CANON 11

KENNETH R. MARIANO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JOSE N. LAKI, Respondent.

A.C. No. 11978 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2769], EN BANC, September 25, 2018, Per Curiam

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly
account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose,

DEAN’S CRICLE 2019 – UST FCL

57

he must immediately return it to the client. Atty. Laki's failure to render an accounting, and to return
the money if the intended purpose thereof did not materialize, constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule
16.01 of the CPR.

Moreover, Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and
to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others, while Rule 11.04 states that a lawyer
shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Atty. Laki's act of giving assurance to Mariano that he can secure a favorable decision without the
latter's personal appearance because the petition will be filed in the RTC of Tarlac, which is allegedly
presided by a "friendly" judge receptive to annulment cases give the implication that a favorable
decision can be obtained merely on the basis of close ties with the judge and not necessarily on the
merits. Without doubt, Atty. Laki's statements cast doubts on the integrity of the courts in the eyes of
the public.

FACTS:

https://www.scribd.com/document/429780046/PALE-Case-Digest

Mariano approached Atty. Laki to engage his legal services for the annulment of his
marriage. Atty. Laki then informed Marinao to prepare the amount of P160,000.00
representing a package deal for his fees, subject to an advance of P50,000. Mar

Kenneth R. Mariano (Mariano) approached and engaged the services of Atty. Jose N. Laki (Atty.
Laki) for the filing of a petition for annulment of the latter’s marriage. Atty. Laki then asked from
Mariano a total of Php 160,000.00, representing a package deal for the former’s professional fee,
docket fee and expenses for the preparation and filing of the petition, subject to an advance
payment of Php 50,000.00. Mariano expressed his concern over the said amount but was persuaded
by Atty. Laki’s assurances, specifically how the latter assured him that he could secure a favorable
decision even without Mariano's personal appearance since he will file the petition for annulment
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac which is presided by a "friendly judge" and is known
to be receptive to annulment cases.
Believing in Atty. Laki's assurances, Mariano initially paid Atty. Laki the amount of Php 50,000.00.
Upon Atty. Laki's relentless follow-ups to pay the remaining balance, Mariano made the succeeding
payments in the amounts of P40,000.00 and P60,000.00, respectively. Almost a year thereafter,
Mariano followed up with Atty. Laki the status of the petition. He then discovered that the petition
has yet to be filed. Atty. Laki told him that the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Tarlac where he allegedly
filed the petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, thus, he decided to withdraw the case
since he did not expect the new presiding judge to be "friendly."

After several failed attempts to contact and meet Atty. Laki, Mariano then decided to demand for
the return of the money he gave. Despite Mariano's demand to Atty. Laki to return his money, his
demands were left unheeded. Atty. Laki promised Mariano that he would return the money in
installments within two weeks because he still has to raise it, but Atty. Laki failed to make good of
his promise. Later, Mariano's succeeding phone calls were rejected. Mariano also alleged that Atty.
Laki's office in Guagua, Pampanga, was always closed. Aggrieved, Mariano filed a disbarment case
against Atty. Laki.

The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Laki be disbarred.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Laki should be disbarred (YES)

RULING:

DEAN’S CRICLE 2019 – UST FCL

58

It must be emphasized anew that 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. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a
particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does
not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. Atty. Laki's
failure to render an accounting, and to return the money if the intended purpose thereof did not
materialize, constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the CPR.

Moreover, Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others, while Rule 11.04 states that a
lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to
the case. Atty. Laki's act of giving assurance to Mariano that he can secure a favorable decision
without the latter's personal appearance because the petition will be filed in the RTC of Tarlac,
which is allegedly presided by a "friendly" judge receptive to annulment cases give the implication
that a favorable decision can be obtained merely on the basis of close ties with the judge and not
necessarily on the merits. Without doubt, Atty. Laki's statements cast doubts on the integrity of the
courts in the eyes of the public. By making false representation to his client, Atty. Laki not only
betrayed his client's trust but he also undermined the trust and faith of the public in the legal
profession.
CANON 8

ACHERNAR B. TABUZO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M. SANTOS, Respondent.

A.C. No. 12005, THIRD DIVISION, July 23, 2018, GESMUNDO,J.

In resolving the issue, it is important to answer the question if IBP is strictly a public office or a private
institution. Based on the IBP’s peculiar manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the Court to
conclude that the IBP is a public institution. Pursuant to the by-laws of the IBP, only private
practitioners are allowed to occupy any position in its organization.

The complainant violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The filing of baseless
and unfounded administrative complaints against fellow lawyers is antithetical to conducting
oneself with courtesy, fairness, and candor.

FACTS:

An administrative complaint was filed by Lucille G. Sillo against Tabuzo, complainant, before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The case was assigned to Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Santos,
respondent, who was the commissioner of the IBP at that time. The respondent issued a report and
recommendation recommending that complainant be reprimanded for the impropriety of talking to
Sillo, without her counsel, prior to the calling of their case for mediation conference, and for the
abusive, offensive, or improper language in the pleadings she filed in the said case. The report was
adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

Atty. Achernar Tabuzo (Complainant) filed this administrative complaint against the respondent
alleging : (1) that he violated the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on
Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees; (2) that respondent also violated Canons 1 and
3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions of the
Commission on Bar Discipline; (3) that respondent is guilty of nonfeasance and (4) gross
ignorance of the law on the part of the respondent.

The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE:

DEAN’S CRICLE 2019 – UST FCL

49

(1) Whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable in the same manner as judges
and other government officials (NO)
(2) Whether or not complainant violated any of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility (YES)

RULING:

(1) In resolving the issue, it is important to answer the question if IBP is strictly a public office or a
private institution. To answer this question, it is significant to discuss the nature and background of
the IBP. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions gave the Court and the Legislature the concurrent
power to regulate the practice of law. However, in Section 1 of RA 6397, the Congress
acknowledged the Court’s rightful and primary prerogative to adopt measures to raise the standard
of the legal profession. Following this, the Court had ordained the Integration of the Philippine Bar.
The President, exercising its legislative power, issued PD No. 181 which gave IBP corporate
attributes only subject to the Court’s supervision. It was only in the 1987 Constitution which
acknowledged the “integrated bar” as one of the subjects of the Supreme Court’s power to
promulgate rules relative to the practice of law that cemented the IBP’s existence as a juridical
person. Based on the IBP’s peculiar manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the Court to
conclude that the IBP is a public institution.

Pursuant to the by-laws of the IBP, only private practitioners are allowed to occupy any
position in its organization. It follows that IBP Commissioners, being officers of the IBP, are
private practitioners performing public functions delegated to them by this Court and in other
words, they are not public officers thus, it follows that they cannot be held liable for violating the
Constitution or Code of Judicial Conduct since they are not members of the judiciary nor they are
officers of a quasi-judicial officers. In addition, they cannot be held administratively liable for
malfeasance, nonfeasance, and misfeasance since they are not employed with the government.
Nonetheless, the Commissioner and other IBP Officers may be held administratively liable for
violation of the rules promulgated by the court. It can be concluded that IBP officers may be held
administratively liable only in relation to their functions as IBP officers but not as
government officials.

(2) The complainant violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that:

CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

In this case, the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints against fellow
lawyers is antithetical to conducting oneself with courtesy, fairness, and candor.

CANON 19
POTENCIANO R. MALVAR, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. FREDDIE B. FEIR, Respondent. A.C. No.
11871 (Formerly CBD Case No. 154520), SECOND DIVISION, March 05, 2018, PERALTA, J.

Under Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file
any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer’s
client. Atty. Feir’s demand for said amount is not extortion but is actually a legitimate claim for the
remaining balance subject of a legitimate transaction since it was based on a valid and justifiable
cause.

FACTS:

PotencianoMalvar filed a disbarment case against Atty. Freddie Feir for violation of Canon 19, Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath. Malvar alleged that Atty. Feir
sent him threatening letters, stating that should he fail to pay P18 Million to his client, Rogelio
Amurao, Atty. Feir will file criminal, civil, and administrative complaints, which were in truth,
unfounded. Such demands, according to Malvar, are tantamount to blackmail or extortion because
Atty. Feir tried to obtain something of value by means of threats of filing complaints.

Atty. Feir countered that he merely sent letters asking an explanation from Malvar as to why
subject properties were already registered in Malvar’s name while Amurao was yet to receive the
P18 Million as remaining balance to the purchase price.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Feir is guilty of blackmailing or extortion. (NO)

RULING:

Under Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should not file or threaten to
file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed
to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the
lawyer’s client.

It is undisputed that subject properties were already registered under Malvar’s name, but according
to Amurao, he has yet to receive the remaining balance of the purchase price. This fact alone is
enough reason for Amurao to seek legal advice from Atty. Feir and for the latter to send demand
letters to Malvar.

Atty. Feir’s demand for said amount is not extortion but is actually a legitimate claim for the
remaining balance subject of a legitimate transaction. There is nothing in the letters showing that it
was maliciously made with intent to extort money since it was based on a valid and justifiable
cause.

CANON 15

A.C. No. 9094 (ugust 15, 2012

This disbarment case is against a lawyer who sued a former client in
representation of a new one.
I. Facts
Complainant Hocorma Foundation alleged that respondent Atty. Richard
Funk, who
used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive
officer, and trustee of the foundation from 1983 to 1985 and served as its
counsel in several criminal and civil cases, filed an action for quieting of title
and damages against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Institute,
Inc. (Mabalacat Institute) using information that he acquired while serving
as its counsel in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
and in breach of attorney-client relationship.
In his defense, respondent claimed that in 1985 when Hocorma Foundation
refused to pay his attorney's fees, he severed his professional relationship
with it. The Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have
violated Canon 15, Rule 15.0312 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct
consisting of four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma
Foundation.
II. Issue
Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former
client in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed
several actions against such client on behalf of a new one
III. Ruling
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was
formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating
his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf
of another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without the foundation's written
consent.
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly
fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be
prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent
duties. An attorney 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. This rule is so absolute that good faith and
honest intention on the erring lawyer's part does not make it inoperative.
IV. Adjudication
Atty. Richard Funk is suspended from the practice of law for one year
effective immediately

CANON 9

Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco

A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012
Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by
complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon against respondent Atty. Mariano R.
Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and
grossly immoral conduct.
Facts:
Complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent, alleging that
the latter undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of
the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable
and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an action for partition of
the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. Despite receiving fees amounting to 40
million, the respondent failed to pay the agreed commission and
consequently wrote the complainant, informing him that that Sps. Yap
assumed to pay the same after respondent had agreed to reduce his
attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. Complainant’s demand for payment had
been ignored by respondent.
II. Issue
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 9.02 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional responsibility
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent has violated Rule 9.02,12 Canon 9 of the Code which
prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law when he undertook to give
complainant commission despite the latter not having any authority to
practice law.

CANON 7

Maria Victoria Ventura vs Atty. Danilo Samson

A.C. No. 9608 (November 27, 2012)
Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Danilo
Samson filed by Maria Victoria Ventura.
Facts:
Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent for
grossly immoral conduct. She alleged that respondent had carnal knowledge
of her twice when she was still a minor, the first being committed in the
maid’s room and the other committed in the respondent’s poultry farm.
Respondent did not deny the deed, but alleged that the sexual act was done
with mutual consent, the complainant even accepting the fees he had given
after the intercourse. Respondent also alleged that the complainant was of
loose morals and that complaint was only concocted so that the complainant
can extort money from him.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent’s act warrant disbarment
Ruling:
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community.
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by
complainant, then a 13-year-old minor who for a time was under
respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent
and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no moment.
Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly
reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
Adjudication:
Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross
Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

CANON 16

Emilia O. Dhaliwal vs. Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing

A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012
Emilia O. DhaIiwal filed a complaint for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility against Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing.
Facts:
Emilia Dhaliwal was having some legal issues purchasing a parcel of land
from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. Their case reached the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). She then engaged the services of Atty.
Abelardo Dumaguing in the year 2000. Atty. Dumaguing was given
P342,000.00 for him to consign with the HLURB. With the consignment, he
filed a petition with the HLURB to compel Fil-Estate to deliver the title to
Dhaliwal. However, a week later, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB
the amount of P311,819.94.
In 2003, Dhaliwal terminated the services of Atty. Dumaguing. In the same
year, Dhaliwal lost in the HLURB case. She then demanded Atty. Dumaguing
to return to her the P311,819.94 he earlier withdrew. Atty. Dumaguing
refused to return said amount. Dhaliwal filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Dumaguing.
In his defense, Atty. Dumaguing said that the reason why he deemed it not
proper to return the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion for
reconsideration with the HLURB but the latter had not yet acted on it. Atty.
Dumaguing attached a copy of the said motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Ruling:
Yes. It was established that the attached motion for reconsideration was a
mere fabrication because it did not contain proof that the same was filed
with the HLURB nor was there proof that the other party was notified.
Atty. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
which states, among others, that: “A lawyer
shall 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. 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.
Adjudication:
Atty. Dumaguing is hereby suspended for six months from
the active practice of law, effective immediately

CANON 2

Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos

A. C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012
Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) fled this complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos (respondent).
Facts:
In this Complaint for disbarment, complainant Villatuya charged Atty. Bede
S. Tabalingcos with: 
1.) Unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two fnancial consultancy
frms as fronts for his legal services;
2.) Non-payment of fees to complainant despite having promised to
complainant (a fnancial consultant), via a verbal agreement, that the latter
would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the
cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by
their clients; and 
3.) Gross immorality for marrying two other women while his frst marriage
was subsisting, as supported by three diferent marriage contracts bearing
the name of respondent and three other women secured by the complainant.
In his defense, respondent asserted that complainant himself was
unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no
verbal agreement between them regarding the sharing of professional fees
paid by his clients. He presented documents showing that the salary of
complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any
unlawful solicitation. Respondent did not specifcally address the allegations
regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women.
II. Issues
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
non-payment of fees to complainant 
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation, and 
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married
thrice
III. Ruling
1. Under Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is
proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services
rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. There was no violation
of this provision in this case, for complainant failed to profer convincing
evidence to prove the existence of that agreement. 
2. The Court held that respondent indeed used the business entities such as
Jesi & Jane Management Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., both
owned by him, to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services,
purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases. Based on the
facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers
from soliciting cases for the purpose of proft. A lawyer is not prohibited from
engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though,
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as
to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. 
3. Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required
of him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred
institution demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy
twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

CANON 5

DULALIA v. CRUZ
A.C. No. 6854; April 27, 2007
CANON 2
Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos
A. C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012

Facts:
Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bede S.
Tabalingcos (respondent). In the complaint, Villatuya charged Atty. Tabalingcos with (1) Unlawful
solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services, (2)
Non-payment of fees to complainant despite having promised to complainant (a financial
consultant) that the latter would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in
the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients and 
(3) Gross immorality for marrying two other women while his first marriage was subsisting, as
supported by three different marriage contracts bearing the name of respondent and three other
women secured by the complainant. In his defense, respondent asserted that complainant himself
was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement
between them regarding the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He presented
documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied
committing any unlawful solicitation. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations
regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women.

Issues:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by non-payment of
fees to complainant 
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation, and 
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral co nduct for having married thrice

Ruling:
1. No. Under Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is prescribed by the
Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rendered with a person not
licensed to practice law. There was no violation of this provision in this case, for
complainant failed to prefer convincing evidence to prove the existence of that agreement. 
2. Yes. The Court held that respondent indeed used the business entities owned by him to
solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate
rehabilitation cases. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. A lawyer is not prohibited
from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the
business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the
lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. 
3. Yes. Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a
member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect
and dignity. His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
CANON 5
Juan Dulalia, Jr. v. Atty. Pablo C. Cruz
A.C. No. 6854 April 25, 2007

Facts:
Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the Municipal
Government to build a high rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released due to the
opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the Municipal Engineers office, claiming that the
building impedes the airspace of their property which is adjacent to the Dulalia’s property. Juan
Dulalia (Juan) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz (Cruz) for immoral conduct.

Juan also claimed that Cruz’s illicit relationship with a woman while still married is in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith, claiming to have had
the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while
Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a
qualification.

Issue:

Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

Cruz’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3,
1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the
Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as “ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance therewith.”

It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-
informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and
jurisprudence. The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01
and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law
for one year.
CANON 8
Achernar B. Tabuzo v. Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Santos
A.C. No. 12005 July 23, 2018

Facts:
An administrative complaint was filed by Lucille G. Sillo against Tabuzo, complainant,
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The case was assigned to Atty. Jose Alfonso M.
Santos, respondent, who was the commissioner of the IBP at that time. The respondent issued a
report and recommendation recommending that complainant be reprimanded for the impropriety
of talking to Sillo, without her counsel, prior to the calling of their case for mediation conference,
and for the abusive, offensive, or improper language in the pleadings she filed in the said case. The
report was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
Atty. Achernar Tabuzo (Complainant) filed this administrative complaint against the
respondent alleging (1) that he violated the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission
on Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees; (2) that respondent also violated Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions of the Commission on Bar
Discipline; (3) that respondent is guilty of nonfeasance and (4) gross ignorance of the law on the
part of the respondent.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack
of merit which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

Issues:
1. Whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable in the same manner as
judges and other government officials
2. Whether or not complainant violated any of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Ruling:
1. No. Pursuant to the by-laws of the IBP, only private practitioners are allowed to occupy any
position in its organization. It follows that IBP Commissioners, being officers of the IBP, are
private practitioners performing public functions delegated to them by this Court and in
other words, they are not public officers. It then follows that they cannot be held liable for
violating the Constitution or Code of Judicial Conduct. In addition, they cannot be held
administratively liable for malfeasance, nonfeasance, and misfeasance since they are not
employed with the government. Nonetheless, the Commissioner and other IBP Officers may
be held administratively liable for violation of the rules promulgated by the court. It can be
concluded that IBP officers may be held administratively liable only in relation to their
functions as IBP officers but not as government officials.
2. Yes. The complainant violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel. In this case, the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints against
fellow lawyers is contrary to said canon.
CANON 11
Kenneth R. Mariano v. Atty. Jose N. Laki
A.C. No. 11978 (formerly CBD Case No. 10-2769) September 25, 2018

Facts:
Mariano approached Atty. Laki to engage his legal services for the annulment of his
marriage. Atty. Laki then informed Marinao to prepare the amount of P160,000.00 representing a
package deal for his fees, subject to an advance of P50,000. Mariano expressed surprise over the
huge amount but was persuaded by Atty. Laki’s assurances to secure a favorable decision even
without his personal appearance since the judge is known be “friendly” and receptive in annulment
cases. However, it was found out that Atty. Laki did not file the petition hence, Mariano decided to
demand the return of his money. After his demands were unheeded, he filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Laki. Disbarment proceedings were held but Atty. Laki failed to comply
with the orders and to participate in the proceedings.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Laki should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Conduct

RULING:

Yes. It must be emphasized anew that 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. When a lawyer who receives money does not use it for
its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. Atty. Laki's failure to render an
accounting, and to return the money if the intended purpose thereof did not materialize, constitutes
a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the CPR.

Moreover, Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others, while Rule 11.04
states that a lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case. Atty. Laki's act of giving assurance to Mariano that he can secure a favorable
decision without the latter's personal appearance because the petition will be filed in the RTC of
Tarlac, which is allegedly presided by a "friendly" judge receptive to annulment cases give the
implication that a favorable decision can be obtained merely on the basis of close ties with the
judge and not necessarily on the merits. Without doubt, Atty. Laki's statements cast doubts on the
integrity of the courts in the eyes of the public. By making false representation to his client, Atty.
Laki not only betrayed his client's trust but he also undermined the trust and faith of the public in
the legal profession.
CANON 14
Adelino H. Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco
G.R. No. L- 23815 June 28, 1974

Facts:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the
sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for
the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a
motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and
also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a
motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So
Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Issue: 
Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of the petitioner
is a grave abuse of discretion

Ruling:
No. Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty required
of the legal profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with
conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration
of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's
zeal.
CANON 17
Maria Eva De Mesa v. Atty. Oliver O. Olaybal
A.M. No. 9129 January 31, 2018

Facts:

Maria de Mesa claims that the Atty. Olaybal was her counsel in her criminal cases for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. As regards the Pasig Case, Atty. Olaybal advised her to settle
amicably for the amount of P78,640.00. Following his advice, she procured, Prudential Bank
Manager's Checks No. 5574 and No. 5575 for the amounts of P74,400.00 and P4,240.00. Both
checks were crossed and payable to Asialink Finance Corporation (Asialink). She handed the checks
to the respondent for delivery to Asialink but he did not deliver the checks to Asialink, instead
deposited them to his account through his son. Atty. Olaybal then executed a compromise
agreement with Asialink on her behalf as settlement where he undertook to pay Asialink the total
sum of P83,328.00 through monthly installment payment. The complainant charges respondent
Atty. Oliver O. Olaybal with betrayal of trust and confidence, malpractice and gross misconduct as a
lawyer.

IBP Investigating Commissioner declared that Atty. Olaybal misappropriated the amounts of
the manager's checks for his personal gain and in violation of Canon 16. Depositing the checks to
his account, combining the proceeds thereof with his personal funds and entering into the
compromise settlement without authority placed the complainant at risk of undergoing criminal
prosecution and conviction, thereby failing to safeguard her interest in violation of his ethical duty.

Issue:

Whether the findings and recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors proper.

Ruling:

Yes. The respondent's failure to deliver the checks to Asialink and instead depositing the
checks in his account and thereafter misappropriating the funds thereof for his personal benefit
constituted a serious breach by him of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and
imposes on the former a great degree of fidelity and good faith. Thus, any money or property
received by him from his client for delivery to another in the context of the relationship is merely
held by him in trust and should not be appropriated for his own benefit. For him to do otherwise is
a violation of his oath as an attorney and officer of the Court. Also, the respondent's act of binding
the complainant to the terms of the compromise agreement even if he had not been expressly and
properly authorized to do so reflected his disregard of the duty of fidelity that he owed at all times
towards her as the client. He thereby violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 19
POTENCIANO R. MALVAR, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. FREDDIE B. FEIR, Respondent. A.C. No.
11871 (Formerly CBD Case No. 154520), SECOND DIVISION, March 05, 2018, PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

Potenciano Malvar filed a disbarment case against Atty. Freddie Feir for violation of Canon 19, Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath. Malvar alleged that Atty. Feir
sent him threatening letters, stating that should he fail to pay P18 Million to his client, Rogelio
Amurao, Atty. Feir will file criminal, civil, and administrative complaints, which were in truth,
unfounded. Such demands, according to Malvar, are tantamount to blackmail or extortion because
Atty. Feir tried to obtain something of value by means of threats of filing complaints.

Atty. Feir countered that he merely sent letters asking an explanation from Malvar as to why
subject properties were already registered in Malvar’s name while Amurao was yet to receive the
P18 Million as remaining balance to the purchase price.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Feir is guilty of blackmailing or extortion. (NO)

RULING:

Under Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should not file or threaten to
file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed
to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the
lawyer’s client.

It is undisputed that subject properties were already registered under Malvar’s name, but according
to Amurao, he has yet to receive the remaining balance of the purchase price. This fact alone is
enough reason for Amurao to seek legal advice from Atty. Feir and for the latter to send demand
letters to Malvar.

Atty. Feir’s demand for said amount is not extortion but a legitimate claim for the remaining
balance subject of a legitimate transaction. There is nothing in the letters showing that it was
maliciously made with intent to extort money since it was based on a valid and justifiable cause.
CANON 15
A.C. No. 9094 August 15, 2012

This disbarment case is against a lawyer who sued a former client in representation of
a new one.

Facts
Complainant Hocorma Foundation alleged that respondent Atty. Richard Funk, who
used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the
foundation from 1983 to 1985 and served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases, filed an
action for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat
Institute, Inc. (Mabalacat Institute) using information that he acquired while serving as its counsel
in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and in breach of attorney-client
relationship. In his defense, respondent claimed that in 1985 when Hocorma Foundation refused to
pay his attorney's fees, he severed his professional relationship with it. The Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15, Rule 15.0312 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of
misconduct consisting of four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma
Foundation.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed several actions against such
client on behalf of a new one

Ruling
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation.
Years after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on
behalf of another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without the foundation's written consent. An
attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of
their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting
interests or discharging inconsistent duties. An attorney 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. This rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on
the erring lawyer's part does not make it inoperative. Atty. Richard Funk is suspended from
the practice of law for one year effective immediately.
CANON 9
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon vs. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco
A.C. No. 6116 August 1, 2012

Facts:
An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant, Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon,
against respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct
constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct. The complainant alleged that the latter
undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter
would receive in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in
an action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. Despite receiving fees amounting to 40
million, the respondent failed to pay the agreed commission and consequently wrote the
complainant, informing him that that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after
respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. Complainant’s demand
for payment had been ignored by respondent.

Issue
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 9.02 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
responsibility

Ruling
Yes. Respondent has violated Rule 9.02,12 Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a
lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law when he undertook to give complainant commission despite the latter
not having any authority to practice law.
CANON 7
Maria Victoria Ventura vs Atty. Danilo Samson
A.C. No. 9608 (November 27, 2012)

Before the Court is the Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Danilo
Samson filed by Maria Victoria Ventura.

Facts
Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent for grossly immoral
conduct. She alleged that respondent had carnal knowledge of her twice when she was still a
minor, the first being committed in the maid’s room and the other committed in the
respondent’s poultry farm. Respondent did not deny the deed, but alleged that the sexual act was
done with mutual consent, the complainant even accepting the fees he had given after the
intercourse. Respondent also alleged that the complainant was of loose morals and that complaint
was only concocted so that the complainant can extort money from him.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent’s act warrant disbarment

Ruling:
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Respondent
has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-
old minor who for a time was under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter
between the respondent and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no
moment.
Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible
act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal
profession and should be disciplined accordingly. Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is
hereby DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
CANON 16
Emilia O. Dhaliwal vs. Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing
A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012

Emilia O. DhaIiwal filed a complaint for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility against Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing.

Facts:
Emilia Dhaliwal was having some legal issues purchasing a parcel of land from Fil-Estate
Development, Inc. Their case reached the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
She then engaged the services of Atty. Abelardo Dumaguing in the year 2000. Atty.
Dumaguing was given P342,000.00 for him to consign with the HLURB. With the consignment, he
filed a petition with the HLURB to compel Fil-Estate to deliver the title to Dhaliwal. However, a
week later, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB the amount of P311,819.94. In 2003,
Dhaliwal terminated the services of Atty. Dumaguing. In the same year, Dhaliwal lost in the HLURB
case. She then demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return to her the P311,819.94 he earlier
withdrew. Atty. Dumaguing refused to return said amount. Dhaliwal filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Dumaguing. In his defense, Atty. Dumaguing said that the reason why he
deemed it not proper to return the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion for
reconsideration with the HLURB but the latter had not yet acted on it. Atty. Dumaguing attached a
copy of the said motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:
Yes. It was established that the attached motion for reconsideration was a mere fabrication because
it did not contain proof that the same was filed with the HLURB nor was there proof that the other
party was notified. Atty. Dumaguing violated Canon 16 of the Code Of
Professional Responsibility which states, among others, that: “A lawyer shall 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. 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. Atty. Dumaguing is hereby suspended for six
months from the active practice of law, effective immediately
CANON 20
https://www.scribd.com/document/221069815/Rosario-vs-de-Guzman

Luzviminda Lijauco vs.

Atty. Rogelio Terrado
A.C. No. 6317, August 31,
2006
FACTS:
On February 13, 2004, an
administrative complaint was
filed by complainant Luzviminda
C. Lijauco
against respondent Atty. Rogelio
P. Terrado for gross misconduct,
malpractice and conduct
unbecoming
of an officer of the court when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted
to him despite receipt of payment
representing attorney’s fees.
According to the complainant,
she engaged the services of
respondent sometime in January
2001 for
P70,000.00 to assist in recovering
her deposit with Planters
Development Bank, Buendia,
Makati branch
in the amount of P180,000.00
and the release of her
foreclosed house and lot located
in Calamba,
Laguna. The property identified as
Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as
TCT No. T-402119 in the name of
said bank is the subject of a
petition for the issuance of a writ
of possession then pending before
the
Regional Trial Court of Binan,
Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as
LRC Case No. B-2610.
Complainant alleged that
respondent failed to appear
before the trial court in the
hearing for the
issuance of the Writ of
Possession and did not protect
her interests in the Compromise
Agreement
which she subsequently entered
into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.
Respondent denied the
accusations against him. He
averred that the P70,000.00 he
received from
complainant was payment for legal
services for the recovery of the
deposit with Planters Development
Bank and did not include LRC
Case No. B-2610 pending before
the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Terrado violated the
Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found
GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01,
9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code
of
Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 6 months
effective from
notice, and STERNLY WARNED
that any similar infraction will be
dealt with more severely. He is
further
ordered to RETURN, within 30
days from notice, the sum of
P70,000.00 to complainant
Luzviminda C.
Lijauco and to submit to this Court
proof of his compliance within 3
days therefrom.
RATIO:
By openly admitting he divided
the Php70,000.00 to other
individuals as
commission/referral fees
respondent violated Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which
provides that a
lawyer shall not divide or stipulate
to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to
practice
law. Worse, by luring complainant
to participate in a compromise
agreement with a false and
misleading
assurance that complainant can
still recover after Three (3) years
her foreclosed property respondent
violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility which says a
lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Luzviminda Lijauco vs.
Atty. Rogelio Terrado
A.C. No. 6317, August 31,
2006
FACTS:
On February 13, 2004, an
administrative complaint was
filed by complainant Luzviminda
C. Lijauco
against respondent Atty. Rogelio
P. Terrado for gross misconduct,
malpractice and conduct
unbecoming
of an officer of the court when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted
to him despite receipt of payment
representing attorney’s fees.
According to the complainant,
she engaged the services of
respondent sometime in January
2001 for
P70,000.00 to assist in recovering
her deposit with Planters
Development Bank, Buendia,
Makati branch
in the amount of P180,000.00
and the release of her
foreclosed house and lot located
in Calamba,
Laguna. The property identified as
Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as
TCT No. T-402119 in the name of
said bank is the subject of a
petition for the issuance of a writ
of possession then pending before
the
Regional Trial Court of Binan,
Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as
LRC Case No. B-2610.
Complainant alleged that
respondent failed to appear
before the trial court in the
hearing for the
issuance of the Writ of
Possession and did not protect
her interests in the Compromise
Agreement
which she subsequently entered
into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.
Respondent denied the
accusations against him. He
averred that the P70,000.00 he
received from
complainant was payment for legal
services for the recovery of the
deposit with Planters Development
Bank and did not include LRC
Case No. B-2610 pending before
the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Terrado violated the
Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found
GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01,
9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code
of
Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 6 months
effective from
notice, and STERNLY WARNED
that any similar infraction will be
dealt with more severely. He is
further
ordered to RETURN, within 30
days from notice, the sum of
P70,000.00 to complainant
Luzviminda C.
Lijauco and to submit to this Court
proof of his compliance within 3
days therefrom.
RATIO:
By openly admitting he divided
the Php70,000.00 to other
individuals as
commission/referral fees
respondent violated Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which
provides that a
lawyer shall not divide or stipulate
to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to
practice
law. Worse, by luring complainant
to participate in a compromise
agreement with a false and
misleading
assurance that complainant can
still recover after Three (3) years
her foreclosed property respondent
violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility which says a
lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 15

Luzviminda Lijauco vs.

Atty. Rogelio Terrado
A.C. No. 6317, August 31,
2006
FACTS:
On February 13, 2004, an
administrative complaint was
filed by complainant Luzviminda
C. Lijauco
against respondent Atty. Rogelio
P. Terrado for gross misconduct,
malpractice and conduct
unbecoming
of an officer of the court when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted
to him despite receipt of payment
representing attorney’s fees.
According to the complainant,
she engaged the services of
respondent sometime in January
2001 for
P70,000.00 to assist in recovering
her deposit with Planters
Development Bank, Buendia,
Makati branch
in the amount of P180,000.00
and the release of her
foreclosed house and lot located
in Calamba,
Laguna. The property identified as
Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as
TCT No. T-402119 in the name of
said bank is the subject of a
petition for the issuance of a writ
of possession then pending before
the
Regional Trial Court of Binan,
Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as
LRC Case No. B-2610.
Complainant alleged that
respondent failed to appear
before the trial court in the
hearing for the
issuance of the Writ of
Possession and did not protect
her interests in the Compromise
Agreement
which she subsequently entered
into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.
Respondent denied the
accusations against him. He
averred that the P70,000.00 he
received from
complainant was payment for legal
services for the recovery of the
deposit with Planters Development
Bank and did not include LRC
Case No. B-2610 pending before
the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Terrado violated the
Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found
GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01,
9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code
of
Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 6 months
effective from
notice, and STERNLY WARNED
that any similar infraction will be
dealt with more severely. He is
further
ordered to RETURN, within 30
days from notice, the sum of
P70,000.00 to complainant
Luzviminda C.
Lijauco and to submit to this Court
proof of his compliance within 3
days therefrom.
RATIO:
By openly admitting he divided
the Php70,000.00 to other
individuals as
commission/referral fees
respondent violated Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which
provides that a
lawyer shall not divide or stipulate
to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to
practice
law. Worse, by luring complainant
to participate in a compromise
agreement with a false and
misleading
assurance that complainant can
still recover after Three (3) years
her foreclosed property respondent
violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility which says a
lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
MARIA ROMERO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. GERONIMO R. EVANGELISTA, JR, Respondent.
A.C. No. 11829, SECOND DIVISION, February 26, 2018, REYES, JR., J.

FACTS:

Maria Romero filed a complaint for the disbarment Atty. Evangelista for his alleged violation of
several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canon 63 on the Canons of
Professional Ethics. Maria alleged that Atty. Evangelista represented her and her aunt Adela
Romero, in their individuals and as Heirs of the Late Adela Aguinaldo Vda. De Romero. However,
Atty. Evangelista subsequently represented Spouses Valles in several suits against Adela.

Atty. Evangelista explained that there was no lawyer-client relationship between him and Maria; his
professional services were never retained by Maria nor did he receive any confidential information
from her; and Maria never paid him any legal fee.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Evangelista is guilty of representing conflicting interests. (YES)

RULING:
With Atty. Evangelista’s admission that he retained clients who have cases against Adela without all
the parties’ written consent, there has been a representation of conflict of interest, in violation of
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR. The rule against conflict of interest prohibits a lawyer from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether
they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases, since the representation of
opposing clients, even in unrelated cases, is tantamount to representing conflicting interests or, at
the very least, invites suspicion of double- dealing.

CANON 20
EUGENIO E. CORTEZ v. ATTY. HERNANDO P. CORTES March 12, 2018 A.C. No. 9119 Contingency
Fee, Quantum Meruit
MARCH 23, 2019

FACTS:

Eugenio E. Cortez engaged the services of Atty. Cortes as his counsel in an illegal dismissal case against
Philippine Explosives Corporation (PEC). He further alleged that he and Atty. Cortes had a handshake
agreement on a 12% contingency fee as and by way of attorney’s fees.

The case was decided in favor of complainant. PEC was ordered to pay complainant the total amount of
One million One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱1, 100,000) in three staggered payments. PEC then issued
checks all payable in the name of complainant, as payment.

Atty. Cortes however, claimed that 50% of the total awarded claims belongs to him as attorney’s fees. 

Complainant then offered to pay ₱200,000, and when Atty. Cortes rejected it, he offered the third check
amounting to ₱275,000, but Atty. Cortes still insisted on the 50% of the total award. 

A complaint was filed by Eugenio against respondent Atty. Cortes for grave misconduct, and violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code for Professional Responsibility.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the six-month suspension of Atty. Cortes. 

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts complained of constitute misconduct on the part of Atty. Cortes, which would
subject him to disciplinary action.

RULING:

We rule in the affirmative.

We have held that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. It is generally recognized as
valid and binding, but must be laid down in, an express contract. 

The case of Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez discussed the same succinctly, thus:

A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid and binding
but must be laid down in an express contract. The amount of contingent fee agreed upon by the parties is
subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation
prospers. 

In this case, We note that the parties did not have an express contract as regards the payment of fees.
Complainant alleges that the contingency fee was fixed at 12% via a handshake agreement, while Atty.
Cortes counters that the agreement was 50%.

The IBP Commission on Discipline pointed out that since what respondent handled was merely a labor
case, his attorney’s foes should not exceed 10%, the rate allowed under Article 111 of the Labor Code.

Although we agree that the 50% contingency fee was excessive, We do not agree that the 10% limitation
as provided in Article 111 is automatically applicable.

Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due is that stipulated in the retainer Agreement which is
conclusive as to the amount of the lawyers compensation.

In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e.,the
reasonable worth of the attorney’s services. Courts may ascertain also if the attorney’s fees are found to
be excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances. 

In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.” Rule 20.01 of the same canon enumerates the following factors which should guide a
lawyer in determining his fees:

(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he
belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;

(h) The contingency or’ certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j)The professional standing of the lawyer.

We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed by Atty. Cortes was, under the facts
obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and unconscionable. 

Respondent Atty. Hernando P. Cortes is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months,
(considering that Atty. Cortes is nearing ninety years old and that there was no question that Atty. Cortes
was able to get a favorable outcome) and is ordered to return to complainant Eugenio E. Cortez the
amount he received in excess of the 12% allowable attorney’s fees.

CANON 12

RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO CALAYAN,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 8208, EN BANC, January 10, 2018, GESMUNDO, J.

When lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the rights
of their client, but also of their colleagues and offends due administration of justice, appropriate
disciplinary measures and proceedings are available.

The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal. However,
professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and
qualifications. The filing of cases by Atty. Calayan against the adverse parties and their counsels
manifests his malice in paralyzing the lawyers from exerting their utmost effort in protecting their
client's interest.

In Almacen, it merely recognized the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen,
to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges and that these criticisms are subject to a condition – bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety.

FACTS:

Prior to this case, an intra-corporate case was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City
presided by Judge Adolfo Encomienda, but was later on re-raffled to Judge Virgilio Alpajora who
was President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Calayan Educational Foundation, Inc.
(CEFI). He signed and filed pleadings as "Special Counsel pro se" for himself. Thereafter, Judge
Alpajora issued an Omnibus Order for the creation of a management committee and the
appointment of its members. That Order prompted the filing of the administrative case against the
Judge Alpajora – order was not acceptable to Atty. Calayan because he knew in effect, he, together
with his wife and daughter, would lose their positions as Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary,
respectively, and as members of the Board of Trustees of the CEFI

Judge Alpajora asserted that respondent committed the following: (1) serious and gross misconduct
in his duties as counsel for himself; (2) violated his oath as lawyer for: [a] his failure to observe and
maintain respect to the courts (Section 20 (b), Rule 138, Rules of Court); [b] by his abuse of judicial
process thru maintaining actions or proceedings inconsistent with truth and honor and his acts to
mislead the judge by false statements (Section 20 (d), Rule 138); (3) repeatedly violated the rules of
procedures governing intra-corporate cases and maliciously misused the same to defeat the ends of
justice; and (4) knowingly violated the rule against the filing of multiple actions arising from the
same cause of action.

Atty. Calayan, on the other hand, maintained that complainant committed the following: (1) grossly
unethical and immoral conduct by his impleading a non-party; (2) betrayal of his lawyer's oath and
the CPR; (3) malicious and intentional delay in not terminating the pre-trial, in violation of the
Interim Rules because he ignored the special summary nature of the case; and (4) misquoted
provisions of law and misrepresented the facts.

The Investigating Commissioner concluded that Atty. Calayan violated Section 20, Rule 138 of
theRules of Court, Rules 8.01, 10.01 to 10.03, 11.03, 11.04, 12.02 and 12.04 of theCPR. Investigating
Commissioner finally noted that as a party directly involved in the subject intra- corporate
controversy, it is duly noted that Respondent was emotionally affected by the ongoing case. His
direct interest in the proceedings apparently clouded his judgment, on account of which he failed to
act with circumspect in his choice of words and legal remedies. Such facts and circumstances
mitigate Respondent's liability.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Calayan violated the aforementioned Canons of the CPR. (YES)

RULING:
When lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the
rights of their client, but also of their colleagues and offends due administration of justice,
appropriate disciplinary measures and proceedings are available such as reprimand, suspension or
even disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts. In this case, Atty. Calayan has displayed conduct
unbecoming of a worthy lawyer.

Atty. Calayan respondent did not deny filing several cases against opposing parties and their
counsels. He explained that the placing of CEFI under receivership and directing the creation of a
management committee and the continuation of the receiver's duties and responsibilities by virtue
of the Omnibus Order spurred his filing of various pleadings and/or motions. It was in his
desperation and earnest desire to save CEFI from further damage that he implored the aid of the
courts.

The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal. However,
professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and
qualifications. The filing of cases by Atty. Calayan against the adverse parties and their counsels
manifests his malice in paralyzing the lawyers from exerting their utmost effort in protecting their
client's interest.

As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case. Atty. Calayan has consistently attributed

DEAN’S CRICLE 2019 – UST FCL

30

unsupported imputations against the complainant in his pleadings. He also accused the
complainant judge of being in cahoots and of having deplorable close ties with the adverse counsels;
and that complainant irrefutably coached said adverse counsels. However, these bare allegations
are absolutely unsupported by any piece of evidence. Thus, the Court finds respondent guilty of
attributing unsupported ill-motives to complainant in violation of Canon 11.

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.

xxx

Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.

It must be remembered that all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts,
and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a
very shaky foundation.
Further, as regards his alleged misquotation, respondent argues that he should have been cited in
contempt. He found justification in Cortes vs. Bangalan, to wit:

The alleged offensive and contemptuous language contained in the letter- complaint was not
directed to the respondent court. As observed by the Court Administrator, "what respondent should
have done in this particular case is that he should have given the Court (Supreme Court) the
opportunity to rule on the complaint and not simply acted precipitately in citing complainant in
contempt of court in a manner which obviously smacks of retaliation rather than the upholding of a
court's honor.

A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern on his impartiality even if
the judge may have been insulted therein. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all
courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of
justice, judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with
utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and
preservation not for retaliation or vindication.

As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the jurisprudence quoted precisely
cautions a judge against citing a party in contempt, which is totally contradictory to the position of
respondent. He misrepresented the text of a decision, in violation of the CPR.

Ironically, Atty. Calayan's indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, civil and criminal cases, and
even administrative cases against different trial court judges relating to controversies involving
CEFI, in fact, runs counter to the speedy disposition of cases. It frustrates the administration of
justice. It degrades the dignity and integrity of the courts.

DEAN’S CRICLE 2019 – UST FCL

31

A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to file pleadings, motions and cases as he pleases.
Limitations can be inferred from the following rules: Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court;
Canons 1, 10 (Rule 10.03), Canon 12 (Rule 12.04) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent justifies his filing of administrative cases against certain judges, including complainant,
by relying on In Re: Almacen (Almacen). He claims that the mandate of the ruling laid down in
Almacen was to encourage lawyers' criticism of erring magistrates.

In Almacen, however, it did not mandate but merely recognized the right of a lawyer, both as an
officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges and that these criticisms are subject to a condition – bona
fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.

Indubitably, the acts of respondent were in violation of his duty to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and his duty to never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer.