Cases Digest

in

Legal Profession
Case Title: San Jose Homeowners Association Inc., as represented by Rebecca V.
Labrador, complainant, vs. Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos, respondent.
Case Number: A.C. No. 5580, June 15, 2005

Facts:

Complainant represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. (SJHAI) filed a disbarment
case against respondent Atty Roberto B Romanillos for representing conflicting interests. The Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended dismissal of the complaint with the admonition that respondent
should observe extra care and diligence in the practice of his profession to uphold its dignity and integrity
beyond reproach. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation.
Another disbarment case was filed against respondent lawyer for allegedly representing conflicting
interests and for using the title “Judge” despite having been found guilty of grave and serious misconduct
in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. Respondent used the title “Judge” in his office letterhead.

The IBP Commissioner imposed upon the respondent a minimum penalty of reprimand to a
maximum penalty of four (4) months suspension and a stern warning for using the title of “Judge” The IBP
Board of Governors modified the decision of the IBP Commissioner and suspended respondent lawyer for
six (6) months considering Respondent’s violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months with a warning that
should he violate his undertaking/promise a more severe penalty shall be imposed against him.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent the penalty imposed upon respondent lawyer is proper.

Ruling:

The Court agreed with the IBP that respondent’s continued use of the title “Judge” violated Rules
1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in deceitful
conduct and from using any misleading statement or claim regarding qualifications or legal services. The
quasi-judicial notice he posted in the billboards referring to himself as a judge is deceiving. It was a clear
attempt to mislead the public into believing that the order was issued in his capacity as a judge when he
was dishonorably stripped of the privilege.

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.
Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in
order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession. To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and
respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering
that, “of all classes and professions, lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law,” it is imperative
that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct
have no place in the legal profession.

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. The Court are mindful that the power
to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, for only the most imperative reasons, and in clear
cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
and as a member of the bar.

This is not respondent’s first infraction as an officer of the court and a member of the legal
profession. He was stripped of his retirement benefits and other privileges in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos.
In A.C. No. 4783, he got off lightly with just an admonition. Considering his previous infractions,
respondent should have adhered to the tenets of his profession with extra fervor and vigilance. He did
not. On the contrary, he manifested undue disrespect to our mandate and exhibited a propensity to
violate the laws. He is thus unfit to discharge the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust and
confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. Hence, respondent lawyer is disbarred and his
name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Case Title: Godofredo Eugalca vs. Atty. Dinna M. Lao, Clerk of Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City
Case Number: AM OCA IPI No. 05-2177-P

Facts:

Godofredo Eugalca charged Atty. Dinna M. Lao with abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming
of a member of the bar and the judiciary. The complaint stemmed from a traffic altercation between
complainant Eugalca, who was driving a yellow Suzuki Multi Cab with plate number GTV-339, and
respondent Lao, who was driving a Honda City bearing plate number XPZ-386. The incident occurred on
March 7, 2005 along the Alabang-Zapote Road. At that time, respondent Lao's son was sitting at the
front passenger side of the car. Respondent allegedly demanded the removal of the front number plate of
the Suzuki when the complaint was unable to present his driver’s license. The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and
respondent Lao be admonished for not immediately returning the number plate. The OCA gave little
weight to complainant's allegations of threatening and abusive conduct on the part of respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and
the judiciary.

Ruling:

It must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required to establish
a respondent's malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence, i.e., that
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
More importantly, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations in his complaint.

Complainant's allegations are self-serving and deserve scant consideration. Other than his
uncorroborated statements, complainant did not present any other evidence to support his accusation that
respondent exhibited abrasive conduct and indeed uttered disrespectful and abusive remarks. This
notwithstanding, respondent is not completely absolved of the charges against her. Respondent did not
deny having taken the license plate of complainant's vehicle to compel complainant to answer for the
damage to her car. Respondent should have availed of the proper remedy by reporting complainant's
traffic violation to the police authorities or filing the appropriate judicial action to recover her claim for
damages. For this conduct which does not befit that of an officer of a court of justice, respondent
deserves admonition since this is respondent's first offense.

The conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with
the heavy burden of responsibility. The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct,
official or otherwise, of the men and women who work therein, from the judge to the lowest of its
personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to
maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
Case Title: Isidra Barrientos, complainant, vs. Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro, respondent.
Case Number: A.C. No. 6408, August 31, 2004

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
respondent Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro for deceit and non-payment of debts under the names of
Isidra Barrientos and Olivia C. Mercado. It was alleged that respondent issued several check in favor of
the complainants for the payment of a pre-existing debt, but the checks bounced due to insufficient funds
thus charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed by the complainants with the City Prosecutor of
Cabanatuan. Respondent asked complainants for the deferment of the criminal charges with the promise
to pay her debts. However, respondent failed to keep her promise and tried to give complainants a title for
a parcel of land in Nueva Ecija, which the complainants discovered to belong to a certain Dra. Helen
Garcia, the sole heir of Victoria Villamar, who merely entrusted said title to respondent pursuant to a
transaction with the Quedancor.

The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) this Office is convinced that respondent Atty.
Elerizza Libiran-Meteoro has committed a glaring violation not only of her oath as a lawyer but also the
dictates of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 which mandates that a worthy member of the Bar must constantly be of
good moral character and unsullied honesty. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two (2) years and meted a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) .
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and prayed that the resolution of the case be deferred and
that she be given another 90 days from said date or until January 19, 2003 to settle whatever balance
remains after proper accounting and presentation of receipts. The Board of Governors of the IBP modified
the penalty and hereby suspended the respondent lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months and
restitution of P84,000.00 to complainant.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

The Court have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of
law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They
are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at
all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include
prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the
values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were
issued in his professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary measures. As the Court
explained in Co vs. Bernardino, the general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and
the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or
private capacity. Where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer’s professional dealings is so
gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his
licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the
office of attorney.

The Court reiterated that membership in the legal profession is a privilege and demands a high
degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by respondent’s
misconduct.
Case Title: Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., requesting exemption from payment of IBP
dues.
Case Number: B.M. No. 1370, May 9, 2005

Facts:

In September 2004, Atty. Arevalo wrote to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) requesting
that he be exempt from paying his IBP dues for the years 1977 to 2005, which dues amounted to
Php12,035. He alleged that compulsory payment of the IBP annual membership dues would be
oppressive to him considering that he had been inactive in the practice of law for those years. He had
been a member of the Philippine Civil Service from 1962 to 1986 and had worked in the USA from 1986
until his retirement in 2003. The IBP denied his request, positing that membership in the IBP is not based
on the actual practice of law. It maintained that there is no rule allowing an exemption from payment of
dues; what was allowed was voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership. It asserted that Atty.
Arevalo should have informed the IBP secretary of his intention to stay abroad so that his membership in
the IBP could be terminated.

Issue:

Whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that
he was inactive in the practice of law.

Ruling:

The rationale for prescribing dues has been explained in the Integration of the Philippine Bar,
thus, for the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that the Court is
attempting to levy a tax. A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while tax
purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an
incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on
an integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
necessarily carries with it the power to impose such exaction. The only limitation upon the State’s power
to regulate the privilege of law is that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The
public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member
resulting from his required payment of the annual dues.

Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is
exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one’s
membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is
engaged in. There is nothing in the law or rules which allow exemption from payment of membership
dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated
Bar of his intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have
been terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.

As abovementioned, the IBP in its comment stated that the IBP Board of Governors is in the
process of discussing the situation of members under inactive status and the nonpayment of their dues
during such inactivity. In the meantime, petitioner is duty bound to comply with his obligation to pay
membership dues to the IBP. As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues. Failure to abide by
any of them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.
Case Title: Omar P. Ali, complainant, vs. Atty. Mosib A. Bubong, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 4018, March 8, 2005

Facts:

Complainat charged respondent Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong with illegal exaction and was found guilty
of grave misconduct while holding the position of Register of Deeds of Marawi City. In said case, which
was initially investigated by the Land Registration Authority (LRA), respondent issued a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2821 in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, Ambobae
Bauduli Datu, Matabae Bauduli Datu, Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola Bauduli Datu; and
manipulating the criminal complaint filed against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the
Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the Baudali Datus are relatives of respondent.

The initial inquiry by the LRA was resolved in favor of respondent. The case was then forwarded
to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review and exonerated respondent of the charges of illegal
exaction and infidelity in the custody of documents. He, however, found respondent guilty of grave
misconduct for his imprudent issuance of TCT No. T-2821 and manipulating the criminal case for violation
of the Anti-Squatting Law instituted against Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and the latter’s co-accused. As a
result of this finding, the DOJ recommended respondent’s dismissal from service.

On the basis of the outcome of the administrative case, complainant is now seeking the
disbarment of respondent. Complainant claimed that it has become obvious that respondent had “proven
himself unfit to be further entrusted with the duties of an attorney” and that he poses a “serious threat to
the integrity of the legal profession.”

Issue:

Whether respondent may be disbarred for grave misconduct committed while he was in the
employ of the government.

Ruling:

The Code of Professional Responsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he
has joined the government service. In fact, by the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules
governing the conduct of lawyers “shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks.” Thus, where a lawyer’s misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect
his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the
bar on such grounds. Although the general rule is that a lawyer who holds a government office may not
be disciplined as a member of the bar for infractions he committed as a government official, he may,
however, be disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct constitutes a violation of his oath a member of the
legal profession.

In the case at bar, respondent’s grave misconduct, as established by the Office of the President
and subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of
his office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the rules governing
land registration for the benefit of his relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not
only to perform the functions of a civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter. It reads that a lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.

Respondent’s conduct manifestly undermined the people’s confidence in the public office he used
to occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge
of the intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
Hence, respondent is hereby disbarred and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Case Title: Marina C. Gonzales, complainant, vs. Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, respondent.
Case Number: A.C. No. 6649, June 21, 2005

Facts:

Complainant Marina C Gonzales filed a disbarment case against Atty Calixto B Ramos for alleged
misconduct in notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale. The complainant alleged that the respondent lawyer
notarized a Deed of Sale where the complainant and her husband, Francisco T. Gonzales, allegedly sold
in favor of the spouses Henry and Mila Gatus a piece of land with a building thereon located at
Paranaque City. The complainant, however, maintained that she and her husband never appeared before
the respondent to acknowledge the Deed of Sale.

The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of
three (3) to six (6) months for failing to act more diligently and prudently when he notarized the subject
documents. It is further recommended that Respondent’s commission as notary public be suspended for
a period of six (6) months. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings of the Commission on
Bar Discipline but modified its recommendation that due to respondent’s failure to act more diligently and
prudently when he notarized the documents, his commission as notary public is hereby SUSPENDED for
six (6) months with a Warning that a repetition of the same or similar negligent act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the procedural requirements in notarizing a document.

Ruling:

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the
acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A
notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary public,
is among others, to guard against any illegal deed.

By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute
Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal
function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due
execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of
evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public,
in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to
authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the
public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which
are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.

The respondent’s act of notarizing the document despite the non-appearance of one of the
signatories should not be countenanced. His conduct, if left unchecked, is fraught with dangerous
possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the
public accord to notarized documents. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the
performance of his functions as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of law.

As a lawyer, respondent breached the Code of Professional Responsibility. By notarizing the

questioned deed, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He also committed
falsehood and misled or allowed the Court to be misled by any artifice.

We find the penalty recommended by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP to be in full
accord with recent jurisprudence. Wherefore, for breach of the Notarial Law and Code of Professional
Responsibility, the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Calixto B. Ramos, if still existing, is revoked
effective immediately and he is disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2)
years. He is also suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately.
Case Title: Epifania Q Bantolo, complainant vs Atty Egmedio B Castllon, Jr., respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6589, December 19,2005

Facts:

Epifania Q. Bantolo charged Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon, Sr. of violating the lawyer’s oath and
Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court for having (i) wittingly or willingly performed, promoted, or
sued any groundless, false or unlawful suit, and or giving aid or consent to the same; (ii) delayed the just
execution of the suit without legal or justifiable cause and employing illegal means and unlawful force to
do so; (iii) blatantly showed disrespect to the Regional Trial Court by disobeying its lawful orders; and (iv)
for employing unlawful and illegal means to attain his ends.

According to complainant, respondent is the lawyer and one of the defendants in a case involving
a parcel of land in Valderrama, Antique. The case was decided in favor of the complainant and her co-
plaintiffs, and thereafter, a writ of execution was issued, by virtue of which, defendants were ejected from
the property. However, respondents, with his co-defendants subsequently entered the disputed property
and harvested the palay planted therein.

Finding however, that the penalty of disbarment would be reasonable under the circumstances,
the Commission of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended instead the penalty of suspension
for one month.

Issue:

Whether respondent lawyer violated his lawyer’s oath for failure to follow the order of the court in
his civil case.

Ruling:

Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, and this deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for
contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. Such is the situation in the instant case. We need not
delve into the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the contempt case against
respondents. Suffice it to say that respondent lawyer’s commission of the contumacious acts have been
shown and proven, and eventually punished by the lower courts.

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. Thus, while he owes his entire devotion to
the interest and causes of his client he must ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason and common
sense, always aware that he is an instrument of truth and justice. More importantly, as an officer of the
court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of administering justice, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to its
processes. Thus, any act on his part which tends visibly to obstruct, pervert or impede and degrade the
administration of justice constitutes professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action
against him.

Respondent’s defiance of the writ of execution is a brazen display of disrespect of the very
system which he has sworn to support. Likewise, his various attempts to delay and address issues
inconsequential to the disbarment proceedings had necessarily caused delay, and even threatened to
obstruct the investigation being conducted by the IBP.

Nevertheless, the supreme penalty of disbarment is not proper in the instant case. The rule is that
disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character
of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring lawyer from
the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers when the evidence calls for it, it will also not disbar him where a
lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. In the case of respondent, the Court finds that a
month’s suspension from the practice of law will provide him with enough time to purge himself of his
misconduct and will give him the opportunity to retrace his steps back to the virtuous path of the legal
profession.
Case Title: Natasha Hueysuwan-Florido, complainant, vs.
Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, respondent.
Case Number: A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004

Facts:

This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C.
Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer “by
manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution/Order.” In her
Complaint-Affidavit, Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of
respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living separately from each
other. They have two children – namely, Kamille Nicole H. Florido, five years old, and James Benedict H.
Florido, Jr., three years old – both of whom are in complainant’s custody. Complainant filed a case for the
annulment of her marriage with respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 23122, before the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City, Branch 24. Meanwhile, there is another case related to the complaint for annulment of
marriage which is pending before the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 entitled,
“James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et al.”

Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the
alleged Court of Appeals’ resolution. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint alleging that
respondent violated his attorney’s oath by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious Court of
Appeals’ Resolution in and outside a court of law. Furthermore, respondent abused and misused the
privileged granted to him by the Supreme Court to practice law in the country.

The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) years with a warning that another offense of this nature will result
in his disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of
the Commission with the modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six (6) years.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt
to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Ruling:

Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be
devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due
recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a client’s cause, it
must never be at the expense of the truth.

Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in
describing complainant and her relatives. A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic
but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The lawyer’s
arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be
of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling complainant, a “sly
manipulator of truth” as well as a “vindictive congenital prevaricator”, hardly measures to the sobriety of
speech demanded of a lawyer.

Respondent’s actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross
misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court which states that disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.- A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
without authority to do so.

Considering the attendant circumstances, the Court agree with the recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law. However, the Court
find that the period of six years is too harsh a penalty. Instead, suspension for the lesser period of two
years, which we deem commensurate to the offense committed, is hereby imposed on respondent.
Case Title: Edison G Cheng, complainant vs Atty Alexander M Agravante, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6183, March 23, 2004

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Alexander M. Agravante served as counsel for The Rogemson Co., Inc.
(hereinafter, Rogemson) in a case filed against it before the National Labor Relations Commission’s
(NLRC) in Davao City by its former employee, a certain Beaver Martin B. Barril. The NLRC rendered a
decision in favor of the complainant, and ordered Rogemson to pay Barril separation pay and backwages.
A copy of said decision was received by respondent’s law office on September 8, 1998. However,
respondent filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC only on September 22, 1998. Consequently,
the NLRC dismissed Rogemson’s appeal in a Resolution dated May 27, 1999.

The complainants terminated the services of Atty. Agravante. Through their new lawyers,
complainants wrote Atty. Agravante, demanding that they be compensated for the pecuniary damages
they had suffered as a result of his negligence. Commissioner Dulay submitted his Report recommending
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) months with an admonition that a
similar offense would be dealt with more severely. When it appeared that Atty. Agravante had no intention
of responding to their letter, Edison G. Cheng, General Manager of Rogemson, filed an affidavit-complaint
with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) months. The IBP Board of Governors approved the report
and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer neglected to protect the rights of his client.

Ruling:

Before lawyers are admitted to the bar, they must first solemnly swear to do no falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any in court. This oath, to which all lawyers subscribe in solemn agreement to
dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be
forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that every lawyer must
uphold and keep inviolable at all times. This duty is expressed in general terms in the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court. It is codified further in the following rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that
a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice.

In the case at bar, respondent lawyer lied when he said he received the Labor Arbiter’s decision
on September 10, 1998 in order to make it appear that his Memorandum of Appeal was filed on time. It
cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe honesty at
all times, especially before the courts. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth, and respondent lawyer has
clearly failed to live up to this duty. Moreover, the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the
defense of his rights. He must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or
withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He must present every remedy or defense
within the authority of the law in support of his client’s cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the
full discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may
displease the judge or the general public.

In sum, respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully and well as to
protect the rights and interests of his client. Hence, the Court suspended respondent lawyer from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year and is fined in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00).
Case Title: Quirino Tomlin II, complainant vs Atty Salvador N Moya II, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006

Facts:

Respondent lawyer failed to pay his P600,000.00 personal loan from complainant. He issued post
dated checks to secure payment of his loan. Unfortunately, all checks were dishonored. Consequently,
complainant filed seven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against the respondent lawyer.
He also filed an administrative case against the erring lawyer. As a defense, respondent lawyer moved
from dismissal instituted against him. The Commission on Bar Discipline denied the motion to dismiss for
being a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 3 of its Rules of Procedure. Respondent’s motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied. The IBP noted that respondent failed to file an answer and/or
position paper despite several requests for extension, in disregard of the orders of the IBP. Moreover, it
was observed that the pending criminal action against respondent does not pose a prejudicial question to
the resolution of the issues in the present administrative case. Hence, the IBP recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent can be held administratively liable for his failure to settle his personal
loan.

Ruling:

Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they
are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. In so doing, the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
Lawyers may be disciplined – whether in their professional or in their private capacity – for any conduct
that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his
profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment
because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the
continuance of such privilege.

In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complainant but offered
no justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several demands, both verbal
and written, but respondent just ignored them and even made himself scarce. Although he acknowledged
his financial obligations to the complainant, respondent never offered nor made arrangements to pay his
debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless
checks, an act constituting gross misconduct. Respondent must be reminded that it is his duty as a lawyer
to faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. As part of
his duties, he must promptly pay his financial obligations.

Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers
belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal
cases. The burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in an administrative
case, only preponderance of evidence is required. Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a
prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings.

Verily, respondent’s failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without justifiable reason
manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities. Respondent should be reminded that the IBP has
disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his membership therein. The Supreme Court affirmed the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years by the respondent as recommended by the
IBP commensurate under the circumstances.
Case Title: Aida Poblete and Hon. Reuben P Dela Cruz, petitioners vs
Court of Appeals and William Lu, respondents
Case Number: G.R. No. 128859 June 23, 2005

Facts:

Petitioner Aida Poblete was charged with Estafa under paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal
Code by private complainant William Lu. In 1999, petitioner was acquitted by the Regional Trial Court of
Marikina. On June 24, 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for grant of bail for petitioner on
the ground that it had become moot and academic, owing to the acquittal in 1999 of the petitioner.  
As narrated in the Decision, it was only in 2004 that the Court learned of the acquittal of Poblete in 1999,
after the transmittal by the Marikina City RTC to this Court of the records of the said criminal case.
Considering that the subject matter of the petition related to the grant of bail to Poblete, this petition could
have been immediately dismissed as far back as 1999, had the Court been informed of the acquittal of
the petitioner. Unfortunately, neither the petitioner nor private respondent bothered to inform the Court of
the fact of acquittal.  Hence, the Court resolved in its Decision to direct the parties’ respective counsels,
Atty. Roberto T. Neri for the petitioner, and Atty. Arturo E. Balbastro for the private respondent, to explain
why they should not be held liable for indirect contempt for such failure to inform the Court.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of indirect contempt.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found Atty Roberto T Neri guilty of indirect contempt. The Court held that
Atty. Neri, counsel for petitioner, to a higher standard of responsibility than Atty. Balbastro, counsel for the
private respondent.  Indubitably, Atty. Balbastro could have immensely aided the Court had he promptly
informed of the acquittal of the case, yet it was not his primary responsibility to undertake such action.
Accordingly, Atty. Balbastro’s explanation is deemed satisfactory under these premises.

Atty. Neri manifested that he had forgotten about the present petition, an admission that does not
speak too well of his professional work ethic.  Still, whatever extenuating effect this excuse may offer is
extinguished by the particular circumstances of this case.  The acquittal of his client occurred only two
years after the filing of this petition. Two years is not a significantly long span of time for Atty. Neri to have
forgotten about his pending petition before this Court. There is no good reason why he should not have
notified the Court of his client’s acquittal immediately after that fact. Even worse, Atty. Neri filed before
this Court a Notice of Change of Address which was dated on 20 October 1999, or just five (5) days after
his client was acquitted. Certainly, Atty. Neri could not have already forgotten about his client’s acquittal
just five days earlier, and was probably even still flushed with the throes of victory.  This circumstance
spirits away his defense beyond the realm of excusable. It does not also escape this Court’s attention that
in the litigation of this petition before this Court, Atty. Neri had previously been subjected to disciplinary
action by this Court owing to inexcusable neglect. 

Indeed, under the ethical standards the Court requires lawyers to observe, Atty. Neri’s liability is
patent.  Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is obliged to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and correspondingly,
precluded from unduly delaying a case. Under appropriate circumstances, these violations may likewise
constitute grounds for indirect contempt, as they are in this case. Any improper conduct tending to impede
the administration of justice is cause for punishment for indirect contempt. A person adjudged guilty of
indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months or both.  Under the circumstances, a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)
would be appropriate.
Case Title: John Siy Lim, complainant vs Atty Carmelito A Montano, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6971 February 23, 2006

Facts:

Complainant John Siy Lim filed for disbarment against respondent lawyer Atty. Carmelito A.
Montano for filing the complaint in Civil Case No. C-19928 out of malice, pointing out that that it involves
“the same parties, the same causes of action and relief prayed for as that of Civil Case No. C-14542.
Thus, the complainant prayed that the respondent be “disbarred and/or suspended from the practice of
law for his gross misconduct.” In his Comment, respondent lawyer denied the allegations against him.
While he admitted that he filed Civil Case No. C-19928 as counsel for the plaintiff Spouses Tomas See
Tuazon and Natividad See Deecho, he claimed that it was not filed with malicious intent. Moreover, while
the new case involved the same party, it was for a different cause of action and relief, and, as such, the
principle of res judicata did not apply. The complainant stressed that the respondent was guilty of forum
shopping.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent lawyer guilty of misconduct. It was
recommended that respondent be meted a two months’ suspension from the practice of law. The Board of
Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a resolution adopting said Report and
Recommendation with the modification that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer can be held administratively liable for forum shopping.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court agreed that respondent is administratively liable. In this case, it is clear that
respondent is guilty of forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum,
a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important
factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing
of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s processes and
improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious
petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to
disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an
attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be
just and are consistent with truth and honor.

The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By
his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s
mandate “to delay no man for money or malice.” Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to
assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice contravenes such lawyer’s duty. Indeed, the Court has time and again warned
not to resort to forum shopping for this practice clogs the court dockets.

While the Court ruled that the respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, the Court also
noted that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution, to be imposed only in a clear case
of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and
as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish
the end desired. Wherefore, for violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent
Atty. Carmelito A. Montano is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. He is
sternly warned that any future violation of his duties as a lawyer will be dealt with more severely.

Case Title: Godofredo C Pineda, complainant vs Atty Teddy C Macapagal, respondent

Case Number: A.C. 6026 November 29, 2005

Facts:

Complainant Godofredo C. Pineda prayed for the disbarment of respondent, Atty. Teddy C.
Macapagal, for alleged gross negligence in handling Civil Case No. 23744 for abatement of nuisance with
damages, and Criminal Case No. 2905-76 for libel, and for deliberately withholding information regarding
the status of the said two cases. He alleged that respondent was absent 11 times out of the total 15
scheduled hearings in Civil Case No. 23744, despite due notice in open court. As regards the criminal
case for libel, complainant alleged that when the decision convicting him was promulgated, he instructed
respondent to file an appeal. While respondent filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, he
failed to submit an appeal brief, hence, the lower court’s decision became final and executory.
Respondent claimed that in the civil case for abatement of nuisance with damages, he tried to settle the
case amicably and to help the parties settle their differences out of court; that the order of dismissal was
without prejudice and it can be reinstated within reasonable time; that complainant was not harmed when
the case was dismissed without prejudice.

The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. In the Report dated October 22, 2004, the investigating
commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The
commissioner noted that indeed, respondent was remiss in his responsibilities as a lawyer. It appears
that respondent attended only three out of the total 15 scheduled hearings. His negligence was further
compounded by his failure to inform complainant of the dismissal of the case. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the report of the investigating commissioner but modified the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law from one year to one month.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer committed gross negligence in handling the civil cases of his
client.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent lawyer guilty of violating his Lawyer’s Oath and Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and hereby suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one year, with a warning that commission of similar act or acts will be dealt with more
severely. The Court held that a member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his
genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and exertion of his utmost
learning and ability. Public interest demands that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability to preserve
his client’s cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. A
lawyer has the duty to give adequate attention and time to every case he accepts. A lawyer impliedly
warrants that he possesses the necessary diligence, learning and skill to handle each case. He should
exert his best judgment and exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense
of his client’s cause.

In the present case, records show that respondent was negligent in handling the civil case which
led to its dismissal. In the libel suit, respondent failed to file an appeal brief, hence, the lower court’s
decision convicting complainant of libel became final and executory. The failure of a lawyer to file an
appeal brief certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.

Further, respondent lacked candor in dealing with his client. He not only omitted to apprise him of
the status of the cases; worse, he avoided any meeting with the complainant. Failure of a lawyer to
communicate to his client important matters of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his
requests for information is tantamount to unjustifiable denial of his right to be fully informed of the
developments in and the status of the case. The relationship of a lawyer-client being one of confidence,
there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed as to the mode and manner in which his
interests are being defended. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.

Indeed, it is the duty of a lawyer to encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement. However, the same must be done in a manner that will not cause prejudice
to the other party. In this case, respondent’s failure to attend several hearings on the pretext that he was
exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the contending parties, resulted in the dismissal
of complainant’s suit. The Court found the penalty of suspension of one year recommended by the
investigating commissioner commensurate under the circumstances.

Case Title: Maria Elena Moreno, complainant vs Atty Ernesto Araneta, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 1109 April 27, 2005

Facts:

Respondent Atty Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which
amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because the account against
which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended the suspension from the
practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor C.
Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of
the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report regarding various aspects of
the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the
respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a commercial
document.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a
closed account.

Ruling:

The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that
he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check
in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel,
we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year’s suspension from
the practice of law, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant
case, however, herein respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru
falsification of a commercial document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been
indefinitely suspended.

Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case
likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have
long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a crime involving
moral turpitude. As the Court ruled in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,
“the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final
but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the
privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent
has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.”

Case Title: Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. Victor V. Deciembre

Case Number: A.C. No.5365. April 27, 2005

Facts:

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan.
After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000
with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa
against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty.
Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:

Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault.

Ruling:

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. “A
lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of
law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he
has sworn to be a fearless crusader.” By taking the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of
truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice.
Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in
order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of
Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks
by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite respondent’s full knowledge that
the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of
falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful
and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied
by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of
the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two
years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is
reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome.
Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.

Case Title: Bel-Air Transit Service Corporation (Dollar Rent-a-car), complainant vs

 Atty Esteban Y Mendoza, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6107 January 31, 2005

Facts:

Respondent Atty Esteban Y Mendoza was charged with grossly immoral and unethical conduct
for refusing to pay his account with the complainant Bel-Air Transit Service Corporation (Dollar Rent-a-
car). According to the complainant, the respondent’s refusal to pay for the complainant’s car rental
services constitutes deceit and grossly immoral and unethical conduct, which violates the Canons of
Professional Ethics and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on Human Relations. The complainant
further alleged that this is a sufficient ground for the respondent’s disbarment, considering that the
respondent even ignored the complainant’s repeated demands for payment. In his Comment, the
respondent denied the allegations against him. He averred that it was the law firm of Martinez & Mendoza
which engaged the services of the complainant, and that all the trips undertaken were for an out-of-town
engagement in Lucena City. To support his claim, the respondent incorporated a letter addressed to the
Chief Operations Manager of the complainant requesting for the latter’s services. The respondent
concluded that the complainant did not have a cause of action for disbarment against him, as he was
merely exercising his right to contest its questionable billings.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. During the hearing, the counsel for the complainant manifested that although the
respondent had already paid his account, such payment was made only after the court had already
decided the case against the respondent and after the filing of a motion for execution, which the
respondent admitted. Thus, the parties agreed during the hearing that as far as the monetary obligation
was concerned, the said judgment had already been satisfied by the respondent. The parties were then
required to file their respective position papers, which were basically reiterations of their previous
allegations. It was, thus, recommended that the respondent be admonished and advised to be more
forthright in the handling of his monetary obligations in the future. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, considering that there
was no evidence to show that the respondent had acted with deceit in not paying for the questioned
obligation.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of grossly immoral and unethical conduct.

Ruling:

It is settled that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity
and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. A lawyer must, at all times, uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Indeed, a lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, a
member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity in the legal profession.
Thus, lawyers must promptly pay their financial obligations. Their conduct must always reflect the values
and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In this case, the respondent refused to pay for the services of the complainant, constraining the
latter to file charges in order to collect what was due to it under the contracts, in which the respondent
himself was the signatory. Verily, the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar,
and should be admonished for his actuations.

Case Title: Eduardo L Nuñez et.al., complainant vs Atty Arturo B Astorga, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6131, February 28, 2005

Facts:

Respondent Atty Arturo B Astorga was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He was
fined P2,000.00. Respondent lawyer was supposed to have been issued a Special Power of Attorney of
the late spouse Nuñez. He was supposed to have been appointed as administrator of the estate of the
spouses. Without any court approval, respondent lawyer was able to dispose of a property of the estate.
For this reason, the heirs filed a criminal actions against respondent lawyer. Upon learning this, he said to
the heirs “ipaposil ta ka.” The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of serious
misconduct and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer can be held administratively liable for using foul language.

Ruling:

The legal profession exacts a high standard from its members. Lawyers shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law. Neither shall they, whether in public or in
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. However, the
penalties of disbarment and suspension are severe forms of disciplinary action and must be imposed with
great caution. The allegations in the Complaint were not substantiated by clear evidence; they were bereft
of convincing proof of respondent’s deceit and gross misconduct.

Under Section 27 of Rule 138, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for
disbarment or suspension. Suspension or disbarment may follow as a matter of course, upon a finding
that the crime a lawyer has been convicted of involves moral turpitude. By such conviction, such lawyer
has become unfit to uphold the administration of justice and is no longer possessed of good moral
character. In the present case, however, while respondent has been charged with several criminal cases
involving moral turpitude, he has yet to be convicted of any of them. Without clear and convincing
evidence that he committed acts that allegedly constituted serious misconduct, the mere existence of
pending criminal charges cannot be a ground for disbarment or suspension of respondent. To hold
otherwise would open the door to harassment of attorneys through the mere filing of numerous criminal
cases against them.

While the Court is not convinced that complainants have clearly and convincingly proven the
charges of serious misconduct, we do, however, note the use of offensive language in respondent’s
pleadings. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper. A lawyer’s language may be forceful, but should always be dignified;
emphatic, but respectful as befitting an advocate. Arguments, whether written or oral, should be gracious
to both court and opposing counsel and should use such language as may be properly addressed by one
gentleperson to another. Hence, respondent lawyer is acquitted of the charge of serious misconduct, but
is held liable for conduct unbecoming an attorney and is fined two thousand pesos.

Case Title: Atty Ireneo L Torres and Mrs Natividad Celestino, complainants vs
 Atty Jose Concepcion Javier, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 5910, September 21, 2005

Facts:

Respondent Atty Jose Concepcion Javier was charged for malpractice, gross misconduct in office
as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyer’s oath. Complainants aver that respondent violated the
attorney’s oath that he “obey the laws” and “do no falsehood,” the Code of Professional Responsibility
particularly Rule 10.01 thereof, and Rule 138, specifically paragraph 20 (f) of the Rules of Court for
directly pointing to them as the persons who intentionally committed the robbery at the UEFA office, and
for citing the Andersen/Enron case which is irrelevant, impertinent, and immaterial to the subject of quasi-
judicial inquiry.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for using inappropriate and offensive remarks in
his pleadings. According to the IBP, respondent admitted that he was angry when he wrote the
Manifestation…and alleged that Complainant implicated his wife in a burglary. Moreover, Respondent
alleged that Complainant has been “engaged in intimidating and harassing” his wife. Accordingly, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded.

Issue:

Whether or not the penalty imposed by the IBP upon the respondent lawyer is proper.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found that the Report of the IBP faulting respondent is well-taken but not its
recommendation to reprimand him. It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of
public policy, utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings,
petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject
inquiry, however false or malicious they may be. The requirements of materiality and relevancy are
imposed so that the protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of justice
may not be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be gratified. If the pleader goes
beyond the requirements of the statute and alleges an irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his
privilege. A matter, however, to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in
relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy or
impropriety. That matter alleged in a pleading need not be in every case material to the issues presented
by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the
controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.

In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language must be dignified and
choice of language is important in the preparation of pleadings. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairnesss and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. A lawyer shall not, in
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Hence, for
employing offensive and improper language in his pleadings, respondent Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.

Case Title: Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao, complainant vs Atty Virgil R Castro, respondent

Case Number: A.C. No. 6396, October 25, 2005

Facts:

Complainant Atty. Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. She filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint against respondent Atty. Virgil R. Castro for
Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Respondent, who is a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva
Vizcaya Chapter, was following up a case with the complainant. The complainant was not able to
accommodate the request of the respondent lawyer because she noticed that he is not the counsel of
record. Respondent lawyer used invective words against the complainant. After failure to appear during
the hearing scheduled by the IBP, respondent filed a Manifestation stating the reason for his non-
appearance and expressed his public apology to the complainant. Complainant filed a Manifestation
expressing her desire not to appear on the next hearing date in view of respondent’s public apology,
adding that respondent personally and humbly asked for forgiveness which she accepted. The IBP
recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that any other complaint for breach of his
professional duties shall be dealt with more severely. The IBP submitted to the Supreme Court a Notice of
Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent lawyer acts merits only a reprimand from the IBP.

Ruling:

The Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, now shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to
uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other
and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed
should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent had apologized to the complainant and the
latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his
actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they
repent afterwards. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words uttered cannot be
taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions. The highest reward that can be
bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren. This esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily
created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of sharp contexts and thrives despite conflicting
interest. It emanates solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable performance of
professional duty

Case Title: Valeriana U Dalisay, complainant vs Atty Melanio Mauricio Jr, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 5655, April 22, 2005

Facts:

Impressed by the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of respondent Atty Melanio Mauricio Jr.,
complainant engaged his services as counsel. Respondent lawyer demanded an acceptance fee of
P25,000.00 as filing fees during the initial meeting. During the subsequent consultation, respondent
lawyer demanded additional professional fees of P90,000.00 and P3,000.00 as appearance fee. He
promised to give her discount if she paid in case. Complainant was able to raise some cash and paid
respondent lawyer a total of P56,000.00. Despite recipt of such amounts, respondent lawyer failed to
appropriately represent complainant prompting her to terminate his services. Despite repeated demands,
respondent lawyer failure to restore the P56,000.00 demanded by the complainant. The Integrated Bar of
the Philippines recommended that the complaint against respondent lawyer be dismissed and the
respondent be required to refund the amount of P56,000.00 to the complainant within two (2) months from
receipt hereof.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty malpractice and gross misconduct.

Ruling:

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the body of rules governing the
conduct of every member of the Bar in this jurisdiction, provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. A Lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states that a lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Also, respondent’s Attorney’s Oath declares that respondent shall impose upon himself the
sacred duty, among others, that he will not delay any man for money or malice, and will conduct himself
as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to courts as well as
to his clients. A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts
and ability to protect his client’s case, for his unwavering loyalty to his client likewise serves the ends of
justice. Indeed, the entrusted privilege of every lawyer to practice law carries with it his corresponding
duties, not only to his client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.

Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “A lawyer shall charge only
fair and reasonable fees.” There is, however, no hard and fast rule which will serve as guide in
determining what is or what is not a reasonable fee that must be determined from the facts of each case.
The power to determine the reasonableness or the unconscionable character of a lawyer’s fee is a matter
falling within the regulatory prerogative of the Court. Hence, the Supreme Court found respondent lawyer
guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for a period for six
(6) months and ordered him to restore complainant the full amount of P56,000.00.

Case Title: Northwestern University, Inc., and Ben A. Nicolas, complainants vs.
 Atty. Macario D. Arquillo, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6632, August 2, 2005

Facts:

Atty. Macario D. Arquillo represented opposing parties in a case before the National Labor
Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch in San Fernando, La Union. Herein, complainants
accused Atty. Arquillo of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and/or violation of his oath as attorney by
representing conflicting interests. The case was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-
Commission on Bar Discipline which found Atty. Arquillo guilty of the charge and recommended a penalty
of suspension for 6 months. The governors of the IBP increased the penalty for two (2) years.

Issue:

Whether or not the acts of the respondent lawyer merits his suspension from the practice of law.

Ruling:

The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty
in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. Corollary to this duty, lawyers shall not represent
conflicting interests, except with all the concerned clients’ written consent, given after a full disclosure of
the facts. When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties, there is a conflict of interests, the
existence of which is determined by three separate tests: (1) when, in representation of one client, a
lawyer is required to fight for an issue or claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2)
when the acceptance of the new retainer will require an attorney to perform an act that may injuriously
affect the first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to use against the first one any knowledge
acquired through their professional connection; or (3) when the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of an attorney’s duty to give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty. An attorney cannot
represent adverse interests. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyer’s
representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper. The proscription applies when the conflicting
interests arise with respect to the same general matter, however slight such conflict may be. It applies
even when the attorney acts from honest intentions or in good faith. In accordance with previous rulings
from this court Atty. Arquillo is suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.

Case Title: Elesio C Pormento, Sr., complainant vs Atty Alias A Pontevedra, respondent
Case Title: A.C. No. 5128, March 31, 2005

Facts:

Respondent Atty Alias A Pontevedra was accused by his client, complainant Elesio C. Pormento
Sr., for deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim on a parcel of land. Despite
receipt of the order of dismissal, respondent lawyer refused to institute an action for the recovery of the
subject property. Complainant contended that respondent is guilty of malpractice and misconduct by
representing clients with conflicting interests and should be disbarred by reason thereof.

Respondent argued that he honestly believes that there exists no conflict between his present
and former clients’ interests as the cases he handled for these clients are separate and distinct from each
other. He further contended that he took up the cases filed by complainant against the accused for
humanitarian considerations. Respondent also denied complainant’s allegation that he did not inform the
complainant of the trial court’s order dismissing the latter’s counterclaim

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation. The IBP found respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for
one month. In a resolution, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to annulled and set aside the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and instead approved the dismissal of the complaint
for lack of merit.

Issue:

Whether or not the dismissal by the IBP Board of Governors of the complaint against respondent
lawyer is proper.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court berated the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors for
reversing the findings of the investigating commissioner without citing any reason for not adopting the
investigator’s recommendation. According to Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts. Corollary to this, Canon 21 of the same Code enjoins a lawyer to
preserve the confidences and secrets of his clients even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Rule 21.02, Canon 21 specifically requires 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 full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto. In addition,
Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states that it is the duty of a lawyer at the time of retainer to
disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties and any interest in or connection
with the controversy, which might influence the client in the selection of counsel.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned

given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting
interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client
requires him to oppose. The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his
secrets or confidences forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in
matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.

In the present case, the Court found no conflict of interests when respondent represented herein
complainant’s nephew and other members of his family in the ejectment case, filed by herein complainant
against them. However, the Court found conflict of interests in respondent’s representation of herein
complainant and his subsequent employment as counsel of the accused. However, after a reading of the
said transcript, the Court found no direct evidence to prove that respondent took advantage of any
information that he may have been acquired from complainant and used the same in the defense of his
clients. Nonetheless, be that as it may, it cannot be denied that when respondent was the counsel of
complainant, he became privy to the documents and information that complainant possessed with respect
to the said parcel of land.

The rule is settled that the prohibition against representation of conflicting interests applies
although the attorney’s intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith. Moreover, the fact
that the conflict of interests is remote or merely probable does not make the prohibition inoperative. Thus,
the Court found respondent guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

Case Title: Felicitas S Quiambao, complainant vs Atty Nestor A Bamba, respondent

Case Number: A.C. No. 6708, August 25, 2005

Facts:

Complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao charged respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba with violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests when the latter filed a case
against her while he was at that time representing her in another case, and for committing other acts of
disloyalty and double-dealing. The complainant was the former president and managing director of Allied
Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned corporation engaged in providing security and
investigation services. She averred that she procured the legal services of the respondent not only for the
corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal case.

After she resigned as AIB president, the respondent filed on behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin
and damages against her for the purpose of recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a
service vehicle. This he did without withdrawing as counsel of record in the ejectment case, which was
then still pending. Complainant, further charges the respondent with acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.
She averred that the respondent even proposed to her that she organize her own security agency
(QRMSI), causing her to resign as president of AIB, with the respondent as a “silent partner”.

For his part, the respondent claimed that the ejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated
cases involving different issues and parties and, therefore, the privileged information which might have
been gathered from one case would have no use in the other. The investigating commissioner of the IBP
found the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests and recommended that the respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
investigating commissioner’s report and recommendation, but reduced the penalty from one year to a
stern reprimand.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in

contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.

Ruling:

Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-
client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and
strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the
highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid
the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.

The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that
the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the
other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to
the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of
the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided
fidelity to both clients.

The respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to
present any written consent of the complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. While the complainant lacks personality to question the alleged
conflict of interests on the part of the respondent in serving both security agencies, we cannot just turn a
blind eye to respondent’s act. It must be noted that the proscription against representation of conflicting
interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter
however slight the adverse interest may be. It applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer’s private
activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity. In the process of determining
whether there is a conflict of interest, an important criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict.
Hence, the Court found the respondent guilty of serious misconduct for representing conflicting interests
and hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

Case Title: Erlinda K Ilusorio-Bildner, petitioner vs Atty Luis K Lokin Jr. and the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, respondent
Case Title: A.C. No. 6554, December 14,2005

Facts:

Erlinda K. Illusorio-Bildner, petitioner alleged that her father, the late Potenciano Ilusorio (Ilusorio),
engaged the services of the law office of Liwanag Raval Pilando Suplico and Lokin to represent him in the
Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0009, “Republic of the Philippines v. Jose L. Africa, et al.,” of which
Ilusorio was one of the defendants.

In that civil case, the Republic was claiming, among other properties, shareholdings in Philippine
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation
(PHILCOMSAT). Respondent, together with Attorneys Demaree Raval and Salvador Hizon, actively
handled the case for Ilusorio.

While the case was pending, Ilusorio, with the assistance of the law firm of Raval and Lokin,
entered into a Compromise Agreement with the Republic with approval of the Sandiganbayan constituted
the full, comprehensive and final settlement of claims of the parties. Thru alleged manipulations of
respondent, a stockholder’s meeting allowed the election of new directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT
causing injury to the complainant. Complainant said that through the aid of their counsel, they lost their
representation in the company.

Ilusorio, had earlier filed with the IBP a disbarment complaint against respondent. However, on
account of the death of Ilusorio and the failure of his children, and petitioner, to establish their qualification
to substitute for him, his complaint was dismissed. The dismissal having explicitly stated that it was
without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint by Ilusorio’s children or any person who knows of
respondent’s unethical acts, petitioner contends that her present complaint is not barred by such
dismissal.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found merit in petitioner’s complaint and recommended that
respondent lawyer be suspended for three months. However, the IBP Board of Governors set aside the
recommendation of IBP Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner now filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty Lokin Jr. violated the Canon 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

Even granting arguendo that the earlier resolution “constitutes res judicata with respect to the
finding that Petitioner does not possess personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances for which
Respondent is sought to be administratively liable,” personal knowledge is not a requisite for filing a
disbarment complaint. Clearly, personal knowledge is required, not of the complainant, but of her
witnesses, if there are any. Oddly enough, the quotation of the same provision by the Investigating
Commissioner who dismissed the earlier disciplinary case against respondent omitted the phrase “any
person,” making it appear that complainants must have personal knowledge of the facts they allege.

The ruling in Navarro vs. Meneses III (285 SCRA 56 [1998]) bears reiteration. The argument of
respondent that complainant has no legal personality to sue him is unavailing, Section 1, Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the Supreme Court moto proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the
verified complaint of any person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients
nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrong doing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of
the charges. The evidence submitted before the Commission on Bar Discipline suffered to sustain its
resolution and recommended sanctions.

Hence, respondent lawyer is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.

Case Title: Daniel Mortera et.al., complainants vs Atty Renato B Pagatpatan, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 4562, June 15, 2005
Facts:

The Morteras sued their mother, Renato C. Aguilar and one Philip Arnold Palmer Bradfield for the
rescission of a contract of sale. They secured judgment under which Aguilar was to pay them P155,000
for the property.

On April 15, 1994, Atty Renato Pagatpatan made a secret agreement with Aguilar, wherein he
accepted P150,000 from the latter as partial payment of the judgment sum, then deposited the money in
his personal bank account without the knowledge of complainants. Respondent adamantly refuses to
surrender the money to complainants, despite the successive Orders of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals.

Respondent, in his comment admits his secret agreement with and receipt of the money from
Aguilar, interposing as his defense the fact that the complainants and their mother owed him the money
he appropriated as professional fees for services previously rendered.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer has violated Canon 16 of Professional Responsibility of

lawyers

Ruling:

Respondent’s responsibility to the complainants is unequivocally stated in Canons 15 and 16 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. The four rules governing this situation were: he owed candor to
his clients; he was bound to account for whatever money he received for and from them; as a lawyer, he
was obligated to keep his own money separate from that of his clients; and, although he was entitled to a
lien over the funds in order to satisfy his lawful fees, he was also bound to give prompt notice to his
clients of such liens and to deliver the funds to them upon demand or when due.

In Aldovino v. Pujalte, the Supreme Court held that “failure to return the money of the complainants
upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on
him. His act of holding on to their money without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of
integrity and propriety. He was clinging to something not his to which he had no right”. As a penalty for
his infraction, Atty. Pujalte was suspended for a year.

However, in the more recent case of de Guzman Buado and Lising v. Layag a much heavier penalty
of indefinite suspension was given. In imposing upon Layag the penalty of indefinite suspension, the
Court En Banc considered his years of experience as a lawyer, his ignorance of the law, specifically the
Civil Code, and his violation of not one but three Canons. A one-year suspension seems too lenient for a
number of reasons. Clearly, the respondent’s actuations were thoroughly tainted with bad faith, deceit and
utter contempt of his sworn duty as a lawyer. Thus, a heavier penalty than a mere one-year suspension is
definitely called for. The Supreme Court found respondent liable for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.

Case Title: Luciano S Hernandez, Jr., complainant vs Atty Jose C Go, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 1526, January 31, 2005
Facts:

Based on the complaint, respondent Atty Jose C Go took advantage of his client by successfully
transferring under his name certain properties owned by the complaints in the course of their lawyer-
client. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended the suspension of respondent lawyer
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report of the IBP-CBD with
modification that the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law was increased from six
(6) months to three (3) years.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer merits the penalty imposed upon him.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent lawyer guilty of gross misconduct and is disbarred from the
practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately. The
Court held that Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the principal source of ethical rules
for lawyers in this jurisdiction, provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of acquiring for
himself complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a
grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and
not mere error in judgment. He violated this Court’s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct
themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity
in a manner beyond reproach.

Canon 17 of the same Code states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.The records show that complainant reposed
such high degree of trust and confidence in herein respondent, that when she engaged his services, she
entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would
be used to pay her creditors. Respondent, however, abused her trust and confidence when he did not
sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations. Clearly,
respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty as complainant’s counsel.

Undoubtedly, respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has
definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly
immoral acts. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. Public interest requires that an attorney
should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer who performs that
duty with diligence and candor not only protects his client’s cause; he also serves the ends of justice and
does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. It is a time-
honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the legal profession.

Case Title: Consorcia S Rollon, complainant vs. Atty. Camilo Naraval, respondent
Case Number: AC No. 6424, March 4, 2005
Facts:

Atty. Camilo Naraval, agreed to be the lawyer of Consorcia S. Rollon wherein petitioner was
required by the respondent to pay the amount of eight thousand pesos (P 8,000.00) for filing and partial
service fee for the case of the petitioner. However, petitioner was informed later that Atty. Naraval was not
able to act on the case because the latter was so busy. Even after several follow-ups were made with
Atty. Naraval, still there was no action done on the case.

On November 29, 2001, petitioner decided to withdraw the amount paid to Atty. Naraval, because
of the latter’s failure to comply with their agreement that respondent will assist in the case. Unfortunately,
Atty. Naraval could not give back the amount paid to him (Php 8,000.00) because he has no money.
Petitioner decided to refer the matter to IBP President of Davao City and to the Commissioner on Bar
Discipline. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for neglect of duty and/or violation of
Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors recommended
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years and the restitution of
complainant’s P8,000.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer violated Rules 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Ruling:

Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. Failure to observe these ethical principles constitutes
professional misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. Ordinarily, lawyers are not
obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their client.
They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it
out effectively or competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the
Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence,
skill and competence, regardless of importance. The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. A lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. A
lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client’s request for information.

Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give their candid and
best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor understating
their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of success is not only a
function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers. If they find that their client’s cause is defenseless,
then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to traverse the
incontrovertible. The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty
to “observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.”

The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the courts, but
also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to them
pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. Respondent clearly fell short of the demands required of him as a
member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to his client makes him answerable not just
to her, but also to this Court, to the legal profession, and to the general public. Given the crucial
importance of his role in the administration of justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of the
public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.

Hence, respondent lawyer is found guilty of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years. Furthermore, he is ordered to restitute, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision,
complainant’s eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum,
from October 18, 2000, until fully paid.

Case Title: Eduardo M Cojuangco Jr., complainant vs Atty Leo J Palma, respondent
Case number: A.C. 2474, June 30, 2005
Facts:

Respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma, despite his subsisting marriage, married Maria Luisa Cojuangco,
the daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Thus, the latter filed on November 1982, a
complaint disbarment against respondent. Respondent lawyer moved to dismiss the complaint. On March
2, 1983, the court referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation and
recommendation. The Assistant Solicitor General heard the testimonies of the complainant and his
witness in the presence of respondent’s counsel. On March 19, 1984 respondent filed with the OSG an
urgent motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the final actions of his civil case for the
declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the
disbarment proceeding, but it was denied.

The OSG transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent guilty of gross
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation, but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one (1) year. In his motion for
reconsideration, respondent contended that the complaint for disbarment was filed by an improper party,
complainant not being the offended party. He also argued that the Resolution dated June 21, 2003 of the
IBP Board of Governors imposing upon him the penalty of one (1) year suspension “has attained finality
and should be deemed served already.” In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he
acted under a “firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that
he is a bachelor because his first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer should be disbar from the practice of law for contracting
subsequent marriage despite his first marriage being void.

Ruling:

Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The only question for
determination is whether respondent is fit to be a member of the Bar. The complainant or the person who
called the attention of this Court to the lawyer’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and generally
has no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of
justice. Thus, this Court may investigate charges against lawyers, regardless of complainant’s standing.
In fact, it can do so motu proprio.

Our ruling in Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos applies four-square, thus, a case of suspension or
disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is
whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. 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. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration
of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an
officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all
good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants,
the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal
of the charges.”

The penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors cannot attain
finality. Clearly, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is merely recommendatory. The “power to
recommend” includes the power to give “advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is essentially
persuasive in character, not binding upon the party to whom it is made.” Necessarily, the “final action” on
the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors still lies with this Court. Obviously, respondent’s argument
that we affirmed such resolution when we “noted” it is certainly misplaced. The power to disbar belongs to
the Court alone.

Case Title: Julian B Ballesteros in his capacity as Administrator of the Estate and
President/Manager of the Rural Bank of Pagadian, Inc., complainant
 vs Atty Manileño N Apiag, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005

Facts:

Respondent Atty Manileño N Apiag was charged for violating the terms of the Legal Services
Retainership Agreement and Canons 15, 17, 18, 19 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The complaint for disbarment was filed by Julian B. Ballesteros
(“complainant”) as Administrator of the Ballesteros Estate and President and Manager of the Rural Bank
of Pagadian, Inc. (“Bank”) against respondent, the retained counsel of the Ballesteros Estate and the
Bank. The complaint was with respect to the four (4) ejectment cases dismissed by the court for failure of
respondent to file Position Papers for each case as per Court Order. The IBP Board of Governors
recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of six months suspension from the practice of
law.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer violated the lawyer-client relationship.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent liable for violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03, Rule 18.04
and Rule 19.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Code mandates that every “lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence.” The Code further states that “a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” The
Code provides that “a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.” Furthermore, “a lawyer shall not allow his
client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.”

In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, the Court found the lawyer in bad faith for failing to inform the client of
the status of the case. The Court has repeatedly stressed that the lawyer-client relationship is highly
fiduciary. There is always a need for the client to receive from the lawyer periodic and full updates on
developments affecting the case. The lawyer should apprise the client on the mode and manner that the
lawyer is utilizing to defend the client’s interests.

The Court held that every case a lawyer accepts deserves the lawyer’s full attention, diligence,
skill and competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. It is a
lawyer’s sworn duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his
client’s cause. Any member of the bar worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a
lackadaisical manner.

Hence, the Court found respondent Atty. Manileño N. Apiag guilty of violation of Canon 18, Rule
18.03, Rule 18.04 and Rule 19.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Case Title: Rasmus G Anderson, Jr., petitioner vs Atty Reynaldo A Cardeño, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 3523, January 17, 2005
Facts:

Complainant Rasmus G Anderson Jr., an American citizen from Kodiak, Alaska, USA, filed an
administrative case against respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeño for malpractice and neglect of duty,
stemming from his alleged neglect or deliberate mishandling of a case involving herein petitioner,
resulting to the latter’s prejudice. He alleged that respondent lawyer caused the loss or the adverse ruling
against him in the case to recover title and possession of a parcel of land. Complainant concluded that
Atty. Cardeño abused his client’s trust and confidence and violated his oath as a lawyer in failing to
defend his client’s cause to the very end. Complainant prays that Atty. Cardeño be disbarred. The IBP
Board of Governors suspended respondent lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the lawyer-client relationship.

Ruling:

It is undisputed that Atty. Cardeño was engaged by the complainant as counsel. By accepting the
case, respondent should have known the attendant responsibilities that came with the lawyer-client
relationship. A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to
handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true
to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle,
otherwise his clients' interests will suffer. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to
handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work.

The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in handling his cases. A
license to practice law is a guarantee by the courts to the public that the licensee possesses sufficient
skill, knowledge and diligence to manage [his] cases. The legal profession demands from a lawyer the
vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family.

The Court therein declared that a lawyer’s failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code. It
added that the said rule is clear in its mandate that a lawyer should not undertake a legal service that he
is not qualified to render, nor should a lawyer handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. A
lawyer has the duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed and he should not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, for his negligence shall render him liable.

From the records it is evident that Atty. Cardeño has fallen short of the professional standards
this Court has set for members of the Bar. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to disciplinary action. Respondent is reminded
that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually,
academically and morally. This Court has been exacting in its expectations for the members of the Bar
always to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission
which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public. Hence, the Court sustained the suspension of
respondent lawyer for six (6) months.

Case Title: Maria Cielo B Suzuki represent by her sister Teresa B Gabuco, complainant vs
Atty Erwin L Tiamson, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6542, September 30, 2005

Facts:

Complaint filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) charged respondent Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson with fraud, dishonesty and
misrepresentation and for violation of Canons 1 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant prayed for the disbarment of respondent lawyer alleging that respondent failed to comply
with the terms of the agreement which his client executed with the purchase of the property the former
sold. Respondent never registered the said documents and did not caused the transfer of the title over the
subject property in the name of complainant, thus, respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation,
dishonesty and estafa which are grounds for his disbarment. Respondent contends that he is merely
performing his duty to protect the interest of his client by refusing to register the contract of sale with the
Register of Deeds of Las Piñas.

The IBP-CBD found that respondent has no intention of defrauding complainant; instead, he is
only performing his duty of protecting his client’s interest when he held in abeyance the processing of the
papers for the transfer of the title over the property in complainant’s name. Consequently, the IBP-CBD
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation and dishonesty or of any improper
act or conduct which violates his sworn duty as a lawyer in connection with his dealings with herein
complainant or with any of the latter’s representatives relative to the sale of the subject properties.

Ruling:

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with
zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyer’s performance of his duties towards his client
must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a
lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. Canon 15,
Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance with the laws and the principle
of fairness. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights
of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state – the administration of justice. While lawyers
owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they
should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Respondent failed to live up to this expectation.

Complainant prays for the disbarment of respondent. However, it must be stressed that
disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must
always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a
member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe –
such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine – would accomplish the end desired. Considering that there is
no evidence to prove that respondent misappropriated the sum of P500,000.00 he received from
complainant as partial payment for the subject property, as well as the P80,000.00 complainant gave him
as her share in the expenses for the registration of the subject deed of sale, we find it fit to reprimand
respondent for his acts of unfairly dealing with complainant. Hence, respondent lawyer is hereby
reprimanded for violating Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Case Title: Alex B Cueto, complainant vs Atty Jose B Jimenez, Jr., respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 5798, January 20, 2005
Facts:

Engr. Alex B. Cueto filed a complaint for disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Jose
Jimenez, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline.
Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent as notary public, the latter being the
father of the owner of the building subject of the Construction Agreement to be notarized. After notarizing
the agreement, respondent demanded P50,000 as notarial fee, complainant informed respondent that he
only had P30,000 in cash. Respondent persuaded complainant to pay the P30,000 and to issue a check
for the remaining P20,000. Before the maturity date of the check, complainant requested respondent not
to deposit the same for lack of sufficient funds. Subsequently, respondent lawyer lodged a complaint for
violation of BP 22 against complainant. In the meantime, Engr Cueto filed his own administrative
complaint against respondent lawyer alleging that the latter violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics when he filed the criminal case against Cueto so he
could collect the balance of his notarial fee. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent
guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that
Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. be reprimanded.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer violated Canon 20, rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:

Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “a lawyer shall
avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.” Likewise, in Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics it
states that, “controversies with clients concerning compensation are to be avoided by the lawyer so far as
shall be compatible with his self-respect and with his right to receive reasonable recompense for his
service; and lawsuits with the clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice, imposition or fraud.”
There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in this case to justify the legal action taken by
respondent. As borne out by the records, complainant Cueto had already paid more than half of
respondent’s fee. To resort to a suit to recover the balance reveals a certain kind of shameful conduct and
inconsiderate behavior that clearly undermines the tenet embodied in Canon 15 that “a lawyer should
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.”

The Court cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
clients. He should always remind himself that the legal profession is imbued with public service.
Remuneration is a mere incident. Although the Court acknowledge that every lawyer must be paid what is
due to him, he must never resort to judicial action to recover his fees, in a manner that detracts from the
dignity of the profession. Hence, respondent Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby severely reprimanded for
violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Case Title: Jesus M Ferrer, complainant vs Atty Jose Allan M Tebelin, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No. 6590, June 27, 2005
Facts:

Complainant Jesus M Ferrer obtained the services of respondent Atty. Jose Allan M Tebelin in a
case against Global Link as a result of a vehicular accident through the falut of Global Link’s driver. Ferrer
paid Atty. Tebelin P5, 000.00 as acceptance fee and gave him all pertinent documents. However, Ferrer
filed an administrative case against Atty. Tebelin alleging that the said lawyer abandoned his case.
However, Atty. Tebelin expressed his willingness to return the money and denied having abandoned the
case. However, during the proceedings, herein Ferrer died. Atty. Tebelin was nowhere to be found in his
given address. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that respondent lawyer be suspended
for a period of two (2) years for his failure to perform his services for a client and returning the acceptance
fee upon demand. It is further recommended that respondent be ordered to return to his client the money
in the amount of P5,000.00 to the heirs of complainant. And an additional penalty of at least one (1) year
for failure of said lawyer to appear and present his proper address before the Commission on Bar
Discipline.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Tebellin may still be held liable despite the death of the complainant.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that respondent lawyer may still be held liable despite the death of the
complainant. The death of a complainant in an administrative case notwithstanding, the case may still
proceed and be resolved. As in the case of Tudtud v. Colifores, the court ruled that “the death of the
complainant herein does not warrant the non-pursuance of the charges against respondent Judge. In
administrative cases against public officers and employees, the complainants are, in a real sense, only
witnesses. Hence, the unilateral decision of a complainant to withdraw from an administrative complaint,
or even his death, as in the case at bar, does not prevent the Court from imposing sanctions upon the
parties subject to its administrative supervision.”

The Court also found respondent, for ignoring the notices of hearing sent to him at his address
which he himself furnished, or to notify the IBP-CBD his new address if indeed he had moved out of his
given address. His actuation betrays his lack of courtesy, his irresponsibility as a lawyer. This Court faults
respondent too for welting on his manifestation-undertaking to return the P5,000.00, not to mention the
documents bearing on the case, to complainant or his heirs. Such is reflective of his reckless disregard of
the duty imposed on him by Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a
lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien, immediately turn over all papers
and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer
of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Hence, the Court suspended Atty. Jose Allan M. Tebelin from the practice of law for two (2)
months and is ordered to return to complainant’s heirs the amount of P5, 000.00, with legal interest.

Case Title: Elmer Canoy, complainant vs Atty Jose Max Ortiz, respondent
Case Number: A.C. No.5485, March 16, 2005
Facts:

Elmer Canoy filed a complaint before the Office of the Bar Confidant accusing respondent Atty.
Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. Respondent lawyer appeared as counsel for Canoy in the
labor case filed against the latter’s former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). However, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, the
parties not having submitted their position papers. The dismissal was without prejudice. Canoy alleged
that Atty. Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of the case, much less the fact that he
failed to submit the position paper. Complainant was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz
deigned to represent.

The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Canoy eventually submitted a motion withdrawing the complaint, but this was not
favorably acted upon by the IBP in view of the rule that the investigation of a case shall not be interrupted
or terminated by reason of withdrawal of the charges. Eventually, the investigating commissioner
concluded that respondent failed to exercise that degree of competence and diligence required of him in
prosecuting his clients’ claim, and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer failed to exercise his duty as a lawyer with competence and
diligence.

Ruling:

The Court is sensitive to the difficulties in obtaining legal representation for indigent or low-
income litigants. Apart from the heroic efforts of government entities such as the Public Attorney’s Office,
groups such as the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid and the Office of Legal Aid of the UP College of
Law have likewise been at the forefront in the quest to provide legal representation for those who could
not otherwise afford the services of lawyers. The efforts of private practitioners who assist in this goal are
especially commendable, owing to their sacrifice in time and resources beyond the call of duty and
without expectation of pecuniary reward.

Respondent’s failure to file the position paper on time, owing to his duty as counsel of Canoy to
attend to this legal matter entrusted to him, constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever
present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and
should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being defended.

The Code of Professional Responsibility does allow a lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the
lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office. Statutes expressly prohibit the occupant of particular
public offices from engaging in the practice of law, such as governors and mayors, and in such instance,
the attorney-client relationship is terminated. However, city councilors are allowed to practice their
profession or engage in any occupation except during session hours, and in the case of lawyers such as
Atty. Ortiz, subject to certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this case. In such case, the lawyer
nevertheless has the choice to withdraw his/her services. Still, the severance of the relation of attorney-
client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that
purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until
then, the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.

Given the circumstances, the Court finds the penalty recommended by the IBP too lenient and
instead suspends Atty. Ortiz from the practice of law for one (1) month. The graver penalty of suspension
is warranted in lieu of an admonition or a reprimand considering that Atty. Ortiz’s undisputed negligence
in failing to timely file the position paper was compounded by his failure to inform Canoy of such fact, and
the successive dismissal of the complaint. Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing
litigants who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation. However, this mantle of public service
will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-meaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not
enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. They deserve quality
representation as well.