Legal Ethics Case Digest HW
installment basis.
AC No. 99-634            June 10, 2002
DOMINADOR P. BURBE, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Dominador Burbe hired respondent Atty.
Alberto Magulta to represent him for a money claim
and possible civil case against other parties.
Respondent suggested that complainant filed a
complaint which the former drafted. Complainant was
informed that the filing fee was P 25k which he
immediately deposited to the respondent as instructed
by the latter.
Respondent then informed Burbe that complaint was
already filed and will consequently receive notice of
progress. However, months have pass but complainant
receive no such notice despite frequent follow-ups to
the respondent’s office. He was accompanied by the
respondent to follow-up in the Hall of Justice but was
told to wait in the ground floor since it would be the
respondent who would personally follow-up in the Clerk
of Court.
Upon such follow-up, respondent informed Burbe that
the Clerk of Court k was absent that day. Complainant
sensed that he was being fooled decided to personally
verify the complaint and discovered that there was no
record of such complaint being filed.
Complainant confronted Atty. Magulta and the latter
admitted that the complaint was not filed because he
used the filing fee for his own purpose. In an attempt to
appease the feelings of Burbe, respondent reimbursed
the amount by issuing 2 postdated checks in the
amount of P12k and P8k respectively.
Complainant filed a case against the IBP to which
respondent replied that the allegations against him
were baseless. He narrated that complainant ordered
him to draft several demand letters and a complaint for
breach of contract which he fully accomplished and that
it was complainant who failed to pay for such services.
Respondent also added that he informed complainant
about the acceptance and legal fees amounting to P
187,742 to which complainant promised to pay on
Complainant gave Atty. Magulta P25k for the filing fee
of the complaint of his case but when told that the
acceptance fee must be paid before complaint can be
filed, complainant Burbe said that the P25k was a
deposit for the acceptance fee.
On Feb 1999, complainant asked to suspend the filing of
the complaint but decided to pursue such filing on May
1999. He was told that the acceptance fee must be paid
first to which responded by proposing that the
complaint be filed first before payment of respondent’s
acceptance and legal fees.
Respondent also narrated that he returned the P25k
using his own personal checks upon complainant’s
demand and averred that he never mistreated nor
deceived complainant.
ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of acts of misconduct in
the treatment of his client?
RULING:
Yes. The Court ruled that the central issue was the
lawyer’s failure to file the complaint on behalf of his
client and his appropriation for himself of the money
for the filing fee. Despite respondent’s allegations that
no filing fee was given, the Court believes that
lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in the
prosecution or the defense of the client's cause. They
who perform that duty with diligence and candor not
only protect the interests of the client, but also serve
the ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and help
maintain the respect of the community for the legal
profession.5 
Furthermore, A lawyer-client relationship was
established from the very first moment complainant
asked respondent for legal advice regarding the
former's business. To constitute professional
employment, it is not essential that the client
employed the attorney professionally on any previous
occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised, or charged; neither is it material that the
attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case
for which his service had been sought.
Hence, despite the fact that complainant
was kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and
that respondent dispensed legal advice to
complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, the
lawyer was duty-bound to file the complaint he had
agreed to prepare -- and had actually prepared -- at
the soonest possible time, in order to protect the
client's interest.
This Court has likewise constantly held that once
lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they
owe fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them.
Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits.12 The gaining of a livelihood
is not a professional but a secondary consideration
The Court held that the respondent violated Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that lawyers should not neglect legal
matters entrusted to them and Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that
lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their
clients and properties that may come into their
possession and suspends Atty. Magulta for 1
year.
A.C. No. 1372            June 27, 2002
SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D.
RABANAL, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Cayetano Rabanal was one of the
accused-appellants in a criminal case. He was found
guilty and the case was appealed to the Court of
Appeals. He engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Tugade as new counsel to prosecute the appeal.
However, respondent failed to file the appellant’s brief
despite the extension of 60 days granted to him. As a
result, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment
became final and executory. He filed for a motion to
reconsider but was denied.
Respondent argued that he did not want to receive
the case because of his busy schedule but was
prevailed upon by the complainant as a “kababayan”.
Despite payments made by the complainant,
respondent asked another lawyer to prepare
appellants brief. After which, complainant informed
Atty. Tugade that the appeal was dismissed and that
was the time respondent entered his appearance as
counsel for Cayetano and filed the motion for
reconsideration.
The case was transmitted to the OSG for
investigation. IBP later on assumed jurisdiction over
the case. IBP sent 3 notices to respondent informing
him that failure to present evidence will result to the
resolution of the case. Upon motion of complainant
Lirio, IBP recommended to the Court the suspension
of respondent from the practice of law for 1 year.
ISSUE: Did respondent committed a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Yes. The Court held that respondent Atty. Tugade
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides:
RULE 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
RULE 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
It is immaterial that respondent Tugade assisted
Cayetano in the case as a mere friend or "kababayan"
of the latter. A written contract is not an essential
element in the employment 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. In this case, Cayetano
consulted respondent Tugade in his professional
capacity in order to obtain advice concerning his
appeal.
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.
This simply means that his client is entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect
his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.
It should likewise be noted that respondent failed to
notify the IBP of his change of address, thus delaying
the resolution of this case.xxx a failure that also
indicated his lack of regard for the very serious
charges brought against him.
Atty. Faustino F. Tugade is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months
A.C. No. 5280             March 30, 2004
WILLIAM S. UY, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant William S. Uy engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Fermin Gonzales to prepare and file
a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title.
Respondent agreed and prepared a petition to be
submitted in the RTC; however, before filing
respondent demanded an amount other than what
was previously agreed upon.
Complainant expected the said petition would be filed
despite previous discussion with respondent.
However, respondent filed a letter-complaint in the
Office of Provincial Prosecutor against the
complainant for “Falsification of Public Documents”
instead of filing the petition for new certificate of title.
Respondent alleged that in his letter-complaint that
complainant instead of registering said Deed of Sale
and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-33122, in
the Register of Deeds for the purpose of transferring
the same in his name, he executed a Deed of
Voluntary Land Transfer of the aforesaid land in favor
of his children which were both represented in legal
age but are minors in fact.
Respondent narrated his version that he offered to
redeem from complainant a 4.9 hectare property
which the latter purchased from his late son Fermin
Gonzales Jr. He paid the complainant P 340k and
demanded the delivery of the title and execution of
deed of redemption. Instead of providing the title,
complainant transferred the title of the property to his
children and that this title was misplaced and cannot
be located.
Respondent wanting to help then offered his services
as long as complainant will shoulder all expenses
amounting to P20k to which Uy agreed.
Respondent went to complainant’s office to inform the
latter that everything was prepared for the filing of the
petition and collect the funds to be used for filing. He
was made to wait for 2 hrs only to discover that
complainant left without further instructions and
money for the filing. This conduct infuriated Atty.
Gonzales which led him to give a handwritten letter
telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition
and to find another lawyer to file the same. He alleged
that by giving the handwritten letter, he has
terminated his lawyer-client relationship with
complainant.
IBP set a hearing for the parties but the same was
reset for non-appearance of the two parties. On April
2003, Commissioner Villanueva-Maala received a
letter from one Atty. Augusto M. Macam dated April
24, 2003, stating that his client, William S. Uy, had
lost interest in pursuing the complaint he filed against
Atty. Gonzales and requesting that the case against
Atty. Gonzales be dismissed.
Nevertheless, Comm Maala submitted a resolution
stating that Atty. Gonzales violated the Code of Pro
Professional Responsibility which expressly provides
that "A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated." Likewise Rule 21.02, Canon
21 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility
provides that "A lawyer shall not, to the
disadvantage of his client, use information acquired
in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
same to his own advantage or that of a third person,
unless the client with the full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto."
She also averred that proceedings of this nature
cannot be "interrupted by reason of desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the same. She also recommended that he
be SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS.
Her resolution was adopted by the Board of Gov of
IBP.
ISSUE: Did respondent committed a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
Preliminarily, we agree with Commissioner
Villanueva-Maala that the manifestation of
complainant Uy expressing his desire to dismiss the
administrative complaint he filed against respondent,
has no persuasive bearing in the present case.
This is because: A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is
a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare.
The Court held that Clearly, there was no attorney-
client relationship between respondent and
complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing
of the petition was only incidental to their personal
transaction.. Notwithstanding respondent’s own
perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the records
reveals that the relationship between complainant and
respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or
dealings between them rather than the practice of law
by respondent.
As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to
exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces
with the consultation of a person, who in respect to a
business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with
a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance.
Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances,
said rule cannot apply to the present case. Evidently,
the facts alleged in the complaint for "Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Documents" filed by respondent
against complainant were obtained by respondent
due to his personal dealings with complainant.
Whatever facts alleged by respondent against
complainant were not obtained by respondent in his
professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a
property originally owned by his deceased son and
therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for
estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily
involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa,
respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21.
Resolution No. XV-2003-365 dated June 21, 2003 of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the administrative case filed
against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales, docketed as A.C.
No. 5280, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
A.C. No. 5108             May 26, 2005
ROSA F. MERCADO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, respondent.
FACTS:
The husband of complainant Rosa F. Mercado filed
an annulment case with RTC Pasig; however, it was
dismissed and later became final and executory on
July 15, 1992.
On Feb. 7, 1994, respondent Atty. Vitriolo officially
entered his name as complainant’s collaborating
counsel and later informed Pasig RTC that he would
be substituting complainant’s deceased counsel Atty.
De Leon.
On April 13, 1999, respondent Atty. Vitriolo filed a
criminal case against complainant for violation of
Article 171 and 172 of the RPC or falsification of
public documents because of the alleged false entries
complainant made in the Certificates of Live Birth of
her children and her marriage with Ferdinand
Fernandez when in fact she was legally married to a
Ruben G. Mercado.
Complainant denied such accusations and responded
by citing charges against Atty. Vitriolo that are were
pending before or decided by other tribunals, such as
the libel suit before the OCP, administrative cases for
dishonesty, grave misconduct and other violations
related to the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
an admin case before the Office of the Ombudsman
where he was found guilty of misconduct, and an
information for violation of Sec. 7 of RA No/ 6713
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees before
the Sandiganbayan.
Moreover, she alleged that the criminal case filed by
the respondent disclosed confidential facts and
information relating to the annulment case handled by
Atty. Vitriolo as counsel. She claims that by filing the
criminal case for falsification, respondent violated
their privileged and confidential lawyer-client
relationship.
Respondent retorted by alleging that the complaint for
disbarment was all hearsay and irrelevant. Moreover,
he stated that the charges mentioned by the
complainant were not grounds for disbarment. He
also added that he did not violate the client-lawyer
relationship because he was the counsel for the
annulment case only and that the basis of the
falsification case are live birth certificates which are
public documents located in the records division of
CHED and are accessible to anyone.
The case was forwarded to IBP for investigation and
resolution. Yet, Complainant failed to appear in both
hearing set for the case. The IBP Board of Governors
finds the respondent guilty and recommended
suspension for 1 year ; however, complainant after
receiving the decision filed a letter of desistance
because she already forgave the respondent.
ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of violating the attorney-
client privilege
HELD:
No. First, the Court emphasized that they are not
bound by any withdrawal or desistance of the
complaint and will proceed with the review of the
cases despite presence of such.
It is the glory of the legal profession that its fidelity to
its client can be depended on, and that a man may
safely go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his
rights or supposed rights in any litigation with absolute
assurance that the lawyer's tongue is tied from ever
disclosing it.
The rule for determining the existence of attorney-
client privilege are as follows:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a
prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by
reason of this relationship that the client made the
communication.
The client made the communication in confidence.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney
in his professional capacity.
Applying all these rules to the case at bar, we hold
that the evidence on record fails to substantiate
complainant's allegations. We note that complainant
did not even specify the alleged communication in
confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims
were couched in general terms and lacked specificity.
She contends that respondent violated the rule on
privileged communication when he instituted a
criminal action against her for falsification of public
documents because the criminal complaint disclosed
facts relating to the civil case for annulment then
handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell
out these facts which will determine the merit of her
complaint.
The complainant also failed to attend the hearings
and without such testimonies from the complainant it
is difficult to determine if there was any violation of the
the rule on privileged communication. The burden of
proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the
party asserting the privilege.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complaint against
respondent Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
A.C. No. 5303             June 15, 2006
HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., in behalf of PENTA
RESORTS CORPORATION/Attorney-in-Fact of
LUMOT A. JALANDONI, Complainant,
vs
ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, Respondent.
FACTS:
The president of Penta Resorts Corporation and
complainant Lumot Jalandoni was sued before the
RTC in a civil case.
Complainant formally engaged respondent services
as a counsel on October 2, 1997. Respondent
handled the entire proceedings of the Civil Case filed
against the complainant until the former filed a Motion
to Withdraw as Counsel a day before a scheduled
hearing without due notice. A copy of the motion was
not furnished to the complainant and such effect of
the withdrawal caused the unexpected defeat of the
latter in the civil case.
Respondent revealed his cause for filing a motion to
withdraw was because he was originally a retained
counsel of complainant’s son-in- law, Dennis
Jalbuena and that it was the latter who recommended
him to be a counsel of the complainant. Moreover, he
stated that he cannot refuse to represent Dennis
Jalbuena in a case filed by PRC/ Lumot Jalandoni
against the latter because of the retainership
agreement.
However, it appears that 21 days before he filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel for complainant, he
already appeared as counsel for spouses Carmen
Jalbuena and Dennis Jalbuena against an Estafa
case filed by PRC. Despite knowing that complainant
Jalandoni’s and PRC’s interest are one and the same,
with the latter being the owner of PRC, this did not
stop him from representing opposing clients at the
same time. Respondent continued to represent the
spouses in all cases filed against them by PRC.
Further, complainant alleged that he used his
attorney-client privilege with the complainant to
conspire and confabulate with the spouse in
concocting fabricated charges against his former
clients. Complainant also alleged that the respondent
deliberately withhold substantial documents of the
case and asked for the amount of P 5k for the
turnover of the said documents.
Also, on a case of Amy Que vs PRC, respondent
improperly appeared before the court and coached
the counsel of the plaintiff Que about matters he was
privy to about his previous client Lumot Jalandoni.
Respondent Atty. Villarosa responded by pointing out
that complainant Lim violated the Rules of Civil
Procedure and had no authorization nor right to file a
case against him. He also cited that complainant Lim
had a habit of exaggerating the facts of the and
presented counter evidence to the facts of the case.
Such that he did not disclose any private matters
because the evidence for the case were already
public documents. More than that he also stated that
he could not have represented Mrs. Jalandoni in the
entire proceedings since the motion to withdraw
counsel was filed a day before and approved.
The case was transferred to IBP for resolution.
Commissioner Navarro finds the respondent guilty of
violating the Canon of Professional Responsibility and
recommends the suspension of respondent for 6
months. However, IBP Board of Governors reversed
the recommendation and dismissed the case.
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration but
was denied by the Board for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Did respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
The core issues before us now are:
1. whether there existed a conflict of interest
in the cases represented and handled by
respondent, and
2. whether respondent properly withdrew his
services as counsel of record in Civil Case
No. 97-9865.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need for candor,
fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with
their clients. Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly provides:
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is representation of conflicting interests if the
acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously
affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation, to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent
an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance thereof, and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquire in the previous
employment. The first part of the rule refers to cases
in which the opposing parties are present clients
either in the same action or in a totally unrelated
case; the second part pertains to those in which the
adverse party against whom the attorney appears is
his former client in a matter which is related,
directly or indirectly, to the present controversy.
The cases here directly or indirectly involved the
parties’ connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor
Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named as party-
litigant in some of the cases mentioned. The
prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is
very slight; neither is it material that the intention
and motive of the attorney may have been honest.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests,
in the absence of the written consent of all parties
concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects
the lawyer to disciplinary action.
Withdrawal As Counsel In Civil Case No. 97-9865
Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an
attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other
than for sufficient cause is considerably restricted.
Canon 22 of the CPR reads:
Canon 22 – A lawyer shall withdraw his services only
for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.
A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without
the written consent of his client must file a petition for
withdrawal in court.42 He must serve a copy of his
petition upon his client and the adverse party at least
three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise
the court may treat the application as a "mere scrap of
paper."43 Respondent made no such move. He
admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26,
1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approved by
the court on April 28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs.
Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa
because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court,
supposedly in his place.
respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby
found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year, effective upon receipt of this decision, with
a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
A.C. No. 8243               July 24, 2009
ROLANDO B. PACANA, JR., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ, Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant was the Operations Director for Multitel
Communications Corporation (MCC). MCC is an
affiliate company of Multitel International Holdings
Corporation (Multitel). Sometime in July 2002, MCC
changed its name to Precedent Communications
Corporation (Precedent).

Complainant being the assignee of the majority of the

shares of stock of Precedent receive the grunt of the
Multitel investors because of the failure of its
investment schemes. Because of this he sought the
advice of the respondent and the latter provided legal
advice and even prepared substantial document.
Because of this, complainant believed that there is a
lawyer-client relationship despite no formal document
was executed.

The respondent proposed a retainer agreement

however, it remained unsigned because respondent
verbally asked for P100k as acceptance fee and a
15% contingency fee c