution was
issued by the MTC. The petitioners accuse the respondents of allegedly
illegally and surreptitiously selling parcels of the land involved in the
previously won case. With these allegations, petitioners sever the lawyer-
client relationship with the respondent.
Petitioners then filed an indirect contempt charge against a Sherriff
Loncion under previous case, to which they engaged in the services of an
Atty. Loreto Salva, former student of the respondent. Respondent,
unethically defends Loncion against his former clients. That later, Atty.
Salva withdrawn from the case by advice of its former teacher Atty
Rodriguez, respondent. Enraged by dismay and damage to petitioner’s
prejudice, they filed this complaint for disbarment for the respondent.
IBP upon investigation, recommended that the respondent be
suspended 2 months from practice of law for violation of Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
 Yes. Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides, “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.”
Given evaluation of the predicaments, even their lawyer-client have
terminated, respondent holds eternal conflict of interest against his ex-
clients, the petitioners. The former should have first secured complainants'
written consent before representing defendants in the Indirect Contempt
case against his former clients. Respondent falls short of the integrity and
good moral character required from all lawyers, for what its worth, a
member of the bar is expected to uphold his clients interests, the bar and
the public with outmost candor and honesty, by fair dealings of the law
and high standard of confidentiality and fidelity and he deliberately broke
through all of them when he exercised divided allegiance.
His disloyalty constitutes to malpractice and is punishable under
“Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides: "SEC.
Disbarment or suspension of Attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefor. Any member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority so to do.”
The Court however, imposed six months suspension against Maximo
G. Rodriguez for violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CLEMENCIO
SABITSANA, JR., Respondent.

Facts:
Complainant herein was a former client of the respondent that
sought the services of the latter to prepare and execute a deed of sale over
a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja.
Subsequently, respondent became counsel of a Zenaida Canete, legal
wife of the same Brigido Caneja. The services that the respondent was
hired for was to file a suit against petitioner, for annulment of the deed of
sale that the respondent have personally prepared.
The Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent for
disbarment in grounds of violation of lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential
information and violating prohibition against conflict of interest.
The respondent although admitting having advised complainant for
preparation and execution of Deed of Sale, denied having received any
confidential information from his previous client. Further reasoning, he said
that the administrative complaint for disbarment just due to the instigation
of the notary of the complaint, an Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., in grudge of
losing a case against him.
IBP found respondent liable for representing conflicting interests. The
IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one year.

Issues:
Whether or not respondent violated the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests.
Ruling:
Yes, the respondent violated the prohibition against representing
conflicting interests. It is a lawyer’s duty to avoid representing conflicting
interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It expressly states that “a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
His legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect her
interest over a certain property. Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge
that Zenaida Cañete’s interest clashed with the complainant’s interests and
still furthered discussion about the latter’s interest and despite this
knowledge he accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete. Atty.
Sabitsana’s actual knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two
clients was demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case against
the complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the
complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was
for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and
executed for the complainant.
Respondent takes exception to the IBP recommendation on the ground
that the charge in the complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of
confidential information, not for representation of conflicting interests. But
there will be no violation of due process rights if he will be litigated for the
latter, although there was a specific charge in the complaint, we are not
unmindful that the complaint itself contained allegations of a violation of
the rule on the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.
The Court resolves and finds Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspends him one
year from practice of law.