LAWYER’S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS

Angeles vs. Uy, Jr., 330 SCRA 6, 17 (2000)

Angeles v Uy

A.C. No. 5019. April 6, 2000

Panganiban, J.

FACTS:

Trajano manifested that she had already settled in full the civil aspect in a Criminal Case P36,500.00. that
she paid P20,000.00 directly to the Del Rosario and the balance of P16,500.00 was delivered to Atty. Uy,
the lawyer of Del Rosario.

Uy argued that his client did not like to accept the money.

But the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, who manifested her willingness to accept
the money.

The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money but the latter argued that he kept it in his office.
He was ordered to get it but thereafter, Uy did not show up. The money was only given days thereafter.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Uy violated Canon 16 of CPR

HELD: YES.

"Keeping the money in his possession without his client's knowledge only provided Atty. Uy the
tempting opportunity to appropriate for himself the money belonging to his client. This situation should,
at all times, be avoided by members of the bar. Like judges, lawyers must not only be clean; they must
also appear clean. This way, the people's faith in the justice system would remain undisturbed."

One (1) month suspension

Nakpil vs. Valdez, 186 SCRA 758 (1998)

FACTS:

For lack of funds, Napkil requested Atty. Valdez to purchase the Moran property for him. Valdez would
keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Title was then issued in
respondent’s name.

When Jose Nakpil died, Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow. Respondent
excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and transferred his title to the Moran
property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was conflict of interest between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the complainant.

HELD:

YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one (1) year.

RATIO:

Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same
time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest
of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate.

In the estate proceedings, the duty of respondent’s law firm was to contest the claims of these two
creditors but which claims were prepared by respondent’s accounting firm. It was respondent’s duty to
inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict of interest.
Liwag vs. Neri, 107 Phil. 852 (1960)

FACTS:

The spouses Pineda are indebted to the complainant. Liwag hired Atty. Neri after failure of payment to
talk to the Pinedas and they pleaded for time to pay their indebtedness. when no payment has been
made, the respondent wrote a demand letter threatening to take judicial action if the Pinedas will not
satisfy their debt. Liwag gave neri MONEY as filing fee for the necessary complaint but, Neri did not file
the said complaint, saying the Pinedas gave their assurance to pay.

ISSUE: WON respondent committed a breach of professional ethics

HELD:

Yes, he made the complainant believe that the Pineda spouses had already been sued in court and did
not return the amount intended for the filing fee.

Considering however, that the respondent has not yet received anything for his services and that the
complainant has subsequently been paid, disbarment or even suspension of the respondent from the
practice of his profession would be too harsh and unkind.

REPRIMAND

Diaz vs. Kapunan, 45 Phil. 848 (1932)

Facts: When Diaz and Mendezona’s business failed to prosper and suffered losses, they agreed that
Mendezona recognized a debt in favor of Diaz laid upon Mendezona’s hacienda. After nonpayment, the
hacienda was offered for sale at public auction. Diaz’s lawyer, Atty. Kapunan told the deputy sheriff of
Leyte that he was ready to bid on the property up to 16k in order to assist the Mendezona family.

It was found that Kapunan was also the lawyer of the Mendezona family and was given extensive
authority. When Kapunan took part in the sale, it must be assumed that he was bidding in
representation of his clients and not for the benefit of his clients.

Issue: WON violated A1459 of CC and A 542 of Penal Code

Held: No, because he has not purchased property at a public or judicial auction and because his
participation was in representation of his client.

The agreement of both parties wherein Diaz pays Kapunan the sum of 1,000 pesos to withdraw from the
sale is exactly the situation covered by article 542 of the Penal Code. since the complainant is equally
guilty with the responded Kapunan and the latter was found to be acting in good faith, Kapunan shall
only be reprimanded.

Canlas vs. CA, 164 SCRA 160 (1988)

G.R. No. L-77691 August 8,1988

FACTS:
Respondent Herrera own several parcels of land. He secured loans from L and R
corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the parcels of land. Upon the
maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the
properties failure to pay until maturity. Compromise agreement was made to
insure for another year including attorney’s fees of 100k to Atty. Canlas

Still unable to pay, Canlas moved for execution insofar as his fees were concerned
even without collection. Canlas who offered to advance the money was able to
redeem the parcels of land and to register the same in his name but Herrera
alleged that it was falsified but the latter was acquitted of falsification.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Client’s actions violates his duties to his client.

HELD:
Yes. The attorney’s fees are unreasonable. Lawyering is not a moneymaking
venture and lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a
matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates.
A lawyer’s efforts partaking of a shakedown of his own client are not becoming of
a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no man
for money. However, there is no violation of Art. 1491 of CC because the property
is no longer in litigation.