ANGELES, Veronica Louise L.

13 June 2023
202280014 1JD2
Eduardo Sison vs. Atty. Lourdes Dumlao
A.C. No. 11959 28 April 2021
J. Leonen

Facts:
Dr. Eusebio Sison consulted his friend, Atty. Dumlao for the purpose of filing an
annulment case against his wife, Dr. Cynthia Cervantes-Sison. He deposited P35,000 in
the bank account of Atty. Dumlao for the psychiatric evaluation fee, however, Atty.
Dumlao failed to give an update on the filing of the case even after 9 months. Since Dr.
Sison lost interest in filing the case, he demanded from Atty. Dumlao the return of the
P35,000 to which the latter refused to do.

Atty. Dumlao, on the other hand, alleged that Dr. Sison already met with a psychologist to
whom she paid the P35,000 and that the Psychological Examination Report was already
emailed to him. She further alleged that complainant’s wife was her fifth-degree relative
and that the mother of the complainant’s wife asked her not to handle the case and
therefore she withdrew from the same due to conflict of interest.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint on

the ground that there was no contract to engage in legal service between them and that
conflict of interest was a valid ground to decline engagement. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted the same. Hence this petition for review on Certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Ethics when she failed to
inform complainant of the status of his case and refused to represent him due to conflict
of interest.

Ruling:
YES. It is settled that "no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his or her client subject to the exception provided for
in Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Investigating Commissioner
found that: (1) no lawyer-client relationship had been established between the parties,
since no written agreement was executed between complainant and respondent; (2)
other than the psychological evaluation fee, complainant did not pay an acceptance fee
or any other amount to respondent; and (3) complainant did not give any documents
pertaining to the prospective annulment case to respondent. However, the text messages
exchanged between the parties present a different picture.

Their conversations did not appear like casual exchanges between friends about a
theoretical legal issue. On the contrary, the series of exchanges between the parties
show that respondent voluntarily acquiesced to representing complainant in his
prospective annulment case, or at the very least, render her legal assistance in his suit.
She asked complainant to submit to his documents related to the case and repeatedly
assured him that she would be filing the annulment complaint even after complainant
expressed hesitation due to the lack of action on respondent's part.

Page | 1
ANGELES, Veronica Louise L. 13 June 2023
202280014 1JD2

A lawyer client relationship is established when a lawyer voluntarily entertains a

consultation; regardless of the close relationship between the parties or the absence of a
written contract or non-payment of legal fees. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the
client's cause, the lawyer must serve the client with diligence and competence. A lawyer
who is negligent in attending to a client's cause may be grounds for administrative
sanction.

While respondent may later refuse to represent complainant, as in this case when she
was requested by complainant's mother-in-law to refrain from interfering in
complainant's domestic issues, it was still incumbent upon respondent to inform
complainant that she would no longer be able to represent him. Rule 18.03 and Rule
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Respondent's duty as a lawyer compels her to act not only with diligence, but with
candor as well. She should have been upfront with complainant once she decided that
she would no longer interfere in complainant's troubles.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao is hereby REPRIMANDED

with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely.

Page | 2
ANGELES, Veronica Louise L. 13 June 2023
202280014 1JD2
Prudencio Portuguese Jr. vs. Atty. Jerry Centro
A.C. No. 12875 26 Jan 2021
J. Hernando

Facts:
Atty. Centro was the counsel of Portuguese in a civil case pending before the RTC. The
latter claimed that when the former received a copy of the RTC’s decision, Atty. Centro
never advised him about it. Neither did Atty. Centro filed any pleading to appeal or
question the RTC’s decision. Portuguese also alleged that at the termination of
proceedings, when the parties were required to submit their memoranda, Atty. Centro
informed him that the same was already filed in court, but in truth and in fact, Atty.
Centro did not file a memorandum.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended the suspension of Atty. Centro from the
practice of law for three (3) years. It ruled that respondent's failure to file a
memorandum was a breach of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) which requires lawyers to seasonably file pleadings and to offer an explanation
for failure to do so. Moreover, Atty. Centro violated Rule 18.04 of the CPR which
mandates lawyers to keep the client informed of the status of a case. The Board of
Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt the findings of the Investigating Commissioner
and the recommendation to suspend Atty. Centro from the practice of law for three (3)
years.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Centro violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and thus
should be suspended from the practice of law.

Ruling:
YES. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP to
suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.

The Lawyer's Oath mandates every lawyer to conduct himself/herself according to the
best of his/her knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to his/her clients. Atty. Centro unfortunately departed from his sworn oath. Considering
the foregoing, Atty. Centro is undoubtedly guilty of violating the following provisions of
the CPR, to wit:

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.

Rule 12.03 - 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.

Page | 3
ANGELES, Veronica Louise L. 13 June 2023
202280014 1JD2
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL
BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

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

DILIGENCE.

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

Rule 18.04 -A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Atty. Centro's unjustifiable negligence and abandonment of his client's cause violated
the Lawyer's Oath as well as the CPR. He casually set aside a legal matter that was
entrusted to him and which deserved his full attention and diligence. He was grossly
negligent of his duty as counsel and was manifestly disinterested in his client's cause. He
must be reminded that as a lawyer, he "is duty-bound to serve his client with
competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion. This is
because a lawyer owes fidelity to his client's cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed on him."

It is settled that "a member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended
from his office as an attorney, for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and/or breach of the
ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the CPR. For the practice of law is 'a
profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who
are qualified and who possess good moral character.' The appropriate penalty for an
errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts."

In the case at bench, Atty. Centro, just like other lawyers who have been penalized before
him, "demonstrated not just a negligent disregard of his duties as a lawyer but a wanton
betrayal of the trust of his client, the Court, and the public, in general." As commensurate
penalty for the damage he brought upon Portuguese, a three-year suspension from the
practice of law upon him is fitting.

WHEREFORE, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Jerry R. Centro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) years and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt
with more severely.

Page | 4
ANGELES, Veronica Louise L. 13 June 2023
202280014 1JD2
Eduardo Alcantara vs. Atty. Samuel Salas
A.C. No. 3989 10 Dec 2019
J. Reyes, J. Jr.

Facts:
Atty. Salas was the counsel of Alcantara in a civil action for specific performance with
damages. Having lost in the trial court, Atty. Salas appealed to the CA, and it was
allegedly the last time that Alcantara heard from Atty. Salas. Alcantara received news
that his appeal was dismissed. He went to the CA and discovered that the CA dismissed
his appeal due to non-filing of appellant's brief despite notice. The CA sent a notice to
file brief twice and, in both instances, the notices were returned unclaimed because the
addressee has moved. Alcantara informed Atty. Salas of the dismissal. However, Atty.
Salas blamed Alcantara for not checking the status of the case and having lost
communication with him.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Salas to have violated Rule 12.038 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The CPR mandates a lawyer to submit a
brief or memoranda when required by the court. A lawyer must also inform the court,
where he had appeared, of the change in his address in order to maintain the line of
communication with the court. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for four months.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to file the appellant's
brief in the CA.

Ruling:
YES. The Court affirmed the IBP's ruling with modification as to penalty to conform with
the jurisprudence.

In addition to the IBP's finding of violation of Rule 12.03 of the CPR, the Court finds
other violations, such as Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 on a lawyer's duty to his/her
client.

It is crystal clear that the root cause of non-filing of appellant's brief was Atty. Salas'
failure to inform the CA of the change in his mailing address. Had he done so, he would
have received the CA's notices requiring him to file the appellant's brief. Had he been
diligent in his duty, Alcantara's appeal would not have been dismissed. There is no one
to blame but Atty. Salas, because as a handling lawyer and officer of the court, he must
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client.

In a similar case, De Borja v. Atty. Mendez, Jr. ,17 the Court discussed lengthily the
significance of a lawyer's duty to his/her client to file a pleading promptly. In the cited
case, the Court suspended the lawyer from the practice of law for failing to fulfill the
mandate of the canons. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers
states that "A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Rule 18.03

Page | 5
ANGELES, Veronica Louise L. 13 June 2023
202280014 1JD2
thereof stresses: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that every case that a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. 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. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an
obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the
protection of the client's interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must be
undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. The honor bestowed on his
person to carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking the Lawyer's Oath and
signing the Roll of Attorneys. Rather, such honor attaches to him for the entire duration
of his practice of law and carries with it the consequent responsibility of not only
satisfying the basic requirements but also going the extra mile in the protection of the
interests of the client and the pursuit of justice.

Time and again, the Court have reminded lawyers that the practice of law is a privilege
bestowed only to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
the profession. As such, lawyers are duty-bound to maintain at all times a high standard
of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. If the lawyer falls short
of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline the lawyer by imposing an
appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion.

The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good
faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary
relationship. Any lawyer who does not live up to this duty must be prepared to take the
consequences of his waywardness.

A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as
an attorney, for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the CPR. For the practice of law is "a profession, a form of
public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who
possess good moral character." The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on
the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Samuel M. Salas is found GUILTY of violating Rule 12.03
of Canon 12, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective
upon the receipt of this decision. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Page | 6