Matt Joshua T.

Juan
JD – 3B

1. Brion, Jr. v. Brllantes, Jr., Adm Case No. 5305,2003

FACTS: Brillantes was dismissed from service as a judge and was prohibited from assuming any post in
the government by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, he accepted a consultancy post at the Local Water
Utilities Administration.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer’s duty under Canon 1 of the CPR includes obedience to court orders

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated in the Attorney’s Oath is to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. That duty in its
irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the courts.

2. Feliciano v. Bautista-Lozada, Adm. Case No. 7593 2015

FACTS: Lozada was suspended from the practice of law. However, Lozada appeared in an action for
injunction as counsel for the plaintiff and her husband.

ISSUE: Whether or not disobedience to court orders is a ground for disbarment or suspension

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

3. Bautista v. Gonzales, Adm. Matter No. 1625 1990

FACTS: Atty. Gonzales was the counsel of the Fortunados in a civil case. He transferred to himself one-
half of the properties of his clients which properties are the subject of the litigation while the case was
still pending.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may purchase his client’s property or interest in litigation

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process. Under the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring the
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of
their profession.

4. Arciga v. Maniwang AC 1608 1981

FACTS: Segundino promised Magdalena that he would marry her once he passed the bar examinations.
He passed the exams and then told Magdalena that they could not get married for lack of money
although the true reason was Magdalena’s shady past – she had been accused of oral defamation and
already had an illegitimate child with another man. Segundino later on married Erlinda.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer’s breach of promise to marry after passing the bar examinations
necessarily constitutes grossly immoral conduct negating good moral character

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

of the community. There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be in consonance with the canons
of the moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior is not glaringly
scandalous. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of
marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct, will depend on the surrounding
circumstances.

5. Zaguirre v. Castillo AC 4921 2003

FACTS: Castillo courted Zaguirre and promised to marry her while misrepresenting himself to be single.
They had an intimate affair. Castillo became a lawyer. Zaguirre gave birth to a child. Castillo refused to
recognize the child and to provide support.

ISSUE: Whether or not a married lawyer who has an extramarital affair with another and begot a child
with the latter may be subjected to disciplinary action

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Lawyers must be of good moral character.

6. Mortel v. Aspiras 100 PHIL. 586, 592N (1956)

FACTS: Atty. Aspiras, misrepresenting himself as single, courted and won the affection of Mortel. Upon
suggestion of Aspiras, Mortel was married to his son although she was not in love with the latter. After
the marriage, Mortel and Aspiras continued cohabiting together, the ceremony being a mere formality
performed at the indication of Aspiras.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who had an extramarital affair with another who is the wife of his child
may be subjected to disciplinary action

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for
the rightful continuance in the practice of the law and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even
though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment.

7. Cordova v. Cordova, AC 3249 1989

FACTS: Atty. Cordova had an adulterous relationship with a married woman, in full view of the general
public, and failed to support his own family. After a brief period of reform, Cordova took up again with
another woman, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to live with them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of moral character subjecting a lawyer to disciplinary action is limited to
the discharge of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
community, such as making a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage.

8. In re Basa

FACTS: Atty. Basa was found guilty of the crime of abduction with consent.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of abduction with consent involves moral turpitude

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals." The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the
accepted rule of right conduct.

9. PP vs. Tuanda

FACTS: Atty. Tuanda was found guilty of violating BP 22.

ISSUE: Whether not a lawyer violating BP 22 may be subjected to disciplinary action

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A violation of BP 22 involves moral turpitude. Conviction of a crime involving

moral turpitude might not relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it relates to and
affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. The qualification of good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law; its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.

10. In re Al Argosino (BM 712 1995)

FACTS: Argosino was convicted with homicide due to the death of Raul stemming from the infliction of
severe physical injuries upon him during a "hazing" conducted as part of university fraternity initiation
rites. Argosino was placed on probation. He then passed the bar examinations but was not allowed to
take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE: Whether or not deliberate participation in a hazing activity and infliction of physical injuries to a
neophyte leading to the latter’s death negates good moral character

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character. The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek admission
to the bar is more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public.

11. Teves v. comelec GR 180363 2009

FACTS: Mayor Teves was found guilty of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for possessing
pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit

ISSUE: Whether or not the act of having pecuniary interest in any transaction in connection with which
he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by
any law from having any interest, involves moral turpitude

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes, insofar as the first mode – official intervention – is concerned but not
necessarily as to the second mode – possession of prohibited interest. A determination of all
surrounding circumstances must be considered. Moral turpitude does not include such acts as are not of
themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited.

12. Atty. Roldolfo D. Pactolin (Adm. Case No. 7940, 2012)

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Pactolin was found guilty of the crime of falsification of public document.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of falsification of public document involves moral turpitude

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule
of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.

13. In re: Lontok, 43 Phil. 293 (1922)

FACTS: Atty. Lontok was convicted of bigamy but he was pardoned by the Governor-General.

ISSUE: Whether or not a pardoned lawyer may be disbarred

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A pardon reaches both the penalty and the guilt of the offender; and when the
pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eyes of the
law the offender is an innocent as if he had never committed the offense.

14. In re: Vailoces AC 439 1982

FACTS: Atty. Vailoces was convicted with falsification of public document and was subsequently
disbarred. He was pardoned by the President and has regained the respect and confidence of his fellow
attorneys as well as of the citizens of his community.

ISSUE: Whether or not a convicted and disbarred lawyer who was pardoned by the President is entitled
to reinstatement

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Plenary pardon extended to a convicted and disbarred lawyer does not of itself
warrant reinstatement. Evidence of reformation is required before an applicant is entitled to
reinstatement, notwithstanding that the attorney has received a pardon following his conviction.

15. In re: Rovero, Adm Case No. 126 December 1980

FACTS: Atty. Rovero was convicted of smuggling and was disbarred but was granted pardon. Since his
disbarment, Rovero has been honorably conducting himself in the community.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who was convicted and disbarred but was pardoned and has reformed
himself may be reinstated

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. To be reinstated to the practice of law, it is necessary that the applicant must
show that he is a person of good moral character.

16. In re: Gutierrez AC 363 1962

FACTS: Atty. Gutierrez was convicted of murder but was given conditional pardon by the President.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who was given conditional pardon frees him from disbarment

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The rule that pardon wipes out the conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for
disbarment applies only if it is absolute, but not if it is conditional as the latter does not reach the
offense itself but merely remits the unexecuted portion of the penalty.

17. Lizaso v. Amante AC 2019, June 3, 1991

FACTS: Lizaso gave Atty. Amante P5,000 to be invested in Amante’s casino business. Lizaso tried to
collect the interest on her investment but to no avail and then even begged Amante to return her
money but Amante merely made promises.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct done outside his professional
dealings

RULING: Yes. The lawyer’s duty not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct is not
limited to performance of professional duties but also in private dealings.

18. Piat v. Abordo 58 Phil. 350 (1933)

FACTS: Atty. Abordo attempted to buy opium.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct done outside of his professional
duties

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. An attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his
profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties.

19. Toledo v. Abalos AC 5141 1999

FACTS: Atty. Abalos obtained a loan from Toledo but failed to pay it. Toledo sought the help of the IBP.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline directed Abalos to respond to the complaint but Abalos did not do
so. Abalos failed to appear during the hearing.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer who fails to perform his private obligation to another may be
disciplined
2. Whether or not a lawyer who fails to appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. A lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume
jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his private capacity
2. Yes. Even if the disciplining body cannot assume jurisdiction to discipline him, it is still necessary
for the respondent lawyer to acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its
authority over him as a member of the IBP.

20. Sebastian v. Calis AC 5118 1999

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Calis deceived Sebastian by assuring her that he could give her visa and travel documents;
that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the
USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went
wrong. All for material gain.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who deceives another for material gain in his private capacity may be
disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to
continue in the practice of law.

21. Reyes v. Gaa AM 1048 1995

FACTS: Atty. Gaa, an assistant fiscal, was caught during an entrapment for extortion. He declined to give
a sworn statement to explain his side of the case, invoking his right against self-incrimination. In his
answer to the complaint for disbarment, Gaa asserted that Reyes surreptitiously planted the marked
money in his pocket.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not it is enough for a lawyer whose integrity is being challenged to merely deny the
charges against him
2. Whether or not a lawyer who is a government official may be disciplined as a lawyer for
misconduct done in the course of his duties as a government official

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. He must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that
he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him.
2. Yes. Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to affect
his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such grounds. Extortion constitutes misconduct as a public official and a
violation of a lawyer’s oath to delay no man for money or malice.

22. Nadayag v. Grageda AC 3232 1994

FACTS: Atty. Grageda notarized a pacto de retro sale and assured Nadayag, the buyer, that the involved
stolen title from the Register of Deeds was all right and told her not to worry as he is an attorney and
besides he knew very well the seller  whose business transactions are being handled by him.

ISSUE: Whether or not a notary public may be disciplined for failing to explain the legal consequences of
a transaction which later turn out to be unscrupulous

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer should fully explain the legal intricacies and consequences of the
transaction as would aid the parties in making an informed decision. The trust and confidence
necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his
clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. 
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

23. Nunga v. Viray AC 4758 1999

FACTS: Atty. Viray notarized documents without a commission to do so.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may engage in notarization without authority to notarize

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Performing a notarial by making it appear that he is commissioned when he is

not is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws – the Notarial Law - and to do no falsehood.

24. Villarin, et al. v. Sabate, Jr. AC 3324 2000

FACTS: Atty. Sabate notarized the Verification of the Motion to Dismiss with Answer, in which he was
one of the signatories, even if the affiants of the instrument were not before him.

ISSUE: Whether or not a notary public may notarize documents even if the affiants do not personally
appear before him or in which he is one of the signatories

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer must obey the laws of the land such as the Notarial Law. The function
of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.

25. Isenhardt v. Real AC 8254 2012

FACTS: Atty. Real notarized a SPA supposedly executed by Isenhardt authorizing the latter’s brother to
mortgage her real property. However, Isenhardt never appeared before Real.

ISSUE: Whether or not a notary public may be disciplined for making it appear that the affiant personally
appeared before him although in truth he did not

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it
is the same person who executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and the
truth of what are stated therein.

26. Agbulos v. Viray AC 7350 2013

FACTS: Atty. Viray notarized an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy purportedly executed by Agbulos and without
the latter’s personal appearance.

ISSUE: Whether or not a notary public may be disciplined for notarizing a document not actually
executed by the affiant and without the affiant’s personal appearance

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed
the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Lawyers must obey the laws and do no falsehood or
consent to the doing of any.

27. Flores v. Chua AC 4500 1999

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Chua forged the signature of the seller in a deed of sale and notarized the same.

ISSUE: Whether or not a notary public who notarizes a forged instrument may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his
shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing
of any. The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

28. Imson-Souwelha v. Rondez AC 3961  1997

FACTS: Because of Atty. Rondez’ close relationship with the Imson family and the misrepresentations of
Souwelha’s sisters that they have the written authority of Souwelha to sign on her behalf, Rondez
notarized the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.

ISSUE: Whether or not a notary public who, in good faith, notarized a document without the presence of
an affiant on account of the misrepresentations of the other affiants that they have the authority of the
absent affiant may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A notary public who merely acted in good faith in notarizing a document in the
absence of an affiant could not be deemed to have violated his oath as a commissioned notary public if
he was led to believe by the other affiants that they had the authority to sign on behalf of the absent
affiant and if he has trust and confidence in them arising from his close connections with them.

29. In re: Terrell GR 1203 1903 / 2 Phil. 266

FACTS: Atty. Terrell assisted in the organization of a club and acted as its attorney despite knowing that
it was made for the purpose of evading criminal laws.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who assists a client in a scheme which he knows to be dishonest, or who
connives at violating the law, may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the
purpose of violating or evading the laws constitutes malpractice or gross misconduct as a lawyer.

30. Donton v. Tansingco AC 6057 2006

FACTS: Stier, a US citizen, transferred his parcel of land to Donton, a Filipino. Atty. Tansingco prepared
an occupancy agreement that would guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual owner of the property
despite its transfer in Donton’s name.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who aids an alien in owning real property in the Philippines may be
disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will
involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.

31. Oronce v. CA GR 125766 1998

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Flaminiano, together with his wife, entered the disputed property despite an existing writ
of preliminary injunction and even uttered contumaciously to the occupants that the pending litigation
over such property in the Supreme Court has nothing to do with their claimed ownership.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who enters a property in contravention of an existing writ of preliminary
injunction may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer is prohibited from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

32. Guarin v. Limpin AC 10576 2015

FACTS: Atty. Limpin, the corporate secretary of Legacy Card, Inc., allowed herself to be swayed by the
business practice of having de los Angeles, a mere incorporator and stockholder, appoint the members
of the BOD and officers of the corporation despite the rules enunciated in the Corporation Code with
respect to the election of such officers.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who is a corporate secretary who allows the irregular appointment of
board members and officers in the corporation may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating
the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.

33. Coronel v. Cunanan AC 6738 2015

FACTS: Atty. Cunanan proposed to Coronel the option of direct registration to her of the properties of
her grandparents even if that would bypass the immediate heirs of her grandparents and assured that
he could do that with the help of his contacts in the government.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who advises a client that the latter can get the properties of the
decedent through the help of his government contacts, regardless of the presence of immediate heirs,
may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer should advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or disobey it
and not recommend any recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and
public morals or that lessens the public confidence in the legal system.

34. Delos Santos II v. Barbosa, Adm. Case 6681 2015

FACTS: METC postponed the preliminary conference to allow the prosecution to secure a certified copy
of the subject birth certificate. Atty. Barbosa sent letters to the Office of the Civil Registrar, the National
Census and Statistics Office, and St. Luke’s Hospital to prevent the prosecution from obtaining such
copy.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who deliberately delays the court proceedings may be disciplined
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is part of the machinery in the
administration of justice. A lawyer should not only help attain the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct,
and inexpensive adjudication of cases and prompt satisfaction of final judgments, but should likewise
avoid any unethical or improper practices that may impede, obstruct, or prevent the realization of a
speedy and efficient administration of justice.

35. Castaneda v. Ago GR 28546 1975

FACTS: The Agos, abetted by their lawyer Luison despite their position being untenable, for 14 years
have availed legal remedies to prevent the satisfaction of the judgment in a replevin suit against them.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who prevents satisfaction of judgment against his client by the
availment of legal remedies, even if his client’s position is untenable, may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client's position cannot be
countenanced. If a lawyer finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to
advise the latter to acquiesce and submit. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and
temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his
duty to his client.

36. De Ysasi III v NLRC GR 104599 1994

FACTS: De Ysasi III filed an action with the NLRC against his father Jon for illegal dismissal as a farm
administrator in Jon’s hacienda. Their respective lawyers did not do anything to reconcile the hostile
litigants. Instead, the lawyers exchanged protracted communications themselves.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who encourages conflict rather than end it may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Lawyers must exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts,
preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties
between their clients. The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it
whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He should be a mediator for concord and
a conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.

37. Ledesma V. Climaco GR L-23815 1974

FACTS: Atty. Ledesma filed a motion to allow him to withdraw as counsel de oficio because he cannot
devote his full time due to his work as an election registrar at the COMELEC.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who was appointed counsel de oficio may withdraw from such
appointment on the ground that he must devote his full time to his law practice

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The law is a profession, not a trade or a craft. Lawyers are called upon to aid in
the administration of justice and so they may be required to act as counsel de oficio regardless of their
current law practice.

38. In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 1929

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Tagorda advertised his legal services and solicited legal employment through a card during
his candidacy as a member of the provincial board and in a letter addressed to the barrio lieutenant.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who solicits employment may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers may not seek or obtain
employment personally or through another for to do so would be unprofessional.

39. Linsangan v. Tolentino AC 6672 2009

FACTS: Atty. Tolentino convinced the clients of Atty. Linsangan to transfer legal representation and
promised them financial assistance, as written in Tolentino’s calling card, and expeditious collection on
their claims. To induce them to hire his services, Tolentino persistently called them and sent them text
messages.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may solicit or entice legal employment

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers are prohibited
from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers.
Lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple
professional cards which may contain only the following : (1) lawyer’s name; (2) name of the law firm
with which he is connected; (3) address; (4) telephone number and (5) special branch of law practiced.

40. Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 553, June 17, 1993

FACTS: Atty. Nogales is the prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc.
The corporation advertises its legal services by including a quotation of the fees charged for its legal
services.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may put in his advertisement a quotation of the fees charged for his
services

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.

41. Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie AC 2131 1985

FACTS: Atty. Collas and nine other lawyers are practicing law in the Philippines under the name of Baker
& McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois.

ISSUE: Whether or not a Filipino lawyer may practice law under the name of an alien law firm

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. It is tantamount to advertising the legal services offered by the alien law firm
which, in the first place, cannot be practiced by the lawyers in the Philippines because such law firm
cannot practice law here.

42. PP vs. Gacott GR. 116049 1995

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: A LOI was issued abolishing the Anti-Dummy Board. The city prosecutor filed a complaint for
violation of the Anti-Dummy Law against Strom and Reyes. The defense counsel countered that the city
prosecutor has no power to file the complaint because the power to prosecute a violation of said law is
vested in the Anti-Dummy Board under the law. The judge dismissed the case espousing the view of the
defense and on the ground that a LOI cannot repeal a law.

ISSUE: Whether or not lawyers and judges may ignore legal developments without any sanction

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Members of the bar must keep abreast of legal developments

43. Payod v. Metila AC 3944 2007

FACTS: Atty. Metila failed to comply with the requirements in initiating Payod’s appeal before the
Supreme Court even after his attention to it was called by the court.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined for failing to comply with pleadings requirements set
forth in Supreme Court issuances

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer must keep abreast of legal developments.

44. Sanchez v. Aguilos, AC 10543 2016

FACTS: Atty. Aguilos filed a petition for legal separation in behalf of his client instead of the intended
annulment of marriage. Apparently, Aguilos got confused as to the distinctions between legal separation
and annulment of marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not it is permissible for a lawyer to get confused in giving advice to his clients as to
principles of law

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Lawyers shall keep abreast of the legal developments and participate in
continuing legal education program.

45. Cabiles v. Cedo AC 10245 2017

FACTS: Atty. Cedo failed to indicate in the pleadings he filed the number and date of issue of his MCLE
Certificate of Compliance for the Third Compliance Period. Cedo failed to comply with the three MCLE
compliance periods.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may simply forego of the MCLE program

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Complying with the MCLE requirement is mandatory for lawyers to enable them
to practice law and to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
Non-compliance with the MCLE requirement subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP
member.

46. Collantes v. Renomeron AC 3056 1991

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Renomeron, Registrar of Deeds, unjustifiably neglected requests to act on the registration
of deeds of absolute sale with assignment and the issuance and transfer of the corresponding TCTs to
the GSIS for the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary or material benefit from the person or persons
interested therein.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer in the government service may unjustifiably refuse to perform his
governmental duties

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The CPR applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks. It forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct or delay
any man's cause for any corrupt motive or interest.

47. Reyes v. Gaa Adm. Matter No. 1048 July 14, 1995

FACTS: Atty. Gaa, an assistant fiscal, was arrested during an entrapment for extortion.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who is a government official may be disciplined as a lawyer for
misconduct done in the course of his duties as a government official

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a

character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds. Extortion constitutes misconduct as a public official
and a violation of a lawyer’s oath to delay no man for money or malice.

48. Pimentel v. Llorente, et al., AC 4680 2000

FACTS: Atty. Llorente and Atty Salayon, chairman of Pasig City Board of Canvassers and vice-chairman of
the board, respectively, signed the statement of votes and certificate of canvass despite knowledge that
some of the entries therein were false.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct done in the
performance of his government duties

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The CPR is applicable to lawyers in the government service. If the misconduct
also constitutes a violation of the CPR or the lawyer's oath or is of such character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a
member of the bar for such misconduct.

49. Berenguer-Kanders v. Florin AC 5119 2013

FACTS: Atty. Florin, as Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), granted the petition for
implementation of the order of the DAR Regional Director while an appeal is pending with the DAR
Secretary.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer in the government service may be disciplined under the CPR for
misconduct done in the performance of his governmental duties
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. If a misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath
as a lawyer, then a lawyer may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar. The CPR was not
meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in
government service.

50. Suarez v. Platon 69 Phil. 556 1940

FACTS: Prosecutor Yamsom moved to reconsider the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss arguing that
there was no evidence against the accused to convict him of the crime charged.

ISSUE: Whether or not prosecutors may argue for the innocence of the accused

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The interest of a prosecutor in a criminal case is not that he shall win a case,
but that justice shall be done.

51. Lahm v. Mayor AC 7430 2012

FACTS: In a case before him, Labor Arbiter Mayor insists that he has the authority to issue writs of
preliminary injunction and/or TRO contrary to the NLRC rules of procedure.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer in the government service must obey the laws and promulgated rules

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The CPR shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks. Under Canon 1, lawyers must obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes. While a judge may not always be held liable for ignorance of the law for every
erroneous order that he renders, it is also axiomatic that when the legal principle involved is sufficiently
basic, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

52. PCCG v. Sandiganbayan, et al., GR 1518098-12 2005

FACTS: Former Solicitor General Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI praying for the assistance and
supervision of the court in GENBANK’s liquidation. The government then sequestered the properties
acquired by Lucio Tan and others which include GENBANK. Lucio Tan and others contested the
sequestration before the Supreme Court with Mendoza as their counsel.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a conflict of interest on the part of Mendoza

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Rule 6.03 requires that there must be adverse interest, congruent interest and
substantial intervention. Here, Mendoza merely asked for the assistance of the CFI in the liquidation of
GENBANK. Moreover, the liquidation proceedings and the sequestration case involve different matters.
Lastly, Mendoza did not actually participate in the proceedings subsequent to his filing of petition with
the CFI.

53. Pasok v. Zapatos AC 7388 2016

FACTS: Zapatos, after retiring as a judge, acted as counsel for the defendants in a civil case he previously
presided over as a judge.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer, after retiring as a judge, may represent one of the parties in the case
before him while still a judge

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A retired judge cannot accept any engagement or employment in relation to a
matter that, by virtue of his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome
of the proceedings except on behalf of the body or authority that he served during his public
employment.

54. Santos Jr. v. Llamas AC 4749

FACTS: Atty. Llamas misrepresented to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may avoid paying his IBP dues and misrepresent through his pleadings
that he had paid them

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.

55. Leda v. Tabang AC. 2505 1992

FACTS: Atty. Tabang, although married, declared in his application for admission to the bar exams that
he was single.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may misrepresent his civil status in his application for admission to the
bar

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or

suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.

56. Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez BM 1154 2004

FACTS: Meling did not disclose his pending criminal cases against him in his petition to take the bar
exams.

ISSUE: Whether or not a bar applicant may conceal pending criminal cases against him in his petition to
take the bar

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the
good moral character of the applicant.

57. In re: Parazo GR 120348 1949

FACTS: Parazo, a news writer, alleged in an article she made that there were leakages in the bar exam
without disclosing her sources.

ISSUE: Whether or not a person may claim anomalies in the bar exam without any proof
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. He may be cited for contempt for imputing malice against the Supreme Court as
the body having the constitutional prerogative to admit persons in the practice of law.
58. Tapucar v. Tapucar AC 4148 1998

FACTS: Atty. Tapucar, married, cohabited with another woman not his wife and begot two children with
her.

ISSUE: Whether or not a married lawyer may engage in an extramarital affair.

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

59. Victory v. Masrcado AC 10580 2017

FACTS: Atty. Mercado failed to pay her debts to spouses Victory and even issued worthless checks.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined for failing to pay his debts and issuing worthless
checks

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair
dealing in his professional and private capacities.

60. Bugarin v. Espanol GR 133090 2001

FACTS: Atty. Bugaring rudely interrupted his fellow counsel who at the time he was making
representations in behalf of the other party by not allowing him to speak a word.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may interrupt the counsel of the other party who is in the middle of
representing his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer must conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues.

61. Noble III v. Ailes AC 10628 2015

FACTS: Atty. Orlando texted his brother Marcelo to terminate the services of Atty. Maximino because
the latter is stupid.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may speak ill of his colleague

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession.  The use of intemperate language
and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

62. Buenviaje v. Magdamo AC 11616 2017

FACTS: In an attempt to protect the rights and interests of his clients in securing the monies of their
deceased sibling, Fe, Atty. Magdamo sent a Notice of Death of Depositor to the BPI indicating therein
that Lito, husband of Fe, is a clever swindler, was actually married to another, has been a fugitive from
justice and that Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may use offending words in his communications

RULING/DOCTRINE: No.  Lawyers must abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness.

63. In re Clemente M. Soriano GR 24114 1970

FACTS: Atty. Soriano filed a pleading entitled “Appearance” with the Supreme Court as chief counsel of
record in relation to a case that has been long ended.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may appear as counsel in a terminated case

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. That would be a deviation from normal judicial processes and would create in
the minds of the litigants, as well as of the public, an illusory belief that something more can be done
toward overturning a final judicial mandate thus degrading the faith accorded to final judgments.

64. Likong v. Lim AC 3149 1994

FACTS: Atty. Lim, as counsel of Yap against Likong, prepared a compromise agreement for them without
the participation of Likong’s counsel.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyer may prepare a compromise agreement for his client and the adverse
party without the participation of the latter’s lawyer

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not encroach upon the professional employment of another
lawyer.

65. Camacho v. Pangulayan, et al., AC 4807 2000

FACTS: Attys. Pangulayan and others procured compromise agreements with the clients of Atty.
Camacho in a civil case without Camacho’s knowledge.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may procure a compromise agreement with the opposing party without
the opposing counsel’s knowledge

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy
with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

66. Bonifacio v. Era AC 11754 2017

FACTS: Atty. Era’s name appeared in the pleadings before the NLRC and the Supreme Court despite
being suspended from the practice of law. Atty. Bragas, associate of Era, assisted the latter in the cases.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may assist a colleague in practicing law despite the latter’s suspension
from the practice of law

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. It is a lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law.

67. U.S. v. Ney 8 Phil. 146 1907

FACTS: Bosque was denied admission to the bar but made a law firm with Atty. Ney. Pleadings from the
office were signed with the words "Ney & Bosque — C.W. Ney, abogado."

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may sign pleadings in the name of a firm improperly constituted

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A person not admitted to the bar may not hold himself out to the public as
engaged in the practice of law, either alone or as associated with a practicing attorney under a firm
name.

68. Tapay v. Bancolo AC 9604 2013

FACTS: Atty. Bancolo allowed his secretary to sign pleadings for him although with his tolerance.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may allow his secretary to sign pleadings for him

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any
task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

69. Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation 529 Phil. 876 (2006)

FACTS: Atty. Garlitos allowed the answer to be signed by another, who is not a lawyer, in his stead.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may allow another person, who is a non-lawyer, to sign pleadings for
him

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Counsel’s authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. The
preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving practice of law which is reserved
exclusively for the members of the legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing of a pleading to
another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not.

70. Alawi v. Alauya AM SDC 97-2-P 19976

FACTS: Alawi, a member of the Shari’a Bar, uses the title “attorney” in his communications.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not a member of the Shari’a Bar who is not admitted into the Philippine Bar may use
the title “attorney”

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who
are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

71. Five J. Taxi v. NLRC GR 111474 1994

FACTS: Guillermo, a non-lawyer, was the authorized representative of Maldigan and Sabsalon in a labor
case. Guillermo does not represent Maldigan and Sabsalon as members of a labor organization.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a non-lawyer who does not represent the party as a member of a labor
organization may appear in a labor case
2. Whether or not a non-lawyer is entitled to attorney’s fees

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. Non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor arbiter only if they represent
themselves, or if they represent their organization or the members thereof.
2. No. Attorney’s fees imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for the
recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative
is a lawyer.

72. Amalgamated Laborers Assn. v. CIR GR L-23467 1968

FACTS: Arsenio, union president, entered into an agreement with Atty. Fernandez to split the attorney’s
fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not a union president who is a non-lawyer may share in the attorney’s fees in a labor
case

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer,
based upon a division of service or responsibility.

73. Heirs of Carlos v. Linsangan AC 11494 2017

FACTS: Atty. Linsangan divided his attorney’s fees with persons not licensed to practice law.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may divide his attorney’s fees with persons not licensed to practice law

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. As a rule, a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to practice law.

74. Masinsin v. Albano GR 86421 1994

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Spouses Masinsin and spouses Roldan, through the assistance of different lawyers, tried to
prolong and delay the inevitable execution of a decision that has long become final and executory by the
filing of complaints and petitions that are patently without merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not lawyers may promote or sue groundless suits

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Any act on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the court, which visibly tends to
obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of justice is contumacious. A lawyer shall not
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same and shall
conduct himself as such with all good fidelity to the courts.

75. Libit v. Oliva AC 2837 1994

FACTS: Att. Oliva presented in evidence before the RTC a falsified Sheriff's Return of Summons in which
he had a hand.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may present a falsified legal document in court

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer’s first duty is not to their clients but rather to the courts; they are
above all court officers sworn to assist the courts in administering justice and only secondarily are they
advocates of the exclusive interests of their clients. For this reason, they are required to swear to do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court and not to mislead or allow the court to be misled by
any artifice.

76. Insular life Assurance Co. Employees Assn. V. Insular life Assurance Co. GR L-25291 1971

FACTS: The judge and the counsels for the respondents cited a Supreme Court ruling but modified the
words thereof.

ISSUE: Whether or not judges and lawyers may, in citing Supreme Court decisions, modify the wordings
thereof

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. In citing the Supreme Court’s decisions, courts, judges and lawyers must
reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark to avoid the
danger of such decisions losing their proper and correct meaning. However, a grave penalty may not be
imposed upon him if his citation did not substantially change the meaning of ruling cited.

77. Comelec v. Noynay GR 132365 1998

FACTS: Atty. Balbuena made it appear in his motion for reconsideration and petition that the quoted
portions were rulings of the Supreme Court although in truth and in fact were just a part of the
memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may make it appear in his pleadings that he is quoting a non-existent
ruling of the Supreme Court

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or
authority.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

78. Alez Realty, Inc. v. CA GR 100643 1992

FACTS: Atty. Dacanay intercalated a material fact in a CA decision which he appealed to the Supreme
Court thereby altering the factual findings of the CA with the apparent purpose of misleading the
Supreme Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may alter a factual finding of a court

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or
authority

79. Torres v. Dalangin AC 10758 2017

FACTS: Atty. Dalangin failed to cite verbatim a Supreme Court jurisprudence in his pleading and made his
own conclusion according to his own citation which, however, did not deviate from the principle
embodied in the jurisprudence.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be suspended for failing to cite verbatim a Supreme Court decision

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. He may only be admonished if there was no clear indication that the statement
was intended to mislead the court or commit a falsehood or if there was no brazen deviation from the
principle or doctrine that was embodied in the jurisprudence's original text.

80. Cobb-Perez v. Lantin GR L-22320 1968

FACTS: Attys. Baizas and Bolinas resorted to a series of meritless actions and petitions for the sole
purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and
executory.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may pursue his client’s cause despite its patent futility

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position cannot be
countenanced.

81. Avida Land V. Argosino, AC 7437 2016

FACTS: Atty. Argosino, to delay the execution of judgment, continued to file pleadings over issues
already passed upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded accusations of bias or
procedural defects.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may continue to file pleadings to delay the execution of a final judgment

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.

82. Festin V. Zubiri AC No. 11600 2017

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Zubiri prayed for an affirmative relief in a pleading he labeled as a manifestation instead of
a motion so that he could do away with the requirement of notice of hearing and proof of service
thereof to deprive the other party of an opportunity to be heard.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may ask for an affirmative relief in a manifestation and dispense with
the notice of hearing

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.

83. Peck v. Stone, 304 NYS2d 881

FACTS: Atty. Peck, female, was wearing a dress in court the hemline of which was about five inches
above the knee.

ISSUE: Whether or not a female lawyer may be disciplined for attire which however does not cause
distraction in court

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The test to be applied is not what the court personally thinks, but whether
there is a reasonable basis for the determination made. The material point is that the lawyer’s attire
does not cause distraction in court.

84. De Gracia v. Warden of Makati GR L-42032 1976

FACTS: Atty. Beltran did not appear in court on the day his petition was reset for hearing.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may unjustifiably fail to appear in the hearing of his petition

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

85. Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court GR 71169 August 30, 1989

FACTS: Atty. Sangco, in his motion for reconsideration, critiqued the ruling of the Supreme Court by
using insulting language.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may critique a court ruling by using intemperate language

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.

86. Penticostes v. Hidalgo AM RTJ 89-331-1990

FACTS: Atty. Pentiscostes filed unfounded administrative charges against a RTC judge.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may impute unfounded charges against a judge

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial
officers.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

87. Mocles v. Maravilla AM MTJ93-873

FACTS: Mocles, assisted by her lawyer, charged Judge Maravilla with bribery based on rumor that
Maravilla received money so that he issue a writ of execution.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may assist a client in charging a crime against a judge which is merely
based on rumor

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer must prevent his client from making a wild accusation against a judge.

88. Wicker v. Arcangel GR 112869 1996

FACTS: Atty. Rayos, in his motion for inhibition, claimed that Judge Arcangel was beholden to the
opposing counsel because such counsel was the reason why Arcangel was transferred to RTC Makati
from Davao City and thus why the replaced judge was eased out of his station.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may impute impartiality against the judge arising from his connivance
with the opposing counsel

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.

89. Alpajora v. Calayan AC 8208 2018

FACTS: Atty. Calayan, without any basis, insisted that Judge Alpajora antedated his order and is in
cahoots with the adverse counsels.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may impute unfounded charges against a judge

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.

90. Maceda V. Vasquez GR. 102781 1993

FACTS: Atty. Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against Judge Maceda alleging that
Maceda falsified his certificates of service.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over criminal and administrative charges against
judges

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Under the Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, the Supreme
Court has the exclusive power to exercise administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.
Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative
duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court
for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their
administrative duties.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

91. Garcia v. Francisco AC 3923 1993

FACTS: Atty. Francisco commenced various suits before different courts to thwart Garcia’s right to regain
her property under a judgment against Lee, Francisco’s client. All the suits were decided against Lee.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may continually seek a relief from the court that is consistently denied
and which he ought to know to be denied

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer must maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be
just and such defense only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

92. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, AC4058 1998

FACTS: Atty. Flores, as counsel for BENECO, resorted to successive suits but identically aiming to thwart
the execution of judgment directing the sale at public auction personal and real property of the
members of the Board of Directors of BENECO.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may impede the execution of judgment by resorting to forum shopping

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer has a duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice and not to
delay a case by impeding the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

93. Alcantara, et al. v. De Vera AC 5859 2010

FACTS: Atty. De Vera, after being suspended by the IBP from the practice of law for not turning over the
proceeds of a money judgment to his client Rosario, filed cases against his former client, her family
members, the family corporation of his former client, the Chairman and members of the IBP Board of
Governors who suspended him, the RTC Judge who rendered the money judgment, and the present
counsel of his former client, a total of 12 different cases in various fora. In addition, the De Vera also re-
filed cases which had previously been dismissed. He also filed six criminal cases against members of
Rosario’s family.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may file numerous unfounded cases in different fora

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer should not only help attain proper administration of justice but should
likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent its realization,
charged as he is with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

94. Olivares v. Villalon AC 6323 2007

FACTS: Al-Rasheed, through his counsel Atty. Villalon, repeatedly sued Olivares for violations of the lease
contract which they executed over a commercial apartment. The successive suits bore the same cause
of action and were all dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may file multiple actions arising from the same cause
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Court’s processes and an improper conduct
that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice.

95. Bergonia V. Merrera AC 5024 2003

FACTS: Atty. Merrera twice moved for an extension of time to file the required appellant’s brief but he
failed to file such brief.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may let the extended period within which to file the pleading lapse
without filing such pleading

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so.

96. Economic Insurance Co. v. Uy Realty Co. GR L-28056 1970

FACTS: Economic Insurance would impute a grave jurisdictional defect to an order of the judge ranting a
motion of Uy Realty for a writ of execution against Economic Insurance for the amount represented by
its supersedeas bond covering rentals rightfully due Uy Realty as plaintiff in the ejectment case.

ISSUE: Whether or not a party-litigant may, through his lawyer, avail of procedural remedies just to
evade an obligation

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Procedural rules are intended as an aid to justice, not as a means for its
frustration.

97. Afurong v. Aquino AC 1571 1999

FACTS: Atty. Aquino filed a petition for certiorari over a perfectly valid judgment on an ejectment suit
which has already become final and execution of such decision was being effected.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may file a petition for certiorari concerning a case that is final and is
being executed

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Lawyers must counsel or maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to
him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

98. PNB v Lu Teng Piao 57 Phil. 337 1932

FACTS: In a civil case, one of the attorneys for PNB testified that Piao renounced his right to redeem the
parcel of land because a friend of Piao was interested in buying it.

ISSUE: Whether or not lawyers may testify in behalf of their clients

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Lawyers should not testify as a witness for their clients unless it is necessary as
to formal and substantial matters, and if they do so, they should withdraw from the active management
of the case and leave its trial to another lawyer.

99. Nestle’ Philippines v. Sanchez, GR No. L-75209 1987

FACTS: The Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism
and Nationalism-Olalia intensified the intermittent pickets they had been conducting in front of the
Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court building. They set up pickets' quarters on the pavement in front
of the Supreme Court building, at times obstructing access to and egress from the Court's premises and
offices of justices, officials and employees. They constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set
up a kitchen and littered the place with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene
and sanitation. They waved their red streamers and placards with slogans, and took turns haranguing
the court all day long with the use of loud speakers.

ISSUE: Whether or not lawyers have the duty to instruct their clients about proper attitude toward the
courts

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Lawyers must apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude
toward the courts, and to labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their
members.

100. Lantoruia v. Bunyi AC 1769 1992

FACTS: Atty. Bunyi had previous communications with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the
draft decisions in some civil cases before him and which he in fact prepared.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may influence a judge in the manner of arriving at a decision

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer must not even attempt to influence a court. He must rely upon the
merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance
of influencing the court.

101. In re Almacen GR L-27654 1970

FACTS: Infuriated by the unfavorable decision of the Supreme Court in a case he was handling, Atty.
Almacen filed a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title before the Court and hurled
invectives against the justices. Almacen reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of his
petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may disclose with the press the contents of a petition that is pending
with the court and which is in relation to a terminated case

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The protective mantle of contempt covers pending as well as decided cases;
there may still be contempt by publication even after a case has been terminated. Also, a lawyer shall
not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for
or against a party.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

102. Maglasang v. People GR 90083 1990

FACTS: Atty. Castellano filed a complaint with the Office of the President accusing the Supreme Court
Justices who presided over the case of his client with "biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly
rendering unjust judgments or resolution.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may ask another branch of government to review the decisions of the
Supreme Court

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The Supreme Court is supreme — the third great department of government
entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public
and private. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them unjust. A
lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in the
normal course of judicial proceedings.

103. Fajardo v. Alvarez AC 9018 2016

FACTS: Atty. Alvarez made it appear to Fajardo that he knew people from the Office of the Ombudsman
who could help them get a favorable decision in Fajardo’s case before the Office of the Ombudsman.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may make it appear that he can influence a tribunal in arriving at a
decision

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

104. Santiago, et al v. Fojas CA 4103 1995

FACTS: Atty. Fojas failed to file an answer due to his busy schedule for his clients in a civil case resulting
in their loss before the trial court and the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may simply fail to file an answer for his client in a civil case

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

105. Llunar v. Ricafort Ac 6484 2015

FACTS: Llunar hired Atty. Ricafort as her counsel for the recovery of a parcel of land. However, Ricafort
did not disclose to Llunar that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law when he was
approached by Llunar for his services.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer must disclose his suspension or disbarment status when approached by
a prospective client

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

106. Villahermosa Sr. v. Caracol  AC 7325 2015

FACTS: Atty. Caracol was Efren’s counsel in two land cases. Efren then passed away but Caracol still
misrepresented that he was the counsel of Efren to protect the interest of his real client, Ernesto, who
allegedly bought the land from Efren.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may continue representing the successor-in-interest of his deceased
client without authority from such successor and without informing the court of the death of his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer cannot act as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he
appear in court without being employed unless by leave of court.

107. Camilla, et al v. Marino jr. AC 4763 2003

FACTS: Atty. Marino, as president of the UST Faculty Union, compromised the entitlements of the
members of union under the CBA with the UST Management without the knowledge of the members,
failed to account for the amount received by him and other officers and directors in the UST Faculty
Union under the compromise agreement, did not disclose the administration and distribution of the
members’ remaining entitlements and refused to remit and account an amount in favor of the members
although the amount was denominated as attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may opt not to make a full disclosure of the matters he is handling for
his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Lawyers must observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.

108. Abragan, et al v. Rodriguez AC 4346 2002

FACTS: Abragan and others hired Atty. Rodriguez as their counsel in a forcible entry case. They won the
case and a writ of execution was issued. Abragan and others, engaging the services of Atty. Salva,
charged the sheriff with indirect contempt who was represented by Atty. Rodriguez.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may act as counsel for a party who is an opponent of his former client
relating the same case

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in
behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to
oppose. The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or
confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters
adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.

109. Maturan v. Gonzales AC 2597 1998

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Maturan, through Atty. Gonzales, filed forcible entry case against Yokingco and others. They won
the case and a motion for issuance of a writ of execution was filed. While the motion was pending, and
without withdrawing as counsel for Maturan, Gonzales filed, on behalf of Yokingco and others, an action
to annul the judgment on the forcible entry case.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent two opposing parties at the same time

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the
adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting
interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his present or former client. That the representation of conflicting interest is in
good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition
inoperative.

110. Pormento Sr., v. Pontevedra AC 5128 2005

FACTS: Atty. Pontevedra was the counsel of Pormento in a civil case involving a parcel of land. Their
counterclaim was dismissed. Pormento hired a new lawyer to recover the property. Pormento also filed
a criminal case for qualified theft against the relatives of the alleged new owner of the said land.
Pontevedra was the counsel for the accused and he used pieces of confidential information he obtained
from Pormento while the latter is still his client.

ISSUE: Whether or not lawyer may represent the opponent of his past client in a suit that is related to
the case he handled in favor of his past client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former
client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject
matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. Conversely, he may properly
act as counsel for a new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter
wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that instance no conflict of
interests. The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The fact that the conflict of
interests is remote or merely probable does not make the prohibition inoperative. The prohibition
against representation of conflicting interests applies although the attorney's intentions and motives
were honest and he acted in good faith.

111. Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez Ac 8243 2009

FACTS: Atty. Pascual-Lopez, while acting as the lawyer of the investors in Multitel International Holdings
Corporation, gave legal advice to Pacana, the Operations Director for Precedent Communications
Corporation, an affiliate company of Multitel, as to how can the latter settle the claims of the Multitel
investors against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent conflicting interests.

RULING/DOCTRINE: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client,
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client.

112. Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation Inc. v. Funk AC 9094 2012

FACTS:  Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his
relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of the Mabalacat Institute
without the foundation's written consent.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent a client with an adverse interest as against his past client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. An attorney cannot act as counsel for a person whose
interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. This rule is so absolute that good faith and
honest intention on the erring lawyer's part does not make it inoperative.

113. Artezuela v. Maderazo AC 5354 2002

FACTS: Artezuela hired Atty. Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia and others. However,
Maderazo prepared Echavia’s answer to the complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may assist in the preparation of pleadings of the party opposing his
client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, it is enough that the counsel of
one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party claiming adverse and
conflicting interests with that of his original client. A lawyer represents conflicting interests when in
behalf of one of the clients, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to
oppose.

114. Bernardino v.Santos AC 10583 and 10584 2015

FACTS: Atty. Santos prepared the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by Mariano, husband of
deceased Rufina. Years later, Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu, daughter of Mariano and Rufina, filed a
complaint for sum of money against Bernardino, nephew of Rufina, alleging that Marilu is an heir of
Mariano thus contradicting the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent clients with conflicting interests

RULING/DOCTRINE: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client,
it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client.

115. Anglo v. Valencia AC 10567 2015

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Respondents’ law firm represented Anglo in the labor cases instituted against him. However,
after the termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a new client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of
a criminal case for qualified theft against Anglo, its former client, and his wife.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent a new client against his former client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally
unrelated cases. The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.

116. Mabini Colleges v. Pajarillo AC 10687 2015

FACTS: Mabini Colleges, Inc. appointed Atty. Pajarillo as its corporate secretary. Mabini Colleges
obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of Paracale secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over its properties.
Later on, Mabini Colleges filed a complaint for Annulment of Mortgage against RBP. Pajarillo entered his
appearance as counsel for RBP.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent conflicting interests

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to
situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of
his present or former clients.

117. Aninon v. Sabitsana AC 5098 2012

FACTS: Aninon hired Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over
a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido. Sabitsana subsequently filed a civil
case against Aninon for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida, the legal wife of Brigido,
after discussing with Zenaida her interests over the property.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent conflicting interests

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of
the rule on conflict of interest is present in a given case: (1) whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for
an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client;
(2) whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty; and (3) whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use
against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.

118. Nakpil v. Valdez AC 2040 1998

FACTS: Atty. Valdez’ law firm handled the proceeding for settlement of Nakpil’s estate. However, Atty
Valdez prepared and defended monetary claims against the estate.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent the creditors of an estate which retained him as counsel

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. An attorney cannot represent adverse interests. The proscription against
representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect
to the same general matter and is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be.

119. PNB v. Cedo AC 3701 1995

FACTS: While Atty. Cedo was still in PNB’s employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets in
favor of Milagros. When a civil action arose out of this transaction before the RTC, Cedo, who had since
left PNB, appeared as one of the counsels of Milagros.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent conflicting interests

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express

conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer represents
conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose.

120. Anglo v. Valecoa supra

FACTS: Respondents’ law firm represented Anglo in the labor cases instituted against him. However,
after the termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a new client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of
a criminal case for qualified theft against Anglo, its former client, and his wife.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent a new client against his former client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally
unrelated cases. The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.

121. Coveney v. Tannahil 37 am Dec. 287 (1841)

FACTS: Edwards and McKibben were partners under the name of John Tannahill & Co., and, in an action
of assumpsit, Coveney gave in evidence an account stated in writing with an acknowledgment at the
end, signed John Tannahill & Co., by which a balance was admitted to be due to Coveney. Edwards and
McKibben called Seth as a witness, who acted as counsel for Coveney, and asked him: 1. Whether he
was present when the account stated was signed; 2. If so, when and where was it signed, and who was
present; 3. When he first saw the said account stated, and whether the acknowledgment of a settlement
and balance due was endorsed on the account when he first saw it. 

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be compelled to disclose the communications he had with his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. In general, confidential communications, whether verbal or oral, between

attorney and client, concerning the matter to which the retainer relates, are not to be disclosed by the
attorney in court, unless the client waives his privilege.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

122. Dee v. CA GR 77439 1989

FACTS: Donald approached Atty. Mutuc regarding his brother’s indebtedness to Caesar’s Palace. Donald
knows that Atty. Mutuc was a representative of the casino tasked to collect the gambling losses incurred
by Filipinos in Las Vegas. Atty. Mutuc settled the matter. He demanded the payment of attorney’s fees
from Donald. Donald refused to pay on the ground that Mutuc was representing conflicting interests.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may represent conflicting interests upon consent of the parties

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. At a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the court, a lawyer may
represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties. 

123. In re Atty. Melchor E. Ruste AC 632 1940 (70 Phil 243)

FACTS: Atty. Ruste represented Ventura and her husband in a cadastral case in which a share of the lot
subject of the case was awarded to them. During the pendency of the case, the spouses purportedly
leased a part of the lot to Ruste which lease was cancelled and superseded by a deed of sale in favor of
Ruste.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may acquire the property of his client which is the subject of a pending
litigation he is handling for the client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The rule holds true whether the transfer was made at the instance of the client
or of the lawyer. An attorney occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate his terms to a
harassed client, in breach of the rule so amply protective of the confidential relations, which must
necessarily exist between attorney and client, and of the rights of both.

124. Hernandez v. Villanueva 40 Phil. 775

FACTS: While the case involving property of his client Florencia was pending before the Supreme Court,
Atty. Villanueva purchased from her a parcel of land that was the subject-matter of the litigation which
he was conducting.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may acquire the property of his client subject of the pending suit

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer should not, in person or through the mediation of another, purchase
any interest in the subject-matter of the litigation which he is conducting.

125. Ordonio v. Eduarte AM 3216 1992

FACTS: While the case was pending appeal in the CA, Atty. Eduarte’s client, Ulibari, conveyed hectares of
land subject of the case to Eduarte and her husband as their attorney’s fees for their legal services while
the case was still in the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may acquire the property of his client subject of the pending suit
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The law prohibits lawyers from acquiring by purchase or assignment property
and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession. The prohibition applies when the lawyer has not paid money for it and the property was
merely assigned to him in consideration of legal services rendered at a time when the property is still
the subject of a pending case.

126. Licuanan v. Melo AC 2361 1989

FACTS: Atty. Melo did not to remit to Licuanan, his client in an ejectment case, the rentals collected by
him on different dates over a twelve-month period, much less did he report to her the receipt of said
amounts.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may retain for his personal benefit an amount received by him on behalf
of his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or
gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Money of the client or
collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be
reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his
own or be used by him.

127. Dumadag v. Lumaya Ca 2614 1991

FACTS: Atty. Lumaya failed to deliver to his client Dumadag an amount received by him for the sale of a
portion Dumadag’s property which was involved in a civil case. The sale was made to satisfy Dumadag's
claim out of the proceeds of the sale without Dumadag's knowledge and consent.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may retain the money of the client collected for the latter despite
demand by the client to deliver the money to him

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.

128. Burbe v. Magulta AC 5713 2002

FACTS: Atty. Magulta failed to apply the filing fee the amount given to him by his client Burbe.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may misappropriate his client’s funds

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to them in
their professional capacity. Lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may
come into their possession.

129. Manalang et al v Angeles AC 1558 2003

FACTS: Without authority from his clients in a labor case, Atty. Angeles compromised the award and was
able to collect an amount less than that adjudicated. Angeles refused to turn over the amount collected
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

and offered to give them only a partial amount as the remaining amount represents the  sheriff's fees
and other administrative expenses in the execution of the judgment.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer may compromise a judgment without the consent of his clients
2. Whether or not a lawyer may remit only a partial amount to his clients received by him in their
behalf

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. A lawyer must show devotion to the interest of his clients as well as
zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights.
2. No. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

130. Tanhueco v. De Dumo AC 1437 1989

FACTS: Atty. De Dumo refused to remit to his client Tanhueco money collected by him from debtors of
Tanhueco on the ground of non-payment of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may retain an amount collected by him in behalf of his client on the
ground that the latter failed to pay attorney’s fees

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of his client,
constitute trust funds and must be immediately paid over to the client. The fact that a lawyer has a lien
for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client, does not relieve him from his duty promptly to
account for the moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.

131. Bautista v. Gonzales AM 1625 1990

FACTS: Atty. Gonzales entered into an agreement with the Fortunados which provides that the latter
agree on a 50% contingent fee provided that Gonzales shall defray all expenses, for the suit, including
court fees, without reimbursement.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may agree with a client to bear the expenses of litigation

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to

enforce the client’s rights is champertous. Such agreements are against public policy especially where
the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some bargain to
have part of the thing in dispute. Although a lawyer may, in good faith, advance the expenses of
litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement.

132. JBP Holdings Corp. v. US 166 F sup. 324 1958

FACTS: In a contingent contract, the obligation to pay costs was deleted by Atty. Kamerman’s client, JBP
Holdings Corporation. Kamerman accepted such deletion and also agreed in the contract that he will
bear the expense of the expert.

ISSUES:
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

1. Whether or not a lawyer may bear the expenses of litigation

2. Whether or not a lawyer who enters into a champertous contract may nevertheless be paid his
attorney’s fees

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. Any agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of the proceedings to enforce the
client's rights is champertous. The basic elements of the offense include an agreement and
undertaking by one person to defray, in whole or in part, the expenses of another's suit and by
the latter person to divide with the former the fruits of the litigation in the event in proves
successful.
2. Yes. Though the contract of employment is champertous, this does not bar recovery on
a quantum meruit basis.

133. Sps. Concepocion v. Dela Rosa AC 10681 2015

FACTS: Atty. Dela Rosa served as the retained lawyer of spouses Concepcion. Aware of the fact that the
spouses had money intact from their failed business venture, Dela Rosa borrowed money from them
which he promised to pay within five days. However, he reneged on his promise.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may borrow money from his clients

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. The rule against borrowing of money
by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over
his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

134. Cantiller v. Potenciano AC 3195 1989

FACTS: Atty. Pontenciano filed petitions for his client Cantiller which were poorly prepared and written.
The two cases were dismissed because Pontenciano withdrew his appearance as counsel and did not get
a replacement and for failure to state a cause of action. He obtained P10,000 as alleged deposit in court
which he never deposited and instead he pocketed it.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may poorly handle the affairs of his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer has the duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his client
and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

135. Solatan v. Inocentes AC 6504 2005

FACTS: Atty. Inocentes and Atty. Camano are partners in a law firm. Inocentes referred Solatan and his
mother to Camano to handle their ejectment case against their tenants in their apartments. At the
execution stage of the case, a gas stove was not returned to Solatan which was kept by Camano in the
unit of the apartments wherein he temporarily stayed and then turned over to the caretaker of the
apartment.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer supervising another lawyer is liable for the latter’s mishaps in handling a
client’s case

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally
responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases
handled by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary
efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons
under their charge. Nonetheless, the liability of the supervising lawyer in this regard is by no means
equivalent to that of the erring lawyer.

136. Villafuerte v. Cortez AC 3455 1998

FACTS: Villafuerte requested Atty. Cortez to accept his reconveyance case paying Cortez his acceptance
and retainer fees. Cortez also knew that Villafuerte has an ejectment case. Cortez never entered his
appearance in the cases.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may neglect the case of his client after being handed money for the
purpose and set up the defense that no lawyer-client relationship existed

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. 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,
within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence, and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

137. Edquibal v. Ferrer AC 5687 2005

FACTS: Atty. Ferrer failed to file his client’s appellants brief resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may simply fail to file his client’s appellant’s brief

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The practice of
law does not require extraordinary diligence. All that is required is ordinary diligence.

138. Nonato v. Fudolin Jr. AC 10138 2015

FACTS: Atty. Fudolin represented Restituto in an ejectment case. Fudolin failed to fully inform his
Restituto of the status and developments in the case. Restituto could not contact Fudolin despite his
continued efforts. Fudolin also failed to furnish Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions and other
documents filed with the court. Fudolin failed to file the position paper resulting in the dismissal of
Restituto’s ejectment suit. Fudolin did not inform Restituto of the dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined for failing to file his client’s position paper and for
not informing his client the status of the case

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. 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. A lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

to him. 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.

139. Moton v. Cadiao AC 5169 1999

FACTS: Moton hired the Atty. Cadiao to represent him a civil case. During trial, Cadiao filed a motion to
reset the hearing but he failed he was absent at the hearing of his motion to reset. The RTC thus denied
the motion. Cadiao filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which the latter denied. Cadiao then filed
with the CA a withdrawal of appearance.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disciplined for failing to present evidence for his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Once a lawyer
agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care.

140. Provident Insurance Corp. v. CA GR 110504 1994

FACTS: Provident, after losing in the MeTC and RTC, filed a petition for review with the CA raising pure
questions of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may raise a pure question of law before the CA

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. It is incumbent upon every lawyer who would seek review of a judgment or
order promulgated against his client to make sure of the nature of the errors he proposes to assign,
whether these be of fact or of law; then upon such basis, to ascertain which court has appellate
jurisdiction; and, finally, to follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal prescribed by law, ever aware
that any error or imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to his client's cause.

141. Reontoy v. Abadlit AC CBD 190 1998

FACTS: Atty. Ibadlit was the lawyer of Reontoy in a civil case which was decided by the RTC against his
client. Ibadlit decided not to file an appeal because such remedy is useless anyway. But after being
informed that Reontoy wished to appeal the decision, Ibadlit filed a notice of appeal. However, the
reglementary period within which to file the notice of appeal has lapsed.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may decide for himself not to appeal a judgment that is adverse against
his client without any instruction from the latter

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. A lawyer’s failure
to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice. A lawyer must
present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause,
regardless of his own personal views.

142. Ramos v. Dajoyag Jr. AC 5174 2002

FACTS: Atty. Dajoyag was the counsel of Ramos in a labor case in the NLRC where they lost. Dajoyag was
notified of the judgment. Dajoyag did not know the denial of his motion for extension to file a petition
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

for certiorari but still filed the petition for certiorari on the last day of the extension he asked for. The
Supreme Court denied the petition for being filed out of time.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who has filed a motion for extension to file pleading, which he did not
know was denied, and filed the pleading on the last day of the extension he asked for may be disciplined

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Due diligence requires that lawyers should conduct a timely inquiry with the
division clerks of court of the action on their motions and the lack of notice thereof will not make them
any less accountable for their omission. A lawyer must devote his full attention, diligence, skills, and
competence to every case that he accepts. Negligence is excusable where it is caused by failure to
receive notice of the action or the trial.

143. Hernandez v. Padilla AC 9387 2012

FACTS: Atty. Padilla represented Hernandez and her husband in an ejectment case on appeal before the
CA. Padilla mistakenly filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellant’s Brief. Padilla had not
then heard from the husband. Their opponent filed a motion to dismiss. Padilla was asked to file a
comment on the motion and on his improper pleading but to no avail. The appeal was dismissed. Padilla
offered as an excuse that he did not have enough time to acquaint himself thoroughly with the factual
milieu of the case.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer may be excused for his negligence by the lack of time given to him t o
acquaint himself with the facts of the case
2. Whether or not a lawyer may fail to advise his clients as to the status of their case
3. Whether or not a lawyer may fail to file the proper pleading in a case in behalf of his client

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
2. No. 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. If a lawyer cannot contact his client and
inform the latter of the status of the case, the least that he could do is to withdraw his
appearance as counsel.
3. No. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

144. PP. v. Ingco GR L-32994 1971

FACTS: Atty. Barrios was appointed as counsel de oficio for Ingco. He filed with the Supreme Court a
motion for extension of time for submitting the appellant’s brief 15 days late offering as an excuse his
busy schedule.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be excused for his negligence by his extensive practice

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Dedication and zeal in the defense of a client's rights is a duty more exacting
when one is counsel de oficio. On such an occasion, the honor and respect to which the legal profession
is entitled demand the strictest accountability of one called upon to defend an impoverished litigant.

145. Barbuco vs. Beltran AC no. 5092 2004

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Barbuco engaged the services of Atty. Beltran, a partner in Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law
Office, for the purpose of filing an appeal before the CA. The appeal was filed but the appellant’s brief
was filed out of time and so the appeal was dismissed. Beltran offered as an excuse that he met a
vehicular accident which physically incapacitated him for several days.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer who is a partner in a law firm may offer as an excuse for his failure to
timely file a pleading the physical injuries he suffered due to an accident
2. Whether or not a lawyer may fail to maintain an open line of communication with his client

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. He could have asked any of his
partners in the law office to file the pleading for him.
2. No. 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.

146. Legarda v. CA GR 94457 1992

FACTS: Atty. Coronel represented Legarda in a civil complaint filed against the latter. Coronel failed to
file an answer resulting in Legarda’s being declared in default. The RTC then rendered a decision against
Legarda.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may neglect to file an answer to the complaint against his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. The moment a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants
that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. 

147. Suarez v. CA GR 91133 1993

FACTS: Atty. San Luis was the counsel de parte of Suarez in criminal cases against her. San Luis did not
appear in court as he had left for the USA and has not returned since then, without informing Suarez or
withdrawing his appearance. Suarez was convicted.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer may abandon the case of his client
2. Whether or not a client who is deprived of due process of law is still bound by the negligence of
his counsel

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. A lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill
having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do. Among his duties to his
client is attending to the hearings of the case.
2. No. As a general rule, a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes in
handling the case during the trial. However, the rule admits of exceptions. A new trial may be
granted where the incompetency of counsel is so great that the defendant is prejudiced and
prevented from fairly presenting his defense and thus denied due process of law. Where a case
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

is not tried on the merits because of the negligence of counsel rather than the plaintiff, the case
may be dismissed but, in the interest of justice, without prejudice to the filing of a new action.

148. Ong v. Unto AC 2417 2002

FACTS: Ong received a demand-letter from Atty. Unto, in the latter’s capacity as legal counsel of
Nemesia. Unto tried to coerce Ong to comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various
charges against the latter. When Ong did not heed Unto’s warning, Unto made good his threat and filed
a string of criminal and administrative cases against Ong. Unto even offered monetary rewards to
anyone who could provide him any information against Ong just so he would have a leverage in his
actions against the latter.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may coerce an opposing party to accede to his demands just to advance
the interest of his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and
advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and
malicious intentions against the other party.

149. Trinidad, et al. v. Villarin AC 9310 2013

FACTS: Florentina and others, as buyers of the lots in a subdivision, filed a complaint for specific
performance against Purence Realty Corporation before the HLURB. The HLURB ordered Purence Realty
to accept the payments of the buyers. HLURB issued a writ of execution. Villarin then entered his special
appearance to represent Purence Realty. Villarin questioned the decision and the writ of execution.
Villarin sent demand letters to the buyers ordering them to vacate or else an action would be filed
against them and typifying Florentina as an illegal occupant despite the HLURB decision recognizing her
as a subdivision lot buyer.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may typify an opposing party as something that is contrary to a
tribunal’s decision

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives of
his client.

150. MBTC v. Ca GR 86100-03 1990

FACTS: Arturo Alafriz and Associates represented Metrobank in civil cases for the declaration of nullity of
certain deeds of sale, with damages against it. The case was then dismissed on the initiative of the
complainants. The dismissal order neither provided for any money judgment nor made any monetary
award to any litigant, much less in favor of Metrobank who was a defendant therein. Arturo Alafriz and
Associates filed a motion in the civil cases to enter its charging lien.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer has an enforceable charging lien in a judgment not involving payment of
money or executions issued in pursuance of such judgments
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. A charging lien, to be enforceable as security for the payment of attorney's fees,
requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money or execution in pursuance of a money
judgment secured in the main action by the attorney in favor of his client.

151. Albano v. Coloma AC 528 1967

FACTS: Albano and her mother retained the services of Atty. Coloma as their counsel in a civil case.
Albano wrongfully accused Coloma of failing to expedite the hearing and termination of the case and of
falsifying a document showing that they as well as their co-plaintiffs in the case promised to pay Coloma
a contingent fee. The accusations were unfounded.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who was wrongfully accused by his client may recover his fees for his
previous services for the latter

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer is entitled to be fully recompensed for his services.

152. Corpuz v. CA GR L-40424 1980

FACTS: Atty. David represented Corpus in an administrative case before the Supreme Court. There was
no contract for the payment of David’s attorney’s fees. They lost the case. David seeks the payment of
his attorney’s fees.

ISSUES: Whether or not a lawyer is entitled to his fees regardless of the absence of a contract to that
effect

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A lawyer who has rendered services for his client may recover his attorney’s
fees on a quantum meruit basis in the absence of a contract to that effect.

153. Mendoza-Parker v. CA GR 109219 1994

FACTS: Tan and Teresita, represented by Atty. Barangan, filed with the RTC a collection suit against
Demetrio and Julieta. While the case was still at the pretrial stage, Atty. Barangan withdrew his
appearance and Atty. Mendoza-Parker took over the case as substitute counsel. Atty. Mendoza-Parker
filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. Demetrio and Julieta filed a petition for relief
from judgment. While said case was still pending, Atty. Mendoza-Parker filed a motion to withdraw her
appearance with a prayer for the payment of her attorney's fees. The RTC granted the motion and
prayer. The CA adjusted the attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the courts have the power to fix or adjust the attorney’s fees

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The courts are authorized to determine the amount to be paid to an attorney as
reasonable compensation for his professional services. A lawyer, being an officer of the court, is placed
under judicial control with regard to the reasonableness of the amount of the attorney's fees demanded
by him from his client.

154. Research and Services Realty Inc v. CA GR 124074 1997

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Research and Services Reality, Inc. retained Atty. Fonacier under a general retainer contract. The
case ended. The corporation terminated the legal services of Fonacier. Fonacier then sought to recover
his attorney’s fees for the legal services he rendered on the petition for rescission.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may recover his professional fees aside from the retaining fees under a
general retainer contract with a client

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. A retaining fee is a preliminary fee paid to ensure and secure a lawyer's future
services, to remunerate him for being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of
rendering services to the other party and of receiving pay from him. In the absence of an agreement to
the contrary, the retaining fee is neither made nor received in consideration of the services
contemplated; it is apart from what the client has agreed to pay for the services which he has retained
him to perform. Rendition of professional services by a lawyer is for a fee or compensation.

155. Yu vs. Bondail AC 5534 2005

FACTS: Yu engaged the legal services of Atty. Bondal in five cases. In the retainer agreement, Yu agreed
to pay Bondal an acceptance fee for the five cases. Yu was dissatisfied with how Bondal handled the
cases. Yu refuses to pay Bondal his professional fees. Yu advised Bondal that she is terminating his
services.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer is entitled to his attorney’s fees for legal services rendered pursuant to
a retainer agreement regardless of the success or failure of the case handled
2. Whether or not a lawyer whose legal services had been terminated by his client may keep all the
records of his client in his possession relative to the cases he handled

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. Yes. An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles
a lawyer to get paid for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
2. No. A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn
over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his
successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the
proper handling of the matter to immediately turn over all papers and property which
complainant entrusted to his successor.

156. Trader’s Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC GR 120592 1997

FACTS: Traders Royal Bank Employees Union and Atty. Cruz entered into a retainer agreement whereby
the union obligated itself to pay the Cruz a monthly retainer fee. They filed a case before the NLRC for
the claims of the union’s members for holiday, mid-year and year-end bonuses against their employer
TRB. The NLRC ruled in favor of TRBU. TRB challenged the decision before the Supreme Court and
obtained a decision modifying the NLRC decision. After the judgment became final, Cruz filed a motion
before the Labor Arbiter for the determination of his attorney's fees.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not attorney’s fees may be awarded even after the judgment has been reviewed by
a higher court and has become final
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

2. Whether or not a lawyer is entitled to his attorney’s fees notwithstanding receipt of a retainer
fee

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. Yes. Attorney's fees cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been decided and
the subject of the recovery is at the disposition of the court. The issue over attorney's fees only
arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid. While a claim for
attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered, the determination as to the
propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be held in abeyance until the main
case from which the lawyer's claim for attorney's fees may arise has become final.
2. Yes. The retaining fee received under a general retainer contract is different from the attorney’s
fees received for performance of legal services. The payment of retaining fee, in the absence of
an express understanding to the contrary, is neither made nor received in payment of the
services contemplated; its payment has no relation to the obligation of the client to pay his
attorney for the services for which he has retained him to perform.

157. Quirante v. IAC GR 73886 1989

FACTS: Casasola, through Atty. Quirante, sued Guerrero and Philippine American General Insurance Co.
Inc. for damages before the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of Casasola. The RTC then issued a writ of
execution. The case then eventually reached the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Quirante filed a motion in
the RTC for the confirmation of his attorney's fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may recover his attorney’s fees as an incident of the main action even if
the main case from which the lawyer’s claim for fees has not yet become final

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The remedy for recovering attorney's fees as an incident of the main action may
be availed of only when something is due to the client. Attorney’s fees cannot be determined until after
the main litigation has been decided and the subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court. The
issue over attorney's fee only arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be
paid. 

158. Miranda v. Carpio AC 6281 2011

FACTS: Miranda engaged the services of Atty. Carpio for the registration of a parcel of land before the
Land Registration Commission. They agreed that Miranda was to pay Carpio acceptance and appearance
fees. Miranda paid the fees. During the last hearing of the case, Carpio demanded additional fees for his
services. Miranda did not accede to the demand. The LRC then granted the petition for registration.
Miranda asked Carpio to turn over the owner’s duplicate of the OCT which he had claimed without
Miranda’s knowledge. Carpio replied that his demand be satisfied first before he delivers the owner’s
duplicate of the OCT.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a lawyer may retain the property of his clients that came into his possession in
the course of his employment in the absence of an unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees
2. Whether or not a lawyer may collect additional fees outside of those agreed upon
3. Whether or not a lawyer may collect additional fees on the basis of quantum meruit despite the
presence of an agreement as to the payment of his fees and despite being compensated
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following elements
concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's funds, documents and
papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees.
2. No. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. It is highly improper for a lawyer to
impose additional professional fees upon his client which were never mentioned nor agreed
upon at the time of the engagement of his services.
3. No. Quantum meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for determining the
lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but recoverable by him from his
client. The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed
upon for his services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his
services, as much as he has earned.

159. Aquino v. Casabar GR 191470 2015

FACTS: Domingo verbally contracted Atty. Aquino to represent him on a contingency fee basis in an
agrarian case involving the determination of the just compensation for the expropriation and taking of
Domingo's ricelands. The RTC as Special Agrarian Court fixed the just compensation which later attained
finality. Aquino then sought to recover his fees before the RTC.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the trial court which originally passed and decided upon a case which has may
order the payment of attorney’s fees notwithstanding the finality of the judgment
2. Whether or not a contingent fee may be recovered on the strength of a verbal agreement to
that effect

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. Yes. The remedy for recovering attorney’s fees as an incident of the main action may be availed
of only when something is due to the client. Attorney’s fees cannot be determined until after
the main litigation has been decided and the subject of the recovery is at the disposition of the
court. The issue over attorney’s fees only arises when something has been recovered from
which the fee is to be paid.
2. No. A contract for contingent fees is an agreement in writing by which the fees, usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in the action, are made to depend upon the success in
the effort to enforce or defend a supposed right. Contingent fees depend upon an express
contract, without which the attorney can only recover on the basis of quantum meruit.

160. Regala et al v. Sandiganbayan Supra

FACTS: PCGG filed a complaint before the Sandiganbayan against Cojuangco and others for the recovery
of ill-gotten wealth which includes shares of stocks in the named corporations in a PCGG case for
sequestration proceedings. These corporations approached the ACCRA lawyers and sought legal advice
as to their alleged ill-gotten wealth. ACCRA lawyers were impleaded as defendants for acting as
nominee-stockholders of the corporations involved in the sequestration proceedings. PCGG then
excluded one of the ACCRA lawyers on his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principals
for whom he acted as a nominee-stockholder in the companies.
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may refuse to divulge the identity of his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. However, there are exceptions as in this case. Client identity is privileged where
a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s identity would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice; disclosure of the alleged client's identity would lead to
establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of the case, which is privileged information,
because the privilege protects the subject matter or the substance. Where the government's lawyers
have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the said name would
furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a
crime, the client's identity is privileged. Information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the
ambit of the privilege when the client's identity itself has an independent significance or if it is intended
to be confidential, such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences.

161. Hilado v. David GR L 961 1949

FACTS: Hilado, represented by Atty. Dizon and others, brought an action against Assad, represented by
Atty. Francisco. Dizon, in the name of his firm, wrote Francisco urging him to discontinue representing
Assad on the ground that Hilado had consulted with Francisco about her case, on which occasion she
turned over the papers to Francisco to secure the latter’s professional services, and the Francisco sent
her a written opinion.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship is constituted from the time a lawyer renders legal
opinion on the matter requested for by a person

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. If a person consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view
to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established. It is sufficient that the
advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession, so
that a lawyer-client relationship is created.

162. Uy Chico v. Union life 29 Phil. 163 1915

FACTS: In a case involving insurance policies, Chico was asked, while on the witness stand, if he had any
objection to his attorney's testifying concerning the surrender of the policies, to which Chico replied in
the negative. The attorney was then called for that purpose.

ISSUE: Whether or not the privileged nature of communications between a lawyer and his client may be
waived

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. Communications made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of being
communicated to others are not privileged after they have been so communicated, and may be proved
by the testimony of the attorney. Hence, a compromise agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to
the instruction of his client and delivered to the opposing party is not privileged communication.

163. Mercado v. Vitrilo AC 5108 2005

FACTS: Mercado’s husband filed an annulment case before the RTC which was dismissed. Atty. Vitriolo
then entered his appearance as counsel for Mercado. Vitriolo then filed a criminal action for falsification
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

of public document against Mercado alleging that Mercado made false entries in the Certificates of Live
Birth of her children. Mercado then instituted a disbarment case against Vitriolo alleging that the
criminal action disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then
handled by Vitriolo as her counsel, and thus Vitriolo is guilty of breaching their privileged and
confidential lawyer-client relationship. Mercado did not specify the alleged communication in
confidence disclosed by Vitriolo.

ISSUE: Whether or not mere assertion of the privileged nature of a communication made to a lawyer by
a client makes it as such

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The following are the factors needed to establish the existence of the attorney-
client privilege: (1) there exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client
relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication; (2) the
client made the communication in confidence; and (3) the legal advice must be sought from the attorney
in his professional capacity. It is not enough to merely assert the attorney-client privilege.  The burden of
proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.

164. Palm v. Iledan Jr. AC 8242 2009

FACTS: Palm is the President of Comtech Worldwide Solutions Philippines, Inc. Comtech retained Atty.
Iledan as its corporate counsel. Iledan suggested that Comtech amend its corporate by-laws to allow
participation during board meetings, through teleconference, of members of the Board of Directors who
were outside the Philippines. Before the completion of the amendments, Comtech terminated the
services of Iledan. In a stockholders’ meeting, Iledan attended as proxy for a director. When the meeting
was called to order, Iledan objected to the meeting for lack of quorum asserting that the two directors
who were present through teleconference could not participate in the meeting because the corporate
by-laws had not yet been amended to allow teleconferencing.

ISSUE: Whether or not proposed amendments in corporate by-laws are privileged communications

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. Since the proposed amendments must be approved by at least a majority of the
stockholders, and copies of the amended by-laws must be filed with the SEC, the information could not
have been intended to be confidential. The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential. Public
documents could not be considered confidential.

165. Venterez at al. v. Cosme AC 7421 2007

FACTS: Elisa and others contracted the legal services of Atty. Cosme in a civil case. They lost. Cosme then
apparently ignored the case and ceased to act as counsel. Cosme turned over the records of the case to
Salvador, son of one of the complainants against Cosme, upon informing the latter that Salvador was
withdrawing the case from Cosme because he already engaged another lawyer to take over the case.

ISSUES: Whether or not mere turning over of the records of the case to the client amounts to a counsel’s
withdrawal
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his
client or by permission of the court upon showing of sufficient cause after due notice and hearing, in
which event, the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.

166. Arambulo v. CA GR 105818 1993

FACTS: Atty. Pineda represented spouses Arambulo when a civil case was filed against them. From the
pre-trial, the spouses were then represented by Atty. Jimenez who submitted a SPA executed by the
spouses wherein he was designated as their attorney. The court ruled against the spouses and so they
appealed the decision to the CA. Atty. Jimenez filed a withdrawal of appearance  with the express
conformity of the spouses, while Atty. Pineda entered his Appearance as their new counsel.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer’s withdrawal with the client’s consent must first be approved by the
court before he is deemed withdrawn

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. If a counsel’s withdrawal is with the client’s consent, no approval thereof by the
trial court is required because a court approval is indispensable only if the withdrawal is without the
client's consent.

167. Orcino v. Gaspar AC 3773 1997

FACTS: Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file
against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. Gaspar failed to attend the scheduled bail
hearing. The accused were granted bail over Orcino’s objections. The relationship of Orcino and Gaspar
then became strained. Gaspar then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that there no
longer existed the confidence between them and that there had been "serious differences between
them relating to the manner of private prosecution. The motion did not bear Orcino’s consent.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not strained relationship or loss of confidence between the lawyer and his client is a
ground for withdrawal
2. Whether or not a lawyer who is justified in terminating his services can just do so and leave the
client unprotected

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client only in the following instances: (a) when
a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that the
lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (c) when the client
has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could not get along to the detriment of the
case; (d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling
the case effectively; (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon;
(f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar cases.
2. No. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the
court. Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who
is expected by his client as well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require.

168. Laput v. Remotigue AC 219 1962

Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

FACTS: Atty. Laput was dismissed by Nieves because the latter no longer trusted him. In his stead Nieves
contracted the services of Atty. Patalinghug who, to safeguard the interest of his client, prepared the
papers for the revocation of the power of attorney previously executed in favor of Laput. After
Patalinghug had filed his appearance in court, Laput voluntarily withdrew as counsel and,
simultaneously, filed a motion for the payment of his attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance of a second lawyer in a case is considered unethical
notwithstanding that the first lawyer, after the second lawyer has appeared, voluntarily withdrew and
sought to collect his fees

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. The first lawyer’s voluntary withdrawal as counsel and his filing of a motion for
the payment of his fees amounted to an acquiescence to the appearance of the second lawyer.

169. Gonzaga v. Villanueva Ac 1954 2004

FACTS: Atty. Villanueva continued to appear in the intestate proceedings even after Napoleon and
Ricardo were appointed as special administrators and even after they terminated Villanueva’s services.

ISSUE: Whether or not it is proper for a lawyer to still appear as counsel despite the termination of his
authority to represent his client

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. It must be pointed out that the relation of attorney-client may be terminated by
(1) the act of the client; (2) the act of the attorney; (3) the death of the client; (4) the death of the
attorney; or (5) the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was created.  Ordinarily, the attorney-
client relation is ended by the completion of the specific task for which the attorney was employed.  The
difference between the revocation of the authority by the act of the client and by the act of the attorney
is that the first may be done at any time with or without cause, whereas the second can be made only
with the client's written consent or for justified cause. 

170. Municipality of Pililla , Rizal v CA GR 105909 1994

FACTS: The RTC rendered a judgment in favor of the Municipality of Pililla against Philippine Petroleum
Corporation ordering the latter to pay to the municipality business taxes and regulatory fees. The
judgment eventually became final. In connection with the execution of the judgment, Atty. Mendiola, a
private lawyer, filed a motion in behalf of the municipality for the examination of PPC’s gross sales for
the purpose of computing the tax on business. The municipality and PPC then entered into a
compromise agreement.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not private lawyers may represent LGUs in lawsuits
2. Whether or not a lawyer may continue to represent a client who himself had entered into a
compromise agreement with the other party
3. Whether or not a lawyer may prevent his client from entering into a compromise with the other
party

RULING/DOCTRINE:
1. No. Only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a province or
municipality in their lawsuits. The provision is mandatory. The municipality's authority to
Matt Joshua T. Juan
JD – 3B

employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is
disqualified to represent it.
2. No. A client, by appearing personally and presenting a motion by himself, is considered to have
impliedly dismissed his lawyer. A client may dismiss his lawyer at any time or at any stage of the
proceedings, and there is nothing to prevent a litigant from appearing before the court to
conduct his own litigation.
3. No. The client has an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the intervention of his
lawyer.

171. Nacuray v. NLRC supra

FACTS: Nacuray and others, former employees of BMC-Benguet Management Corporation, filed labor
cases through their lawyer Atty. Ferraren against BMC with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in
their favor. BMC then appealed the decision with the NLRC which reversed the decision. Nacuray and
others then terminated the services of Ferraren verbally and formally thru a letter and filed a petition for
certiorari through their new counsel Atty. Lopez. However, before Ferraren received the letter, Ferraren
has already actually filed a petition for certiorari in behalf of Nacuray and others.

ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be validly substituted without his consent or without being notified
of the termination of his services

RULING/DOCTRINE: No. For a valid substitution of counsel, the following elements must concur: (a)
there must be a written request for substitution; (b) it must be filed with the written consent of the
client; (c) it must be with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted; and, (d) in case the
consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must be at least a proof of notice
that the motion for substitution was served on him in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.

172. Domingo v. Aquino GR L-28078 1971

FACTS: The CFI rendered judgment approving the money claim of Aquino against Domingo’s estate. Both
parties appealed from the said judgment to the CA which modified the judgment. Consuelo filed a
motion with the CA stating that the clerk of court be directed to serve copy of said judgment on her
counsel instead of on Atty. Unson as the former special administrator's counsel because Unson ceased
to be the estate’s lawyer from the time Luis, the former administrator, was removed as such.

ISSUE: Whether or not a counsel of record of an estate remains as such notwithstanding the removal of
special administrator of the estate

RULING/DOCTRINE: Yes. The fact that a lawyer’s services were engaged by an administrator of an estate
does not make such lawyer a personal counsel of the administrator. Notwithstanding the removal of the
administrator who engaged the services of the lawyer as counsel of the estate, such lawyer continues to
represent the estate as counsel in the absence of any act on the part of the new administrator
terminating the services of the estate’s counsel.