Basic Legal Ethics: II-D his attorney’s fees in the labor case he
had handled for them.
1)
Veronica Santiago // Benjamin
Hontiveros // Socorro Manas // Trinidad
Nordista
~ versus ~
Atty. Amado Fojas
CODE TO REMEMBER:
Failure to file an answer.
CANONS INVOLVED:
14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his
services to the needy.
15 – A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
18 – A lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence.
FACTS:
Complainants in this case are
former clients of the herein respondent,
Atty. Amado Fojas.
The previous case was about the
complainants who were officers of the FEU
Faculty Association, who allegedly
expelled from their Union one Paulino
Salvador. The latter seek help from DOLE
to declare his expulsion from the union as
illegal as well as filed with the RTC a
complaint for damages and attorney’s
fees.
Herein respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the case in which the trial court
judge granted, but required the
complainants to file their answer within 15
days from notice. Instead of filing the
answer, respondent Fojas filed a motion
for reconsideration and dismissal of the
case.
The complainants were declared in
default. Hence this petition to disbar Atty.
Amado Fojas for “malpractice, neglect,
etc.”
The respondent admits his mistake
in failing to file the answer but he alleges
that:
1. It was cured by filing a motion
for reconsideration
2. The complainants filed the case
to harass him because he refused to share
3. He further stated that the
failure was due to forgetfulness
occasioned by a large volume and
pressure of legal work.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent committed
culpable negligence in failing to file for the
complainants’ an answer.
RULING:
No lawyer is obliged to act either as
adviser or advocate for every person who
may wish to become his client. A lawyer
has the right to decline employment,
subject, however to Canon 14 which
states:
A lawyer shall not refuse his
services to the needy.
Overzealous – full and continuing
awareness of his duty to file an answer
Volume and pressure of legal
work – purely based on forgetfulness
because of his other commitments
The respondent contended that
the failure was due to forgetfulness
occasioned by a large volume and
pressure of legal work.
Pressure and large volume of legal
work provide no excuse for respondent’s
inability to exercise due diligence in the
performance of his duty to file an answer.
Every case 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.
Reprimanded.
2)
 Rosario Junio reprimanded and ordered to pay the
~ versus ~ amount of P25K with interest.
Atty. Salvador Grupo
IBP Board of Governors adopted
CODE TO REMEMBER: and approved with modification to
Recovery of P25,000 intended for suspend the respondent for 1 year.
redemption of a parcel of land
ISSUE:
CANONS INVOLVED:
WON there is no client-attorney
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not relationship in this case.
borrow money from his client unless the
client’s interests are fully protected by the RULING:
nature of the case or by independent
advice. As stated in Hilario vs David, it is
not essential that the client should
FACTS: have employed the attorney
professionally on previous occasion.
The complainant engaged the
services of herein respondent for the If a person consults with his
redemption of a parcel of land in the name attorney in his professional capacity, then
of her parents (Rogelio & Rufina Nietes, the professional employment is
Conception Loay, Bohol). established.

Complainant entrusted to Court suspended Atty. Grupo for a

respondent P25K to be used for the period of 1 month and ordered him to pay
redemption of the said land. However, the complainant P25,000 with interest at
respondent failed to redeem the property the legal rate, computed from December
which caused forfeiture. 12, 1996.

In respondent’s answer:

1. He admitted to receive the

amount but the land could not really be
redeemed anymore;

2. When the transaction failed,

respondent requested to allow him to avail
the money due to an urgent need for his
children’s educational expenses;

3. The family of the complainant

and the respondent are very close and
intimate with each other. Complainant and
her sisters served respondent’s family as
household helpers. Hence, there is no
client-attorney relationship involved.

Complainant denied:

1. That respondent informed her of

his failure to redeem the property;

2. That respondent requested her to

instead lend the money to him.

Investigating Commissioner 3)
recommended that respondent be
 Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico
Ricafort
~ versus ~
Atty. Ernesto Salunat
CODE TO REMEMBER:
- Association versus its Board of
Directors
- Derivative Suit Doctrine
CANONS INVOLVED:
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of facts.
Rule 16.06 –
FACTS:
The respondent in this case is a
member of the ASSA Law and Associates
who is also the counsel of the Philippine
Public School Teachers Association
(PPSTA) wherein his brother is a member
of the Board.
The complaints, who are members
of the PPSTA, filed a complaint in SEC and
in the Office of the Ombudsman against
the members of the Board of Directors.
Respondent entered his appearance
as counsel for the Board. However,
complainants contend that respondent
was guilty of conflict of interest because
he was engaged by the PPSTA and was
being paid out of its corporate funds
where complainants have contributed.
Respondent’s answer:
1. He entered his appearance as
counsel for the Board Members in behalf
of the ASSA Law and Associates;
2. The SEC Case was handled by
another partner of the firm, Atty. Agustin
Agustin;
3. He pointed out that his
relationship with Aurelio Salunat, his
brother, was immaterial.
IBP-CBD recommended that
respondent be suspended for 6 months.
Board of Governors approved the
decision of IBP-CBD.
ISSUE:
WON Salunat is representing
conflicting interests.
RULING:
A corporation’s board of directors:
1. Exercises all powers provided for
under the Corporation Code;
2. Conducts all business of the
corporation;
3. Controls and holds all property of
the corporation.
Derivative Suit is when corporate
directors committed a breach of trust and
the corporation is unable or unwilling to
institute suit to remedy the wrong, a
stockholder may sue on behalf of himself
and other stockholders and for the benefit
of the corporation.
In this case, a lawyer engaged as
counsel for a corporation cannot represent
members of the same corporation’s board
of directors in a derivative suit brought
against them.
Therefore, respondent is guilty of
representing conflicting interests. He is
admonished to observe a higher degree
of fidelity in the practice of his
profession.
4)
 Consorcia Rollon
~ versus ~
Atty. Camilo Naraval
CANONS INVOLVED:
18 – Every lawyer shall serve his
client with utmost dedication, competence
and diligence.
FACTS
In October 2000, complainant went
to the office of Atty. Naraval to seek
assistance in the case filed against the
former for Collection of Sum of Money.
His failure to return her money
upon demand gave rise to the
presumption that he had converted it to
his own use and thereby betrayed the
trust she had reposed in him.
Respondent is suspended for 2
years and restitute within 30 days from
notice of this Decision, complainant’s
P8,000.00 plus interest thereon.

After going over the documents

relevant to the said case, respondent
agreed to be the lawyer of the
complainant. The former required the
latter to pay P8,000 for the filing and
partial service fee.

After a while, complainant’s son

informed the complainant that the
respondent was not able to act on the
case because the latter was very busy.
Hence, complainant withdrew the amount
paid to the respondent due to the latter’s
failure to comply with the mutual
agreement.

Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for 1
year for neglect of his duty.

IBP Board of Governors

recommended the suspension for 2 years
and the restitution of P8,000.

RULING
A lawyer 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 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.

His continuous inaction despite

repeated follow-ups reveals his cavalier
attitude and appalling indifference toward
his client’s cause.
 5)
Erlinda R. Tarog
~ versus ~
Atty. Romulo Ricafort
CANONS INVOLVED:
15 – Every lawyer shall serve his
client with utmost dedication, competence
and diligence.
Rule 16.01-16.03
FACTS
The reason for this complaint is the
failure of the respondent to account for
and to return the sums of money received
from his clients for purposes of the civil
action to recover their property from a
foreclosing banking institution.
The original complainant was
Arnulfo Tarog, the husband of the herein
complainant.
Atty. Miralles advised the Tarogs to
engage in a Bicol-based attorney
regarding their bank-foreclosed property.
Thus, they went to see Atty. Ricafort
accompanied by Vidal Miralles (brother of
Atty. Miralles).
Upon acceptance, Atty. Ricafort
required the Tarogs to pay P7,000 as filing
fee. The respondent explained the
importance of depositing P65K in court to
counter the P60K deposited by Antonio
Tee (buyer of the foreclosed property). To
raise P65K, Vidal solicited a loan.
Respondent persuaded Arnulfo to
entrust the check to him so the former
would be the one to encash and deposit
the amount in court.
After sometime, Atty. Ricafort
informed the Tarogs that he had not
deposited the amount in court, but in his
own account.
Arnulfo demanded the return of
P65K, plus interest, and the P15K paid for
the filing of the memorandum.
In his defense, respondent denied
that the P65K was intended to be
deposited in court, insisting that the
amount was payment for his legal services
under a “package deal” which includes:
1) Acceptance fee
2) Attorney’s fee
3) Appearance fee
He also stated that he did not
receive the letter and it was received by
their helper who did not forward the letter
to him.
The IBP Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Romulo Ricafort
be disbarred and ordered to return the
amount of P65K & P15K which he got from
his client.
The IBP Board of Governors
downgraded the penalty from disbarment
to indefinite suspension.
RULING
Affirmed the findings of the IBP
Commissioner. Atty. Ricafort committed a
very serious offense that was aggravated
by his having been previously
administratively sanctioned for a similar
offense.
A. The version of the complainants
was more credible than Atty. Ricafort
B. Atty. Ricafort’s acts and
actuations constituted serious breach of
his fiduciary duties as an attorney
Respondent’s failure to make good
the checks despite demands and the
criminal cases showed his continued
defiance of judicial processes, which he,
as an officer of the court, was under
continuing duty to uphold.
Hence, the Bar Condifant is directed
to strike out the name of the respondent
from the Roll of Attorneys.
 6)
Bun Siong Yao
~ versus ~
Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio
CANONS INVOLVED:
17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client and shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him.
FACTS
Respondent is a stockholder and
the retained counsel of Solar Farms &
Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile
Finishing Corporation of which he is a
majority stockholder.
Complainant purchased several
parcels of land using his personal funds
but were registered in the name of the
corporations upon the advice of the
respondent;
Respondent who was the brother-
in-law of complainant’s wife had a
disagreement with the latter;
Respondent demanded the return of
his investment in the corporations, but
when complainant refused to pay, he filed
8 charges for estafa and falsification of
commercial documents against
complainant.
Respondent also filed:
a. non-compliance with the reportial
requirements of the SEC at Office of the
City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City
b. Violation of Sec. 75 of the
Corporation Code at Office of the City
Prosecutor of Malabon City and Office
of the City Prosecutor of San Jose Del
Monte, Bulacan.
Complainant alleged that:
5) The series of suits filed against
him and his wife is:
- a form of harassment;
- an abuse of the confidential
information which respondent obtained by
virtue of his employment as counsel
6) Complainant further alleged that
the respondent is guilty of conflicting
interest when he filed several suits not
only against the complainant and other
officers but also against the 2 corporations
of which he is both a stockholder and
retained counsel.
Respondent claimed:
1) His request for copies for the
financial statements were ignored by the
complainant, hence he filed for estafa
thru concealment of documents;
2) When he was furnished copies of
the financial statements, he discovered
several parcels of land were not included
in the balance sheet of the corporations;
3) That the financial statements
indicated that the corporation suffered
financial losses when in fact it paid cash
dividends to its stockholders.
Investigating Commissioner
found that respondent had been the
personal lawyer of the complainant and
counsel of Solar Farms & Livelihood
Corporation. However, complainant
discontinued availing the services of the
respondent when the former’s son was
admitted to the bar. Guilty of forum
shopping. Suspended for 6 months.
IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved.
RULING:
The relationship between an
attorney and his client involves trust.
It is an established rule that an
attorney is not permitted to disclose
communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless
the latter consents.
Lawyers must conduct themselves
with honesty and integrity. Lawyers
cannot be allowed to exploit their
profession for the purpose of exacting
vengeance or as a tool for instigating
hostility against any person.
Suspended for 6 months.
7)
 Ma. Gina Francisco // Josephine Tan //
Carlos Joaquin
~ versus ~
Atty. Jaime Juanito Portugal
CANONS INVOLVED:
FACTS:
This case originated from his
alleged mishandling of the case.
SPO1 Ernest Francisco, SPO1
Donato Tan and PO3 Rolando Joaquin
were involved in a shooting incident,
hence they engaged the services of the
herein respondent.
Respondent then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan
but it was denied. Thus, he filed an
Urgent Motion for Leave to File
Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Thereafter, complainants never
heard from respondent again despite
frequent telephone calls.
More than a year later, the Court
denied the petition for late filling and
non-payment of docket fees.
Resolution had attained finality and
warrants of arrest had already been
issued.
Respondent claimed that:
1) He was not the original counsel
of the accused.
2) He was merely requested by the
original counsel to be on hand, assist the
accused and be present at the
promulgation of the Sandiganbayan
decision.
3) He asked the accused that he be
discharged from the case and endorsed
the Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin
for the latter to file with the Court.
Investigating Commissioner
imposed a penalty from reprimand to
suspension for 6 months.
Board of Directors of the IBP
recommended suspension for 6 months.
ISSUE:
WON respondent committed gross
negligence or misconduct in handling the
case.
RULING:
If the respondent intended to
withdraw his appearance for the accused
he should have filed the notice of
withdrawal himself instead of the accused.
The rule is that a client has the
absolute right to terminate the attorney-
client relation at anytime with or without
cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a
case before its final adjudication arises
only from the client’s written consent or
from a good cause.
After agreeing to take up the cause
of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both
cause and client, even if the client never
paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship.
Lawyering is not a business, it is a
profession in which duty of public service,
not money, is the primary consideration.
A written contract is not an
essential element in the employment of an
attorney. To establish a relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of
an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession.
Suspended for 3 months.
8)
Arsenio Villafuerte
 ~ versus ~
Atty. Dante Cortez
FACTS:
Complainant went to the office of
the respondent lawyer to discuss his case
for “reconveyance”.
During their initial meeting,
complainant tried to reconstruct before
respondent lawyer the incidents of the
case merely from memory prompting the
latter to ask complainant to instead return
at another time with the records of the
case.
Complainant requested respondent
to accept the case, paying the latter
P1,750.
Respondent contended that he
accepted the money with reluctance and
only upon the condition that complainant
would get the records of the case from the
former counsel of the complainant.
Complainant never showed up until
when he went to the office of the
respondent but only to leave a copy of a
writ of execution.
IBP-CBS recommended suspension
for 3 months. Board of Governors
affirmed.
RULING:
Respondent’s acceptance of the
payment is a sign that lawyer-client
relationship has been established.
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
clients.
Suspended for 1 month.
9)
Antonio Conlu
~ versus ~
Atty. IRINEO AREDONIA JR.
FACTS:
Complainant engaged in the
services of the respondent to represent
him in the case for Quieting of Title and
Recovery of a Parcel of Land.
RTC rendered judgment against
Antonio. Thus, respondent appealed to the
CA wherein it eventually dismissed the
appeal for non-filling of the
appellant’s brief within the reglementary
period.
Respondent promised to seek
reconsideration but the CA later denied for
belated filing of the motion.
Respondent averred that the
person in the law office who initially
received a copy of said resolution was not
so authorized. However, there was a valid
receipt by respondent as shown by the
Registry return card with his signature.
The Court directed respondent to
show cause within 10 days from notice
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt
with or held in contempt.
The court imposed:
1) P2,000 fine
2) Order of his arrest
3) Considered to waived his right to
file comment
4) Referred to the administrative
case to the IBP for recommendation.
RULING:
Rep Ipsa Loquitor – occurrence of
an accident implies negligence
A retained counsel is expected to
serve the client with competence and
diligence.
This duty includes:
1) Properly representing the client
in court;
2) Attending scheduled hearings;
3) Preparing and filing required
pleadings;
4) Prosecuting the handled cases
with reasonable dispatch
 5) Urging their termination without
waiting for the client or the court to prod
him to do so.
Suspended for 1 year.
10)
Eduardo Meneses
~ versus ~
Atty. Rodolfo Macalino
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that
respondent offered his legal services to
complainant to help secure the release of
the complainant’s car from the Bureau of
Customs for a package deal of P60K.
Complainant initially gave P10K for
processing of the papers. Respondent
asked for P30K to expedite the release of
the car. However, respondent did not
issue a receipt but promised to furnish a
receipt from the customs. Since then,
respondent failed to give an update on the
matter.
Thus, complainant went to NBI to
file a complaint for estafa against
respondent.
Respondent wrote a letter to the
NBI stating that he would settle the
matter amicably with the complainant and
return the P40K.
Respondent sent another letter
requesting for the suspension of the
proceedings because he had partially
settled the case. He promised to pay the
P20K balance however, failed to do so.
Thus, complainant filed a complaint
with the Commission on Bar Discipline:
1) Failure to render legal services
2) Failure to refund balance of legal
fees
3) Failure to apprise the
complainant of the status of the case.
Investigating Commissioner
ordered respondent to submit his answer
to the complaint however, he failed to do
so.
Complainant informed
Commissioner Abas that he had previously
filed a complaint for estafa against
respondent with the NBI. Hence,
subpoena duces tecum was issued to Mr.
Waldo Palattao of the Anti-Fraud Acton
Division of NBI for the case folder and
all the documents pertaining to the
complaint.
IBP Board of Governors
suspended the respondent for 1 year.
RULING:
Respondent failed to inform and
To respond to inquiries of the
complainant
It is the lawyer’s duty to keep the
client regularly and fully updated on the
developments of the client’s case.
Respondent failed to account and
return the money he received from
complainant
When a lawyer receives money
from the client for a particular purpose,
the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for the intended
purpose.
Respondent failed to file an answer
and attend the hearings before the
IBP
Respondent’s actuation reveals a
high degree of irresponsibility and shows
his lack of respect for the IBP and its
proceedings.
Suspended for 1 year.
Ordered to return w/in 30 days
from notice the full amount of P20K with
interest at 12% per annum.
Directed to submit the proof of
payment within 15 days from payment.
 Canon 18 – A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence shall render him liable.

In this case, by reason of

11) respondent’s negligence, actual loss has
Elmo Moton been caused to his client.
~ versus ~
Atty. Raymundo Cadiao A lawyer may accept only so many
cases that he can efficiently handle.
FACTS: Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced.
Complainant filed a complaint
against Pablito Castillo and The Philippine Atty. Raymundo Cadiao is imposed
Veterans Bank denominated as Right to to give a fine of P2k payable to the
Use Urban Land and Damages. court within 10 days from notice.

When the case was scheduled for

pre-trial conference, the complainant’s
counsel, herein respondent, filed with an
entry of appearance for the complainant
and a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal of the case. The court reset the
pre-trial.

Upon motion of Atty. Cadiao, the

court declared Castillo in default and
allowed plaintiffs to present their evidence
ex parte.

Respondent filed a motion to reset

the hearing for the reason that he had to
attend a scheduled hearing in Antique.
The Court denied the motion.

Atty. Cadiao filed with the CA a

petition for certiorari alleging that the trial
court acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
dismissed the case. However, the CA
dismissed for lack of merit.

Respondent filed with the CA a

Withdrawal of Appearance.

Commission on Bar Discipline

found respondent liable for negligence in
handling the complainant’s case. He was
recommended to fine P2,000.00

In his answer, he contended that

the main reason for the undue delay in
the presentation of evidence was the
inability of the complainant to furnish him
with the original copies of the evidence, as
well as his failure to appear during the
scheduled hearing.

RULING:

12)
Fernando Martin Pena
~ versus ~
Atty. Lolito Aparicio
FACTS:
A lawyer is charged for writing a
demand letter which threatened
complainant with filing of criminal cases
for tax evasion and falsification of
documents.
Respondent appeared as counsel for
Grace Hufana in an illegal dismissal case.
Complainant Pena received a notice
from the Conciliation and Mediation Center
of the NLRC for a conference.
Respondent submitted a claim for
separation pay arising from the alleged
illegal dismissal. Complainant rejected.
Complainant sent notices to Hufana
for the latter to explain her absences and
demanded her to return to work.
Respondent wrote a letter to the
complainant re: the separation pay. The
letter also contained the ff. threat to the
company:
1) File and claim bigger amounts
including moral damages
2) Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
3) Criminal Charges for Falsification
of Documents
4) Cancellation of business license
to operate
Hence, complainant filed an
administrative complaint.
Respondent filed an answer
claiming that:
1) The adverse counsel, Atty.
Emmanuel Jocson, also imputed malicious,
defamatory and fabricated charges
against him;
2) The complainant had no
certification against forum shopping
Investigating Commissioner
found that the complainant failed to file
his position paper and to comply with the
Certificate against Forum Shopping.
IBP-Commission of Bar
Discipline transmitted to the SC the
notice of said resolution.
Complainant thereafter filed this
Petition for Review alleging that:
1) He personally submitted and
filed with the IBP his position paper.
2) He was deprived of his right to
due process when the IBP dismissed his
complaint without considering his position
paper and without ruling on the merits.
Based on the records, there is truth
to the complainant’s assertion that he filed
his position paper. The IBP stamp on the
front page of said document shows that it
was received by the IBP. The registry
receipt attached to the same document
also shows that it was sent by registered
mail to the respondent.
RULING:
Disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis (unique).
They do not involve a trial of an
action or a suit, but is rather an
investigation by the Court into the conduct
of one of its officers.
The real question for determination
is whether or not the attorney is still a fit
person to be allowed the privilege.
Rule 19.01 means that a lawyer
should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal cases
against the adversaries of his client.
The threats are not only unethical
but they also amount to blackmail:
Blackmail – the extortion of money
from a person by threats of accusations or
exposures or opposition in the public
prints.
Extortion – exaction of money
either for performance of a duty,
prevention of an injury, or exercise of
influence.
 Atty. Aparicio is reprimanded. Rule 19.01 – a lawyer shall employ
only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client.
13)
Nicanor Gonzales & Salud Pantanosas Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is
~ versus ~ suspended until he can duly show to the
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan court that the disputed certificate of titles
have been returned to and duly
FACTS: acknowledged by the complainants.

Complainants were informed by the

Registry of Deeds that their owner’s
duplicate of title were entrusted to the
office secretary of the respondent.

Respondent admitted and confirmed

to the complainants that their titles are in
his custody. But when demanded to
deliver said titles, respondent refused
without any justification.

Respondent challenged the

complainants to file any case in court even
in SC.

Complainants asserted that the

challenge by the respondent is a
manifestation of his arrogance taking
undue advantage of his legal profession.

Due to the challenge, complainants

sent a letter to the SC.

Despite repeated demands,

respondent failed to surrender the said
titles to the rightful owners.

In respondent’s answer:
1) He denied that he challenged
anyone to file a case in any court;
2) He referred complainant
Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto Uy,
for whom he worked out the segregation
of the titles; (the complainants have
monetary obligations to Uy)
3) He also explained why he kept
the certificates of titles, supposedly for the
purpose of subdividing the property.

RULING

The respondent has not exercised

the good faith and diligence required of
lawyers in handling the legal affairs of
their clients.
 14)
Rural Bank of Calape Inc Bohol
~ versus ~
Atty. James Benedict Florido