This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AMORIN FACTS:complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent for the latter's fraudulent use of his legal knowledge in convincing complainant to part with her property, the virgo mansion. complainant alleged the existence of an attorney- client relationship, hence, respondent should be held liable for issuing postdated checks in payment for the purchase price of said mansion. respondent denied the same, raising in defense that it was complainant who defrauded him. the commissioner of the ibp committee on bar discipline found respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six months. the ibp board of governors approved the recommendation, with modification, suspending respondent for 1 year instead. ISSUES: *whether or not an attorney-client relationship exists between complainant and respondent *whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct HELD: *no.an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer acquiesces or voluntarily permits the consultation of a person, who, in respect to a business of trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advise or assistance. complainant's averment of the existence of lawyer-client relationship, presenting in evidence four letters and a memorandum of agreement drafted and sent to her by respondent, only strengthened the idea that the relationship between her and the respondent was mainly personal or business in nature, and that whatever legal sevices that may have been rendered by respondent for free were only incidental to said relationship. *the court cannot ascertain whether respondent indeed committed acts in violation of his oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the virgo mansion on account of factual matters that are subject of pending civil cases involving the same property. as a matter of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusion that will be drawn by the courts where the same cases are pending, the court deems it wise to dismiss the present case without prejudice to the filing of another one, depending on the final outcome of said civil cases.
2. MANIPUD vs. BAUTISTA FACTS: complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for alleged commission of forum shopping and for improper conduct when respondent filed two
complaints for annulment of real estate mortgage on the property of which complainant is the mortgagee. respondent contended that he disclosed in his second complaint the esixtence of a pending suit involving the same property, and that his prompt withdrawal of the second complaint was indicative of is good faith. the ibp board of governors, upon recommendation of the investigating commissioner, dismissed the complaint for disbarment for lack of showing that the second complaint in question was deliberately and wilfully done to commit forum shopping. hence, this motion of reinvestigation filed by complainant. ISSUE: whether or not respondent in guilty of the charges against him. HELD: no. complainant only charged respondent with forum shopping and improper conduct. even assuming that he only learned on october 3, 2006 that the mortgagor had been dead since 1968, still he failed to raise this issue at the mandatory conference before the ibp where the issues were defined. thus, since respondent's act of allegedly resurrecting the dead mortgagor from the dead and for allowing an impostor to impersonate the former was never raised as an issue before the ibp, then complainant could not raise the same as this stage of the proceedings.
3. WEN MING CHEN vs. ATTY. PICHAY FACTS:following the raid and confiscation of counterfeit gucci and louis vuitton items involved in complaiant's business, the latter filed complaints against respondent for alleged extortion and gross misconduct amounting to gross ignorance of the law when respondent filed a complaint for damages before the DOJ and a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, seeking the inclusion of complainant's name in the hold departure list of the bureau of immigration and deportation. respondent denied all material allegations, raising good faith in defense, but the committee on bar discipline upheld, with modification, the findings of the investigating commissioner, thereby suspending him from the practice of law for one year. ISSUE: whether or not the imposition of suspension was proper HELD: no.as regards the issue of extortion, viewed against complainant's bare and selfserving allegations, evidence clearly proves that no such extortion took place. there is also nothing on record to show that the filing of complaint before the DOJ was done for the purpose of harassment. if at all, it was an error of judgment sans bad faith. it has been held that not all mistakes of members of the bar justify the imposition of disciplinary actions. an attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law. the alleged errors are not of such nature as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension for one year.
4. RE 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS: ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN FACTS:the leakage of bar questions in mercantile law during the 2003 bar examinations warranted the nullification of the results in that subject and the subsequent distribution of the corresponding percentage thereof among the seven bar subjects. thorough investigation revealed that a certain danilo de guzman, one of the assistant attorneys at the balgos and perez law firm, was responsible for the leakage. atty. marcial balgos, a senior partner in the firms, happened to have been commissioned by justice jose vitug to prepare questions in mercantile law. atty. de guzman admitted to downloading the questions from atty. balgos' computer and distributing the same to two of his brothers in the beta sigma lambda fraternity. from the point, the leaked questions spread and an unknown number of examinees were able to obtain copies thereof. atty. de guzman was thus disbarred, while atty. balgos was reprimanded for his negligence and lack of due care in safeguarding the proposed questions in mercantile law. ISSUE: whether or not disbarment was proper HELD: yes. atty. de guzman, by transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some members of the beta sigma lambda fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit and to give them undue advantage over the other examinees in mercantile law, abetted cheating and dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the examination, which is violative of rule 1.01 of canon 1 as well as canon 7 of the code of professional responsibility. de guzman was guilty of misconduct unbecoming a member of the bar. he violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and degraded the noble profession instead of upholding its dignity and integrity.
5. KUPERS vs. ATTY. HONTANOSAS FACTS: complainant filed an administative case against respondent for allegedly preparing and notarizing contracts that are both invalid and illegal for being violative of the limitations on aliens leasing private lands. respondent was found guilty, necessitating the investigating commissioner of the ibp to suspend him from the practice of law for two months. upon review, the ibp board of governors dismissed the complaint on account of respondent's innocence, as his guilt may have been the result of ignorance of the law or plain negligence.hence, this petition lodged by the complainant. ISSUE: whether or not the dismissal of the complaint was proper HELD: no. in preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the attorney's oath and several canons of the code of professional responsibility. one of the foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at -law is to obey the laws of the philippines. this duty is enshrined in the attorney's oath and in canon 1 of the CPR. aside from constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts of the respondent also amount to
Facts: Complainant engaged respondent¶s services as counsel in Civil Case No. respondent never rendered legal services for her. ISSUE: whether or not respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law HELD: yes.00 from complainant. DALISAY vs. rule 138 of the rules of court which provides for the grounds for disbarment. Further. respondent contended that the complainant did not engage his services as counsel in that case. and pleas for judicial clemency and readmission to the bar. complainants. Branch 1. ATTY. 00-004. Records show that the long period of respondent¶s disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his misconduct. 7. In a span of 15 years since his disbarment. v.gross misconduct under sec. the court finds that it is now time to lift respondent¶s disbarment. and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again of conduct demanded of every member of the bar. submitting in support thereof favorable indorsements. Valeriana. As a result. JR. 1991 for falsifying a deed of sale and introducing the same as evidence for his client. and recommendations from various civic and religious organizations. respondent had been undeterred in filing motions for reconsideration.000. preventing him from doing his job. Guided by this doctrine and considering the evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contrition and his being again worthy of membership in the legal profession. She hired him for the purpose of filing two new petitions. 6. he argued that complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No. she terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. . ANTINIW FACTS: this is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of respondent who was disbarred on april 26. On the other hand. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorney¶s fees in the total amount of P56. respondent. ATTY. entitled "Lucio De Guzman. Binangonan. letters. appeals. 27. MELANIO MAURICIO. not retribution. prompting him to file falsification cases against her. but respondent refused. Dalisay U." pending before the Municipal Trial Court. to show his remorse and repentance. a petition for declaration of nullity of title and a petition for review of a decree and she refused to provide him with documents related to the case. etc. The IBP recommended his readmission to the bar and the office of the bar confidant likewise affirmed the same. VALENCIA vs.. 00-044. It is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary proceedings is restorative justice. Rizal. petitions.
Instead of inaction. as follows: twenty percent (20%) of total monetary claims as settled or paid and an additional ten percent (10%) in case of appeal. Go¶s legal services. It was likewise agreed that any award of attorney¶s fees shall pertain to respondent¶s law firm as compensation. respondent is expected to know this Rule. Alexander agreed to pay attorney¶s fees on a contingent basis. Ruling: Yes. Understandably. and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.02 of the same Canon specifically provides that a lawyer who has received information that his clients has. Rolando B.Issue: 1. Whether or not respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against her. Go. respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against her. Jr. in a case for non-payment of benefits and damages. As a matter of fact." Obviously. The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorneyclient relationship. 00-044. EVANGELINA MASMUD vs. Rule 19. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. respondent was motivated by vindictiveness. shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same. . in filing falsification charges against complainant. in the course of the representation.00-044. Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law. In consideration of Atty. he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. As a lawyer. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. the late Alexander J. he admitted that he verified the authenticity of complainant¶s title only after the "news of his suspension spread in the legal community. 8. This is because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No. If complainant refuses. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Facts: Evangelina Masmud¶s husband. Masmud engaged the services of Atty. then he should terminate his relationship with her. respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal.
equivalent to 20% of the award as attorney¶s fees. 9. SAMALA vs. In this regard. . It may not be used as the standard in fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by his client for the legal services he rendered. Out of said amount. Go¶s compensation. Evangelina paid Atty. Go filed a motion to record and enforce the attorney¶s lien alleging that Evangelina reneged on their contingent fee agreement.00. Article 111 of the Labor Code deals with the extraordinary concept of attorney¶s fees. Valencia on the following grounds: (a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties. (b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence. however both were dismissed and the former decision was affirmed. and consequently Evangelina received an amount of P3.000. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court should be observed in determining Atty. and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children. The CA committed no error of law when it awarded the attorney¶s fees of Atty.The monetary claims of Alexander were granted except his claim for medical expenses. the decision of the NLRC became final and executory. ATTY. Go and Evangelina¶s husband. Eventually. (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees. Evangelina paid only the amount of P680.000. Dissatisfied. Section 24. LUCIANO D. leaving a balance of 10%. Ruling: Contrary to Evangelina¶s proposition.00. Evangelina contended that Atty. Go the sum of P680. Issue: Whether or not CA erred in UPHOLDing RESPONDENT LAWYER¶S CLAIM OF FORTY PERCENT (40%) OF THE MONETARY AWARD IN A LABOR CASE AS ATTORNEY¶S FEES. VALENCIA Facts: Complainant filed for disbarment against Atty. Atty. thus. Go and allowed him to receive an equivalent of 39% of the monetary award. Go¶s claim for attorney¶s fees of 40% of the total monetary award was null and void based on Article 111 of the Labor Code. Several appeals were made by Alexander¶s employer to NLRC and CA. unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.20. It regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees in the nature of damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing party. The Court finds nothing illegal in the contingent fee contract between Atty. The contract shall control in the determination of the amount to be paid. Go and Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. plus the award pertaining to the counsel as attorney¶s fees. The retainer contract between Atty. Luciano D.454.079.
in one case. but the same will not exculpate him from the charge of representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No.Issue: Whether or not Atty. Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. in another case. The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client. on the other. and Valdez against Alba. The act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client. on one hand. cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice. Further respondent is bound to comply with Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. 273020 in the name of Valdez. Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood. . On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. as shown by its decision dated January 8. nor shall he mislead. 2000-657-MK. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one. 275500. or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. Rule 15. was already issued in the name of Alba. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. TCT No. On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence. nor consent to the doing of any in court. 95-105-MK upon being warned by the court. is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from this Court. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. and his own interest." It is evident that respondent's representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband. On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees. Valencia must be disbarred. We find the charge to be without sufficient basis. Ruling: On serving as counsel for contending parties. 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment.03. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
c Issue: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case. However said motion was denied.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainants contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Case No. 981 but respondent never bothered to file an opposition to or any comment on the said motion despite receipt thereof. charging the latter with Abandonment. . They alleged that they directed the respondent to either file a Motion for Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal. flagrant. immoral or deceitful conduct. dishonest. 981. Gross Negligence and Dereliction of Duty. Under Canon 1. Cosme. a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. or shameless. 10. Atty. yet. a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed by the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.wFeeling aggrieved by respondents actuations. but respondent failed or refused to do so. complainants filed the instant administrative complaint against him. for purposes of disciplining a lawyer. Venterez vs. Rule 1. Cosme Facts: A complaint filed by complainants against respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral. Two months after respondent received a copy of the Decision. The motion was eventually granted. immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful. Complainant Venterez was constrained to contract another lawyer to prepare the Motion for Reconsideration which was filed on 19 March 2004.We find respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. de Vera. the respondent filed his Notice of Retirement of Counsel with the MTC on 3 May 2004. On Zenaida C. and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. as would warrant disciplinary action.
Inc. Mijares asked the University for and was given P500. as would warrant disciplinary action.000. 1958 between the City of Manila and the University. he. Until his withdrawal shall have been approved. unprotected. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY. The property was the subject of a Deed of Exchange dated October 1. cannot just do so and leave complainants in the cold. Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually. the lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his clients. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. He must still appear before the court to protect the interest of his clients by availing himself of the proper remedy. All told. ATTY. The University alleged that it gave him all the documents he needed to accomplish his work. academically and morally. respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case. Assuming. MIJARES III Facts: This disbarment case is about the need for a lawyer to account for funds entrusted to him by his client. which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. that respondent was justified in withdrawing his services. LEOVIGILDO H. to do what the interests of his clients require. Later. Complainant Arellano University. however. for securing a certificate of title covering a dried up portion of the Estero de San Miguel that the University had been occupying. 11. nevertheless. respondent indeed violated Rule 18. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Ruling: Yes. Mijares III. INC. for the attorney-client relations are not terminated formally until there is a withdrawal of record. engaged the services of respondent Leovigildo H.03. we rule and so hold that on account of respondents failure to protect the interest of complainants. as well as by the court. vs.00 on top of his .
" He in turn promised to give the money back in case he was unable to get the work done. formally terminating his services in the titling matter and demanding the return of the P500. Angeles.attorney¶s fees. Amado Ibañez notarized an "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" without a notarial commission and in the absence of the affiants. et al.000. But the letter could not be served because he changed office address without telling the University. Issue: whether or not respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500. 2006. The Court is not. the University found his new address and served him its letter on January 2. The University requested Mijares for copies of the MMDA approval but he unjustifiably failed to comply despite his client¶s repeated demands.00 it gave him. entrusted to him for use in facilitating and processing the titling of a property that it claimed. Ibañez Facts: Complainants alleged that respondent Atty.00 that his client. vs. . Eventually. Atty. Ruling: Yes. As a mere trustee of said money or property. A lawyer¶s conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional ethics. prompting the University to withdraw all the cases it had entrusted to him and demand the return of the P500. 12. Ibañez for this purpose. Then he made himself scarce. otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to have misappropriated the same in violation of the trust reposed on him. he must return the money or property immediately to his client upon demand. The complainants denied that they executed the said document or that they ever appeared before respondent Atty.000. the University. If not used. entrusted to him for use in facilitating and processing the titling of a property that it claimed. Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client such that he must promptly account for whatever money or property his client may have entrusted to him. inclined to let him off with the penalty of indefinite suspension which is another way of saying he can resume his practice after a time if he returns the money and makes a promise to shape up. Mijares informed the University that he already completed Phase I of the titling of the property. respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500.00.000.00 that his client. The University wrote Mijares by registered letter. therefore. supposedly to cover the expenses for "facilitation and processing. Mijares personally received it yet he did not return the money asked of him. he must hold them separate from that of his own and make sure that they are used for their intended purpose.000. the University.
complainant alleging that his (respondent¶s) act of representing Alvarez and Malukuh. Atty. BUEHS VS. In his Indorsement. Along with this. during the pendency of the proceedings.) respondent represented conflicting interests by acting as counsel for Alvarez and Malukuh in the criminal case they filed against herein complainant while the labor . and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Notarization engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally. Bacatan. respondent stated that he represents the Alvarez and Malukuh.Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ibañez may be disbarred on this ground. Said labor case was assigned to respondent as an accredited Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to decide upon. respondent should well know that notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one. complainants in a labor case filed against herein complainant as Executive Vice-President of Miramar Fish Company. (MFCI). respondent issued an Order directing the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation to place herein complainant in its Watchlist and to issue a Hold Departure Order without notice and hearing. Complainant was not given a copy of the said Hold Departure Order. he recommended that a criminal case be filed against the Buehs and MFCI. Respondent rendered a decision in favor of Alvarez and Malukuh and against complainant Buehs and MFCI. Inc. The court ruled that respondent should not be disbarred but he should be suspended as well as his notarial commission. Hence this administrative case against Atty. As a member of the Bar. gave rise to a conflict of interests. Ruling: Yes. Ibañez may be disbarred on the ground of notarizing a document without a notarial commission and in the absence of the affiants. while a labor case involving the same parties was still pending before him. BACATAN Complainant Buehs instituted this disbarment when respondent represented Alvarez and Malukuh. Issues: 1. However.
an act which was clearly reprehensible and violative of the principle of conflict of interests. 39-97. he was already in functus oficio. responded showed gross ignorance of the law. In doing so. vs. the former was compelled to ask for an Order to place petitioner in the Watchlist to prevent him from absconding. his monetary obligations. BELLEZA.C. or until the writ of execution has been issued to enforce the judgment. which provides that said Orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. gross ignorance of the law for issuing an order without authority. is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. once acquired. MACASA. Respondent is mistaken. Complainant availed respondent¶s legal services in connection with the case of her son. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments. ATTY.case filed by Alvarez and Malukuh against complainant was still pending before him. Respondent claimed that it was erroneous to say that the issue was still pending with the arbitrator at the stage of execution because when he submitted the Decision. completely contravening Supreme Court Circular No. 2. When respondent was appointed as Voluntary Arbitrator for the parties in the illegal dismissal case he was expected to exhibit neutrality and impartiality. Bacatan guilty of gross misconduct for representing conflicting interests.) he usurped the judicial powers of the Regional Trial Court and the higher judicial authorities by issuing a Hold Departure Order/Watchlist Order without any notice or hearing Ruling: 1.000 as Attorney¶s Fees. 13. On the second issue. ALAN S. 2. A. Thus. and signed the said Indorsement as counsel for complainants in the illegal dismissal case. 2009 DOLORES C. 7815 July 23. However. and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years. Complainant. . respondent asserted that it was complainant who resorted to legal maneuvers to delay. as a defense. what he displayed is the opposite. with an agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30. the Court found respondent Atty. if not evade. Respondent. Jurisdiction. Inocencio T. Based on the foregoing. No. He even indorsed a criminal complaint against herein complainant.
it did not only prejudice complainant¶s son. Again. A. He grossly neglected the cause of complainant¶s son after accepting the criminal case against latter and receiving his attorney¶s fees by doing nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. His failure to return the money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by complainant. HERMINIO A. Hence. Alan S. on account of respondent¶s continued inaction. Macasa was found GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of professional misconduct. Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred Ruling Respondent Atty. Complainant. 8010 June 16. ATTY. In view of the foregoing. LIWANAG and WINSTON P. respondent did not issue any receipt. However. it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. the disbarment case.000 and P18. Indeed.000 with interests.L. MAS.000 from respondent on several occasions but the latter ignored her. the Court ordered that he be DISBARRED from the practice of law and to return to complainant the amounts of P30. Moreover.C. 14. Complainant then demanded the return of the P18. respondent also failed to return the money of the complainant despite several demands.000 from complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant¶s) son. LEONUEL N. respondent also received P18. 2009 KELD STEMMERIK. Further. respondent failed to act on the case of complainant¶s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney¶s Office for her son¶s defense.Aside from this. ESGUERRA. Respondent. No. . she later found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. vs. represented by ATTYS.
complainant purchased the property through him as his attorneyin-fact. Moreover. Complainant left for Denmark and entrusted the processing of the necessary paperwork to respondent. He abused the trust and confidence reposed by complainant in him. Complainant also engaged his services for the preparation of the necessary documents. Respondent. it was registered and conveyed in the name of a certain Alvin Gonzales.000 fee. he was devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under Philippine laws. Trusting respondent. respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer and is also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Worse. upon verification. Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment for gravely misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with complainant¶s P3. Mas be disbarred from further practicing legal profession and for him to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4. Issue: Whether or not atty. He consulted respondent who advised him that he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines. the code of ethics of the legal profession. Ruling: The Court found the respondent to be dishonest and deceitful and "nothing more than an embezzler". respondent demanded and received a P400.8 million. Zambales with the assurance that the property was alienable. instead of having the property registered in complainant¶s name. in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy. He advised the complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and assuring complainant that the property was alienable. showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Thus the Court ordered that Atty.2 million with interest. Mas¶ name should be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys and be disbarred from the practice of law. When he further inquired as to the status of the property he supposedly bought. However. Respondent even suggested a property in Subic.Complainant Stemmerik was interested in acquiring real property in the Philippines. For this purpose. In this. it was revealed that the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former US Military Reservation. he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal. .
after filing their answer to the complaint. As a result thereof. 7433 December 23. No. respondent never made any appearance for and on their behalf. This case was initiated by petitioners with the filing of a Complaint1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that they secured the services of Atty. Atty. Petitioners waited for so long for the decision of the Court of Appeals only to find out later that the appeal was dismissed due to lack of an appeal brief.C. He filed a notice of appeal. . A. Petitioners. Ruling: Respondent¶s documented acts evidence that his efforts fall extremely short of the standard of professional duty that all lawyers are required to faithfully adhere to.15. Atty. paid the required fees and even required petitioners to shell out more money for the preparation of the Appeal brief. He also failed to submit pre-trial brief and to appear despite Court¶s order and notice to him. The petitioners lost to the civil case as a result of their being declared in default in the said case as a consequence of respondent¶s failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. much more to complainants surprise and predicament. vs. ATTY. However. Paneda told petitioners that he will appeal the case to the Court of Appeals. They paid the attorneys¶ fees respondent required from them in order that they could avail of his services as counsel. 05-1554] CESAR TALENTO and MODESTA HERRERA TALENTO. AGUSTIN F. 2009 [Formerly CBD Case No. Issue: Whether or not respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling petitioners¶ case both on trial in the RTC and on appeal in the CA which led to its dismissal without affording petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence. There is no doubt that respondent was remiss in his duty to display utmost diligence and competence in protecting the interests of his clients. Respondent. Paneda filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was dismissed. Agustin Paneda to help and defend them in a case for Quieting of Title filed against them. PANEDA. petitioners were declared in default because of the failure of their counsel to file and submit pre-trial brief and lost the case.
C.9 Lastly. he also was remiss in informing her of the status of the case. the Court found respondent Atty. Agustin F. Complainant engaged the services of respondent to defend him in an ejectment case wherein he was the defendant. Regrettably. when required to file a Position Paper. the facts of this case illustrate respondent¶s dismal performance of that responsibility. he was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. vs. Paneda guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 as well as Rules 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ATTY. She also claimed that respondent¶s failure to file the required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross incompetence and gross negligence. a decision was rendered by the MeTC against the complainant. but the latter failed miserably in his duty as a lawyer and advocate.02 and 18. 16. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD). complainant alleged that not only did respondent fail to file the required pleadings. Accordingly. Complainant averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to respondent. which caused grave injury to complainant. Motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having been filed out of time. Complainant. Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel. which in its totality could amount to a reprehensible abandonment of his clients¶ cause. Respondent.It is beyond dispute that respondent is duty-bound by his oath as a lawyer to diligently prosecute the case of his clients to the best of his ability within the bounds of law. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN. Ruling: . Eventually. however. 8252 July 21. he failed to file one for and on behalf of the complainant. Hence. A. complainant initiated the disbarment case against respondent. No. Issue: Whether or not the respondent failed to exert his best effort and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client¶s cause. Respondent was able to file on time an Answer to the complaint. 2009 NATIVIDAD UY. The case was elevated to the Regional Trial Court but the same was dismissed solely because of the failure of respondent to file a memorandum on appeal.
Atty. Obmina¶s failure to inform Carandang of the adverse decision in said case and for failure to appeal the decision. issued an Order directing respondent Atty. Thus. Ma. and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Gilbert S. Issue: . CARANDANG.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Commission directed Atty.C. On the scheduled Mandatory Conference. Complainant. Tansinsin was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention. GILBERT S. Carandang against Atty. Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he filed. diligence. She further alleged that her father is already a permanent resident of the United States of America since March 2001 and had already retired from the practice of law. However. Obmina to submit his Answer. Therefore. Carandang brought suit for Atty. Muaña to produce and present before the Court the alleged withdrawal of appearance filed by her father and proof that her father is now really a permanent resident of the United States of America. OBMINA. allegedly daughter of respondent. Atty. 7813 April 21. Obmina-Muaña. regardless of its importance. respondent failed to file the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC where complainant¶s appeal was then pending.Respondent¶s failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client¶s cause. dismissing said case on that ground alone. there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A. 2009 CARLITO P. This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. vs. The Commission on Bar Discipline. Obmina. respondent¶s failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18. Respondent. in total disregard of the court order. It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment case) required the parties to submit their respective position papers. 17. skill and competence. as he omitted to apprise complainant of the status of her ejectment case. Further. No. However. Respondent also lacked candor in dealing with his client. Gilbert S. It should be stressed that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. what the Commission received was a Manifestation by a certain Atty. respondent did not bother to do so. ATTY. Carmencita C. In addition.
03 of Canon 18. Obmina is liable for failure serve his client with competence and diligence as pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics and to inform his client as to the stus of his case pursuant to Rule 18. Carandang as to what happened to his case. Best.T. respondent is duty bound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics. thereby exercising that standard of care which an ordinary prudent man bestows upon his business (Leonardo vs. Ruling: There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. The Court ordered that Atty. S. 18. HEGNA vs. the Court underscored the duty of respondent to notify his client as to what happened to his case. Defendants were rendered to be in default and subsequently a Decision in favor of complainant was made ordering defendants to vacate the leased premises and pay for compensatory damages. the respondent who has in his possession the complete files and address of the complainant. 18 2002.MTCC thereafter granted the Motion for Execution of Judgment filed by the complainant and issued a Writ of Execution on Feb. Obmina. should have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. PADERANGA This case stems out of a civil case for forcible entry filed by herein complainant to Eliseo Panaguinip in MTCC Branch 8 in Cebu City. However. That as a result of the respondent¶s failure to notify the complainant. Obmina be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Although the said respondent is reportedly in the United States of America and accordingly retired from the practice of law.. . Inc. Whether the decision is adverse to or in favor of his client. Nonetheless. the Commission resolved not to close its eyes on the negligence that respondent has committed while in the active practice.Whether or not Atty. the latter lost the case leading to his eviction. Blame should not be attributed solely to the respondent because it was observed that complainant is partly to blame for his loss for failure to maintain contact with Atty. Obmina notified complainant in any manner about the decision. Gilbert S. The Supreme Court held that "clients should maintain contact with their counsel from time to time and inform themselves of the progress of their case.).
Subsequently. ISSUE: is Atty. the Court finds respondent administratively liable for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. he should have immediately disclosed such fact immediately during the time when respondent and Panaguinip had engaged in previous meetings and filed a third. 3653-D-1 and FUSO vehicle. respondent Atty. In respondent's comment on the administrative complaint. a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit. In the present case. the property and rights in litigations or levied upon execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions cannot acquire the property subject of litigation. . and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. 2002. Article 1491 of the Civil Code. he argued that he did not falsify the document and that the genuiness and the due execution of the DOS was not affected by the fact that he failed to register them. prosecuting attorneys. Paderanga guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct? HELD: The Court ruled that Atty. Because of the delay in issuing the writ. herein complainant in June 3. filed with the OBC a complaint against Paderanga for deliberately falsifying documents causing delay and a possible denial of justice to be served in the Civil Case. (5) violation of the lawyer¶s oath. Paderanga is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Paderanga filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim over Lot No. and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. (3) grossly immoral conduct.C. both of which could be erroneously levied by the writ of execution. He also alleged that the MTCC have no jurisdiction over the case for being based on spurious claims. Goering G. It specifically states that justices.party claim. clerks of superior and inferior courts. Had respondent been the rightful owner of a parcel of land and motor vehicle that were still registered in the name of defendants-spouses. (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. which he bought from the defendants in 2001.
degrade the profession in the public¶s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called. and do no falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in court.To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law. LINSANGAN vs. Such actuation constitutes malpractice. Rule 2. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. . A calling card of Tolentino visibly states that his law office rendered financial assistance to his clients specializing in maritime cases for seafarers. lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. a ground for disbarment .Respondent violated the Lawyer¶s Oath. lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. that respondent with the help of his paralegal Fe Labiano. convinced his clients to transfer to Tolentino and promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. which mandates that he should support the Constitution. Tolentino had encroached complanant¶s professional practice and constituted violations of ethical rules. Tolentino persistently called and sent Linsangan¶s clients. lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain. Hence. 19. According to the complainant. Further. obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein. he has also failed to live up to the standard set by law that he should refrain from counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. TOLENTINO Facts: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Tolentino encroached the professional practice of complainant? HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. ISSUE: Did Atty.
when the law is so elementary.´? HELD: Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.10 Indeed. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession. Enriquez Issue: Is Atty. ENRIQUEZ Spouses Williams are the defendants in a Civil Case where the plaintiff's counsel is herein respondent. citing a stale law. lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards. Marisa automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an American. dishonest. Respondent Enriquez then filed a criminal case for falsification of public document. Thus. and thus is prohibited to own a land in the Philippines. immoral and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics. it was stated that she is a Filipino married to DAvid Williams.A lawyer¶s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct. respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep . he quoted a more outdated law when he said that the "act of marrying" her husband is equivalent to renouncing ehr citizenship. 20.11 As a retired judge. and with conduct unbecoming an attorney. thereby making her guilty of falsification. WILLIAMS vs.27 For this reason. in the Transfer Certificate of Title. not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Enriquez guilty for ³unlawful. herein complainants filed for disbarment of Atty. According to Marissa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy. According to Enriquez.
respondent filled up two postal checks she issued in blank. Complainant denied having borrowed the P100.12 In this case. . 2002. Not satisfied with the remitted amount.1999.himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client. the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution.910 in respondent's Metrobank account. The case was referred to the IBP where it was initially found out in the Report dated Sept. blank checks issued to him as condition for loans. The loan alleged by respondent to have happened on November 15. in championing the interest of clients and defending cases. 6. is a creditor of respondent in the amount of P 20. a postal employee.16 Ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws. 21. 1999 never took place as it was respondent's modus operandi to demand a certain amount as "settlement" for the dropping of estafa complaints against his borrowers. DICIEMBRE Complainant. Atty.000 each in which respondent claimed was for the P100. lest the latter¶s cause be dismissed on a technical ground. Complainant although not faithfully paying her obligation. secured by 12 blank checks. finding respondent guilty of dishonesty. MENDOZA vs.but made remittances in the amount of P12. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may give to his clients. 000 from respondent and claimed that respondent victimized other employees of Postal Office by filling up without authorization. The Supreme Court remanded the case and a second Report was made by Commissioner Funa stating among others.000 cash that complainant received in Nov.15 Thus. a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer¶s oath. in the amount of P50.13 the most basic law of the land. and participate in continuing legal education programs. but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients. 15. The IBP in its Resolution indefinitely suspended Diciembre from practice of law. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. For gross ignorance of the law. Rudy T.000 payable in 6 months at 20% interest. ISSUE: Is the indefinite suspension against Diciembre proper? . that respondent's allegations are mere fabrications for there were contradicting allegations.14 Implicit in a lawyer¶s mandate to protect a client¶s interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments.
01. She paid respondent P100. as a lawyer.HELD: The Court ruled that Diciembre should not indefinitely suspended but instead be disbarred from the practice of law and his name be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys.03. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity.000. Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Canon 1. SANTOS-TAN vs.28 Indeed. ROBISO FACTS: Complainant charged respondent with malpractice for grossly neglecting his duties and responsibilities as counsel for complainant and for issuing a bouncing chec for P85. Rule 1. whether in public or private life. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 1 ± A lawyer shall uphold the constitution. The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent. immoral or deceitful conduct.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Rule 7. from liability.29 In this case.000 for . dishonest. 22. CANON 7 ± A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members of the legal profession. Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent as her counsel for an intestate proceeding for her husband Eusebio Tan.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.01 and Canon 7. nor should he. Rule 7. Rule 1. .
the hearing officer added.000. Several months passed and the case had no progress. not satisfied with respondent's services. ISSUE: (1) whether respondent was negligent in handling complainant¶s case. During the time the motion for reconsideration was pending the regular presiding judge of the court was under suspension and the acting presiding judge who issued the resolution considering the motion as submitted for resolution was not disposed to act on said motion but instead opted to wait for the regular presiding judge to act on it. she went to his office and demananded the return of the professional fees for there was no professional service rendered.acceptance fee. Whatever was respondent¶s reason for issuing the check. HELD: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP. and (2) whether respondent should be disciplined for issuing a bouncing check. he even made notes to record the dates of his visits in the court.000.000. Complaianant made several demands but was unheeded by the respondent and said that he only issued the same to stop complainant's "acerbic verbal abuse. He did not find respondent to be grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as there was nothing more respondent could do in accelerating the resolution of the motions which were already submitted for resolution. The filing of additional pleadings or papers with the court would not be necessary. Respondent then gave her a check amounting to P85. it was only later that respondent found out that the judged was suspended and not retired." Respondent alleged that he had been personally following-up the case but it was stagnant in the court for there was still no judge to preside. that respondent be suspended for one month with strong warning that a commission of a similar offense would be dealt with more severity in the future. However. He also recommended that respondent be ordered to reimburse complainant the amount of <span>P</span>70.00. .00 of which corresponds to the services rendered by him on a quantum meruit. the fact remains that the same was dishonored by the bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. When she deposited the same.00. it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. If respondent¶s purpose was just to appease complainant to make her leave his office and he firmly believed that he had no obligation to return the <span>P</span>100. the hearing officer recommended that respondent be made liable for issuing the bouncing check. then he could have issued a stop-payment order to the bank before the encashment of the check.000. <span>P</span>30.
the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional conduct. In a sense. ERLINDA I. MANUEL R. in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment. she explained that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity. therefore. Rule 8. 157384 June 5. the Senate President had not apparently called her to order. SANTIAGO FACTS: a letter complaint was filed by Antero J. which provides: "A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall. The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI. let alone referred the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action. But as to Senator Santiago¶s unparliamentary remarks. be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on Senator/Atty. No. Section 11 of the Constitution. however. Santiago does not deny making the offensive statements. ISSUE: Can Senator Santiago be suspended or disbarred for violating the Canons of Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: To the Court. deter the Court from doing so. her remarks were outside the pale of her official parliamentary functions. ATTY. The lady senator clearly violated Canon 8. 2009 . Pobre regarding the offensive speech against the Supreme Court and its members made by Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago on the Senate floor. even without any sign of remorse from her. Santiago. It is at once apparent that her statements in question were intemperate and highly improper in substance. The factual and legal circumstances of this case. A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show that her statements were expressions of personal anger and frustration at not being considered for the post of Chief Justice. 25. The Rules of the Senate enjoins a Senator from using offensive or improper language against another Senator or against any public institution. SINGSON G.23. however.R. POBRE vs. The lady senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber but it is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on her. BILDNER vs.
J. . 7036. the transcript of the stenographic notes of the May 31. to rule in Atty. Singson should be administratively discipline or disbarred from the practice of law for the alleged misconduct in attempting to bribe Judge Antonio Reyes Held: Yes. his close family friend. Atty.000 to be given to Judge Reyes for a favorable decision. to wit: 1. Judge Laquindanum vs. Nestor Quintana for the following acts: 1. some of which were even made late evenings. Singson should be suspended from practice of law for one year. CJ. 2.. Singson was indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his client¶s favor. Facts: Judge Laquindanum sent a letter to the Supreme Court requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed to Atty. June 29. Sevilla confirmed that he was approached by the respondent to convince the judge. Atty. Notarizing documents outside of the area of his commission as notary public. 2000 hearing in the sala of Judge Reyes when the judge made it of record that respondent offered Atty.´ 26. initially through a mutual friend. visited him about three times in his office. The fact that he did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes. Quintana A. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Singson¶s favor. Allowing his wife to notarize documents in his absence.C. This conduct is not acceptable in the legal profession. 2009 Puno. 2. 3. Singson attempted to influence the outcome of the case as can be inferred from his acts evidenced by the following documents. the affidavit of Judge Reyes alleged that respondent. Atty. 3. Atty. the affidavit of Atty.Velasco Jr. No. Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins ³A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Sevilla. as soon as the case started. Notarizing a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time. and made more than a dozen calls to his Manila and Baguio residences. leads to the conclusion that Atty. Oscar Sevilla P500.: Facts: In a case presided by Judge Antonio Reyes.
Revilla after it found him guilty of the following violations: 1. Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides ³A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary¶s presence personally at the time of the notarization. Sec. While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in the practice of law in the Philippines. Whether or not Atty. Whether or not a notary public can notarize documents where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time Held: 1. ATTY. (b). December 4.Issues: 1. No. Whether or not a lawyer of good standing has the right to practice his profession including notarial acts in the entire Philippines. however. CONRADO QUE vs. No. He must have submitted himself to the commissioning court by filing his petition for issuance of his Notarial Practice. ANASTACIO REVILLA. Quintana can transfer the blame to his wife for the latter¶s unauthorized practice of notarial acts 3. A notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. not every lawyer even in good standing can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as notary public.´ 27. and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. JR. 4. intentional and deliberate falsehood before the courts Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers Unauthorized appearances . No. 2009 Per Curiam Facts: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) recommended the 1 year suspension from practice of law of Atty. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife. Abuse of court procedures and processes Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping Willful. 7054. 2. as so claimed by the respondent 2. 3.C. 2. 5. No. 3. A. 2. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife¶s act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. who acts as his secretary.
No. Complainant agreed and gave her substantial amount of money. did not forge a formal Retainer Agreement. Atty. disbarment is merited because this is not the respondent¶s first ethical infraction of the same nature. Soon after. in turn gave legal advice to complainant. Not even his ardor and overzealousness in defending the interests of his client can save him. From then on. Assuring the complainant that it was part of respondent¶s strategy of settling all the legal problems of the former. 8243 July 24. vs. Additionally. both parties continued to work together. Distraught of the corporation¶s obligation to its creditors. Respondent. and the penalty these transgressions should carry. Held: Given the respondent¶s multiple violations. Later on. his past record as previously discussed.Prior to these findings. complainant dismayed with respondents arrogance and evasiveness filed a disbarment case against respondent before the IBP. too. Maricel Pascual-Lopez A. he was previously suspended from practice of law for 6 months for other ethical infractions. 2009 Per Curiam: Facts: Pacana. He is a continuing risk. and the nature of these violations which shows the readiness to disregard court rules and to gloss over concerns for the orderly administration of justice. however. Rolando Pacana Jr. the former disclosed all his involvement and interests in Multitel. Issues: . complainant sought the advice of respondent. was the Operations Director for Multitel Communications Corporation. herein complainant. Issue: Whether the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct.C. the Court orders to disbar the respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any significant role in the administration of justice which he has disgraced. complainant knew that respondent was representing the creditors of Multitel. to the public that the legal profession serves. 28. Respondent also asked money from complainant allegedly for safekeeping to be used only for his case whenever necessary. Both of them.
FREDDIE A. Atty. Held: . 1995 resolution requiring Atty. 29. A lawyer-client relationship was present. Venida filed his full comment on September 4. ATTY. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney. Simultaneously. J.1. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. Atty. she was also doing the same thing to impress upon her clients. was a mere reiteration of his partial comment. 1991. without doubt. by giving him legal advice and. initially. Venida to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the February 17.: Facts: Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.R. Indubitably. Venida also added that he was merely performing his duty as counsel of Saa¶s adversaries Issue: Whether or not Atty. by soliciting money and properties from him. Atty. Whether or not respondent should be disciplined for representing conflicting interest Held: 1. VINEDA. Venida was required to comment on the complaint against him. Yes. Venida on December 27. it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. ET AL. 2009 Corona. He belatedly and partially complied with the said order. the Court issued the June 14. respondent took advantage of complainant¶s hapless situation. To establish the relation. 132826 September 3. In a resolution dated February 17. Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship binds the herein complainant and respondent 2. Finally. later on. Venida should be sanctioned for his unreasonable delay in complying with the orders of the court. Freddie A. 1992. Consequently. G. 1995 which. The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there was a professional relationship between the parties. respondent should be disbarred. the contract may be express or implied. 1992 resolution. ROLANDO SAA VS. the party claimants against Multitel that she was doing everything to reclaim the money they invested with Multitel. 2. No.
he disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics when he filed only a partial comment on January 26. JOSE C. Worse. Facts: Complainant filed before the BSP a Petition against Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation and Alfredo Tan Bonpin. That this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff and his wife to coerce the Bank and Mr. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. use language which is abusive. such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. 1992 resolution. Issue: 1.C. SABERON vs. filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses to the Petition stating. . FERNANDO T. in his professional dealings. he filed his complete comment only on June 14. a lawyer's language even in his pleadings must be dignified The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates: Rule 8. for cancellation of the bank's registration and franchise. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct for using the word ³blackmail´ to describe the suit filed by the complainant Held: Yes. 1995 or a little over three years after due date. 6567 April 16. Yet.01 .A lawyer shall not. 30. Bonpin for financial gain. he should be suspended from practice of law for one year. major stockholders of the bank. in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank.Yes. 5. As a lawyer. offensive or otherwise improper. Rule 11. offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. 2008 Carpio-Morales. LARONG A. he had the responsibility to follow legal orders and processes. J. 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so in the February 17. While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage. No. inter alia.03 .A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. Respondent. Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. ATTY.