1. Ruby vs. Espejo, 751 SCRA 256, A.C. No.

10558 February 23, 2015

-Violation CPR Canon 16 (16.01 and 16.02) and Canon 18 (18.03 and 18.04)
FACTS:
The complainant alleged that he and his mother (Felicitas) engaged the services
of the respondents regarding the cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation.
________________________________________________________
Felicitas would pay Atty. Espejo 100k as acceptance fee, 70k paid upon the signing of
the agreement and 30k to be paid after the hearing on the issuance of the TRO. Also
agreed to pay 4k as appearance fee.

Sept 15, 2009, Complainant gave Atty. Espejo 50k for filing fee. Atty. Espejo filed
the case to the RTC but the actual filing fee paid by her was only 7,561 she failed to
account for the excess given her despite several demand letters.
Sept 23, 2009, Atty. Espejo allegedly asked to give Atty. Bayot 30k for the
acceptance fee balance although the TRO has yet to be heard. Complainant insisted
that the same was not yet due but Atty. Espejo told him that Atty. Bayot was in dire
need of money. The complainant allegedly gave 8k partial payment for the acceptance
fee and additional 4k as appearance fee for the hearing.
When 4,000 was deposited to Atty. Bayot’s account. Atty. Bayot allegedly did not
appear and instead met with the complainant at the lobby of the hall of justice and
assured them that the court would grant their motion.
Then, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to the
status of his complaint. He further claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied that he
was their counsel. Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone who was the
counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating counsel.
In his answer, Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the counsel of record of the
complainant in the case before the RTC. He pointed out that he had no part in the
retainer agreement entered into by the complainant and Atty. Espejo. Thus, Atty. Bayot
claimed, the complainant had no cause of action against him.
ISSUE: Whether atty. Bayot violated the CPR
HELD: Yes. There is an attorney client relationship between Atty. Bayot and Ruby.
Atty. Bayot was the one who
1. He prepared the complaint that was filed with the RTC.
2. He was the one who prepared the motion to serve summons through publication.
3. He appeared as counsel for complainant in the RTC.
 4. He advised the complainants on the status of the case.
5. More importantly, he received Php 8,000 as part of the acceptance fee without
even explaining what the said amount was for.
“Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney;
the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the
advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to
his profession. ”Further, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-
client relationship. Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, the complainant
had two counsels Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.
The administrative liability of a lawyer for any infractions of his duties attaches only to
such circumstances, which he is personally accountable for. It would be plainly unjust if
a lawyer would be held accountable for acts, which he did not commit.
Atty. Bayot is responsible for
1. P 8,000 received as his share for the acceptance fee.
2. P 4,000 payment for a
3. ppearance fee in hearing for the issuance of the TRO.
SC: Atty. Bayot is ordered to return the P4, 000
Further, the complainants alleged that Atty. Bayot has neglected their case. However
the SC said the charge for neglect was premature since the case in the RTC was in its
early stages; the trial and pretrial has not started yet. The fact that they lost their bid for
the issuance of the TRO is not tantamount to neglect on the part of Atty. Bayot.
Atty Bayot is WARNED by the court to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in
dealing with his clients.
 2. Avida Land Corporation (formerly Laguna Properties Holdings, Inc.) vs. Argosino,
800 SCRA 510, A.C. No. 7437 August 17, 2016
- Violated rules 10.03 and 12.04
FACTS:
Complainant is Philippine corporation engaged in the development and sale of
subdivision houses and lots. Respondent was counsel for Rodman (Rodman)
Construction & Development Corp.
Complainant entered into a contract to sell with Rodman. After settling the down
payment Rodman took possession of the property. When Rodman defaulted in its
payment, complainant rescinded the Contract and demanded Rodman to vacate the
property.
Rodman remained in possession of the property. Rodman filed a complaint to the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the nullification of the
rescission of the Contract to Sell. HLURB dismissed the complaint.
Rodman then appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners. The HLURB
Board modified the arbiters ruling, directing Rodman to pay its balance or else
complainant has the right to rescind the contract subject to a refund of the sums paid.
Neither of the parties appealed within the allowed period thus the judgement
became final and executory.
When the judgement was not satisfied after 6 months complainant filed a motion
for writ of execution and possession which was GRANTED by the HLRUB Board.
Rodman moved for MR raising the issue on the computation of interests but was
denied by the HLURB Board saying that the computation of interests and penalties as
well as other concerns shall be dealt with in the Regional Office. It enjoined the parties
from filing any pleading in the guise of an appeal.
When the HLURB Regional Office directed the issuance of a writ of execution.
Instead of complying with the Order and Writ of Execution the respondent filed several
motions/ pleadings opening several new issues regarding the case.
ISSUE: Whether respondent’s act consists of professional misconduct in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
HELD:
Yes. Argosino is GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.
The defense that respondent is merely defending the cause of his client is untenable.
As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client and is expected
to serve the latter with competence and diligence. As such, respondent is entitled to
employ every honorable means to defend the cause of his client and secure what is due
the latter.
What is patent from the acts of is that he has made a mockery of judicial processes,
disobeyed judicial orders, and ultimately caused unjust delays in the administration of
justice. These acts are in direct contravention of Rules 10.3 and 12.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required to exert every effort
and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
The Code also obliges lawyers to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of their client.
He knowingly abused the legal process and violated orders of the HLURB and Regional
Office with the intent of delaying the execution of a judgment that had long been final
and executory. That he continued to do so even if a Complaint was already filed against
him proved that his acts were deliberate.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Al C. Argosino is found GUILTY of violating Rules 10.03 and 12.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, for which he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon the finality of this
Resolution.
 3. Malangas vs. Zaide, 791 SCRA 518, A.C. No. 10675 May 31, 2016
WHEREFORE, Atty. Paul C. Zaide is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
two (2) years effective immediately. Atty. Paul C. Zaide is also ORDERED to promptly
return to complainant the sums given to him as acceptance fee and docket fees in the
amount of P70,000.00, from which should be deducted the amount of P2,623.60 paid as
docketing fees.
You should not charge excessive docket fees. CANON 18
Did not return the excess.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST case
-It is anchored in the fiduciary relation and loyalty to the client.
1. Diongzon vs. Mirano:
FACTS:
Mirano for Diongzon
Flora for Gonzales
MIRANO WAS SUSPENDED FOR 1 YR.
EVEN IF MIRANO RETURNED THE RETAINING FEE.
2. Rosacia vs. Bulalacao October 02 1995
Bulalacao is the counsel of the employer.
Bulalacao suspended for 3 months.
3. Samson vs. Erra July 15 2013
Atty client relationship is not terminated after the parties have entered into a
compromise agreement.

Canon 17. Lawyer can’t use his client’s confidences. It should remain
confidential.
It can’t use it as an advantage of another or to the disadvantage of your client.

RATIONALE OF THE ATTY CLIENT RELATION. P52 ATENEO BAR OPS

1. asdfasdf
2. asdfasdf
3. The client has the legal right to have the lawyer to safeguard his confidential
information because it penalized under the RPC.
4. It ensures that the lawyer will not exploit his client.
5. Protects of the interest of the legal system in obtaining adequate procedure in
the courts.

4. Anglo vs. Valenciano Feb 25, 2020

Valen]
5. Malangas vs. Zaide May 21, 2016
Lawyers are Fair and reasonable amount for the service rendered.
Principle: A client must not escape payment and a lawyer can’t unjustly enrich.
FACTO UT DES.  I DO I GIVE.
QUANTUM MERUIT You can be paid as much as you deserve.
SUIT IN ASSUMPSIVE---- resort to this after exhausting all friendly attempts to recover
professional fees.
Lawyers must avoid controversies with his client especially regarding
compensation.

CONTEMPT:
Indirect when it occurs out of the presence of the court, thereby requiring the
court to rely on the testimony of third parties for proof of the offense.

Direct when it occurs under the court's own eye and within its own hearing.