Cantiller vs.

Potenciano
A.M. No. 3195
December 18, 1989
Per Curiam

FACTS:
- Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar. He is
charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct,
malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an o cer of the court.
- Respondent told the complainant that the temporary restraining order would be secured if
the judge who would hear the case is his “barkada”
- However, when the case was ra ed and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked
respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship.
- Respondent went into the house of complainant and asked for 2,000 pesos to be
given to another judge who could secure the latter’s restraining order in the ejectment case.
- Sometime after the ling of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed complainant that
there was a need to le another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain
possession of the apartment.
- For this purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare the amount of 10,000
pesos allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's O ce of Pasig as purchase price of the
- apartment and another 1,000.00 pesos to cover the expenses of the suit.
- Respondent stressed to the complainant the need and urgency of ling the new complaint.
Later on during the hearing, respondent withdrew his appearance as counsel for
complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Thus, no
restraining order or preliminary injunction was obtained.
- As a consequence, the order to vacate in the ejectment case was eventually enforced and
executed.Later on the complainant wrote a letter asking for reimbursement of the amount giv
en to respondent however the respondent did not returned the said amount (P 11 000) to the
- complainant.
- It was also found that the respondent prepared a "hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and
haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment.

ISSUES:
- WON the respondent is guilty of the allegations, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation,
and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an o cer of the court

RULING:
- YES
- Rrspondent was sentenced to inde nite suspension until such time he can demonstrate that
he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law
- His rst duty was to le the best pleading within his capability as a lawyer. He had also
depended on his closeness to the judge to get desired decisions
- Lastly, he had failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interest due to
- the fact that four days before hearing of preliminary injunction, he already withdrew as
counsel because of his reason that he had frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids,
however he failed to nd a replacement and failed to inform the complainant to hire another
lawyer in his stead.
- 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.
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffl
fi
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi