Table of Contents

RULE 16.04 ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

A LAWYER SHALL NOT BORROW MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT UNLESS THE CLIENT 'S INTEREST ARE FULLY
PROTECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE CASE OR BY INDEPENDENT ADVICE . ............................................................. 2

ART 1491 – CIVIL CODE ..................................................................................................................................... 2

UNDENIABLY, ARTICLE 1491(5) OF THE CIVIL CODE PROHIBITS THE PURCHASE BY LAWYERS OF ANY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER
OF THE LITIGATION IN WHICH THEY PARTICIPATED BY REASON OF THEIR PROFESSION .................................................................... 2

BARNACHEA VS. QUIOCHO ............................................................................................................................... 3

YU VS. DELA CRUZ ............................................................................................................................................ 4
NOCOM VS. CAMERINO.................................................................................................................................... 6
SPS. CRUZ VS. ATTY JACINTO ............................................................................................................................ 8
VDA. DE ESPINO VS. ATTY. PRESQUITO ........................................................................................................... 10
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. ............................................................................................................... 12
RULE 136 ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
COURT RECORD AND GENERAL DUTIES OF CLERK AND STENOGRAPHERS ................................................................................. 12
SECTION 3. .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
CANTILLER VS POTENCIANO ........................................................................................................................... 13
IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G. MAQUERA .. 15
SOLATAN VS. INOCENTES ............................................................................................................................... 17
SOMOSOT VS. PONTEVEDRA .......................................................................................................................... 19
ANGALAN VS. DELANTE .................................................................................................................................. 21
CANON 18 ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
RULES 18.01 ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
RULE 18.02 ............................................................................................................................................................. 24
RULE 12.01 ............................................................................................................................................................. 24
SANCHEZ VS. AGUILOS ................................................................................................................................... 25
RULE 18.03 .................................................................................................................................................... 27
A LAWYER SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED TO HIM, AND HIS NEGLIGENCE IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH SHALL RENDER HIM LIABLE. ................................................................................................................. 27

LEGARDA VS CA ............................................................................................................................................. 28
ENDAYA VS OCA............................................................................................................................................. 29
CARANDAG VS OBMINA ................................................................................................................................. 31
AGOT V. ATTY. RIVERA ................................................................................................................................... 32
ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO VS. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, .............................................................................. 34
 Rule 16.04
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.

Art 1491 – Civil Code

Undeniably, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code prohibits the purchase by lawyers of any interest
in the subject matter of the litigation in which they participated by reason of their profession

The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial

auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:

(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under
his guardianship;

(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been
entrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal has been given;

(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under

administration;

(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any
subdivision thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled
corporation, or institution, the administration of which has been intrusted
to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government experts who,
in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale;

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior

courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration
of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and
rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession.

(6) Any others specially disqualified by law. (1459a)

 BARNACHEA VS. QUIOCHO
399 SCRA 1 (2003)

FACTS:
Barnachea filed a complaint for breach of lawyer-client relations against
respondent Atty . Edwin T . Quiocho. Complainant engaged the legal services of
respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a property
previously owned by her sister , Lutgarda Amor D. Barnachea. However , despite the
lapse of almost two months, respondent failed to secure title over the property in favor of
complainant. The latter demanded that respondent refund to her the amount of
P41,280.00 and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him. Complainant
received a letter from respondent informing her that he had failed to cause the transfer of
the property under her name and that he was returning the documents and title she had
entrusted to him and refunding to her the amount of P41,280.00. Respondent told
complainant that he needed more time to fund the check. However, respondent failed to
fund the check despite the demands of complainant.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

RULING:
Yes. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may
come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the
funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the
Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property
under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon
demand therefor . The lawyers failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave
rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust
reposed on him. The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross
violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate,
exacting and confidential character . A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore,
demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting
in any way , directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. In this case, respondent
miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him.

In view of the foregoing, He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 year with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
 YU VS. DELA CRUZ
A.C. No. 10912. January 9, 2016

FACTS:
Records show that respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T. Yu, the
Complainant, in several cases after having received various amounts as acceptance fees.
While the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting, respondent lawyer borrowed pieces
of jewelry from complainant and pledged the same with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc.
for the amount of P29,945.50, as shown in the Promissory Note with Deed of Pledge.
Respondent lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal use. In order
to facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to complainant,
Citystate Savings Bank Check. Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked
to learn that the check was dishonored for the reason, “Account Closed.” Complainant
immediately notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check.

Complainant demanded for the refund of the acceptance fees received by

respondent lawyer prior to the “abandonment” of the cases and the payment of the value
of the jewelry, but to no avail.

For his failure to heed the repeated demands, a criminal case for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor against him.

A verified complaint was filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD), where complainant prayed for the disbarment of respondent lawyer on account of
grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and commission of acts in violation
of the lawyer’s oath. The IBP-CBD required respondent lawyer to submit his answer to
the complaint. Despite having been duly served with a copy of the complaint and the order
to file his answer, as shown in a certification issued by the Post Master of the Las Piñas
Central Post Office, respondent still failed to file an answer.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated CPR?

RULING:
Yes. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer
and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural
tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is prone to abuse. 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. Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or property from a client outside the
limits laid down in the CPR is an unethical act that warrants sanction.

The respondent lawyer’s unfulfilled promise to facilitate the redemption of the

jewelry and his act of issuing a worthless check constitute grave violations of the CPR
and the lawyer’s oath. These shortcomings on his part have seriously breached the highly
fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients. Specifically, his act of issuing
worthless checks patently violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR which requires that
“[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” This
indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such
lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public
confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, and thus seriously and
irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession. Such conduct, while already off-putting
when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more abhorrent when exhibited by a
member of the Bar. In this case, respondent lawyer turned his back from the promise that
he once made upon admission to the Bar. As “vanguards of the law and the legal system,
lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.”

Atty. Berlin R. Dela Cruz is GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules
1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS
him from the practice of law for THREE YEARS with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
 NOCOM VS. CAMERINO
578 SCRA 113

FACTS:
The respondents Camerino et al. were the tenants who were tilling on the parcels
of land planted to rice and corn previously owned by Victoria Homes. Without notifying
Camerino et al, Victoria Homes sold the lots to SMSC for P9,790,612. The 3 deeds of
sale were registered and new titles were issued in the name of SMSC. SMSC
subsequently mortgaged to BF (Banco Filipino) these lots as collaterals for its loans
amounting to P11,545,000. Since SMSC failed to pay, SMSC extrajudicially foreclosed
the mortgage and was later adjudged the highest bidder.

Camerino et al filed a complaint against SMSC and BF for “Prohibition/Certiorari,

Reconveyance/Redemption, Damages, Injunction with Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order." SMSC redeemed lots from BF.

CA affirmed with the modification RTC decision and deleted award of 200K
attorney’s fees for lack of legal basis. SC affirmed the CA decision, reiterating that being
agricultural tenants of Victoria Homes that sold lots to SMSC without notifying them,
Camerino et al had right to redeem properties from SMSC. MR and leave to file for second
MR by SMSC were denied.

Oscar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that the only issues to be
resolved as whether the document was coupled with interest and whether it was
revocable. According to Oscar, Summary Judgment was proper since Nocom did not
raise any issue relevant to the contents of the IPOA and that Oscar already admitted
having received a check from Nocom. Nocom opposed the Motion on the ground that
there were still factual issues requiring presentation of evidence.

Nocom then filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Petition
for the Cancellation of IPOA was actually an Action to Recover titles and ownership on
the properties; since the value of the lots amounted to 600k, the case is a real action and
the docket fees of 3,929 was insufficient. As such, RTC did not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and complaint should be dismissed. Oscar filed Reply to Opposition to
Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that the issue of WON the 500k received by him
rendered the IPOA irrevocable can be determined from the allegations in the pleadings
and affidavits on record without need of introducing evidence.

RTC thus ordered IPOA nullified; ordered Nocom to turn over the certificates of
title to Camerino, and to return the amount paid by Nocom as redemption price +
commission. Camerino et al ordered to return the P2.5M (500k paid to each by Nocom)
CA affirmed trial court’s order and dismissed Nocom’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and
denied Nocom’s MR.

ISSUE: Was the CA correct in dismissing Nocom’s appeal?

RULING:
No. Summary judgment is inappropriate in this case. Contrary to findings of RTC
and CA, the present case involves certain factual issues which remove it from the
coverage of a summary judgment. Sec. 1, Rule 35, ROC states that a party seeking to
recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may,
at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any
part thereof.

A Summary Judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long

drawn out litigations and useless delays. When the pleadings show that there are no
genuine issues of fact, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of
summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to
decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. However, when the
pleadings tender a “genuine issue” a summary judgment is not proper.

Although RTC erred in rendering the summary judgment, it should not be

dismissed. It should be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and proper
disposition according to the rudiments of a regular trial on the merits and not through an
abbreviated termination of the case by summary judgment.

Dispositive: Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED. Case Remanded to RTC for further

proceedings.
 SPS. CRUZ VS. ATTY JACINTO
A.C. NO. 5235 March 22, 2000

FACTS:

Atty. Jacinto requested Spouses Cruz for a P285,000 loan in behalf of a certain
Conception G. Padilla, who he claimed to be an old friend, to be secured by a real estate
mortgage. The spouses, believing and trusting the representations of their lawyer that
Padilla was a good risk, agreed to his request and were presented by the latter with a
Real Estate Mortgage Contract and a TCT in the name of Concepcion G. Padilla. In turn,
the spouses gave him the amount he asked for.

Upon maturity, the spouses went to Padilla’s address to demand payment.

However, there proved to be no person by that name living therein. When the
complainants verified the genuineness of TCT with Register of Deeds, it was certified by
the said office to be a fake and spurious title. Further efforts to locate the debtor-
mortgagor likewise proved futile.

Evidence shows that Jacinto’s secretary and housemaid took part in making it
appear that the mortgage was registered and the annotation to appear at the back of the
TCT as an encumbrance by making them falsify the signatures of the notary public and
the Deputy Register of Deeds respectively. A case for Estafa thru Falsification of Public
documents was filed against Atty. Jacinto but was dismissed due to the Spouses’
voluntary desistance.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ernesto Jacinto should be subject to disciplinary action for
violating Canon 16.04.
HELD:

Yes. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business
transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. However, the
measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his
client is a much higher standard than is required in business dealings where the parties
trade at armslength. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions to be sure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is
founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to
take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of
innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor. Further,
his fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities
that should be expected of him.

Verily, a lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client. The reason for
the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and
confidence at the highest degree (Maturan vs. Gonzales, 287 SCRA 943 [1998]).

Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully as well
as to protect the rights and interests of his clients and by his deceitful actuations
constituting violations of the Code of Professional Responsibilities must be subjected to
disciplinary measures for his own good, as well as for the good of the entire membership
of the Bar as a whole. He was suspended for 6 months with the warning that a repetition
of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severity.
 VDA. DE ESPINO vs. ATTY. PRESQUITO
A.M. No. AC 4762 June 28, 2004

FACTS:

Complainant, Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complaint with the Court
Administrator Alfredo Benipayo for "having employed fraud, trickery and dishonest means
in refusing to honor and pay her late husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the
sum of P763,060.00" against Respondent, Atty Pepito C.Presquito. Mr. Espino and the
respondent entered into an agreement for a purchase of land by the latter from the former.
The price of the land was P 1,437,410.00, payable on a staggered basis and by
installments. Respondent issues post-dated checks as payment. Respondent then
entered into a joint venture or partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for the
subdivision of the land into home-size lots and its development, with a portion of the land
retained by respondent for his own use. The land was eventually titled in the name of
respondent and Mrs. Ares, and subdivided into 35 to 36 lots.

The 8 post-dated checks issued by respondent were all dishonored. Mr. Espino
made repeated demands for payment from respondent but the latter refused. Mr. Espino
died in December 1996. His widow, complainant, then tried to collect from respondent the
value of the eight checks. When complainant’s numerous pleas remained unheeded, she
filed the complaint in June 1997.Respondent denied any wrongdoing, and said that the
allegations that he had employed "fraud, trickery and dishonest means" with the late Mr.
Espino were totally false and baseless. Respondents claim that he and Mr. Espino,
agreed that Mr Espino will not encash the checks until the right of way problem has been
resolved.

In addition, respondent claims that the balance would be offset with the cost he
incurred when he defended Mr. Espino’s son in a criminal case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Presquito violated Canon 16.04 when he bought the land on
an installment basis from Sps. Espino.

HELD: Yes. Complainant’s testimony and exhibits have clearly established that: (1) there
was an agreement between respondent and complainant’s late husband for the sale of
the latter’s land; (2) respondent had issued the eight checks in connection with said
agreement; (3) these checks were dishonored and remain unpaid; and (4) the land sold
had an existing road-right of- way. The respondent failed to prove that he had legal cause
to refuse payment, or that he was entitled to legal compensation. Respondent’s failure to
present evidence is a breach of Rule 12.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the 8 dishonored checks, respondent’s
indifference to complainant’s entreaties for payment was conduct unbecoming of a
member of the bar and an officer of the court.

Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 16.04 lawyer shall

not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice towards complainant and her late husband,
first by allowing the 8 checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands
for payment until complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by deliberately
delaying the disposition of this case with dilatory tactics.

Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who issued worthless
checks —Lao v. Medel, Co v. Bernardino, and Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr., —we find
respondent’s reprehensible conduct warrants suspension from the practice of law for
one (1) year.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

RULE 136
Court Record and General Duties of Clerk and Stenographers

Section 3. Clerk's office. — The clerk's office, with the clerk or his deputy in
attendance, shall be open during business hours on all days except Sundays and legal
holidays. The clerk of the Supreme Court and that of the Court of Appeals shall keep
office at Manila and all papers authorized or required to be filed therein shall be filed at
Manila.
 CANTILLER VS POTENCIANO
ADM. CASE NO. 3195 DECEMBER 18, 1989

Facts:

Humberto V. Potenciano, respondent is a practicing lawyer. He is charged with

deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of
acts unbecoming of an officer of the court. An action for ejectment was filed against
Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to vacate was
then issued against Cantiller.

Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was
made to sign by respondent what she described as a “hastily prepared, poorly conceived,
and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment”. The petition was filed
with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Respondent demanded from the
complainant P 1,000.00 as attorney’s fee. However, the judge of the said court asked the
respondent to withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship.

Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was
allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but
eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locating the judge.

Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter.

The amount was allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as
purchase price of the apartment and P 1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit needed
in order for the complainant to retain the possession of the property. But later on Cantiller
found out that the amounts were not necessary to be paid. A demand was made against
Potenciano but the latter did not answer and the amounts were not returned.

Contrary to Potenciano’s promise that he would secure a restraining order, he

withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get
another lawyer as replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and
executed.

Issue: Whether or not the Potenciano’s misuse of Cantiller’s money is subject to

disciplinary action due to loss of Trust and Confidence.

Held:
Yes. The respondent’s misuse of the money is subject to disciplinary action due.
The Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and 55210 appear to be
poorly prepared and written. Having represented himself capable of picking up the
cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have carefully
prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation. The little
time involved is no excuse. Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty was to
file the best pleading within his capability. Apparently, respondent was more interested in
getting the most out of the complainant who was in a hopeless situation. He bragged
about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to
“buy” the restraining order in the other. Worse still he got P10,000.00 as alleged
deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead, he pocketed the same. The
pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious.

The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting
his client’s interests. His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect
with utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and
confidence which he owes his client. More so in this case, where by reason of his
gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all her cases.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond

reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary
business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

He was guilty of the charges against him and was Suspended for an indefinite
period until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to
deserve to resume the practice of law. Additionally, respondent is hereby ordered to
return to complainant herein the sum of eleven thousand pesos (P11,000.00) with
legal interest.
 IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF
GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G. MAQUERA
435 SCRA 417, BAR MATTER NO. 793 JULY 30, 2004

FACTS:
The District Court of Guam informed the Supreme Court regarding the suspension
of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam for two (2) years
pursuant to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam. He was suspended
from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his client’s property as
payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an
unreasonably high fee for handling his client’s case.

Certified copies of the records were received by the Court and thereafter forwarded
the case to the IBP for investigation. On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court
of Guam, the IBP concluded that although the said court found Maquera liable for
misconduct, “there is no evidence to establish that [Maquera] committed a breach of
ethics in the Philippines.” However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for
his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in
turn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Maquera should be automatically suspended from the practice of
law within the Philippines based on the judgment of Guam Superior Court ordering for his
suspension from the practice of law in Guam?

RULING:

NO. It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Court’s judgment ordering
Maquera’s suspension from the practice of law in Guam does not automatically result in
his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam are mere grounds
for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign
court’s action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima facie
evidence of Maquera’s unethical acts as a lawyer. More fundamentally, due process
demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and to present testimonial
and documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in
accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule mandates that a
respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges against him. It is only after
reasonable notice and failure on the part of the respondent lawyer to appear during the
scheduled investigation that an investigation may be conducted ex parte.

DECISION:
 Atty. Maquera was required to Show Cause within 15 days why he should not be
suspended or disbarred for his acts which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings
against him in the Superior Court of Guam and his subsequent suspension in said
jurisdiction.

In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1)
YEAR or until he shall have paid his membership dues, whichever comes later.
 SOLATAN VS. INOCENTES
466 SCRA 1, A.C. NO. 6504 AUGUST 9, 2005

FACTS:

This administrative case traces its roots from the manner by which Attys. Jose C.
Camano and Oscar A. Inocentes responded to the efforts of the complainant, George C.
Solatan, to lease a certain Quezon City apartment belonging to the attorneys’ clients. On
the basis of acts branded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as “bordering on
technical extortion,” accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party,
and casting doubts as to the procedure of levy, the IBP resolved to recommend the
suspension of Atty. Camano from the practice of law for one (1) year. It likewise
recommended the reprimand of Atty. Inocentes, whom it held liable for the
aforementioned acts of his associate, under the principle of command responsibility.

Only Atty. Inocentes has elected to contest the resolution of the IBP, as he
questions the propriety of his being held administratively liable for acts done by Atty.
Camano. However, the recommendation to suspend Atty. Camano shall also be passed
upon by virtue of Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Attys. Camano and Inocentes violated the CPR.

RULING:

All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients.
An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without
being retained—to establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his
profession.

An attorney giving advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client
resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty; Where the statement of
a lawyer to his client’s adversary is in consonance with such lawyer’s foremost duty to
uphold the law as an officer of the court, that statement in such a context should not be
construed as giving advice in conflict against the interest of his client.

Atty. Inocentes’ failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the
charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law
office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

DECISION:
The petition was granted. The Resolution dated 16 April 2004 is AFFIRMED in
respect of the sanction meted out on Atty. Camano. Atty. Inocentes is hereby
ADMONISHED to monitor more closely the activities of his associates to make sure that
the same are in consonance with the Code of Professional Responsibility with the
WARNING that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt with more severely.
 SOMOSOT VS. PONTEVEDRA
488 SCRA 416 A.C. NO. 4285 MAY 2, 2006

FACTS:

Complainant Florencia M. Somosot (now deceased) filed a verified complaint

against respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra for neglect of duty and for professional
misconduct for unlawfully keeping money belonging to her. The information alleges that
the respondent failed to submit the memorandum required by the trial court-such was
necessary for the case had already been pending for 23 years. Since no one submitted,
the trial court gave a 15-day extension, complainant reminded the respondent of such
deadline, but he still failed to submit the memo because according to the respondent, he
entered into a verbal agreement with the counsel of the opposing party that they wouldn’t
submit the required memoranda. Around two years after, the complainant's daughter
gave respondent a money order amounting to P1,000 as payment for the preparation of
the memorandum. When the complainant was told that the case was submitted for
decision without any memoranda, she asked the respondent to return the money but it
was ignored.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the canons of professional responsibility in
failing to file the required memorandum and for keeping the money order despite the
complainants request for a return?

RULING:

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers owe

fidelity to the cause of their clients and must therefore be always mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in them. Under Canon 18, they are mandated to serve their clients
with competence and diligence. Specifically, they are not to “neglect a legal matter
entrusted to [them], and [their] negligence in connection therewith shall render [them]
liable.” Additionally, they are required to keep their client informed of the status of the
latter’s cases and to respond within a reasonable time to requests for information. Before
admission to the bar, lawyers subscribe to an oath to conduct themselves “with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients.” Failure to comply with these abiding
precepts of ethical conduct renders counsel liable for violating the canons of his
profession.

It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal
matter—he must also give adequate attention to his legal work.

DECISION:

Atty. Elias Pontevedra is hereby REPRIMANDED and WARNED that the

commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
He is ordered to return immediately the postal money order in the amount of
P1,000.00 to the complainant’s heirs.
 ANGALAN VS. DELANTE
578 SCRA 113 (2009)

FACTS
This is a complaint filed by the heirs of an illiterate couple belonging to the Samal
Tribe against Atty. Delante for gross violation of professional responsibility particularly
Canons 16 and 17.
The couple owned a property in Samal, Davao del Norte. On 15 April 1971,
Angalan and complainants borrowed P15,000 from Spouses Eustaquio. To secure the
loan, Angalan and complainants mortgaged their property and surrendered the title to
the Spouses Eustaquio.
When complainants tried to pay the loan and recover the title from the Spouses
Eustaquio, the Spouses Eustaquio refused. Complainants learned that the document
which the Spouses Eustaquio prepared, and which complainants signed, was a deed of
absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. They also learned that Navarro R.
Eustaquio (Navarro) had transferred the title over the property to his name.
Complainants engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering
their property.
Respondent lawyer filed a complaint for the reconveyance of the property. Complainants
and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement. In the amicable
settlement, the complainants offered the spouses the sum of P30K as repurchase price
which the spouses accepted.
However, complainants did not have the P30,000 repurchase price for the
property. Respondent Delante advanced the P30,000 and, in return, complainants
allowed respondent to possess the property and gather its produce until he is paid.
When complainants tried to repay the P30,000 repurchase price and recover the
property from respondent, respondent refused. Complainants learned that respondent
transferred the title of the property to his name.
Complainants filed a complaint praying that (1) the deed of absolute sale prepared
by the Spouses Eustaquio and signed by the complainants be declared void, (2) title
issued in the name of Atty. Delante be declared void, and (3) respondent be made to pay
damages.
As defense, respondent alleges that:
1. The complainants only borrowed money from him without any intention to pay
him back or at least offer an explanation as to how they would be able to repay
him
2. That the couple did not really engage his services as counsel for an annulment
suit against Navarro Eustaquio
3. The sale between Eustaquio and the complainants was a valid sale and not a
mortgage
4. The actual buyer of the property was Atty. Delante’s former client who is now
residing in New York. But after 11 years, the buyer did not return to the
Philippines anymore so he authorized Atty. Delante to have the property in his
name upon refund of the purchase price.
Complainants filed a complaint dated with the Court charging respondent with
gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 In a Report dated 15 October 2007, Commissioner Hababag of the IBP found that
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP Board of governors
approved but increased the penalty from a 6-month suspension to 1-year.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent committed grave violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he bought the property of his clients without their knowledge, consent
and against their will?

HELD
YES.
The Court is not impressed with Atty. Delante’s defenses. Angalan and
complainants went to respondent’s office not to seek advice about borrowing money but
to engage his services for the purpose of recovering their property.
First, after Angalan and complainants went to respondent’s office, respondent filed a
complaint with the CFI praying that the Spouses Eustaquio reconvey the property to
Angalan and complainants.
• Second, in the complaint, respondent stated that, "by reason of unwarranted
refusal on the part of the defendants to reconvey the property to plaintiffs, the latter
have been constrained to engage, and in fact have engaged, the services of
counsel."
• Third, respondent issued a receipt to complainants stating that he "RECEIVED
from Mr. MACARIO CAPUL and FRANCISCA RAFAEL CAPUL the sum of ONE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) representing full payment of
professional services in regard to the recovery of Original Certificate of Title No.
P-11499 in the name of Angalan (Samal)."
• Fourth, in respondent’s letter dated 10 January 1979 and addressed to the barrio
captain of Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he stated that he was the lawyer of
complainants.

As to his claim regarding his former client purchasing the property

1. Amicable settlement → there was an agreed repurchase price to which both parties
agreed to
2. Letter to the barrio captain → the lawyer stated that complainants repurchased the
property from the Spouses Eustaquio. (This will inform you that the Heirs of
Angalan Samal have already redeemed their property through me from Mr.
Navarro Eustaquio since September, 1978.)
3. Insufficient proof → Respondent did not give any detail or proof to substantiate his
story — the name of the alleged client, an affidavit of the alleged client, the old
passport of the alleged client showing immigration stamps, or any form of
correspondence between him and the alleged client. The Court agrees with the
observation of Commissioner Hababag that respondent’s "vain attempt to salvage
his malicious acts [is] too flimsy to gain belief and acceptance."

Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and confidence complainants
reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are illiterate and that the Spouses
Eustaquio took advantage of them. Complainants engaged the services of respondent in
the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests
of complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of
the property to his name.
Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense, the Court finds the
recommended penalty too light. Violation of Canons 16 and 17 constitutes gross
misconduct. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Court for gross
misconduct.
A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is
incapable of telling the truth is unfit to be a lawyer.
The Court finds Atty. Leonido C. Delante GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 17
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court DISBARS him from the
practice of law and ORDERS that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
 CANON 18
A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if,
with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who
is competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the
order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.
 SANCHEZ VS. AGUILOS
A.C. NO. 10543, MARCH 16, 2016

FACTS
Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos
(respondent) with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return the amount of P70,000.00
she had paid for his professional services despite his not having performed the
contemplated professional services. She avers that in March 2005:
(a) she sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in the annulment
of her marriage with her estranged husband, Jovencio C. Sanchez;
(b) that the respondent accepted the engagement, fixing his fee at P150,000.00, plus
the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing;
(c) that she then gave to him the initial amount of P90,000.00;
(d) that she had gone to his residence in May 2005 to inquire on the developments in
her case, but he told her that he would only start working on the case upon her full
payment of the acceptance fee;
(e) that she had only learned then that what he had contemplated to file for her was a
petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of her marriage;
(f) that he further told her that she would have to pay a higher acceptance fee for the
annulment of her marriage;
(g) that she subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of
the amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he had already started
working on the case;
(h) that she had sent him a letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the
return of her payment less whatever amount corresponded to the legal services he
had already performed;
(i) that the respondent did not heed her demand letter despite his not having rendered
any appreciable legal services to her; and
(j) that his constant refusal to return the amounts prompted her to bring an
administrative complaint against him6 in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
on March 20, 2007.

In his answer the respondent alleges that the complainant and her British fiancée
sought his legal services to bring the petition for the annulment of her marriage; that based
on his evaluation of her situation, the more appropriate case would be one for legal
separation anchored on the psychological incapacity of her husband; that she and her
British fiancée agreed on P150,000.00 for his legal services to bring the action for legal
separation, with the fiancée paying him P70,000.00, as evidenced by his handwritten
receipt.
For purposes of the petition for legal separation he required the complainant to
submit copies of her marriage contract and the birth certificates of her children with her
husband, as well as for her to submit to further interviews by him to establish the grounds
for legal separation; that he later on communicated with her and her fiancée upon
finalizing the petition, but they did not promptly respond to his communications.
Moreso, she admitted to him that she had spent the money that her fiancée had
given to pay the balance of his professional fees; and that in June 2005, she returned to
him with a note at the back of the prepared petition for legal separation essentially
requesting him not to file the petition because she had meanwhile opted to bring the action
for the annulment of her marriage instead.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct.

RULING
YES.
Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return the
entire amount received from the client. Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his
professional competence and skill to the complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal,
he did not know the distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for
annulment of marriage.
Such knowledge would have been basic and expected of him as a lawyer
accepting a professional engagement for either causes of action. His explanation that the
client initially intended to pursue the action for legal separation should be disbelieved.
The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for which his services was
engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the complainant's marriage with
her husband with the intention of marrying her British fiancée. They did not contemplate
legal separation at all, for legal separation would still render her incapacitated to re-marry.
That the respondent was insisting in his answer that he had prepared a petition for legal
separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's fees if she desired to have the
action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to serve as a
hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.
As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as an
attorney. He thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
The Court affirms that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby fined P10,000.00 for
misrepresenting his professional competence to his client, and reprimands him for his use
of offensive and improper language towards his fellow attorney, with the stern warning
that a repetition of the offense shall be severely punished. The Court also ordered him to
return the sum of P70,000.00 to the complainant within 30 days with legal interest of
6% per annum.
 Rule 18.03
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
 LEGARDA VS CA
209 SCRA 722 (1992)

FACTS
New Cathay House, Inc. (Cathay) and Victoria Legarda entered into a lease
agreement for a property in QC owned by Legarda. For some reason, Legarda refused
to sign the contract. Cathay made a deposit and downpayment of rentals then filed for
specific performance. Legarda’s counsel, Dean Antonio Coronel, requested a 10-day
extension to file an answer which was granted. But Dean Coronel failed to file an answer
within that period. Cathay presented evidence ex parte. Cathay won the case. Service of
decision was made on Dean Coronel but he still did not do anything. The QC property
was then levied and auctioned off to pay for the judgment debt. Cathay’s manager,
Cabrera, was the highest bidder in the auction. Legarda did not redeem the property
within the 1 year period. Legarda still did not lose faith in her counsel. Dean Coronel then
filed a petition for annulment of judgment. Petition was denied. No motion for
reconsideration or appeal was made on the order of denial. So, Legarda hired a new
lawyer. New lawyer asked for annulment of judgment upon the ground that the old lawyer
was negligent in his duties. The petition was granted and the sale of the QC property to
be set aside. The SC said that there was unjust enrichment on the part of Cathay because
of the reckless, inexcusable and gross negligence of Dean Coronel. Hence this motion
for reconsideration of SC decision.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Coronel violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULIN
YES.
The facts of the case clearly show that Atty. Coronel violated Canon 18 of the CPR
which mandates that “A lawyer shall preserve his client with competence and diligence.”
He failed to observed particularly Rule 18.03 of the same code which requires that “A
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.”
Indeed, petitioner could not have gone through the travails attending the
disposition of the case against her not to mention the devastating consequence on her
property rights had Dean Coronel exercised even the ordinary diligence of a member of
the bar. By neglecting to file the answer to the complaint against petitioner, he set off the
events which resulted in the deprivation of petitioner’s rights over her house and lot.
Undoubtedly, Atty. Coronel’s failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and
attending to the interest of his client caused the latter material prejudice. It should be
remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will
exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion.
Hence, Atty. Coronel was found guilty of gross negligence in the defense of
petitioner Legarda and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
 ENDAYA vs OCA
A.C. No. 3967 September 3, 2003

FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Endaya and his wife. An answer
was prepared by Mr. Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the preliminary
conference, spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the services of the Public
Attorney’s Office. Atty . Oca was assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the
prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment for answer. Motion was denied. The
judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The court also
said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper or upon expiration of the period
for filling, judgment shall be rendered on the case. Oca failed to submit any affidavit or
position paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because
those who filed the case were not real parties-in-interest. The case was appealed to RTC.
Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were
ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya confronted
Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Upon checking with
the clerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative
complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Oca committed professional misconduct.

RULING:
Yes, the court ruled that the facts and circumstances in this case indubitably show
respondents failure to live up to his duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of
the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby warranting his
suspension for 2 months from the practice of law.

When the respondent was directed to file affidavits and position paper by the
MCTC, and appeal memorandum by the RTC, he had no choice but to comply. However,
respondent did not bother to do so, in total disregard of the court orders. This constitutes
negligence and malpractice prescribed by Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable”. At various stages of unlawful detainer case, respondent was remiss in his
performance of his duty as a counsel. For his failure to inform the court, respondent
violated Canon 12 “A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist
in the speedy and efficient administration of justice”.
Respondent likewise failed to demonstrate the candor he owned his client. Canon
17 provides that “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him”. When complainant received the
RTC decision, he talked to respondents about it. However, respondent denied knowledge
of the decision despite his receipt thereof as early as September 14, 1992. Obviously, he
tried to evade responsibility for his negligence. In doing so, respondent was untruthful to
complainant and effectively betrayed the trust placed in him by the latter. On top of all
these, is respondent’s employment as a lawyer of the Public Attorney’s Office, which is
tasked to provide free legal assistance for indigents and low-income persons so as to
promote the rule of law in the protection of the rights of the citizenry and the efficient and
speedy administration of justice. Against this backdrop, respondent should have been
more judicious in the performance of his professional obligations. Lawyers in the
government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.
Furthermore, a lawyer from the government is not exempt from observing the degree of
diligence required in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 6 of the Code
provides that the canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks.
 Carandag vs Obmina
A.C. No. 7813 April 21, 2009

FACTS:
Carandang brought suit for failure of Atty. Obmina, his counsel, to inform him of
the adverse decision of his case, of the issuance of the writ of execution, and for failure
to appeal the decision.

Carandang learned about the promulgation of the decision through a chance visit
to the trial court, six months after it was rendered. After asking Atty. Obmina why it
happened that way, Atty. Obmina told him that they cannot take action since Carandang
cannot pay for services of counsel, much less pay for the appeal fee.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Obmina violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
CPR.

RULING:
Yes, Atty. Obmina violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Canon 18 states that “A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence”.
Rule 18.03 provide that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable”.
Rule 18.04 provide that “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.”
In this case, no evidence on record that Atty. Obmina took the initiative to notify
Carandang of trial courts adverse decision. Atty. Obmina’s efforts of shifting the blame on
Carandang only serve to emphasize his failure to notify Carandang that trial court already
promulgated a decision in his case that was adverse to his interests. Instead of letting
Carandang know of the adverse decision himself, Atty. should have immediately contact
Carandang, explained the decision to him, and advised them on further steps that could
be taken. Notwithstanding, Atty. Obminas’s subsequent withdrawal as Carandang lawyer,
Atty. Obmina was still counsel of record at the time the trial court promulgated the
decision. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is need for the
lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the
client’s case.

Thus, the court suspends Atty. Obmina from the practice of law for one year.
 AGOT v. ATTY. RIVERA
A.M. 8000 05 August 2014

FACTS:
Chamelyn A. Agot claimed that she was invited as maid of honor in her best friend’s
wedding at the United States of America. To facilitate the issuance of her United States
(US) visa, Agot sought the services of Atty. Luis Rivera who represented himself as an
immigration lawyer. Agot paid Atty. Rivera the amount ofP350,000.00 as down payment
and agreed to pay the balance of P350,000.00 after the issuance of the US visa.
However, Atty. Rivera failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed period. Worse,
Agot was not even scheduled for interview in the US Embassy. It was later found that
Atty. Rivera did not specialize in immigration law but merely had a contact with a
purportedly US consul who was supposed to process the US visa applications for him.
Failure to refund the down payment, Agot filed a criminal complaint for estafa and the
instant administrative complaint against Atty. Rivera.

ISSUE:
Did Atty. Rivera violate the Code of Professional Responsibility for mispresenting
himself as an immigration lawyer?

RULING:
Yes, Atty. Rivera was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules16.01
and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FORLAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a highstandard of
legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Undoubtedly,
respondent’s deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the
legal profession but also revealing a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITHCOMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Also, respondent Atty. Rivera’s failure to perform his obligations under the
Contract, which is to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in favor of complainant
Agot was an inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES
OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HISPOSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.
Finally, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes
on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship
imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or
received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds
held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he
has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.
Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the... practice of law for a
period of two (2) years, effective upon the finality of this Decision, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO vs. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES,
A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703)
Facts:
The complaint which Atty. Francisco filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Flores originated from a case of forcibly entry involving
Atty. francisco himself and the Finezas. Meanwhile, Atty. Flores is the lawyer of the
Finezas
Francisco lost in the forcibly entry case filed in the Municipal Trial Court of
binanongan, Rizal and his appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was likewise denied.
However upon motion for reconsideration (MR), the RTC reversed itself and granted
Francisco’s motion and ordered the Finezas to vacate the property of Atty. Flores filed a
MR, howeber the RTC denied it, in order dated March 26, 2009. He received the order
on April 03, 2009 while the Finezas recieved the same on April 07, 2009.
The case was remanded to the MTC for execution of judgment. Thereafter,
Francisco filed a motion for writ of execution on June 3, 2009 and allegedly served a copy
to Atty. Flores on the same day. June 30 2009, the MTC issued the writ of execution.
However, soon after, the Finezas filed a petition for the order dated March 26, 2009. They
further alleged that it was only June 29, 2009, through their lawyer, that they came to
know of the March 26, 2009 order.
Issues:
Whether or not Atty. Flores is liable for negligence when he did not inform his
clients immediately and act upon the denial of the motion of consideration date March.
29, 2009 resulting in the expiration of the period of filing a petition for relief from judgment.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the findings of fact of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines dated June 20, 2013 and August 9, 2014 are ACCEPTED and
APPROVED. Respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores is found guilty of violating Canon 10,
Rules 10.01 and 10.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores is suspended from the practice of law for
two (2) years. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely

Principles:
Failure of counsel to act upon a client's case resulting in the prescription of
available remedies is negligence in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The general rule is that notice to counsel is notice to client. This rule
remains until counsel notifies the court that he or she is withdrawing his or her
appearance, or client informs the court of change of counsel. Untruthful statements made
in pleadings filed before courts, to make it appear that the pleadings are filed on time, are
contrary to a lawyer's duty of committing no falsehood
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Canon
10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 —A lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead
or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
 Spouses EDUARDO and TERESITA GARCIA vs. Atty. ROLANDO S. BALA
A.C. NO. 5039 November 25, 2005
FACTS:
Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed a complaint against Atty. Bala for
his failure in rendering legal service contracted. According to
the findings of Investigating IBP Commissioner Herbosa, complainants engaged the
services of respondent (sometime in May 1998) to appeal to the CA the adverse Decision
of the Department of Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB). Instead, he
erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court, appeals from the decisions of the DARAB should be filed with the CA through a
verified petition for review. Because of respondent’s error, the prescribed period for filing
the petition lapsed, to the prejudice of his clients.
Furthermore, Atty. Bala refused to the return the money paid by Spouses
Garcia. Thus, the IBP recommended the respondent should be reprimanded and
suspended from the practice of law for six months; and that he should return, within thirty
days from his receipt of the Decision, the amount of P9,200, with legal interest from the
filing of the present Complaint with this Court
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bala is guilty of negligence and conduct unbecoming
a lawyer.

RULING:
YES. Negligence for Wrong Remedy. The Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence. Rule 18.02 states
that “a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.” Specifically, Rule 18.03 provides that “a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.”

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rolando S. Bala is found guilty of negligence and conduct

unbecoming a lawyer; he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED to pay Spouses
Eduardo and Teresita Garcia the amount of P9,200 - - with legal interest from April 8,
1999 - - within 30 days from his receipt of this Decision. He is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely.

Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to the cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. A client is entitled to
the benefit of any and every remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to
rely on the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

Evidently, respondent failed to champion the cause of his clients with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion. Despite adequate time, he did not familiarize himself with the
correct procedural remedy as regards their case. Worse, he repeatedly assured them that
the supposed petition had already been filed.
Since he effectively waived his right to be heard, the Court can only assume that there was no valid
reason for his failure to file a petition for review, and that he was therefore negligent