POTENCIANO MALVAR vs ATTY.

FREDDIE FEIR
A.C. No. 11871. 5 March 2018.
Facts:

Potenciano Malvar (Complainant) alleged that on 17 December 2014 and 22 January 2015, he received threatening letters from
Atty. Freddie Feir (Respondent) stating that should he fail to pay the sum of PhP18 Million to his client, Rogelio Amurao
(Amurao), a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and Estafa, a civil complaint for Annulment of Transfer
Certificate of Title, and an administrative complaint for the revocation of his license as a physician would be filed against him.
According to Complainant, Respondent’s demands were tantamount to blackmail or extortion due to the fact Respondent tried to
obtain something of value by means of threats of filing complaints.

For his part, Respondent countered that said letters merely demanded Complainant to explain how certain parcels of land the latter
purchased from his client, Amurao, were already registered in Complainant’s name when his client never executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale transferring the same. Respondent narrated that sometime in 2008, his client was tasked by his co-owners to sell
their properties consisting of three (3) parcels of land for 21,200,000.00PhP. The buyer of said properties was herein Complainant,
who initially paid the sum of 3,200,000.00PhP with a promise to pay the balance after verification of the authenticity of the
owner’s title to the properties. For this purpose, Complainant borrowed the original copies of said titles from Amurao.
Subsequently, to their surprise, the subject properties had been transferred to Complainant’s name despite the fact that he never
executed the necessary Deed of Absolute Sale nor received the balance of the purchase price. Upon further verification, Amurao
discovered that there exists a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the sale of the subject properties exhibiting not only the signature of
Amurao, but also the signature of his co-owner, Fatima, who had long been dead. When asked, Complainant could not proffer any
explanation, and it is for this reason that Amurao consulted Respondent on his legal remedies as regards the recovery of the
subject properties and/or collection of the remaining balance of the purchase price.
Issues:
Whether or not there is a violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

Ruling:

After a careful review and evaluation of the case, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Feir for lack of merit on February 23, 2016.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law." Moreover, Rule 19.01 thereof states that "a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
an improper advantage in any case or proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or
baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield
or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.

Jardin V. Atty. Villar, Jr., A.C. No. 5474, August 28, 2003

Tinga J.

Facts:
Complainant Redentor S. Jardin filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr., his counsel in a
collection case. Jardin alleged that Villar's failure to formally offer documentary exhibits led to the dismissal of the case. Despite
extensions granted by the trial court, Villar did not file the required documents, resulting in the court's dismissal order. Jardin
terminated Villar's services and later filed a disbarment complaint.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr. should be disbarred for negligence and failure to fulfill his duties as legal counsel, causing
prejudice to his client and violating professional standards.

Ruling:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Villar liable for negligence and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP
Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Supreme Court, concurring with the IBP's findings, suspended Atty.
Deogracias Villar, Jr. from the practice of law for six months. The Court emphasized that Villar's failure to file the formal offer of
exhibits constituted inexcusable negligence, violating Canons 12, 17, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
decision warned of more severe consequences for a similar violation in the future.

Reyes v. Rivera, 2020

FACTS:
Complainant Jose R. Reyes, Jr. filed a verified complaint against Atty. Socrates R. Rivera, accusing him of falsely representing
the filing of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, and
drafting a fake court decision. Complainant paid Atty. Rivera a total of P100,000 for legal services.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Socrates R. Rivera should be disbarred for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct, as well
as violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Rivera guilty of gross misconduct and recommended an indefinite
suspension. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed with modification, imposing disbarment and ordering the return of P100,000.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended disbarment as well.

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings, upholding the disbarment of Atty. Rivera. His acts of misrepresentation and drafting
a fake court decision displayed moral unfitness for the legal profession. The Court ordered Atty. Rivera's immediate disbarment
and instructed him to return the full legal fees of P100,000 to the complainant, with six percent interest per annum until full
payment.

Conclusion:
Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is disbarred from the practice of law due to gross misconduct, misrepresentation, and unethical behavior.

Mabini Colleges, Inc. V. Atty. Pajarillo, A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS:
The case involves a disbarment complaint against Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo. Mabini Colleges, Inc. alleged that Pajarillo, initially its
corporate secretary, later represented conflicting interests by serving as counsel for Rural Bank of Paracale (RBP) in a case against
Mabini Colleges.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing
conflicting interests.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed Pajarillo's guilt, citing the prohibition on representing conflicting interests without written consent
after full disclosure. Pajarillo, as RBP's counsel, faced disbarment for acting against the interests of his former client, Mabini
Colleges. The Court upheld the one-year suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors.

Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 1 jULY 2003

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:
Complainants Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D. Ricafort filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat, a
member of ASSA Law and Associates, for illegal and unethical practice, conflict of interest, and violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. They alleged that Salunat represented conflicting interests by acting as counsel for the
Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) while his brother, Aurelio S. Salunat, was a member of the PPSTA
Board. Complainants argued that Salunat's representation of the board members in a case filed against them by PPSTA constituted
a conflict of interest.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting
interests.

RULING:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat guilty of representing conflicting interests. It ruled that a lawyer engaged as
counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same corporation’s board of directors in a derivative suit brought
against them, as it would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests, prohibited by the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Salunat, as a partner in ASSA Law and Associates, represented the PPSTA Board members in a case brought against them by
PPSTA, a clear conflict of interest. The Court clarified that Salunat's representation of the Board members in OMB Case No. 0-
97-0695 also constituted a conflict of interest, as it was brought to protect the interests of the corporation.

While acknowledging the conflict, the Court considered that this was Salunat's first offense and deemed the recommended penalty
of suspension too harsh. Instead, Salunat was admonished to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession
and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Conclusion:
Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat was found guilty of representing conflicting interests but was admonished instead of being suspended,
taking into consideration that it was his first offense. He was warned of more severe consequences for any similar acts in the
future.

ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs ATTY. RETITUTO MENDOZA

A.C. No. 8608. 16 October 2019
Facts:

Adelfa Properties, Inc. (Complainant) is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in real estate development; the majority
stockholders of which are then Senator Manuel Villar, Jr. and his wife Senator Cynthia Villar. Imperative to its business
operations, Complainant maintains a pool of lawyers, each of which is assigned as in-house counsel to its affiliate companies.

In 2004, Brittany Corp., an affiliate company of Complainant, hired Atty. Retituto Mendoza (Respondent) as in-house counsel;
apart from his legal expertise, Respondent was expected to be able to blend well with company officers and other executives.
However, much to the dismay and disappointment of Complainant and its affiliates, Respondent failed to blend effectively and
efficiently with his co-in-house counsels. Due to Respondent’s poor ability to adapt to his work environment, he had been
transferred from one Affiliate Company to the other. Nevertheless, Respondent’s performance continued to disappoint, thus, in
May 2009, the Senior Officer of MB Villar Group of Companies spoke to Respondent about his poor annual performance
evaluation. In response, Respondent allegedly threated and retorted, “I will bring down the Company with me,” and even brazenly
claimed that he has information and documents against the company boss.

In an Affidavit executed by Jerry Navarrete, one of the senior officers of Adelfa’s affiliated companies, stated that on 20 May
2009, he met with Respondent in Makati. During the meeting, Respondent told him that he took part in the preparation of
documents in one of the illegal and irregular transactions of Complainant, and that he had information and documents that are
damaging to the political career of Senator Villar. Despite being reminded of Attorney-Client Privilege, Respondent continued to
demand that he be paid PhP25 Million. Because Complainant did not accede Respondent’s demands, the latter allegedly made a
phone call to other corporate officers, threatening to go all out against Senator Villar.

Thus, due to breach of trust and confidence, Complainant sent a notice of termination dated 22 May 2009, grounded on
Respondent’s serious misconduct, gross and habitual neglect of duties, and willful breach of trust and confidence. Respondent
initiated an illegal dismissal case against Complainant, to which the latter opined that such filing was tainted by malice and
caprice.

To aggravate the situation, Complaint further avers that Respondent even had himself interviewed by ABS-CBN TV Patrol where
he maliciously claimed that he was dismissed from employment because he does not want to participate in the corrupt practices of
the company; and that Senator Villar uses his influence and power to obtain favorable decisions in land disputes. Further, on 22
April 2010, in a press conference, Respondent publicly declared that he will testify against Senator Villar on the alleged land
grabbing issue committed by Complainant and its affiliates.

In his Comment, Respondent argued that contrary to the allegations against him, he actually upheld the lawyer’s oath and Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by refusing to engage in immoral, dishonest, unlawful and deceitful
conduct. He claimed that his employment was terminated because he stood up for his principles to which he was branded as
abrasive and not a team player.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not Respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between Attorney and client.

Held:

1. No, the Court held that the evidence on record failed to substantiate Complainant’s allegations. It elucidated the factors essential
to establish the existence of attorney-client privilege: (1) there exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-
client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication; (2) the client made the
communication in confidence; and (3) the legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity. Here, the
complaint did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by Respondent; Complainant merely claimed
that the privilege was broken without averring any categorical and concrete evidence to support the same.

The filing of the illegal dismissal case against Complainant, and the disclosure of information in support thereof is not per se a
violation of the rule because it was necessary in order to establish his cause of action against Complainant. In sum, mere
allegation, without any evidence as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by Respondent, is difficult, if not
impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication.

Paas v. Almarvez, A.M. No. P-03-1690, April 4

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Facts:
The case involves administrative charges against Court Aide/Utility Worker Edgar E. Almarvez by Presiding Judge Estrellita M.
Paas of Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 44. Almarvez faced charges including discourtesy, disrespect,
insubordination, neglect of duties, disloyalty, solicitation of monetary consideration, and gross violation of the Civil Service Law.
The allegations included discourtesy to colleagues and litigants, failure to maintain court premises' cleanliness, habitual absence
from work, soliciting money from detention prisoners for the release of their orders, and divulging confidential information for a
fee. Almarvez denied the charges and counter-alleged harassment by Judge Paas.

Issues:

Whether Almarvez is guilty of the charges filed against him.

Whether Judge Estrellita M. Paas is guilty of the charges of abuse of authority and oppression.
Whether Judge Paas and her husband, Atty. Renerio G. Paas, are guilty of using the court's address for personal purposes.
Ruling:

Almarvez is found guilty of inefficiency and is suspended for one month without pay.
Judge Estrellita M. Paas is found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary and is reprimanded with a warning
of severe consequences for repetition.
In a separate case against Judge Paas and Atty. Renerio G. Paas for using the court's address for personal purposes, Judge Paas is
fined P12,000 for violating administrative circulars and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Atty. Renerio G. Paas is found guilty of
simple misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for three months.
The decision takes effect immediately, and copies are to be furnished to relevant authorities.

Paces Industrial Corporation v. Salandanan 2017

PERALTA, J.:

Facts:

In October 1973, Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan became a stockholder of Paces Industrial Corporation (Paces) and later held
various positions within the company, including Director, Treasurer, Administrative Officer, and Vice-President for Finance.
Salandanan, as Paces' lawyer, represented the company in legal cases, including Sisenando Malveda, et al. v. Paces Corporation
and Land & Housing Development Corporation v. Paces Corporation.
In the latter case, Salandanan failed to file an Answer, resulting in a default judgment against Paces, which later became final and
executory.
Salandanan was involved in negotiations regarding Paces' outstanding obligation to E.E. Black Ltd. and was entrusted with
documents related to the agreement between Paces and E.E. Black Ltd.
Due to disagreements among stockholders and officers, Salandanan and his group sold their shareholdings in Paces to Mr. Nicolas
C. Balderama on May 27, 1974.
After the sell-out, Salandanan, now representing E.E. Black Ltd., filed a complaint against Paces for the collection of its
obligation. He obtained an order of attachment and notices of garnishment against Paces' assets.

Issues:

Whether Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan violated ethical rules by representing conflicting interests.
Whether Salandanan's actions, as alleged by Paces, amount to malpractice or gross misconduct.
Uling (Ruling):

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Salandanan's suspension for one year, but the IBP Board of Governors
increased it to three years, finding him in violation of the conflict of interest rule.
The Court upheld the IBP's ruling, emphasizing that a lawyer should not represent conflicting interests without the written consent
of all parties involved after full disclosure of the facts.
The decision cited specific canons from the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including Canon 15 and Canon 21, to
support the prohibition against conflicts of interest.
The Court highlighted the rationales behind the conflict-of-interest rules, such as ensuring undivided loyalty to clients, enhancing
the effectiveness of legal representation, safeguarding confidential information, preventing exploitation of clients, and protecting
the legal system's interests.
Salandanan's defense that he was never employed as counsel by Paces was rejected, as he had previously represented the company
in various cases.
The Court found that Salandanan, in representing E.E. Black Ltd., had obtained knowledge of confidential matters affecting
Paces, violating the trust and confidence inherent in the lawyer-client relationship.
Salandanan's failure to obtain express consent from Paces after a full disclosure of the conflict of interest led to the conclusion that
he represented conflicting interests without proper authorization.
The Court suspended Salandanan from the practice of law for three years and warned that a similar offense would be dealt with
more severely.

Yumol, Jr. V. Ferrer, Sr., AC. No. 6585, APril 21, 2005

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Facts:
Atty. Tomas B. Yumol, Jr., Felix S. Ventic, Elmer L. Maniego, and Jake Magcalas filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Roberto R. Ferrer, Sr., accusing him of grave misconduct. The complainants were employees of the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR), with Atty. Yumol as Officer-in-Charge, Mr. Ventic as Supervising Special Investigator, Mr. Maniego as Special
Investigator III, and Mr. Magcalas as Special Investigator I. Atty. Ferrer, Sr., also worked at the CHR as Attorney IV.

The dispute arose from a case where Mrs. Ma. Cecilia Mallari-Dy sought assistance from the CHR for the alleged kidnapping of
her child and coercive actions by her husband. Atty. Ferrer, Sr., issued two orders granting custody of the child to the mother and
instructing the Rural Bank of Porac to reinstate the account. This led to a heated altercation between Atty. Ferrer, Sr., and Mr.
John Burt Dy, who accused the CHR of connivance.

Complainants, witnessing the incident, discovered that the orders were allegedly issued by Atty. Ferrer, Sr., without proper
authority. They raised concerns about his private practice, unauthorized orders, and attendance at court hearings while logging in
at the CHR office.

Issue:
The main issues include:

Whether Atty. Ferrer, Sr., engaged in private practice without proper authorization.
Whether he falsified his Daily Time Records (DTRs).
Whether he issued unauthorized orders in violation of the CHR's jurisdiction.
Whether he continued engaging in private practice despite facing charges.
Ruling:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension, while the IBP
Board of Governors modified the penalty to a six-month suspension. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of suspension but imposed
a one-year suspension, finding Atty. Ferrer, Sr., guilty of gross misconduct. The decision emphasized that the lawyer's acts,
including issuing unauthorized orders and engaging in private practice without proper authority, constituted gross misconduct
warranting disciplinary action. The suspension aimed to protect the public and the legal profession.

Intestate estate of Jose Uy v. Maghari III, 2015

LEONEN, J.:
Facts:

The case involves a Complaint for disbarment filed by Wilson Uy, the designated administrator of the estate of Jose Uy, against
Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari, III (Maghari). The Complaint alleges that Maghari engaged in deceitful conduct and violated the
Lawyer's Oath by using false and/or appropriated information from other lawyers in signing certain pleadings.

The dispute arose from conflicting claims to the estate of Jose Uy. Lilia Hofileña initially filed a Petition to be designated
administratrix of Jose Uy's estate, but Wilson Uy contested this and eventually became the court-designated administrator.
Hofileña's claims in the estate settlement were granted, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

During these proceedings, Maghari, representing Magdalena Uy, filed motions and pleadings containing professional details
allegedly copied from another lawyer, Atty. Mariano L. Natu-El. Wilson Uy later discovered that since 2010, Maghari had been
changing the professional details he signed on pleadings and had been copying details from Atty. Natu-El.

Wilson Uy filed a Motion to declare Magdalena Uy in indirect contempt, but the court declined to cite her in contempt.
Subsequently, Wilson Uy filed a Complaint for disbarment against Maghari, alleging violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issues:

Whether Maghari violated his Lawyer's Oath and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

The ruling states that Maghari did not merely commit errors in good faith; instead, he knowingly violated legal requirements and
indicated false information. The court found a pattern of deceit in Maghari's actions, noting that he appropriated information from
another lawyer and repeatedly changed details in different pleadings. The court emphasized that Maghari's actions not only
involved deceit but also larceny, as he took and used another lawyer's information.

Maghari's deliberate and mocking violation of statutory and regulatory requirements was considered a violation of his duties to
society, the legal profession, and his client. The court emphasized the significance of a lawyer's signature on pleadings, stating
that it is a positive declaration of competence, credibility, and ethics.

The ruling concluded that Maghari violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and specific rules regarding delegation of
legal tasks. His deliberate use of false information, misrepresentation, and violation of legal requirements warranted disciplinary
sanctions. The court suspended Maghari from the practice of law for two years, effective upon receipt of the resolution.

In summary, the key issues revolved around Maghari's alleged violations of ethical standards, and the ruling determined that he
deliberately engaged in deceitful and larcenous conduct, leading to a suspension from practicing law for two years.

Monares v. Atty. Monuz, January 24, 2017

CAGUIOA, J:

Facts:
Atty. Levi P. Muñoz faced disbarment complaints for allegedly engaging in private practice during his tenure as Provincial Legal
Officer. The complaints were filed by Arthur Monares, Atty. Oliver Olaybal for Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO), and
Benjilieh Constante. Monares alleged Muñoz represented his brother Ludolfo during regular government hours. Olaybal accused
Muñoz of not disclosing his government position while serving as retained counsel for ALECO. Constante claimed Muñoz filed
cases against Sunwest while acting as Provincial Legal Officer.

Issue:
Whether Muñoz violated ethical standards by engaging in private practice, representing conflicting interests, and collecting
excessive fees.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Muñoz guilty of gross misconduct and violating professional responsibility rules. Muñoz's use of
government time for private practice, failure to seek proper authorization, and representation of conflicting interests led to a three-
year suspension from practicing law. The Court warned of harsher penalties for future violations.

Palencia v. Linsangan, 2018

Facts:

Complainant, an overseas Filipino worker, was seriously injured while working on a vessel.
Respondents, attorneys Pedro and Gerard Linsangan, convinced him to hire their services.
Complainant signed a contract agreeing to pay 35% of any recovery or settlement.
Respondents secured a settlement of $95,000, deducted fees, and offered $20,756.05 to complainant.
Disputes arose over fees and deductions, leading to legal actions, including an IBP complaint.
Issue:
Whether respondents violated legal ethics by engaging in ambulance chasing, mishandling client funds, and breaching
fiduciary duties.

Ruling:

Ambulance Chasing: Respondents were found guilty of indirectly soliciting legal business, violating ethical rules against
ambulance chasing.
Mishandling Client Funds: Respondents failed in their duty to give an accurate accounting and return the proper amount
to the client, violating ethical rules.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Respondents demonstrated a lack of fidelity and good faith in handling the client's award,
resulting in a violation of ethical standards.
Penalty: Both attorneys Pedro and Gerard Linsangan were suspended from the practice of law for two years, effective
upon finality of the decision. The complaint against attorney Glenda Linsangan-Binoya was dismissed.
Note: The ruling is based on violations of specific rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility and includes a discussion
on the severity of the penalties imposed.

MODULE 6

CORTEZ V. cortes, 2018

TIJAM, J.:

Facts:
Complainant Eugenio E. Cortez filed a Complaint-Affidavit against respondent Atty. Hernando P. Cortes for grave misconduct,
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant engaged Atty. Cortes as his counsel in
an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation (PEC) with a purported handshake agreement on a 12%
contingency fee for attorney's fees. After winning the case, PEC issued three checks for the awarded amount. However, a dispute
arose when Atty. Cortes claimed 50% of the total awarded claims as his attorney's fees, leading to the forced endorsement of
checks.

In response, Atty. Cortes denied the 12% agreement, asserting a 50-50 sharing arrangement due to the complainant being a
relative. He argued that the checks' issuance followed a pre-execution agreement at the labor arbiter's office. Atty. Cortes insisted
on a 50% contingency fee, justifying it as reasonable compensation for his services.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Cortes,
citing the absence of a written contingent fee agreement, exceeding the 10% limit under the Labor Code, and violation of
professional responsibility.

Issue:
The primary issue is whether Atty. Cortes' actions constitute misconduct, warranting disciplinary action. Specifically, the dispute
revolves around the contingency fee agreement, the amount claimed, and its compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, finding Atty. Cortes guilty of violating Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. While recognizing the validity of a contingent fee arrangement, the Court emphasized the necessity of an express
contract. It rejected the 50% contingency fee, considering it grossly excessive and unconscionable, and instead determined 12% to
be reasonable under the circumstances. Atty. Cortes was ordered to return the amount received in excess of the 12% allowable
attorney's fees. The Court imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law on Atty. Cortes, acknowledging his age and
the favorable case outcome.

Sanchez v. Aguilos, 2016

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:
Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez hired Attorney Romeo G. Aguilos for the annulment of her marriage. They agreed on a fee of
P150,000.00, and she paid an initial amount of P90,000.00. Later, Sanchez learned that Aguilos intended to file a legal separation
case, not an annulment. She withdrew the case, demanded a refund, but Aguilos refused. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) found Aguilos lacking in legal knowledge and skill, and recommended he return P30,000.00.
Issue:

Whether Aguilos should be held administratively liable for misconduct.

Whether Aguilos should be ordered to return the attorney's fees paid.
Ruling:

Aguilos misrepresented his competence, violating legal ethics. The court affirmed the IBP's findings but modified the penalty.
Aguilos is fined P10,000.00 and reprimanded for offensive language.

Aguilos failed to provide the agreed legal service and must return the full P70,000.00, plus 6% legal interest from the decision
date.

Short Summary:
Attorney Aguilos misrepresented his competence, violating ethical standards. He is fined P10,000.00, reprimanded for offensive
language, and ordered to return P70,000.00 to the client with legal interest.

Rosario v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013

MENDOZA, J.:
Facts:

The petitioner, Atty. Francisco L. Rosario, Jr., rendered legal services to Spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman (Spouses de
Guzman) in a case filed against them by Loreta A. Chong for annulment of contract and recovery of possession with damages.
The legal services started from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and extended up to the Supreme Court, resulting in a victory for
Spouses de Guzman.
Spouses de Guzman, represented by Atty. Rosario, won the case at all levels, but they died in a vehicular accident during its
pendency, and their children, the respondents, were substituted in their place.
Atty. Rosario filed a Motion to Determine Attorney’s Fees, claiming a verbal agreement with Spouses de Guzman for 25% of the
market value of the subject land if the case was dismissed.
The RTC denied the motion, stating it was filed out of time after the judgment became final and executory.
Petitioner argued that the motion was timely, and he was entitled to attorney’s fees based on quantum meruit.
Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in denying the Motion to Determine Attorney’s Fees on the ground of losing jurisdiction after the
judgment became final and executory.
Whether the trial court erred in declaring that petitioner’s claim for attorney’s fees would result in a variance of the final and
executory judgment.
Whether the trial court erred in not declaring that the finality of the decision did not bar petitioner from filing the motion to
recover his attorney’s fees.
Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It held that the petitioner's claim for attorney's fees was not barred by prescription, as it
was filed within six years from the time the respondents refused to pay. The Court also emphasized that the attorney’s fees
claimed by the petitioner were for professional services rendered and not as indemnity for damages. The court awarded attorney’s
fees based on quantum meruit, determining it as 15% of the market value of the property in question at the time of payment. The
Court acknowledged the petitioner's efforts in successfully representing his clients over a lengthy period and stressed the need for
fair compensation for legal services.

Spouses Lopez v. Limos, 2016

Spouses Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita S.J. Algura filed a Verified Complaint on September 1, 1999, against the Naga City
Government and its officers for damages arising from the alleged illegal demolition of their residence and boarding house.

They concurrently filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Litigate as Indigent Litigants, claiming financial hardship.
The trial court initially granted their motion to litigate as indigent litigants, exempting them from filing fees.
The respondents later filed a Motion to Disqualify the Plaintiffs for Non-Payment of Filing Fees, challenging the indigent status of
the petitioners.

The trial court, after a series of motions and submissions, ultimately disqualified the petitioners as indigent litigants and ordered
them to pay the requisite filing fees.

The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the rules have been relaxed and citing Rule 3, Section 21 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows parties to litigate as indigents if they lack money or property sufficient for basic
necessities.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners should be considered as indigent litigants exempt from paying filing fees.
Ruling:

The court granted the petition, annulling the orders disqualifying the petitioners and dismissing the case. The court ruled that the
trial court erred in applying Rule 141, Section 18 on Legal Fees when the applicable rules were Rule 3, Section 21 on Indigent
Party, which was in effect at the time of filing the application on September 1, 1999.
The court emphasized that Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 19 are both valid and enforceable rules on indigent litigants,
and the trial court should have applied Rule 3, Section 21 to determine whether the petitioners qualify as indigent litigants based
on their lack of money or property sufficient for basic necessities.
The court outlined the procedure for determining indigency, stating that if the applicant meets the income and property
requirements under Rule 141, the grant of the application is mandatory. If not, the court should apply the "indigency test" under
Rule 3, Section 21 and use its discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption.
The case is remanded to the trial court to apply Rule 3, Section 21 and determine whether the petitioners qualify as indigent
litigants.

Huang v. Zambrano, 2019

Facts:
Complainant Bryan Huang filed a disbarment case against Atty. Jude Francis Zambrano for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Huang engaged Zambrano in 2014 to pursue a money claim, and a settlement of PhP250,000 was
reached in a criminal case. Despite demands, Zambrano failed to remit the settlement money to Huang, giving various excuses.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Jude Francis Zambrano should be held liable for violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Atty. Zambrano is disbarred for violating Rules 1.01, 16.01, and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme
Court found his failure to remit the settlement money, use of dubious reasons, and disrespectful behavior towards the IBP as
justifying disbarment. Zambrano is directed to remit the full amount of PhP250,000 to Huang with legal interest and submit proof
of payment within ten days.

Minas v. Doctor, 2020

PER CURIAM

Facts:

Joann G. Minas filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr.
Complainant's fishing vessel, FV/JVPHIL 5, was apprehended, leading to various cases against crew members.
Complainant hired Atty. Doctor, paid P200,000.00 for legal services, and additional amounts for administrative fees.
Atty. Doctor allegedly failed to settle the fees, leading to defaults, and did not return P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00.
Issue:

Whether Atty. Doctor is administratively liable for failing to account for and return money received from complainant, violating
professional responsibility.
Ruling:

Atty. Doctor violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

He is suspended from practicing law for two years with a stern warning.
Ordered to return P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00 with legal interest within 90 days, under the threat of a more severe penalty.

In re Maquera, B.M. No. 793, July 30, 2004

TINGA, J.:

Facts:
Attorney Leon G. Maquera was suspended from practicing law in Guam for two years due to misconduct. The suspension was
based on Maquera's acquisition of a client's property in violation of Guam law, resulting in an unreasonably high fee. The District
Court of Guam informed the Philippine Supreme Court of this suspension.

Issue:
Whether Maquera's acts in Guam, leading to his suspension, also constitute grounds for disciplinary action in the Philippines, per
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Ruling:
Yes. The Superior Court of Guam found Maquera's acts violative of ethical standards. The acquisition of a client's property,
subsequent sale, and excessive fee were deemed misconduct. These acts also violated Philippine law, specifically Article 1491 and
1492 of the Civil Code. The Philippine Supreme Court suspended Maquera from practicing law for one year or until he settles
unpaid IBP membership dues.

Lopez v. Cristobal, 2018

CAGUIOA, J:
Facts

Sometime in May 2011, Carlos Lopez (Complainant) engaged the services of Atty. Milagros Isabel Cristobal (Respondent) as his
counsel in a pending civil case before the RTC-Makati. Complainant immediately paid Respondent the amount of 35,000PhP as
acceptance fee for the engagement.
Subsequently, despite knowledge of the RTC’s directive for the parties to file their respective position papers, Respondent failed
in this regard; and misrepresented to Complainant that she had already filed the same. Respondent also failed to attend the
hearings of the case, and deliberately refused to communicate with Complainant. Thus, in a letter dated 5 March 2012,
Complainant informed Respondent of his decision to stop her engagement as his counsel and demanded that the latter: (1) prepare
and file her withdrawal of appearance in the case; and (2) the return of the acceptance fee, in the amount of 35,000.00PhP.
Despite the written demand, Respondent did not file her withdrawal as counsel for Complainant. This was confirmed by the
Branch Clerk of Court, in a Certification. Complainant now raises the issue, praying that Respondent be disciplined.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct contrary to a lawyer’s duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

1. Yes, Respondent’s failure to file the required position paper and her failure to properly withdraw from the case reveals
Respondent’s failure to live up to her duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of her oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The acts committed by Respondent thus falls squarely within the prohibition of Rules 18.3 and 18.04 of Canon 18,
and Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code, which 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.
Rule 22.01 – A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
(b) When the client insists the lawyer pursue conduct, violative of these canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Canon 18 clearly mandates that a lawyer is duty-bound to competently and diligently serve his client once the former takes up the
latter’s cause. Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that an attorney may only retired from a case wither
by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see
to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case.
The circumstances of the case show that Respondent made no such move; Respondent’s defense of discharge is self-serving.
Respondent posits that her return of the case records to Complainant as well as the latter’s acceptance of 10,000.00PhP discharged
her from her obligations as counsel for Complainant – the Court disagrees. Respondent clearly disregarded the mandate of Rule
22.01, Canon 22; she never sought the written consent of Complainant, his client, or the permission of the Court. Respondent also
did not file a petition for withdrawal in court.
Pabalan v. Atty. Cristobal, A.C. No. 12098, MARCH 20
CAGUIOA, J.:

Facts:
Marilyn Pabalan filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Eliseo Magno Salva, accusing him of various misconducts, including
deception, illegal partnership, womanizing, falsifying documents, and failure in legal representation. Pabalan claimed a prior
witness role in a related disbarment case against Salva.

Issue:
Whether the disbarment complaint against Atty. Salva, filed by Pabalan, should be sustained despite the IBP's prior ruling and
Salva's suspension in a related case.

Ruling:
The Court dismissed the disbarment complaint, citing that the allegations by Pabalan had already been ruled upon by the IBP and
the Court in a previous case (A.C. No. 9809) where Salva was suspended for six months. The Court criticized the IBP for not
dismissing the case after being informed of the earlier ruling, emphasizing the need for prudence in handling cases.

Panelco v. Atty. Montemayor, A.C. No. 5739. September

Facts:
Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor, its
former counsel, accusing him of negligence in handling cases that led to substantial financial losses for PANELCO I. The
complaint cited instances where Montemayor's failure to file necessary documents resulted in adverse decisions and substantial
financial damages.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor committed gross negligence or misconduct in mishandling PANELCO I's cases, causing
financial losses to the cooperative.

Ruling:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Montemayor guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended his disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation with modification, imposing an
indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP's ruling, emphasizing Montemayor's failure to
file necessary documents and the serious financial losses suffered by PANELCO I due to his negligence. The Court decided that
Montemayor's actions revealed an utter lack of regard for the charges against him and a disrespect for the legal profession.
Consequently, the Court ordered Montemayor's disbarment, deeming him unfit to continue practicing law.

Rollon v. Naraval, A.C. No. 6424, mARCH 4, 2005

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Facts:
Consorcia S. Rollon filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval, accusing him of professional misconduct. In October
2000, Rollon sought Naraval's assistance in a case against her. Naraval agreed to be her lawyer and required payment of Php
8,000 for filing and partial service fees. Despite several follow-ups, Naraval failed to take any action on the case, and Rollon
decided to withdraw her payment in November 2001. Despite multiple requests, Naraval refused to return the money and
documents, claiming they were at his house.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Camilo Naraval is administratively liable for his failure to render legal services, return the client's money, and
provide information about the case's status.

Ruling:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Naraval guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 15.05, Canons 16, 17, and 18. The IBP recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law and
ordered restitution of the Php 8,000 with interest. The Supreme Court upheld the IBP's decision, emphasizing that lawyers are
obligated to handle cases with dedication and care, provide candid opinions to clients, and act with utmost fidelity and good faith.
Naraval's failure to fulfill these duties constituted professional misconduct, justifying the suspension and restitution orders.

Aguilar- Dyquiangco v. Arellano, A.C. No. 10541, jULY 12, 2016

CAGUIOA, J.:

Facts:
Complainant Aurora Aguilar-Dyquiangco engaged Respondent Atty. Diana Lynn M. Arellano in 2006 to file a case for the
collection of a sum of money. After three years, Complainant discovered that Respondent had failed to file the case. During their
lawyer-client relationship, Respondent frequently borrowed money from Complainant and her husband, resulting in accumulated
loans of ₱360,818.20. Respondent also purchased merchandise, including magnetic bracelets, on credit, and failed to pay for them.
Moreover, Respondent induced Complainant to open a joint bank account, from which Respondent made several withdrawals.
Respondent also filed baseless libel complaints against Complainant.

**Issue

:**
Whether Atty. Diana Lynn M. Arellano is administratively liable for multiple violations, including failure to file a case, obtaining
loans from a client, taking merchandise without payment, commingling funds, and filing baseless libel complaints.

Ruling:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Respondent guilty of violating Rules 16.02, 16.04, and 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as the Lawyer's Oath. The IBP initially recommended a five-year suspension, but the Supreme
Court reduced it to three years, considering it as Respondent's first administrative case. Respondent was also ordered to return
₱12,000 to the complainant within 30 days. The decision emphasizes the importance of lawyers serving clients with zeal and
competence, separating and accounting for client funds, and refraining from borrowing money from clients to preserve trust and
confidence in the legal profession.