Ruby v.

Bayot
A.C No. 10558, February 23, 2015

Facts:

The complainant alleged that he and his mother, Ruby, engaged the
services of the respondents in connection with a case for cancellation and
nullification of deeds of donation. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, the
complainant would pay Atty. Espejo the amount of Php 100,000.00 as
acceptance fee. The complainant and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay the
amount of Php 4,000 as appearance fee for every hearing.

The complainant gave Atty. Espejo the amount of Php 50,000.00 as

payment for filing fee. However, the actual filing fee that was paid by her
only amounted to Php 7,561.00; she failed to account for the excess
amount given her. On October 2009, Atty. Espejo called the complainany
informing him of the need to file a separate petition for the issuance of a
TRO. She allegedly asked for Php 50,000.00 to be used as representation
fee.

On October 2009, the complainant deposited the amount of

Php4,000 to the bank account of Atty. Bayot as appearance fee for the
hearing on the motion to serve summons through publications, however,
Atty. Bayot allegedly did not appear in court. Thereafter, the complainant
alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to the status of his
complaint. He further claimed that Bayot had suddenly denied that he was
their counsel. Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone who was
the counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating
counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship exists between Atty.
Bayot and the complainant.

RULING:
 Yes, it is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in
the case that was filed in the RTC. Equally undisputed is the fact that it
was only Atty. Espejo who signed the retainer agreement. However, the
evidence on record, including Atty. Bayot’s admissions, points to the
conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship existed between him and the
complainant. Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that was
filed with the RTC. He was likewise the one who prepared the motion to
serve summons through publication. He likewise appeared as counsel for
the complainant in the hearings of the case before the RTC. He likewise
advised the complainant about the status of the case. More importantly,
Atty. Bayot admitted he received money which is part of the acceptance
fee.

The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client

relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and the complainant.
“Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employement of
an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the
relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is
sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.” Further,
acceptance of money from client establishes an attorney-client relationship.

Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes fidelity to the cause of the complainant

and is obliged to keep the latter informed of the status of his case. He is
likewise bound to account for all money or property collected or received
from the complainant. He may be held administratively liable for any
inaptitude he may have had committed in his dealing with the complainant.
 Campugan v. Caluya
A.C. No. 8261/8725, March 11, 2015

FACTS:
In this consolidated administrative case, complainants Jessie T.
Campugan and Robert C. Torres seek the disbarment of respondents Atty.
Federico S. Tolentino, Jr., Atty. Daniel F. Victorio, Jr., Atty. Renato G.
Cunanan, Atty. Elbert T. Quilala and Atty. Constante P. Caluya, Jr. for
allegedly falsifying a court order that became the basis for the cancellation
of their annotation of the notice of adverse claim and the notice of lis
pendens in the Registry of Deeds in Quezon City.

Atty. Victorio, Jr. had replaced Atty. Edgardo Abad as counsel of the
complainants in a civil action they brought to seek the annulment of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-290546 of the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City in the first week of January 2007 in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-07-59598).
Atty. Tolentino, Jr. was the counsel of defendant Ramon and Josefina
Ricafort.the complainants narrated that as the surviving children of the late
Spouses Antonio and Nemesia Torres, they inherited upon the deaths of
their parents a... residential lot located at No. 251 Boni Serrano Street,
Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City registered under Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. RT-64333(35652) of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. That
on August 24, 2006, they discovered that TCT No. RT-64333(35652) had
been unlawfully cancelled and replaced by TCT No. N-290546 of the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City under the names of Ramon and Josefina
Ricafort; and that, accordingly, they immediately caused the annotation of
their affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. N-290546.
It appears that the parties entered into an amicable settlement
during the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 in order to end their
dispute, whereby the complainants agreed to sell the property and the
proceeds thereof would be equally divided between the parties, and the
complaint and counterclaim would be withdrawn respectively by the
complainants (as the plaintiffs) and the defendants. Pursuant to the terms
of the amicable settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed a Motion to Withdraw
Complaint which the RTC granted in its order.
The complainants alleged that from the time of the issuance by the
RTC of the order they could no longer locate or contact Atty. Victorio, Jr.
despite making several phone calls and visits to his office that they found
out that new annotations were made on TCT No. N-290546.
The annotation of the letter-request appearing to be filed by Atty.
Tolentino, Jr. seeking the cancellation of the affidavit of adverse claim and
the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT No. N-290546 and the
anotation of the decision dated May 16, 2008 rendered in Civil Case No. Q-
07-59598 by the RTC, Branch 95, in Quezon City, granting the
complainants' Motion to Withdraw Complaint.
Unable to receive any response or assistance from Atty. Victorio, Jr.
despite their having paid him for his professional services, the
complainants felt that said counsel had abandoned their case. They
submitted that the cancellation of their notice of adverse claim and their
notice of lis pendens without a court order specifically allowing such
cancellation resulted from the connivance and conspiracy between Atty.
Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr., and from the taking advantage of their
positions as officials in the Registry of Deeds by respondents Atty. Quilala,
the Chief Registrar, and Atty. Cunanan, the acting Registrar and signatory
of the new annotations. Thus, they claimed to be thereby prejudiced.
Issues:
Whether or not Atty. Victorio is guilty of abandonment and should be
disbarred.
Ruling:
The complaints for disbarment was dismissed for being bereft of merit.
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be
disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private
capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether his conduct
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. Verily, Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold
at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Lawyers are
similarly required under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code not to
engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility
exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, as amended, viz.:
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefor. — A 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 the admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The complainants' allegations of the respondents' acts and omissions are
insufficient to establish any censurable conduct against them.
In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of authority or irregularity
committed by Atty. Quilala, Atty. Cunanan, and Atty. Caluya, Jr. with
respect to the cancellation of the notice of adverse claim and the notice of
lis pendens annotated on TCT No. N-290546. Whether or not the RTC
order dated May 16, 2008 or the letter-request dated June 30, 2008 had
been falsified, fraudulent or invalid was not for them to determine
inasmuch as their duty to examine documents presented for registration
was limited only to what appears on the face of the documents. If, upon
their evaluation of the letter-request and the RTC order, they found the
same to be sufficient in law and t]o be in conformity with existing
requirements, it became obligatory for them to perform their ministerial
duty without unnecessary delay.
The complainants charge Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. with
having conspired with each other to guarantee that the parties in Civil Case
No. Q-59598 would enter into the amicable settlement, and then to cause
the cancellation of the affidavit of adverse claim and notice of lis pendens
annotated on TCT No. N-290546. The complainants further fault Atty.
Victorio, Jr. with having abandoned their cause since the issuance of the
RTC of its order dated May 16, 2008.
The complainants' charges are devoid of substance.
Although it is not necessary to prove a formal agreement in order to
establish conspiracy because conspiracy may be inferred from the
circumstances attending the commission of an act, it is nonetheless
essential that conspiracy be established by clear and convincing evidence.
The complainants failed in this regard. Outside of their bare assertions that
Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. had conspired with each other in
order to cause the dismissal of the complaint and then discharge of the
annotations, they presented no evidence to support their allegation of
conspiracy. On the contrary, the records indicated their own active
pjarticipation in arriving at the amicable settlement with the defendants in
Civil Case No. Q-07-59598. Hence, they could not now turn their backs on
the amicable settlement that they had themselves entered into.
Even assuming that Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Tolentino, Jr. initiated and
participated in the settlement of the case, there was nothing wrong in their
doing so. It was actually their obligation as lawyers to do so, pursuant to
Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, viz.:
RULE 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
In fine, the presumption of the validity of the amicable settlement of the
complainants and the defendants in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 subsisted.
Anent the complainants' charge of abandonment against Atty. Victorio, Jr.,
Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility are applicable, to wit:
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
There is no issue that the complainants engaged the services of Atty.
Victorio, Jr. as their counsel in Civil Case No. Q-07-59598. Atty. Victorio, Jr.
served as such counsel. With Atty. Victorio, Jr. assistance, the
complainants obtained a fair settlement consisting in receiving... half of the
proceeds of the sale of the property in litis, without any portion of the
proceeds accruing to counsel as his legal fees. The complainants did not
competently and persuasively show any unfaithfulness on the part of Atty.
Victorio, Jr. as far as their interest in the litigation was concerned. Hence,
Atty. Victorio, Jr. was not liable for abandonment.
 Aninon v. Sabitsana
A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012

Facts:

In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that she

previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation
and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned
by her late common-law husband Brigido Caneja, Jr.. Respondent allegedly
violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her
for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the
legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Respondent of
using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the civil
case.

Issue:

Whether Respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing

conflicting interests.

Held:

Yes, the court agree with the findings and recommendations of the
IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. The relationship
between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the
highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality
that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s most
confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust
confidential information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the
lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-
bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and
transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility  which a lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. “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.” The prohibition also applies even if 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.” To be held accountable under this
rule, 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.” Jurisprudence
has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above
rule is present in a given case.  One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound
to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time,
to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for
one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other
client, there is a violation of the rule. Another test 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. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon
in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment. On
the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find substantial evidence to
support Respondent’s violation of the above rule, as established by the
following circumstances on record:
One, his legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect
her interest over a certain property. The records show that upon the legal
advice of Respondent, the Deed of Sale over the property was prepared
and executed in the complainant’s favor.

Two Respondent met with Zenaida Cañete to discuss the latter’s legal
interest over the property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point,
Respondent already had knowledge that Zenaida Cañete’s interest clashed
with the complainant’s interests.

Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two
clients, Respondent accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete.

Four, Respondent’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.
 Lee v. Simando
A.C. No. 9537, June 10, 2013