THE HEIRS OF THE LATE

SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.

SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 2022
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.
SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 2022
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.
SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 2022
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS. SAMUEL F. REYES,HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES VS. ATTY. RONALD BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.9594. APRIL 5, 2022

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE

SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.
SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 2022
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.
SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 2022
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.
SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 2022
FACTS:
On September 29, 2011, Spouses
Divina, through Atty. Brillantes,
filed a Petition
for Annulment of Judgment with the
CA that prayed for the RTC
Decision to be set aside
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud
and lack of jurisdiction. In the
Annulment Petition, Atty.
Brillantes argued that his clients'
belated receipt of the RTC Decision
on August 19, 2011
prevented them from filing a timely
appeal thereof with the CA.
In the disbarment complaint, Judge
Reyes alleged that by filing the
Annulment
Petition with the CA, Atty.
Brillantes had grossly and
deliberately violated: (a) the
Lawyer's Oath and the CPR for
committing a falsehood and for
abusing and misusing the
procedural rules and (b) the rule on
forum shopping. Specifically, Judge
Reyes pointed
out that Spouses Divina received a
copy of the RTC Decision on
November 27, 2007, and
not on August 19, 2011 as claimed
in the Annulment Petition. Judge
Reyes argued that
Atty. Brillantes had known such
declaration to be a falsity
considering that he himself had
attached copies of the RTC
Decision and the CA Resolution to
the Annulment Petition
that he filed before the CA. Judge
Reyes also averred that the
malicious actions of Atty.
Brillantes had caused further delay
in the settlement of the Estate,
despite the finality of
the CA Decision dated January 20,
2010.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Brillantes
should be held administratively
liable for his actions.
RULING:
Yes. Atty. Ronald L. Brillantes
is GUILTY of violating
FACTS:

On September 29, 2011, Spouses Divina, through Atty. Brillantes, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the
CA that prayed for the RTC Decision to be set aside on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
In the Annulment Petition, Atty.Brillantes argued that his clients' belated receipt of the RTC Decision on August 19,
2011 prevented them from filing a timely appeal thereof with the CA.

In the disbarment complaint, Judge Reyes alleged that by filing the Annulment Petition with the CA, Atty.
Brillantes had grossly and deliberately violated: (a) the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR for committing a
falsehood and for abusing and misusing the procedural rules and (b) the rule on forum shopping. Specifically, Judge
Reyes pointed out that Spouses Divina received a copy of the RTC Decision on November 27, 2007, and not on
August 19, 2011 as claimed in the Annulment Petition.

Judge Reyes argued that Atty. Brillantes had known such declaration to be a falsity considering that he himself had
attached copies of the RTC Decision and the CA Resolution to the Annulment Petition that he filed before the CA.
Judge Reyes also averred that the malicious actions of Atty.Brillantes had caused further delay in the settlement of the
Estate, despite the finality of the CA Decision dated January 20, 2010.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Brillantes should be held administratively liable for his actions.

Ruling: Yes. Atty. Ronald L. Brillantes is GUILTY of violating the rule on forum shopping, the
Lawyer's Oath, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon12, and Rules 18.02 and 18.03, Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months, with aSTERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.The
actions of Atty. Brillantes caused direct prejudice not against his clients'cause, but towards the
opposing parties. As the IBP pointed out, his negligence in handling the case caused undue delay in the
settlement of the Estate, which had been pending since 1995. However, the Court cannot just disregard the
following circumstances which warrant the imposition of a lower penalty against Atty. Brillantes:(1) his admission of
his shortcomings in the handling of the civil case and his sincereapology for his actions; (2) this is his first infraction;
and (3) the negative economicimpact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic to the country

Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al.G.R. No. 183952, September 9, 2013

FACTS:
Malvar filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against KRAFT (KFPI) and Bautista in the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter found and declared her suspension and dismissal
illegal, and ordered her reinstatement, and the payment of her full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits, plus attorney’s fees.

NLRC and CA affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

After the judgment in her favor became final and executor, Malvar moved for the issuance of a writ of execution but
the execution failed due to questionable computation of the award. Malvar requested for the 2ndissuance of the writ
of execution and was partially complied with but with protest on the part of Kraft by filing TRO for further execution
since the computation is incorrect. CA ruled in favor of Kraft. Thus, Malvar appealed.While her appeal was pending in
the Court, Malvarand Kraft entered into a compromise agreement. Thereafter,Malvar filed an undated Motion to
Dismiss/Withdraw Case,praying that the appeal be immediately dismissed/withdrawnin view of the compromise
agreement, and that the case beconsidered closed and terminated. Before the Court could act
on Malvar’s Motion to Dismiss/Wiithdraw Case, the Court
received a so-called Motion for Intervention to Protect
Attorney’s Rights from Malvar’s counsel. The counse
l indicated
that Malvar’s precipitat action had baffled, shocked and even
embarrassed the Intervenor/counsel, because it had doneeverything legally possible to serve
and protect Malvar’s
interest.
ISSUE:
WON, the Motion for Intervention to protect
attorney’s rights prosper?

RULING:
YES. A client has an undoubted right to settle herlitigation without the intervention of the attorney, for theformer is
generally conceded to have exclusive control overthe subject matter of the litigation and may at any time, ifacting in
good faith, settle and adjust the cause of action out
of court before judgment, even without the attorney’s
intervention. It is important for the client to show, however,that the compromise agreement does not adversely
affectthird persons who are not parties to the agreement. By such,a client has the absolute right to terminate the
attorney-clientrelationship at any time with or without cause. But this right ofthe client is not unlimited because good
faith is required interminating the relationship. It is basic that an attorney isentitled to have and to receive a just and
reasonablecompensation for services performed at the special instanceand request of his client. The attorney who has
acted in goodfaith and honesty in representing and serving the interests ofthe client should be reasonably compensated
for his service.As a final word, it is necessary to state that no courtcan shirk from enforcing the contractual stipulations
in themanner they have agreed upon and written. As a rule, thecourts, whether trial or appellate, have no power to
make ormodify contracts between the parties. Nor can the courts savethe parties from disadvantageous provisions. The
sameprecepts hold sway when it comes to enforcing feearrangements entered into in writing between clients
andattorneys. In the exercise of their supervisory authority overattorneys as officers of the Court, the courts are bound
to
respect and protect the attorney’s lien as a necessary means
to preserve the decorum and respectability of the LawProfession. Hence, the Court must thwart any and every effort
of clients already served by their attorneys’ worthy services to
deprive them of their hard-earned compensation.WHEREFORE, the Court APPROVES the compromiseagreement;
GRANTS the Motion for Intervention to ProtectAttorney's Rights; and ORDERS Czarina T. Malvar andrespondents
Kraft Food Philippines Inc. and Kraft FoodsInternational to jointly and severally pay to Intervenor LawFirm

Dumlao vs. Camacho

FACTS:
JudgeDumlao(the complainant)was the presiding judge on one of the cases handled by
Atty.Camacho(therespondent)involvingthePathwaysTradingInternational.,Inc.(the defendants)which filed a motion for
summary judgment however the RTC denied the motion whereas the court concluded that there is no genuine issue on
the case and grants the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment instead. Also, the court then ordered the defendants to
pay the plaintiffs .Then the new counsel, Atty.Baniqued, filed a motion for appeal and inorder for Atty. Camacho to
win the favor, the respondent called and threatened the complainant with the use of his influence)that he has
connections to the higher officials(specifically with the two supreme court justices;at that time it was CJSereno and
AJJusticeLeonen) and have him removed from his position such as disbarment,and even told the complainant that he
would supposedly be appointed by the then Pres.AquinoIII as the Presidential Legal Consultant. Moreover,the
respondent also bribed the complainant saying that he would share his atty’s fees with him in exchange for the denial
of the notice of appeal filed by the defendants and the issuance of the writ of execution. The respondent also
threatened the court sheriff to sign the garnishment order made by the respondent HIMSELF
(sinabihanniyayungsheriffnakapagdimopinirmahanito, papatanggalkitamgaganooon ) however,the sheriff refused to
sign the document because there is a proper procedure and enforcement when it comes to notice s such as
those(undersec.9,rule 30 of the rules of the court).

RULING:AspertherecommendationoftheIBPCommissiononBarDiscipline,therespondent was found

guiltyofviolatingthe

codeandthelawyer’soath.
Thecourtacceptsthefindingsand modifies and imposed penalties on the respondents such as:
●
Influence peddling and Attempted Bribery
●
Threatening Court Officers and Disrespecting Processes
●
Thecommissionrecommendedthepenaltyofdisbarmentimposedagainsttherespondent for a suspension from the practice
of law for 2 years however, due to the previous disbarment the penalty can no longer be Imposed in the event that the
resolution be applied of the same.Atty.Camacho GUILTYofviolatingCanons10,11,13,19,andrules10.01,11.03,13.01
and 19.01 of the code of professional responsibility and the lawyer’s oath

Yes. Atty. Ronald L. Brillantes

is GUILTY of violating the
rule on forum
shopping, the Lawyer's Oath, and
Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Rules 12.02
and 12.04, Canon
12, and Rules 18.02 and 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The
Court SUSPENDED him from the
practice of law for a period of six
(6) months, with a
STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more
severely.
The actions of Atty. Brillantes
caused direct prejudice not
against his clients'
cause, but towards the
opposing parties. As the IBP
pointed out, his negligence in
handling the case caused undue
delay in the settlement of the Estate,
which had been
pending since 1995. However,
the Court cannot just disregard
the following
circumstances which warrant the
imposition of a lower penalty
against Atty. Brillantes:
(1) his admission of his
shortcomings in the handling of the
civil case and his sincere
apology for his actions; (2) this is
his first infraction; and (3) the
negative economic
impact of the Coronavirus Disease
2019 pandemic to the country
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
SPOUSES JUSTICE AND MRS.
SAMUEL F. REYES,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
VS. ATTY. RONALD
BRILLANTES, A.C. NO.
9594. APRIL 5, 20