Conchita Baltazar vs Atty Juan
Banez Jr.
31
Facts:
 The complainants owned 3 parcels of land that was
located in Bataan, then they entered into an
agreement, they stood to be paid ₱35,000.000 for all
the lots that would be sold in the subdivision. So,
they executed a SPA authorizing Fevidal to enter into
all agreements concerning the parcels of land and to
sign those agreements on their behalf.
 They revoked the SPA that was executed to him
because Fevidal did not update them on the status
and they found out that it has been sold to a number
of parcels to third parties, but that he did not turn
the proceeds over to them.
 Instead of drafting a written settlement, respondent
encouraged them to institute actions against Fevidal
in order to recover their properties. So, the
complainants signed a contract of legal services that
says that they would not pay acceptance and
appearance fees to Atty. Banez but that the docket
fees would instead be shared by the parties. In
preparation for the filing of an action against Fevidal,
respondent prepared and notarized an Affidavit of
Adverse Claim, seeking to annotate the claim of
complainants to at least 195 titles in the possession
of Fevidal.
 Andrade submitted the Affidavit of Adverse Claim to
the Register of Deeds of Bataan with the cost of
annotation been paid by Atty Banez Jr. On behalf of
complainants he filed a complaint for annulment,
cancellation and revalidation of titles, and damages
against Fevidal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Bataan. However Complainants found it hard to
wait for the outcome of the action. Thus, they
terminated the services of respondent on 8 June
2007, withdrew their complaint against Fevidal and
finalized their amicable settlement with him.
 With this the respondent filed a Manifestation and
Opposition alleging that the termination of his
services and withdrawal of the complaint had been
done with the intent of defrauding counsel. On the
same date, he filed a Motion for Recording of
Attorney’s Charging Lien.
 In return, complainants sought the
suspension/disbarment of respondent through a
Complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). Complainants alleged that they
were uneducated and underprivileged, and could not
taste the fruits of their properties because the
disposition thereof was "now clothed with legal
problems" brought about by respondent. In their
complaint they alleged that Atty Banez Jr violated
Canons 1.01, 1.03, 1.04, 12.02, 1505, 18.04 and
20.04.
Issue: WON the respondent violated the respected canons
that was alleged to him?
Held: NO. The Court found that the respondent did not
violate any of the canons cited by complainants.
As the Court held, Respondent cannot be faulted for advising
complainants to file an action against Fevidal to recover their
properties, instead of agreeing to a settlement of
₱10,000,000 – a measly amount compared to that in the
original agreement, under which Fevidal undertook to pay
complainants the amount of ₱35,000,000. Lawyers have a
sworn duty and responsibility to protect the interest of any
prospective client and pursue the ends of justice.
The claim of complainants that they were not informed of the
status of the case is more appropriately laid at their door
rather than at that of respondent. He was never informed
that they had held in abeyance the filing of the adverse claim.
Neither was he informed of the brewing amicable settlement
between complainants and Fevidal. We also find it very hard
to believe that while complainants received various amounts
as loans from respondent from August 2006 to June 2007,
they could not spare even a few minutes to ask about the
status of the case. We shall discuss this more below. As
regards the claim that respondent refused to "patch up" with
Fevidal despite the pleas of complainants, we note the latter’s
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated September 2007, in which they
admitted that they could not convince Fevidal to meet with
respondent to agree to a settlement.
People vs Lagramada
32
Facts:
 Matias Lagramada was found guilty of rape in the
RTC of Morong Rizal. It was said that he pulled his 11
years old cousin Josephine in a room inside her
parents’ house and proceeded to threatened her and
then raped her.
 With this, the defence party filed an appeal alleging
the credibility of the witness of the said rape.
 It was also noted that the accused was merely
invited by complainant’s father to accompany him to
the police station, supposedly to pick up a
refrigerator they were to repair. Upon their arrival
there, appellant was immediately taken in and
locked behind bars. The two Information’s were filed
against him only on November 11, 1998, ten months
after the first day of his incarceration. Appellant’s
counsel, in the spirit of safeguarding his client’s
rights, should have taken the necessary steps to
correct this situation. However, he allowed his client
to enter a plea during the latter’s arraignment on
March 16, 1999 without raising this matter. Thus, the
former effectively waived his client’s right to
question the validity of the arrest.
Held: Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and
must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them.
Matias’ counsel, in the spirit of safeguarding his client’s rights,
should have taken the necessary steps to correct the
situation. However, he allowed his client to enter a plea
during the latter’s arraignment without raising the invalidity
of arrest. Thus, the former effectively waived his client’s right
to question its validity. Defence counsels are expected to
spare no effort to save the accused from unrighteous
incarcerations. Matias’ counsel should have not only
perfunctorily represented his client during the pendency of
the case, but should have kept in mind his duty to render
effective legal assistance and true service by protecting the
latter’s rights at all times.
Their appeal was granted.
Urma vs Beltran
33
Facts:
 Both of the petitioners and respondents are relatives
of the late Sps Laureano.
 Petitioners claim ownership of the lot they are
occupying by virtue of a deed of sale allegedly
executed by Laureano in favor of petitioner Teofilo
Urma. But, the respondents claim ownership over
portions of the subject property by virtue of a deed
of donation executed in their favor by Rosa Urma.
 With this, the RTC ruled ruled in favor of the
respondents by declaring them the absolute owners
of portions of the disputed land and ordering the
petitioners to vacate said portions.
 However, the petitioners believed that their counsel
committed gross negligence in handling their case,
the defendants filed a Motion For New Trial. They
argued that their counsel should not have joined the
motion for a judgment on the pleadings because
their answer contained specific denials and defenses
which tendered an issue. They likewise claimed that
they were uneducated and "not too familiar with the
niceties of the law and legal procedures." Hence,
they should not be bound by the mistakes and
omissions of their counsel.
Issue: WON the petitioners substantive and procedural rights
were violated due to their former counsel’s mistake or
negligence in handling their case.
Held: No. The petitioners were not denied due process and
their rights were not violated when their counsel, Atty. Raul
Morales, agreed that the only issue that needed to be
resolved was the authenticity of the deed of sale in favor of
petitioner Teofilo Urma.
Both parties agreed to submit the questioned
document to the NBI where one of its examiners would be
assigned to conduct the examination. Thus, the parties did
not reserve any right to question the expertise of the NBI
examiner. Apparently, there was no stipulation either that he
would be cross-examined on the result.
Granting that their counsel made a mistake in
entering into such stipulations, such procedural error
unfortunately bound them. The Court has consistently held
that the mistake or negligence of a counsel in the area of
procedural technique binds the client unless such mistake or
negligence of counsel is so gross or palpable that would
require the courts to step in and accord relief to the client
who suffered thereby. Without this doctrinal rule, there
would never be an end to a suit so long as a new counsel
could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel
had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.
34
Facts:
 Sps Friend incurred a loan from Union Bank of the
Philippines to buy a Hyundai Starex Van. In order to
secure the obligation, a chattel mortgage, embodied
in the same promissory note, was constituted on
said Hyundai Starex Van. However, appellants
defaulted in the payment of their obligation. Thus,
appellee instituted an action for collection of sum of
money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
replevin.
 Appellants failed to file their answer within the
reglementary period. Appellee filed a motion to
declare appellants in default.
 With this Atty. Victa representing petitioners filed a
notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. After the
appeal was filed, petitioners changed their counsel.
Their appeal was anchored on the alleged error of
the trial court in declaring them in default.
Issue: WON there was an error in declaring them in default by
the RTC.
Held: No. While petitioners' former counsel failed to file an
answer to the complaint filed by Union Bank, however, he
seasonably filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the
trial court. Under the Rules of Court, in ordinary appealed
cases to the Court of Appeals, the appellant may include in his
assignment of errors any question of law and fact that has
been raised in the court below and which is within the issues
framed by the parties.
We find no reason to depart from this ruling.
Besides, there is no compelling reason to relax the rules in
favor of petitioners, who are not entirely blameless.
Petitioners should have taken a more active role in the
proceedings of the case against them. Litigants represented
by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit
back, relax and await the outcome of their case.
Sarraga, Sr. vs Banco Filipino
35
Facts:
 Sps Sarraga mortgaged their lots to Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino),
 respondent, as security for a loan in the amount of
P3,618,714.59. But they defaulted in the payment of
their loan. Consequently, Banco Filipino foreclosed
the mortgage.
 When the Banco Filipino was placed in
conservatorship by the Central Bank of the
Philippines, petitioner Dante P. Sarraga sent a letter
to Banco Filipinos receiver-liquidator offering to
redeem the same. Their reply said that they are not
selling the properties.
 Then On October 10, 1986, petitioners received a
letter from Banco Filipino recognizing their intention
to redeem their lots. Later, Banco Filipino, through
its liquidators, started negotiating with petitioners
on the terms of redemption.
 The petitioners paid for the 3 lots but anco Filipino
formally conveyed to petitioners the two (2) lots.
 Banco Filipino filed to the RTC a complaint4 against
petitioners for quieting of title, recovery of
ownership and possession, accounting and damages.
In return, petitioners filed their answer with
counterclaim. They were represented by Atty.
Florentino G. Dumlao, Jr.
 However, prior to the pre-trial, Atty. Dumlao
suffered a mild stroke, incapacitating him from
participating actively in the proceedings, prompting
petitioners to hire the services of another counsel,
Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo. While the latter appeared
for the petitioners during the hearing and signed
pleadings for them, Atty. Dumlao remained
petitioner’s counsel of record. As such, the trial court
continued to serve pleadings, motions, processes,
and other documents upon Atty. Dumlao.
Issue:
1. whether there was a valid service of the trial courts
order denying petitioners motion for reconsideration
upon Atty. Bagabuyo;
2. whether Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which
prevented petitioners from filing a timely notice of
appeal
3. if so, whether such negligence is binding upon
petitioners.
Held: The records of this case show that Atty. Rogelio Zosa B.
Bagabuyo did not merely enter his appearance orally at every
hearing which he attended. He filed several pleadings in this
case as counsel for the defendants in which he indicated his
address. Atty. Bagabuyo, since he started appearing in this
case, acted alone, signed pleadings alone, made decisions
alone, without in any way indicating to the court and the
adverse party that he had to defer to the judgment of Atty.
Dumlao on any matter pertaining to the instant case. He
presented the defendant Dante Sarraga and the latters
witness, Mr. Gaudencio Beduya, at the trial of this case and
terminated the presentation of the defendants evidence
without consulting, or intimating to the court and the adverse
party that he had to consult Atty. Dumlao on the matter.
To be sure, Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure explicitly provides that (i)f any party has
appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon
his counsel or one of them x x x. The obvious meaning of said
rule is that if a party is represented by more than one lawyer,
service of pleadings, judgments and other papers may be
made on any one of them.
Obviously, Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which
prevented petitioners from filing a timely notice of appeal.
Atty. Bagabuyo knew that his clerk has no work experience in
a law firm. He should have supervised her office performance
very closely considering the importance of his legal calling.
Time and again this Court has admonished law offices to
adopt a system of distributing and receiving pleadings and
notices, so that the lawyers will be promptly informed of the
status of their cases. Thus, the negligence of clerks which
adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers is binding upon
the latter.
HOWEVER Petitioners cannot be faulted for failing to
verify the status of their case with the trial court since a client
has the right to expect that his lawyer will protect his interest
during the hearing of his case.
A client may reasonably expect that his counsel will
make good his representations and has the right to expect
that his lawyer will protect his interests during the trial of his
case. For the general employment of an attorney to
prosecute or defend a case or proceeding ordinarily vests in a
plaintiffs attorney the implied authority to take all steps or do
all acts necessary or incidental to the regular and orderly
prosecution and management of the suit, and in a defendants
attorney, the power to take such steps as he deems necessary
to defend the suit and protect the interests of the defendant.
Undoubtedly, the trial court gravely abused its
discretion when it denied the petition for relief. Considering
the circumstances obtaining here, petitioners should not be
made to suffer the consequences of their counsels’
negligence.
Lucila Barbuco vs Atty Beltran
36
Facts:
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent
Beltran for malpractice of law. Complainant, through her son,
Benito B. Sy, engaged the services of respondent for the
purpose of filing an appeal before the Court of Appeals from
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, which
adverse to the complainant’s interest. On the same day,
complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the total
sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket fees.
However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA for failure to
file Appellant's brief. The brief was only filed by respondent
43 days after the deadline of submission of the same.
When asked to comment, respondent tried to evade liability
by alleging that he met a vehicular accident, which
incapacitated him for several days, thus he cannot finish the
appellants brief. Moreover, he sustained injuries in the head,
which as a result respondent lost track of schedules of
hearings and deadlines for submitting briefs.
Issue: WON respondent's failure to file appellant's brief
warrants sanctions.
Held: Yes. the SC enunciated that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers states:A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. An
attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of
his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to file brief
within the reglementary period certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE
(43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident
and suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot serve
to excuse him from filing his pleadings on time considering
that he was a member of a law firm composed of not just one
lawyer. This is shown by the receipt he issued to complainant
and the pleadings which he signed for and on behalf of the
Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law Office. As such, respondent
could have asked any of his partners in the law office to file
the Appellant’s Brief for him or, at least, to file a Motion for
Extension of Time to file the said pleading.
Moreover, every member of the Bar should always bear in
mind that every case that a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A
lawyer’s fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be
ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected
of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the
interest of his client within the bounds of the law. The Code
of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence and he should
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. "
Abiero vs Juanino
37
Facts: Atty. Juanino, representing Abiero, won in a labor case.
However, on appeal, the NLRC reversed the arbiters decision
and dismissed the case for lack of basis. Each time Abiero
would follow up the case, respondent would advise him to
call on a later date at which time he may have some news of
any development with the case. Atty Juanino then filed with
the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a
petition for review and paid the corresponding docket fee.
When complainant verified with the Court of Appeals the
status of the case, he found out that respondent never filed a
Petition for Review of his labor case.
Consequently, the NLRC decision became final and
executory. In his defense, he said that he honestly believed
that he could enforce the decision against those who did not
appeal, so he went to the labor arbiter and discussed it, but
the arbiter said he could not since the decision was reversed
and there would be no basis for the enforcement. Too late,
the period to file petition for certiorari had already expired.
Issue: Whether or not discussing a legal action to a judge
constitutes violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held: Yes. As a lawyer, Atty. Juanino should’ve known that he
is not required to seek prior approval from the labor arbiter
before he could file a motion for execution. Nevertheless, he
presented himself, not once, but thrice, before the office of
the arbiter to discuss his plan to file a motion for execution,
only to discover that such recourse was not feasible. Worse,
while respondent was waiting for the arbiters opinion, the
period to file the petition before the Court of Appeals
continued to run, as in fact, it eventually expired.
Failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals despite
instructions by the client to do so constitutes inexcusable
negligence on the part of counsel because once a lawyer
consents to defend the cause of his client, he owes fidelity to
such cause and must at all times be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. His inexcusable negligence on
such matter renders him liable for violation of Canons 17 and
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Juanino is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
In re Cunanan
38
Facts: In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar
of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan
et. al petitioners.
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so
much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly
known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Generally a
candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general ave of
75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject,
although for the past few exams the passing grades were
changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of the
bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-
74%, 1950-1953 – 75%).
Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as
those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and feeling that
they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful
candidates who obtained averages of a few percentages
lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for,
and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by the
president after he was given advise adverse to it. Not
overriding the veto, the senate then approved senate bill no.
372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill.
The bill then became law on June 21, 1953
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to
admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from
insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate
preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public
interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had
inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as
evidenced by their failure in the exams.
Issue: WON RA 972 is unconstitutional
Held: That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the
examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law
are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and
effect.
The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations
subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid
and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates
who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the
candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN
Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any
subject are considered as having passed whether they have
filed petitions for admissions or not.)
Judge Bravo vs Atty
39 Morales
Facts: These consolidated administrative cases which are in
the nature of a charge and counter charge sprang from the
same incident. Judge Crispin B. Bravo, charges his former
branch clerk of court, Atty. Miguel C. Morales with grave
misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public officer.
On the other hand, Atty.Morales charges Judge
Bravo with grave abuse of authority, slander, harassment,
grave ignorance of the law, inefficiency and grave/serious
misconduct. In his complaint in A.M. No. P-05-1950, Judge
Bravo alleged, in gist, the following: That while serving as the
Acting Presiding Judge of MeTC, Manila, Branch 17, here
quested the detail of his branch clerk of court, Atty. Morales.
Later, here commended to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) the immediate dismissal of Atty. Morales
from the service for corrupt practices; that since he made the
recommendation, he observed Atty. Morales to have acted
discourteously and disrespectful toward him.
He relates that whenever he greets court employees
with a "good morning ladies and gentlemen" after every flag
raising ceremony, as was his usual practice, he noticed Atty.
Morales mimicking him in a squeaky comical voice, obviously
to make fun of him; among others. At his end, Atty. Morales
avers in his counter-complaint that Judge Bravo failed to
behave with due restraint when the judge ordered his arrest.
As Atty. Morales argued, unjust vexation is covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure, adding that unjust vexation is
not a continuing offense and, ergo, a warrantless arrest could
not be effected therefor, let alone by the responding police
officers who have no personal knowledge, as it were, of the
alleged crime
Issue: WON Judge Bravo abused his authority
Held: Judge Bravo indeed overstepped the bounds of his
authority when he ordered the arrest of Atty. Morales on the
basis of a mere intent to sue the latter later for unjust
vexation. Being a dispenser of justice, it behooves Judge
Bravo to observe the same rules of due process in dealing
with his subordinates. He should have confined himself to
filing an administrative complaint or a criminal one and let
the wheels of justice run its course. To be sure, Judge Bravo's
actuation was unbecoming a judge who, needless to stress, is
expected to exercise proper restraint and civility in dealing
even with insolent subordinates.
We feel, however, that Judge Bravo’s actuation in
the premises does not amount to grave abuse of authority, as
urged by Atty. Morales. Provoked as the judge was by Atty.
Morales’ insulting conduct, the judge, like any other normal
person, must have been carried away by his emotion. Even
then, his conduct as a judge is not totally excusable. To
paraphrase what we said earlier, a judge, even in the face of
boorish behavior from those he deals with, ought to conduct
himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer
of the court.
We likewise agree with the OCA’s finding on Atty.
Morales’ guilt for conduct unbecoming a government
employee. His insulting act of mimicking the judge, in the
presence of other court employees, a gesture calculated to
ridicule, is a behavior unexpected of one in the judicial
service. The ideal is for a court employee to be well-
mannered, civil, and considerate in his actuations, more
particularly with respect to his relation to the presiding judge
he is assigned under. Here, Atty. Morales' acts went against
the principles of public service and such unpleasant kind of
behavior must not be tolerated if we are to demand the
highest degree of excellence and professionalism among
public employees and to preserve the integrity and dignity of
our courts of justice. He failed to live up to the norms of
conduct demanded of his position.
OCA vs Former Judge
40 Tormis
Facts:
 Atty. Rullyn Garcia, Region 7 Judicial Supervisor, led
the judicial audit.team created by the Office of the
Court Administrator to investigate Branches 2, 3, 4,
and 8 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cebu
City for alleged misdeeds in the solemnization of
marriages
 Two (2) undercover agents from the judicial audit
team, posing as a couple, went to the Palace of
Justice to ask about the marriage application
process. Fearing that the male undercover would be
recognized by the court employees in Branch 4, the
two agreed that only the female undercover would
go inside the court. She was then assisted by a
woman named Helen.1âwphi1 Helen assured the
female undercover that their marriage process could
be hurried. She also claimed that it was possible for
the marriage to be solemnized the next day, but the
 marriage certificate would only be dated when the
marriage license became available.
 The Office of the Court Administrator found that the
respondent judges in that case connived with the
court personnel, who acted as "fixers" in solemnizing
marriages. The judges heedlessly kept solemnizing
marriages despite irregularities in the requirements
provided under the law

Issue: whether respondent's long line of administrative

sanctions should affect her standing as a member of the bar.

Held: Judge Tormis was held guilty of gross inefficiency or

neglect of duty and gross ignorance of the law warranting her
dismissal, had she not been previously dismissed from service
in another case. Respondent blatantly violated particular
Canons of Judicial Ethics with her participation in the alleged
marriage scam.

Membership in the bar is an essential requirement for

membership in the bench. "[T]he moral fitness of a judge also
reflects his [or her] moral fitness as a lawyer.".Consequently,
a judge who violates the code of judicial conduct similarly
violates his or her lawyer's oath. Respondent's act of
heedlessly solemnizing marriages in utter disregard of the law
and jurisprudence clearly constitutes gross misconduct. The
repetitiveness of her act shows her clear intent to violate the
law. She disregarded the lawyer's oath, which mandates
lawyers to support the Constitution and obey the laws. In
view of this, either the penalty of suspension or disbarment is
warranted.

Gross misconduct is an "improper or wrong conduct, the

transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.

To consider gross misconduct "the elements of corruption,

clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
established rule must be manifest [.]"