CANON 17 – 19

Belleza vs. Macasa

Facts
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Belleza against Atty. Alan Macasa. Belleza went to Atty.
Macasa to avail of his legal services on referral of their mutual frined, Chua, in connection with the case of
her son who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City for alleged violation of dangerous drugs act. Atty.
Macasa agreed to handle the case for ₱30,000.

Belleza paid the 30K thru Chua. She also paid ₱18,000 for the posting a bond to secure the provisional
liberty of her son. When Belleza went to the court the next day, she found out that Atty. Macasa did not
remit it to the court. Complainant demanded its return from respondent on several occasions but
respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of Bellaza’s son and so Belleza
just availed the services of the Public Attorney’s Office.

So, Bellaza filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the IBP. The IBP’s Commission on Bar
Discipline required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof but never
answered the complaint despite several chances to do so. The CBD found respondent guilty of violation
of the CPR. The CBD recommended a suspension of six months and ordered respondent to return to
complainant the P18,000 intended for the provisional liberty of the complainant's son and the P30,000
attorney's fees.

Issue:
WON Atty. Macasa violated the CPR.

Ruling:

Respondent Grossly Neglected

The Cause of His Client

Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainant's son. Such undertaking imposed
upon him the following duties:

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE LAW.

A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge,
skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him,
constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights and the exertion of his utmost learning,
skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
legally applied.16

A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client with
competence and diligence.17 He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such relationship. He
must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following representations: that he
possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly situated possess; that
he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him; that he will
exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to his
client's cause; and that he will take all steps necessary to adequately safeguard his client's
interest.18  ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω lιbrαrÿ

A lawyer's negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel and client
may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant, particularly his client.
Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer's lethargy in carrying out his
duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical. 19

If his client's case is already pending in court, a lawyer must actively represent his client by promptly filing
the necessary pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled hearings. This is specially
significant for a lawyer who represents an accused in a criminal case.

The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the Constitution. 20 However, this right can only be
meaningful if the accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his lawyer:

In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainant's son and receiving his attorney's fees,
respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents
and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of respondent's
continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorney's Office.
Respondent's lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainant's son was reprehensible. Not only
did it prejudice complainant's son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore,
in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his
client, respondent unduly impeded the latter's constitutional right to bail.

The Court affirmed the CBD's finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors but modified the
liability from suspension to disbarment.

Nonato vs. Fudolin

FACTS
Complainant Nonato alleged that his father, the late Restituto Nonato (Restituto), was the duly registered
owner of a property that became the subject of ejectment proceedings filed by Restituto against Anselmo
before the MTC. The complainant alleged that although his father Restituto paid the respondent Atty.
Fudolin his acceptance fees, no formal retainer agreement was executed. The respondent also did not
issue any receipts for the acceptance fees paid. The complainant asserted that during the pendency of
the ejectment proceedings before the MTC, the respondent failed to fully inform his father Restituto
of the status and developments in the case. Restituto could not contact the respondent despite his
continued efforts. The respondent also failed to furnish Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions
and other documents filed with the court. Thus, Restituto and the complainant were completely left in
the dark regarding the status of their case. After an exchange of initial pleadings in the ejectment
proceedings, the MTC ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers. Since neither party
complied with the court’s directive, the MTC dismissed the complaint.

So, Atty. Fudolin filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of dismissal. He justified his failure to
file the position paper by arguing that he misplaced the case records, adding that he was also burdened
with numerous other cases. The MTC denied the motion. Because of the patent negligence, the
complainant informed the respondent that his failure to file the position paper could be a ground
for his disbarment. Atty. Fudolin reasoned out that he failed to file the position paper due to his poor
health. He also claimed that he had suffered a stroke and had become partially blind, which caused the
delay in the preparation of the pleadings in the ejectment case.
ISSUE
WON the respondent could be held administratively liable for negligence in the performance of duty.

RULING
The Court hereby SUSPEND Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

A lawyer is bound to protect his client’s interests to the best of his ability and with utmost
diligence. He should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient manner; and
provide the quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect from a competent
lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to be his client’s counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that he
will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by his profession,
and his client may reasonably expect him to perform his obligations diligently. The failure to meet these
standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.

In this case, the record clearly shows that the respondent has been remiss in the performance of
his duties as Restituto’s counsel. His inaction on the matters entrusted to his care is plainly obvious.
He failed to file his position paper despite notice from the MTC requiring him to do so. His omission
greatly prejudiced his client as the Court in fact dismissed the ejectment suit.

In addition, the respondent failed to inform Restituto and the complainant of the status of the case. His
failure to file the position paper, and to inform his client of the status of the case, not only constituted
inexcusable negligence; but it also amounted to evasion of duty. All these acts violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility warranting the court’s imposition of disciplinary action. The pertinent
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – 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.

Because a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence, there is a need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. The respondent has apparently
failed to measure up to these required standards. He neglected to file the required position paper, and did
not give his full commitment to maintain and defend his client’s interests. Aside from failing to file the
required pleading, the respondent never exerted any effort to inform his client of the dismissal of the
ejectment case.

We also find the respondent’s excuse – that he had an undetected stroke and was suffering from other
illnesses – unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Even assuming that he was then suffering from
numerous health problems (as evidenced by the medical certificates he attached), his medical condition
cannot serve as a valid reason to excuse the omission to file the necessary court pleadings. The
respondent could have requested an extension of time to file the required position paper, or at the
very least, informed his client of his medical condition; all these, the respondent failed to do.
Furthermore, the respondent’s subsequent filing of successive pleadings (after the ejectment case
had been dismissed) significantly weakens his health-based excuse. His efforts not only contradict
his explanation that his physical predicament forced him to focus on his illnesses; they also indicate that
his illnesses (allegedly "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Intermittent, and
Diabetes Mellitus Type II") were not at all incapacitating.

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon

Summary: In Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon, 9  we considered a lawyer’s failure to file a
brief for his client to be inexcusable negligence. We held that the lawyer’s omission amounted to a
serious lapse in the duty he owed his client and in his professional obligation not to delay litigation and to
aid the courts in the speedy administration of justice.

Facts
Atty. Saquilabon was the legal counsel of complainant in Civil Case No. 8058 ("Spouses
Marcelino Buco and Cecilia Buco v. Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc.") or the Buco case.

An adverse decision was rendered against complainant in Buco. Not satisfied with the
decision, complainant, through respondent, sought relief from the Court of Appeals. On 24
November 1988, the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appeal brief.
Complainant moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. The appellate court reconsidered
and gave complainant a non-extendible period of fifteen days within which to finally submit
the brief. Respondent lawyer again failed to comply constraining anew the Court of Appeals
to dismiss, on 14 April 1989, the appeal. Complainant’s subsequent motions for
reconsideration were denied. The complainant was ultimately made to pay certain amounts
to the spouses Buco.

In the this (Buco) case, respondent Atty. attributed his failure to file the appellant’s brief to
an oversight or negligence of the complainant’s manager, Quinto.

Atty. Saquilabon was the legal counsel for herein complainant in the Natividad case. Here,
respondent filed with the trial court a motion for an extension to file an answer to the
complaint but he failed, nevertheless, to file the answer on time. The complainant (the
defendant therein) was declared in default, thus allowing the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex-parte. Respondent lawyer’s subsequent compliance was merely noted by the
trial court. After an adverse judgment was rendered against complainant, Respondent.
acting on his own, filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. The appeal, however,
was dismissed on 10 February 1981 for non-payment of the required docket fee.

The failure to file an answer in the Natividad case was said by Atty. to be due to the fault of
complainant’s branch manager, Pascual. According to respondent Atty. not only did Pascual
fail to give respondent a copy of the complaint but Pascual also neglected to provide the
docket fees required on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue
WON Atty. Saquilabon violated CPR.

Ruling
The court resolves to SUSPEND Atty. Benedicto G. Saquilabon from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months.
In Natividad, it would indeed appear that Bienvenido Pascual was unable to furnish
respondent with a copy of the complaint. What Pascual did was merely to refer the case and
to give the summons, as well as a copy of the complaint, to Quinto. The latter could not
even recall the date when he delivered the complaint to respondent lawyer. The dismissal of
the appeal due to non-payment of the docket fees, upon the other hand, had been
reconsidered by the appellate court.

In Buco, however, respondent lawyer truly was negligent in handling the case. It had
behooved him to make certain that the appeal brief was filed on time. His excuse that he
relied instead on an employee, albeit a branch manager, of his client is unacceptable. The
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

Canon 18 —

"Rule 18.03 — 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. A
failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent
has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to
delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice. His arrangements with Quinto did not
relieve respondent from his responsibility to ensure that his client’s cause is not unnecessarily put to
possible jeopardy.

Quinto’s failure to submit the appeal brief on time should have been enough warning for respondent not
to entrust to anyone else, definitely not to Quinto, the filing of the brief following the reconsideration of
the dismissal by the appellate court and the grant of the non-extendible period of fifteen days.
Respondent appears to have been short of scrupulous candor. In asking for the reconsideration of the
1989 resolution dismissing the appeal for the second time, he did not blame Quinto but has averred that
the non-filing of the brief on the extended period granted to have been due to the fault of his secretary,
“whose poor physical health forced her to render services to counsel intermittently.”

UY vs. Tansinsin

Summary: Uy v. Tansinsin, we ruled that a lawyer’s failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his
client about the developments in her case fell below the standard and amounted to a violation of Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We emphasized the importance of the lawyers’ duty to
keep their clients adequately and fully informed about the developments in their cases, and held that a
client should never be left in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence
reposed in the retained lawyer and in the legal profession as a whole.

Facts:
Complainant was the defendant in an ejectment case filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC). To defend her rights, complainant engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Tansinsin who timely filed an Answer3 to the complaint for ejectment. Required to file a
Position Paper, respondent, however, failed to file one. Eventually, a decision was rendered
by the MeTC against the complainant. Complainant, through respondent, elevated the case
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)4 by filing a Notice of Appeal.5 In an Order the RTC
dismissed the appeal solely because of the failure of respondent to file a memorandum on
appeal. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having been filed out of time.
Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel, complainant
initiated the disbarment case against respondent.

For his part, respondent admitted that complainant obtained his legal services, but no legal
fee was ever paid to him. Respondent explained that he could not submit an intelligible
position paper, because the contract between complainant and her lessor had long expired.
He added that he failed to file the position paper and memorandum on appeal, because
complainant told him that she would work out the transfer of ownership to her of the land
subject matter of the ejectment case. In effect, respondent said that he did not submit the
required pleadings, because he knew that the law favored the plaintiff as against the
defendant (complainant herein) in the ejectment case

Issue:
WON Atty. Tansinsin violated the CPR.

Ruling:
Respondent ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS.

Respondent's failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the
developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and
commitment to their client's cause.

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. 16 A lawyer
should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he should
provide a quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect of a
competent lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his client's counsel, he represents
that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded
by the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client's interests and
take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor; and his client may reasonably expect him to
discharge his obligations diligently.17

It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment case) required the parties to submit
their respective position papers. However, respondent did not bother to do so, in total
disregard of the court order. In addition, respondent failed to file the memorandum on
appeal this time with the RTC where complainant's appeal was then pending. Civil Case was,
therefore, dismissed on that ground alone.

Respondent's failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Resposibility19 which states:

Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Aside from failing to file the required pleadings, respondent also lacked candor in dealing
with his client, as he omitted to apprise complainant of the status of her ejectment
case.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client
to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should
never be left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and
confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and in the legal profession in
general.20 Respondent's act demonstrates utter disregard of Rule 18.04, Canon 18, Code of
Professional Resposibility, which states:

Rule 18.04 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.

Villaflores vs Limos

Facts:

This a Complaint1 for Disbarment filed by complainant Virginia Villaflores against respondent

Atty. Sinamar Limos, charging the latter with Gross Negligence and Dereliction of Duty.

Complainant Virginia Villaflores is the defendant in Civil Case filed before the RTC. Receiving
an unfavorable judgment, complainant sought the help of (PAO) to appeal her case to the
Court of Appeals. The PAO filed for her a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.

Complainant received a copy of a Notice 2 from the Court of Appeals requiring her to file her
appellant's brief within 45 days from receipt thereof. Immediately thereafter, complainant
approached respondent, who had previously handled her son's case, to file on her behalf the
required appellant's brief. Since respondent agreed to handle the appeal, she paid lawyer’s
acceptance fee and miscellaneous expenses.

complainant received a copy of a Resolution issued by CA dismissing her appeal for failure
to file her appellant's brief within the reglementary period. Thus, complainant went to
respondent's office but failed to see respondent. So she just sought help from another
lawyer. When complainant went back to the respondent's office to retrieve the records of
her case, respondent allegedly refused to talk to her. Aggrieved by respondent's actuations,
complainant filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent.

Issue:
whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainant's case as
would warrant disciplinary action.

Ruling:

On account of respondent's failure to protect the interest of complainant, respondent indeed

violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent ATTY.
SINAMAR E. LIMOS is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE
(3) MONTHS,

Respondent's acceptance of the payment for her professional fees and miscellaneous
expenses, together with the records of the case, effectively bars her from disclaiming the
existence of an attorney-client relationship between her and complainant.

No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but
once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. 12 Among the fundamental rules
of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory.

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.

Respondent has obviously failed to measure up to the foregoing standards.

It may be true that the complainant shares the responsibility for the lack of communication
between her and respondent, her counsel. Respondent, however, should not have depended
entirely on the information her client gave or at the time the latter wished to give it.
Respondent, being the counsel, more than her client, should appreciate the importance of
complying with the reglementary period for the filing of pleadings and know the best means
to acquire the information sought. Had she made the necessary inquiries, respondent would
have known the reckoning date for the period to file appellant's brief with the Court of
Appeals. As a lawyer representing the cause of her client, she should have taken more
control over her client's case.

Respondent's dismal failure to comply with her undertaking is likewise evident from the fact
that up until 19 January 2005, when complainant retrieved the entire records of her case,
and more than four months from the time her services were engaged by complainant,
respondent still had not prepared the appellant's brief.

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.

In this case, by reason of respondent's negligence, the complainant suffered actual loss.
Complainant faced the risk of losing entirely her right to appeal and had to engage the
services of another lawyer to protect such a right.
 Tejano v. Baterina

Facts:
Joselito F. Tejano filed a Complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the
Supreme Court against Judge Arquelada, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Vigan City
and Tejano’s own counsel, Atty. Baterina. Tejano claims that Atty. Baterina “miserably failed to advance
his cause and udge Arquelada of acting in conspiracy with Atty. Baterina for the former to take
possession of his (Tejano) property, which was the subject matter of litigation in the judge’s court.

Atty. Baterina explained that he had been recuperating from a kidney transplant when he
received a copy of the complaint. He begged the Court’s indulgence and said that his failure to comply
was “not at all intended to show disrespect to the orders of the Honorable Tribunal. Atty. Baterina also
denied the allegation of bad faith and negligence in handling the Tejano case. He explained that the
reason he could not attend to the case was that in 2002, he was suspended by the Court from the
practice of law for two years. However, the trial court did not order plaintiffs to secure the services of
another lawyer.

The Court, found Atty. Baterina’s explanation "not satisfactory and admonished him "to be more
heedful of the Court’s directives and referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation, which found sufficient ground for disciplinary action against Atty. Baterina.

Issue: WON Atty. Baterina was liable for gross negligence in his duty as counsel to his client.

Ruling:
The Court adopts the IBP’s report and recommendation, with modification as to the penalty.

The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of lawyers states:

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

RULE 18.04 – 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.

When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s services are engaged, “he is duty bound to
serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion
regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.” A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a case
“impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and
executory.”

A lawyer – even one suspended from practicing the profession – owes it to his client to not “sit
idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.” The client “should never be left groping
in the dark” and instead must be “adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case.

Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty when he allowed the proceedings to run its course
without any effort to safeguard his clients’ welfare in the meantime. His failure to file the required
pleadings on his clients’ behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and renders him subject to disciplinary action.
 Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is found GUILTY of gross negligence. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for five (5) years. He is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.

Espina v. Chavez

Facts:
Atty. Espina and his law firm represented Atty. Espina's parents in an ejectment suit filed against
Remedios Enguio. Atty. Chavez who was then a Public Attorney III of the Public Attorney's Office,
Regional Office XIII, Butuan City represented Enguio.

During the pendency of the ejectment case, Atty. Espina sent a letter to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) Secretary captioned "Abrasive and harassment tactics of Public Attorney IHJesus G. Chavez." The
letter alleged that the Answer Atty. Chavez prepared in the ejectment case contained offensive
statements.

Atty. Chavez, as a Public Attorney, endorsed the filing of a criminal complaint Falsification by
private individual and use of falsified document against Atty. Espina, his wife (who is a partner in his law
office) and his parents which was based on the affidavit-complaint executed by Enguio. He alleged that in
order to fashion a case for Ejectment, respondents made an untruthful statement in the narration of facts.

The falsification case was filed, according to Atty. Espina, solely for the purpose of gaining an
improper advantage and leverage in the ejectment case.

Issue: WON Atty. Chavez violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he prepared and transmitted the complaint of Enquio.

Ruling:

What Rule 19.01 prohibits is the filing or the threat of filing patently frivolous and meritless
appeals or clearly groundless actions for the purpose of gaining improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.

Two elements are indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed to have violated this rule: (i) the
filing or threat of filing a patently frivolous and meritless action or appeal and (ii) the filing or threat of filing
the action is intended to gain improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Atty. Espina did not only fail to substantiate his allegation that Atty. Chavez masterminded the
filing of the criminal complaint for falsification; he also failed to show that the criminal complaint was
patently frivolous, meritless and groundless, and that it was filed to gain improper advantage in favor of
his client.

First, the act of endorsing the affidavit-complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor did not per se
violate Rule 19.01. The affidavit-complaint for Falsification was signed and executed by Enguio and not
by Atty. Chavez. Atty. Chavez merely transmitted the affidavit-complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor for
the latter's consideration

Second, the criminal complaint was not patently frivolous and groundless. It was not
unreasonable for Atty. Chavez to conclude that there was a case for violation of Article 172 of the RPC.

Finally, there is no clear and concrete proof that the falsification complaint was filed to ensure
improper advantage to Enguio.

We hereby AFFIRM the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and DISMISS
the Disbarment/Suspension complaint against ATTY. JESUS G. CHAVEZ.
 Dalisay v. Mauricio

Facts:
At bar is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision finding Atty. Melanio "Batas" Mauricio, Jr.,
respondent, guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.

Dalisay, complainant, engaged respondent's services as counsel in a civil case. Notwithstanding

his receipt of documents and attorney's fees in the total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant,
respondent never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client
relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents, but respondent refused.

In this motion for reconsideration, respondent raises the following arguments:

First, complainant did not engage his services as counsel in the said civil case. She hired him for
the purpose of filing two new petitions, a petition for declaration of nullity of title and a Petition for Review
of a decree.
Second, the civil case was "considered submitted for decision" for more than two months prior the
date he was engaged as counsel, hence, "he could not have done anything anymore" about it.
Third, complainant refused to provide him with documents related to the case, preventing him
from doing his job.
And fourth, complainant offered tampered evidence in the civil case, prompting him to file
falsification cases against her.

In her opposition to the motion, complainant contends that: (1) respondent violated the principle
of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against her; (2)
respondent should have returned her money; (3) respondent should have verified the authenticity of her
documents earlier if he really believed that they are falsified; and (4) his refusal to return her money
despite this Court's directive constitutes contempt.

Issue: WON Atty. Mauricio was guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct.

Ruling:

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who
may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment. But once he accepts money from
a client, an attorney-client relationship is established, giving rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause.
From then on, he is expected to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the
client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted devotion.

Respondent assumed such obligations when he received the amount of P56,000.00 from
complainant and agreed to handle the civil case. Unfortunately, he had been remiss in the performance of
his duties. As we have ruled earlier, "there is nothing in the records to show that he (respondent) entered
his appearance as counsel of record for complainant in the civil case." Neither is there any evidence nor
pleading submitted to show that he initiated new petition.

Neither do we find merit in respondent's second argument. The fact that the civil case was
already "submitted for decision" does not justify his inaction. After agreeing to handle the case, his duty is,
first and foremost, to enter his appearance. Sadly, he failed to do this simple task. He should have
returned complainant's money. Surely, he cannot expect to be paid for doing nothing.

In his third argument, respondent attempts to evade responsibility by shifting the blame to
complainant. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he
possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case.11 As a lawyer, respondent
knew where to obtain copies of the certificates of title. As a matter of fact, he admitted that his Law Office,
on its own, managed to verify the authenticity of complainant's title. It bears reiterating that respondent did
not take any action on the case despite having been paid for his services. This is tantamount to
abandonment of his duties as a lawyer and taking undue advantage of his client.

On the fourth argument, Rule 19.02 of the same Canon specifically provides:

Rule 19.02 ' A lawyer who has received information that his clients has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify
the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the
Rules of Court.

As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have
confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then
he should terminate his relationship with her.

The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had
terminated their attorney-client relationship. Obviously, in filing falsification charges against complainant,
respondent was motivated by vindictiveness.

We DENY respondent's motion for reconsideration. Respondent is directed to report immediately

to the Office of the Bar Confidant his compliance with our Decision.
 Santiago v. Fojas

Facts:
The complainants, former clients of the respondent alleged, that under false pretenses Atty. Fojas
assured them that everything was in order in connection in a civil case against them under the sala or
Judge Capulong. That he had already answered the complaint so that in spite of the incessant demand
for him to give them a copy he continued to deny same to them. Only to disclose later that he never
answered it after all because according to him he was a very busy man.

The complainants added that because of Atty. Amado Fojas’ neglect and malpractice of law we
lost the Judge Capulong case and our appeal to the Court of Appeals.

In his Comment, the respondent admits his "mistake" in failing to file the complainants’ answer in
the civil case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration, which was
unfortunately denied by the court. He added that the unfavorable judgment in the Regional Trial Court is
not imputable to his mistake but rather imputable to the merits of the case. He further claims that the
complainants filed this case to harass him because he refused to share his attorney’s fees in the main
labor case he had handled for them.

Issue: WON Atty. Fojas actions tantamount to malpractice and negligence in the performance of his duty.

Ruling:

The respondent did not comply with his duty to file an answer in the civil case. His lack of
diligence was compounded by his erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or grave
abuse of discretion and by his continued refusal to file an answer even after he received the Court of
Appeals’ decision in the certiorari case.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the 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 for free.

All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and, more
specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."

ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more
careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
 Olvida v. Gonzales

Facts:
The complainant alleged that he engaged the services of the respondent in the filing and handling
of a case for Termination of Tenancy Relationship. The complainant paid the respondent his acceptance
fee of P15,000.00 and P700.00 as advance appearance fee. The respondent asked the complainant to
provide him with copies of all pertinent documents and affidavits of his witnesses.

After providing the required documents, the complainant repeatedly called the respondent's office
for information about the position paper. After fruitlessly going back and forth the respondent's office, the
complainant finally contacted the respondent's secretary, Marivic Romero, about the position paper.
Romero told him that the position paper had already been filed. When he asked for a copy, Romero
replied that there was none as it was the respondent himself who prepared the position paper on his
computer.

When the DARAB decision came out, complainant discovered that the respondent did not file the
position paper in the case. The decision stated that the respondent failed to submit a position paper
despite ample time to do so.

Respondent contended that the complainant's accusations were merely products of his fertile
imagination and scheming mind. He explained that the complainant pressed charges against him not
because he failed to file a position paper — under DARAB rules, the filing of a position paper can be
dispensed with — but because he lost the case. The respondent pointed out that the complainant lost the
case because there was a difference of opinion between them and that the complainant in fact failed to
submit to him all the pieces of documentary evidence he needed.

Issue: WON Atty. Gonzales was negligent in discharging his duties as a lawyer.

Ruling:

The respondent, Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, is liable as charged. He grossly violated Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE
OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

The complainant had all the reasons to terminate the respondent's services and to have him
disciplined for his patent neglect of duty as lawyer. As the records show, the respondent gave the
complainant the run-around for an unreasonably long period of time; the latter had to repeatedly inquire
about and follow up the filing of the position paper in the DARAB case. On the matter alone of keeping
complainant posted on the status of the case, the respondent failed to comply with his duty under Rule
18.04, Canon 18 that "a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of the case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information."

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that "A LAWYER SHALL SERVE
HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Accordingly, Rule 18.02 mandates that "a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable."
 As the Court said in Biomi Sarenas-Ochagabia v. Atty. Balmes L. Ocampos: "A lawyer engaged
to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost
diligence. By failing to file appellant's brief, respondent was remiss in the discharge of such responsibility.
He thus violated the Code of Professional Responsibility."

Also, in In Re: Atty. David Briones, we held that the failure of the counsel to submit the required
brief within the reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action, xxx His failure to file an
appellant's brief x x x has caused the appeal to remain inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of
his client, the accused himself, who continues to languish in jail pending the resolution of his case.

The respondent is no less responsible than the two erring lawyers in the above-cited cases for his
failure to file the position paper in the DARAB case, which caused complainant and his family so much
grief, considering, as complainant lamented, that they suffered emotional shock, heartaches, and
sleepless nights because of the expenses they had incurred that aggravated their longstanding problems
with their tenant.

We cannot, and should not, tolerate the respondent's lack of commitment to and genuine concern
for the complainant's cause, for it puts the practice of law in a very bad light. He should be made to
answer, not only for his negligence in the handling of the complainant's case before the DARAB, but also
for his dishonest and unethical dealings in this case.

Respondent Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years,
effective upon finality of this decision, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt
with more severely.