This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land and the improvements thereon. Petitioner entered into a leased agreement with the respondent thru its representative, Roberto Cabrera, Jr. of the property for a period of five years that the rental is 25K per month with 5% escalation per year. Respondent deposited the down payment but petitioner failed and refused to execute and sign the same despite demands of the respondent. Respondent suffered damages due to the delay in the renovation and opening of its restaurant business. Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for specific performance. Petitioner engaged the services of the counsel to handle her case. But her counsel failed to take any action for the case. So the property was sold by the sheriff thru public auction. After one year redemption period expired w/out the petitioner redeeming the property and the sheriff issued a final deed of sale. Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events, petitioner prevailed upon her counsel to seek the appropriate relief. ISSUE: WON the petitioner can recover his property WON the counsel is negligent in handling the case of her client HELD: The Court finds that the negligence of the counsel in this case appears to be so gross and inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact , that after petitioner gave said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by asking him to file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate court, again counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he received a copy of adverse judgment of appellate court, he did not do anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment. He allowed the judgment to lapse and become final. Such reckless and gross negligence should not be allowed to bind the petitioner. Petitioner was thereby effectively deprived of her day in court. Because of the gross negligence of the counsel for the petitioner, she lost the case as well as the title and ownership of the property, which is worth millions. The mere lessee then now became the owner of the property. The Court cannot allow such a grave injustice to prevail. It cannot tolerate such unjust enrichment of the respondent at the expense of the petitioner. As member of the Phil Bar he owes complete fidelity to the cause of his client. He should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many cases he can afford to handle. And once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. In this case, the Sheriff¶s Cert of Sale and the subsequent final deed of sale covering the same property are null and void. Respondent is directed to reconvey said property to the petitioner and the register of Deeds is ordered to cancel the registration of the said property in the name of respondent and issue a new one in the name of the petitioner. The said counsel for petitioner is required to show cause w/in ten days from notice why he should not be held administratively liable for his acts and omissions.
GLORITO MATURAN vs. ATTY. CONRADO GONZALES Sps. Antonio and Gloria Casquejo instituted their son-in law, Glorito MAturan as their atty- infact, thru a SPA. Said SPA authorized MAturan to file ejectment cases against squatters occupying the lot, located in GEnSan as well as criminal cases against the latter for violation of PD 772 again in connection with the lot. Respondent, prepared and notarized said SPA. Subsequently, Maturan engaged the services of respondent in ejecting several squatters occupying the lot. While the said lot was registered in the name of Celestino Yokingco, Antonio Casquejo had, however, instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration, instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity against the former. Respondent declared that he was of the belief that the filing a motion for issuance of a writ of execution was the last and final act in the lawyer-client relationship between himself and petitioner, and that his formal withdrawal as counsel for the Casquejos was unnecessary in order to sever the lawyerclient relationship between them. Furthermore, he alleged that his acceptance of employment from Yokingco was for him, an opportunity to honestly earn a little more for his children¶s sustenance. HELD: Respondent here was guilty of representing conflicting interests thus, he was suspended for two years. It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. That the representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of atty and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. As lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client¶s case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of client¶s secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. A lawyer-client relationship is not terminated by the filing of motion for writ of execution. His acceptance of a case implies that he will prosecute the case to its conclusion. He may not be permitted to unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client. NESTOR PEREZ vs ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec 2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent went to the unicipal bldg. of Calabanga where the accused were being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim; The extrajudicial confessions included herein the complainant as the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo was not under compulsion did he assist the accused in executing the extrajudicial confession. ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR HELD: Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended for three years from the practice of law. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that at the time that atty. De la Torre was representing the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the victim¶s family. Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client¶s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client¶s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients. What is unsetting is that respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused¶s choice of counsel. RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs ATTY. CARLOS SAGUCIO Atty. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat industries, Inc. until his appointment as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992. Employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint, they alleged that complainant, who took over the management and control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages without valid cause. Complainant now charges respondent with the violations Rule 15.03 of CPR and engaging in the private practice of law while working as a gov¶t prosecutor. ISSUE: WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR. WON being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts with his role as Asst. Provincial Prosecutor HELD: The Supreme Court finds no conflict of interests when respondent handled preliminary investigation of criminal complaint filed by Taggat employees in 1997. The issue in the criminal complaint pertains to non-payment of wages that occurred from April 1 1996 to July 15, 1997. Clearly, respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that period since he resigned sometime in 1992. In order to change respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used against Taggat, his former client, any
confidential information acquired thru his previous employment. It does not necessarily follow that respondent used any confidential information from his previous employment with complainant or Taggat in resolving the criminal complaint. As the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as gov¶t prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests. A lawyer¶s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer¶s employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the client¶s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated. Thus, respondent is NOT guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code. As to the second issue, respondent clearly violated the prohibition in Ra 6718 which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.´. The respondent here performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of the term ³practice of law´. Respondent¶s admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a gov¶t prosecutor is unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01. LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, simole coercion and unjust vexation; where respondent¶s law firm was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said sps., respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since respondent¶s acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer ±client relationship between complainant and respondent¶s law firm and renders respondent liable under CPR particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01, 15.02, 15.03, 21.02 and 21.02. Respondent alleged that he never appeared and represented of such case since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the cases filed against them bur claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the sps pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing to take their case. ISSUE: WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR HELD: Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. It is well-settled that lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client¶s confidence but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. The proscription against representation of conflicting
in behalf of PENTA RESORTS CORP. Respondent for having appeared as counsel for the Sps. namely Dennis Jalbuena married to her daughter Carmen Jalbuena and Humberto Lim. it is incumbent upon Humberto Lim to represent his wife as one of the representatives of PRC and Alhambra Hotel in the administrative complaint to protect not only her interest but that of the family. And it was observed that there was no malice and bad faith in respondent¶s acceptance of the Gatchecos¶ cases as shown by the move of complainant to withdraw the case.interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. Respondent¶s allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales. Jalbuena when the latter were sued by complainant¶s representative. Mrs.03. ATTY. it was their law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil case. the second part pertains to those in which the adverse party against whom the atty. Thus. That the only property of the corp. Such being the case. Jalbuena when charged by respondent¶s former client Jalandoni of PRc and Alhambra Hotel. represented conflicting interests in violation of CPR. ISSUE: WON there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by the respondent HELD: The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases which confidential communication have been confided but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. As respondent admitted. Cabucana is fined the amount of P 2. HUMBERTO LIM. complainant had a case against sps Jalbuena where the parties were related to each other and the latter sps./ atty-in-Fact of LUMOT JALANDONI vs. Atty. The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clients either in the same action or in a totally unrelated case. thus there could be no conflict of interest is no merit. for violation of Rule 15. Lumot Jalandoni owned 97% of Penta Resorts Corp (PRC). herein complainant married to her daughter. NICANOR VILLAROSA Mrs. Canon 15 of CPR and taking consideration of mitigating circumstances. PRC had a case wherein respondent was its counsel. is as above-stated. directly or indirectly. Were represented by the respondent as their retained counsel. to the present controversy. after respondent had allegedly withdrawn as counsel for the complainants which respondent averred in his answer. JR. It is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client relationship wit hthe respondent before the latter retained as counsel by the sps. Later on. Appears is his former client in a matter which is related. the Alhambra Hotel constructed solely thru the effort of the sps Jalbuena on the parcel of land now claimed by the Cabiles family. the rule against representing conflicting interest applies. Jr. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law. The rule prohibitions a lawyer from .000 with stern warning that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The court consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact that he is representing the Gatcheco sps pro bono and that it was his firm and not respondent personally which handled the civil case of Gonzales. Cristina Lim.
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner. Thus. Thus. After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client he cannot. or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the lawyer. Atty. respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be disbarred. That he has been appointed as counsel for the complainant in substitution of atty. and continues even after the . ISSUE: WON the respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between atty and client when he filed criminal case against his former client HELD: The nature of the relationship between atty. 1999. Yet. ATTY. Is to keep inviolate his client¶s secrets or confidence and not to abuse them. De Leon as counsel of complainant. And client may be terminated by the client. The relation of atty. The appearance of Atty.. exacting and confidential in nature that is required by necessity and public interest. An atty. Owes to his client undivided allegiance. Respondent entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for complainant when atty. The relation is of such delicate. ROSA MERCADO vs. De Leon. 171 and 172 (falsification of doc) that complainant made false entries in the Cert. whether or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases. of Live Birth of her children as to the name of her husband and the date of their marriage. One rule adopted to serve this purpose is the atty-client privilege: an atty. act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to. Respondent should not have presumed that his motion to withdraw as counsel would be granted by the court. An atty may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel. Jalandoni¶s counsel beginning april 28. in which event the atty should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client¶s secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of the atty-client relationship. Villarosa is found guilty of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of CPR and suspended from practice of law for one year. w/out the free and intelligent consent of his client. in filing criminal case for falsification. De leon died. JULITO VITRIOLO Complainant¶s husband filed for annulment of their marriage where Atty. the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. In engaging the services of an atty. No order from the court was shown to have actually granted his motion for withdrawal. the first hearing date. Respondent filed criminal action against petitioner for violation of art. or conflicting with that of his client in the same general matter. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. And client and the rule of atty-client relationship privilege that is designed to protect such relation is in order. he stopped appearing as mrs. Complainant brings this action against respondent. She claimed that. by the lawyer or by the court. The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties¶ connection to PRC. Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case. Jalandoni¶s conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean to respondent¶s desire to withdraw as counsel Respondent¶s speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs.
With the assistance of Atty. Inc. (3) the communications relating to that purpose. Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of the subject civil case. The relation of atty and client is based on trust. (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor. and that a man may safely go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his rights or supposed rights in any litigation with absolute assurance that the lawyer¶s tongue is tied from ever disclosing it.´ Such revelation is a categorical interests. Cabrera admitted the wrongdoing complained of. ATTY. required complainant to pay her . The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege. ROMEO SIBULO vs. Reyes Geromo. Without any testimony from the complainant as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by respondent without her consent. Thus. respondent is dismissed for lack of merit. former counsel of Sucaldito filed a motion to disqualify the respondent on the ground of unethical conduct. It is not enough to merely assert the atty-client privilege. HELD: Atty. (5) by the client. Complainant Romeo Sibulo. (6) are at his instance permanently protected. LOURDES DE DIOS Facts: Complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a corporation. (4) made in confidence. De Dios. STANLEY CABRERA In the case of Sucaldito vs Marcelo. which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City.000. De Guzman registered with Suzuki Beach Hotel. with the SEC. the respondent also entered his appearance as counsel for Sucaldito in the same case. With full disclosure of the facts of the case by the client to his atty. (8) except the protection be waived. defendant Marcelo retained the services of the respondent as his lawyer. when he stated that he µ¶merely accepted the case from plaintiff and at the same time was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants. It is the glory of the legal profession that its fidelity to its client can be depended on. Adequate legal representation will result in the ascertainment and enforcement of rights or the prosecution or defense of the client¶s cause. . brought the present admin. Complaint against respondent for the latter¶s removal from or suspension in the practice of law on the ground of unethical practice/ conduct. (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such. The factors essential to establish the existence of the privilege are as follows: (1) where legal advice of any kind is sought. Complainant paid respondent a monthly retainer fee of P5K. an intervenor. it is difficult. without withdrawing his appearance as counsel for Marcelo. Such confidential information is crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between atty and client. respondent is found guilty of unethical conduct for representing two conflicting interests and hereby fined in the amount of P10. if not impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privilege communication. DIANA DE GUZMAN vs.client¶s death. so that double dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery. ATTY. Later the Corp. However. In view of such dev¶t Atty. Thus. which representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15. should be avoided.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR.
Dec. ATTY. dishonest. (SBHI). LOURDES I. Atty. The board of directors included respondent as president in SBHI. (because Mr. 00. Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario.000. 15.000. De Dios violated Canon 15. complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of board resolution authorizing such sale. De Dios became company president while De Guzman was totally ousted from the corporation. Respondent. De Dios would help her with the management of the corp. ISSUE: WON atty. especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large. respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and engaging in unlawful.. De Dios and believed that as the majority stockholder. DE DIOS y y y y y 1995: De Guzman engaged De Dios¶ services to help her form Suzuki Beach Hotel. Jan. respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and discretion.235. It was complainant who retained respondent to form a corp.03 and she was suspended from practice of law for six months. an incorporator of SBHI. one of the incorporators of SBHI. The lawyer¶s oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension. Complainant alleged that she relied on the advice of Atty. Clearly. 1998. Lawyers must conduct themselves. Complainant pointed out that respondent appeared as her counsel and signed pleadings in a case where complainant was one of the parties. a hotel & restaurant business in Olongapo City. De Dios was paid a monthly retainer fee of P5. with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. she appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant. of the corp. The sale ousted complainant from the corp. del Rosario transferred 100 shares to respondent in payment of legal services as evidence by a Deed of Waiver and Transfer of Corporate Shares of Stocks) complainant lost all her life¶s savings invested therein.00 for 22. On Jan. Inc. 28. She also alleged that complainant misunderstood the role of respondent as legal counsel of SBHI. DIANA DE GUZMAN vs. The respondent claims that that there was no atty-client relationship between De guzman has no merit. De dios violated Canon 15. . with warning that a petition of charges will dealt with more severely. however explained that she only appeared because the property involved belonged to SBHI. immoral or deceitful conduct.unpaid subscribed shares of stocks amounting to P 2. While respondent rose to be pres. 235. who transferred 100 shares to De Dios in payment of legal services rendered as proven by a Deed of Waiver & Transfer of Corporate Shares of Stock. 1996: SBHI was registered w/the Securities & Exchange Commission. 1997.00. Shares were acquired by Ramon del Rosario.350 shares on or before Dec. completely. As a lawyer.03 for representing conflicting interest HELD: Atty. 1998: De Dios received a notice of public auction sale of her unpaid shares authorized by the Board of Directors. There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. 30. 29. 1997: SBHI required De Guzman to pay her unpaid subscribed shares of stock amounting to P2.
She alleged that she relied on counsel¶s advice & believed that she will help her manage the corporation. 3. De Guzman misappropriated funds & property of the corporation. She appeared as counsel for De Guzman to protect the rights & interest of SBHI. 1491). HECTOR TEODOSIO vs. 2. SBHI belonged to Japanese incorporators & not to De Guzman. what happened now to her original shares? 2.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) and acquired property in litigation (CC Art. De Dios defense: 1.01). ± YES Ratio: 1. She violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests & engaging in unlawful. there is a conflict of interest of De Dios. Complainant failed to prove attorney-client relationship except for the pleadings De Dios filed in the trial court were De Guzman was one of the parties. dishonest. ATTY. MERCEDES NAVA . Holding: De Dios SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 6 MONTHS w/WARNING that a repetition of the charges will be dealt w/more severely. First of all. Even if the sale of her unpaid shares was proper. 3. SBHI. Canon 1. considering that she¶s now the president of SBHI. which was her client. She only acted in the best interest of her client. Latter even appeared as counsel in behalf of former. Thus. Rule 1. immoral or deceitful conduct (CPR. Unpaid shares were auctioned to save the corporation from bankruptcy. She¶s expected to act w/honesty & integrity and to uphold & respect the law.y y De Guzman filed a complaint for De Dios¶ disbarment claiming that she represented conflicting interests (prohibited by Canon 15. Rule 15. y IBP recommendation: De Dios¶ acts were not motivated by ill will. There was evidence of collusion between the board & De Dios. De Guzman was the one who engaged De Dios¶ services. She paid up P745k during the incorporation stage. Issue: WON there was an attorney-client relationship between De Dios & De Guzman which would classify De Dios¶ acts as representation of conflicting interests. De Guzman was a majority stockholder.
he interpleaded Batislaong in the case because Espinosa and Palma wanted to settle the balance of the amount they had borrowed from Batislaong through Nava but they were unsure whether the payment should be made to Nava or Batislaong as the two had parted ways]. dealt with several clients including Espinosa and Palma. Affidavits executed by Batislaong. n Only after the case was filed that Batislaong offered to hire him as counsel on all the cases filed against her by Nava. Whereas in the other cases where Batislaong is a party of the case. Thus. [According to the petitioner. Nava in turn charged Batislaong. ATTY. Issue: WON petitioner represented clients with conflicting interests and is guilty of violating RULE 15. HECTOR TEODOSIO acted as counsel for Melanie Batislaong in several cases. a case was filed against Nava and Batislaong. Thus.Facts: Herein respondent MERCEDES NAVA alleged that petitioner. Indeed. Espinosa and Palma hired Atty. n Nava used to be the manager of Batislaong¶s lending business. while also acting as counsel for Letecia Espinosa and Ma. there would have been no need to implead Batislaong as a defendant. due to acts of mismanagement. Teodosio for representing clients with conflicting interests. Teodosio¶s legal services to annul trust receipt agreements allegedly falsified by Nava. Espinosa and Palma with estafa. Nava filed complaint against Atty. the issue on impleading Batislaong in the civil case has become moot and academic). Gilda Palma in cases filed by Espinosa and Palma against Batislaong and respondent. Indeed. were it not for the offer of Palma and Espinosa to settle their obligation. assisted by Atty. Espinosa and Palma stated that it was they themselves who brought Batislaong to petitioner¶s office so that the latter could engage his services.03. As stated in their affidavits. Original. Batislaong. n Pending preliminary investigation. CPR? SC: DISMISSED. stating that they have no complaints to the way that Atty. In the cases filed by him for Espinosa and Palma it is only Nava against whom the former have an adverse interest as it was the latter who allegedly falsified the trust receipt agreements to the prejudice of Palma and Espinosa. filed a civil case against Nava. Teodosio handled their respective cases and that they know of the extent of his involvement in the said cases. and in that capacity. petitioner explained to them the consequences of his representation and that they gave their consent to the same. He accepted the offer only after he had fully explained to Batislaong the nature of the complaints filed by Espinosa and Palma against her and Nava. However. Espinosa and Palma were submitted. Espinosa and Palma are not parties to said cases. With regards to the contention of Nava that the affidavits were notarized by an associate in petitioners law firm: The fact that the first set of affidavits were uniformly notarized by an associate in petitioner¶s law firm and that they did not state certain data relating to the residence . (Note that since Nava waived her right to the payment.
With respect to the case for ejectment filed by complainant against petitioner¶s nephew. Sr. n Respondent¶s contention: 1. Further. v. PONTEVEDRA Facts: Herein respondent. wherein ownership over the same is still in dispute. ELESIO C. he was deprived of the right to appeal. Respondent acted as counsel for complainant¶s nephew. ii. Respondent is the counsel of the accused in the criminal case of qualified theft. to the point where financial support was also extended to respondent. Rift between petitioner and respondent started when petitioner¶s counterclaim in a civil case was dismissed. 5. iv. within two days upon his receipt of the trial court's order of dismissal. petitioner heeded respondent¶s advice to build a house on said land and allow petitioner¶s nephew and his family to occupy the house in order to establish possession. respondent admits that it was he who notarized the deed of sale of the parcel of land sold to complainant. he took up the cause of the accused in the criminal cases filed by complainant for humanitarian considerations since said accused are poor and needy and because there is a dearth of lawyers in their community. i. nephew of petitioner refused to vacate the land prompting petitioner to file an ejectment case. ATTY. n In another incident involving a parcel of land. Subsequently. iii. and his family. thus. petitioner alleges that he was constrained to hire a new lawyer in order to recover the (extrajudicially foreclosed) subject property of the said civil case AND petitioner had to initiate a criminal case of qualified theft against the relatives of the new owner of the subject property to protect his rights. he was never a direct recipient of any monetary support coming from the complainant. SR. claims that the relationship of respondent with his family extends beyond mere lawyer-client relationship. PORMENTO. respondent utilized pieces of confidential information he obtained from complainant while the latter is still his client. he contends that what is being contested in the said case is not the ownership of the subject land but the ownership of the house built on the said land Issue: WON respondent is guilty of representing interests which conflict with those of his former client. ALIAS A. vs. PORMENTO. he delivered to complainant a copy of the said order. PONTEVEDRA is the counsel of herein petitioner. ATTY. 2.certificates of the affiants do not adversely affect their validity absent any proof that the affiants did not execute them of their own volition or that their signature therein are not authentic. WON respondent is guilty of taking advantage of the information and knowledge that he obtained from petitioner. 4. . Petitioner claims that respondent deliberately failed to inform him of such dismissal. Petitioner claims that as part of his defense in said criminal case. 3. herein petitioner. apprising him of its contents. he honestly believes that there exists no conflict between his present and former clients' interests as the cases he handled for these clients are separate and distinct from each other. Pormento Sr. However.
03. it does not necessarily follow that respondent obtained any information from herein complainant that can be used to the detriment of the latter in the ejectment case he filed. FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10. The only established participation respondent had with respect to the parcel of land purchased by complainant. with full disclosure to the latter.SC: GUILTY of representing conflicting interests. be that as it may. no substantial evidence presented to support claim. Hence.00) Pesos T/C: rule 15. canon 21.000. it cannot be denied that when respondent was the counsel of complainant in Civil Case No. Nonetheless. canon 6 Test of (+) conflicting interests: whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related. is that he was the one who notarized the deed of sale of the said land. the lawyer may have to contend for his new client that which he previously opposed as counsel for the former client or to use against the latter information confided to him as his counsel conflict of interests when respondent represented herein complainant's nephew and other members of his family in the ejectment case? NONE. he became privy to the documents and information that complainant possessed with respect to the said parcel of land. he may properly act as counsel for a new client. however. Conflict of interests in the criminal case of qualified theft and counsel of petitioner in the counterclaim case? YES! The subject matter is the same parcel of land involved in the criminal case filed by herein complainant against several persons. Conversely. to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. against a former client in a matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment. Where. whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against complainant any information given to him in a professional capacity. On that basis alone. Further. there being in that instance no conflict of interests. accusing them of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut trees within the premises of the said lot. Complainant contends that it is in this criminal case that respondent used confidential information which the latter obtained from the former à presented tsn. the subject matter of the present suit between the lawyer's new client and his former client is in some way connected with that of the former client's action. the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the opposing side. 1648. directly or indirectly. as evidence à after reading. no direct evidence to support contention was found. rule 21. .02.
he extended financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live with his family. complainant came to know that respondent did not sell her lots as agreed upon. HERNANDEZ. His children used to call her "Lola" due to her frequent visits to his residence. JOSE C. nothing on record would show that respondent fully apprised complainant and his new clients and secured or at least tried to secure their consent when he took the defense of the accused in the case of qualified theft. Shortly thereafter. n IBP recommended 6 months suspension from practice of law. IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to 3 years. Go advised her to give him her land titles so he could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to complainant. ATTY. . complainant¶s husband abandoned her and her son. and termination of services as counsel: termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. When the mortgages fell due. NAZARIA S. On defense of good faith. vs. SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED). On several occasions. depriving her of her real properties worth millions. Instead. Luciano S. JOSE C. Jr. Again. CPR SC: guilty of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law. JR. which were mortgaged to her creditors. he convinced her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. complainant engaged the legal services of ATTY. herein respondent. the prohibition against representation of conflicting interests applies although the attorney's intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith. GO Facts: Sometime in 1961. he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name. respondent redeemed the lots. As a result. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors. Fearful that the various mortgage contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and aware of impending suits for sums of money against her. Hernandez. Complainant also owned lots located in Zamboanga City. Sometime in 1974. Atty. honest intention and motives. for valuable consideration. complainant¶s lots to various buyers. Issue: WON respondent violated canon 16 and canon 17. the fact that the conflict of interests is remote or merely probable does not make the prohibition inoperative. including himself. her husband¶s numerous creditors demanded payments of his loans.Moreover. GO. n Respondent¶s contention: He averred that he sold. Moreover. in good faith.
Aside from this. Respondent.00 before he could act on the matter. It appears that Respondent was having problems about the fact that Mohammad's whereabouts are . Sometime in January or February 2002. respondent is duty-bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on how much he sold the latter¶s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors. however. advised Complainant to get a lawyer to handle the case. Herein respondent FELIX SERIÑA was the counsel recommended by Paule to complainant and Balaoro. Records show that she did not receive any amount from respondent. is a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant. and filing fees on several occasions to cover for the expenses of the filing of the cases. Towards the middle part of the year. Obviously. MACARILAY vs. FELIX B. SERIÑA ³Failure to render the legal services agreed upon. J It bears reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his client¶s financial plight to acquire the latter¶s properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity. a dereliction in duty. Complainant and Balaoro. and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment The records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and confidence in herein respondent. acts constituting gross misconduct. an employee of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. could not register the sale with the Register of Deeds and cause the transfer of the title in their names because Mohammad failed to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title for lot. however. Clearly. complainant could have earned more.000. abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations. he also asked for notarial fees. After the meeting.His acts of acquiring for himself complainant¶s lots entrusted to him are. she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots. respondent advised complainant and Balaoro of the proper actions to be taken. willful in character. despite the undisputed receipt of an acceptance fee. respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty as complainant¶s counsel Considering the depravity of respondent¶s offense. by any standard. one Vic Paule. believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors. a forbidden act. that when she engaged his services. had he sold the lots to other buyers. a grievous wrong. we find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light. Complainant inquired from Respondent about the status of the case(s) against Mohammad but the latter could not give any further developments other than that the affidavit of adverse claim had already been filed with the Register of Deeds. Negligence in attending to the needs of a client and a deceitful cover-up of such carelessness likewise constitute major breaches of the lawyer's oath´ Facts: Sometime in year 2000. He also required an acceptance fee of 20. MARISSA MACARILAY and Jenelyn Balaoro bought a lot from Albaria Mohammad. and integrity of the legal profession MARISSA L. honesty.
Sorreda called Respondent to inquire about the specific branch where the case against Mohammad was supposedly pending. was ever filed by Respondent against Mohammad. Hence. Respondent enclosed the documents requested. Subsequently. within thirty (30) days from notice. Complainant wrote Respondent demanding the return of the money she paid for the anticipated legal services Respondent was supposed to render but which were not actually rendered. Upon learning this. 16.000. Complainant herself wrote Respondent a letter affirming the contents of the earlier letter of Atty. 2002.000. 2002. Complainant authorized Atty. Respondent. 2003 -. he displayed lack of honesty and fidelity to her cause. Respondent got angry and hung up the phone.000 and fees for notarial services of P3. SC: GUILTY of violating Canons 15. Atty. Macarilay. Plainly.00 acceptance fee and demanding payment of alleged unpaid attorney's fee of P40. until full payment respondent received the amount of P20. Sorreda.000 for filing fees. Respondent denied the fact of his termination by Atty.upon Complainant's request. Noel Sorreda. Sorreda to terminate the services of Respondent on her behalf. sent a letter to Respondent confirming the verbal termination of services.unknown and Respondent was not sure what to do about it. of P20. he did not file the cases he had agreed to handle.00 which Respondent allegedly advanced for Complainant. Complainant received assurance from Respondent that the case against Mohammad was already filed in court although Respondent could not identify the particular court except that it was pending in the sala of one Judge Regala. the amount of P40. Upon verification with the courts and the fiscal's office at Quezon City. Complainant responded through Atty. Instead of returning the money. Sorreda and invited Complainant to his office to talk things over. Sorreda requested to just relay to Respondent his message regarding the termination of Respondent's services. return to Marissa L. whether criminal or civil. Atty. Complainant then called Respondent regarding her findings and even suggested service of summons by publication upon Mohammad. Sorreda called Respondent a second time but was able to talk only with presumably Respondent's lady-receptionist or secretary whom Atty. Then. Subsequently. immediately got angry so Complainant did not insist on her inquiries and suggestions. (2) he deceived complainant when he lied by saying that a civil . March 24. with interest at 6 percent per annum from May 16. Sorreda in a letter by reiterating the termination of Respondent's services and the request for the turnover of documents. In a letter. Since it appears from the documents turned over that Respondent never filed a suit against Mohammad. he was less than candid in his dealings with his client. Respondent wrote Complainant a letter denying receipt of any amount from Complainant other than the P20. and also asking for the turnover of the pertinent documents that were with Respondent. however. having received advice from Atty. Sorreda.000 as acceptance fee for the cases he had agreed to file on behalf of complainant. Complainant learned that no case. Sufficiently established were the following acts: (1) despite his receipt on May 16. Atty. this petition. 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.000.
.a. ROSENDO MENESES III Facts: Herein complainant charges respondent Meneses with the following offenses. vs.00 from Arthur Bretaña. ATTY. viz.00 entrusted to him to be paid to a certain complainant for the amicable settlement of a pending case n Frankwell Management and Consultant. [petitioner repeatedly inquired about the case.000. as consideration for an out-of-court settlement and with the understanding that a motion to dismiss the case would be filed by respondent Meneses à Despite subsequent repeated requests. written by Atty.such as to file an action or to appeal an adverse judgment -. à respondent received the sum of P50. to be given to therein offended party.000. respondent did not mention anything about the complaints that had allegedly been prepared as early as April 5. due to his continued failure to account for the amount of P50.. for and in behalf of PAN-ASIA INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES. Noel Sorreda. through its Administrative Manager Estrellita Valdez. In his reply. (2) dereliction of duty. a group of companies which includes Pan-Asia International Commodities. absent the correct address Mohammad. and (4) loss of trust and confidence. 2002] Where the client gives money to the lawyer for a specific purpose -. and the supposed amicable settlement was NOT finalized and concluded.Makati revealed that no motion to dismiss or any pleading in connection therewith had been filed. her new counsel. and Arthur Bretaña.the latter should. Inc.complaint had been filed in the sala of one "Judge Regala" of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. NAVARRO. The unjustified withholding of funds belonging to the client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against the lawyer. ATTY. AUGUSTO G. A verification made with RTC . INC. a. respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file the complaints as he was supposed to. Later on. (3) willful abandonment.." pending before RTC ± Makati. (3) respondent refused to return the money he had received for the filing fees. One of the litigations handled by him was the case of "People vs. 2003. Inc. but respondent would not give her any clear answer. by violating his oath to do everything within his power to protect his client's interest. respondent failed to present to his client the receipt acknowledging that Gleason received said amount.: (1) malpractice and gross misconduct unbecoming a public defender.k. immediately return it to the former. he lied to her by saying that the complaint was pending in the sala of one Judge Regala. 2002. upon failure to do so.. engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Lai Chan Kow. but that these were not filed anyway because complainant had refused to sign them. a certain Gleason. Wilson Lai. His deception on top of his failure to file the cases were raised in the letter dated March 26. the accused in said case. à Meneses deliberately ignored the pleas of herein complainant. Unbelievable is his claim that the complaints were ready as early as April 5. Meneses.
The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. time and again. . constitutes a ground for disciplinary action extending to disbarment Respondent Meneses' misconduct constitutes a gross violation of his oath as a lawyer which. SC: DISBARRED Meneses misappropriated the money entrusted to him and which he has failed and/or refused to account for to his client despite repeated demands therefor. Such conduct on the part of respondent indicating his unfitness for the confidence and trust reposed on him. he was necessarily under obligation to immediately return the money. Respondent was merely holding in trust the money he received from his client to be used as consideration for the amicable settlement of a case he was handling. Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment. Thus. Since the amicable settlement did not materialize. or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified complaint of any person. imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. as there is no showing that he has a lien over it. because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted - On the argument that complainant has no legal personality to sue him is unavailing.n Upon hearing and investigation. IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommended penalty submitted²3 years suspension from practice of law and to return the 50. Section 1.000 he received from complainant for settlement of the abovementioned case. his non-appearance was due to some health problems.02.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client. As a lawyer. the case was submitted for resolution. inter alia. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. CPR. He blatantly disregarded Rule 16. Issue: WON respondent violated RULE 16. allegedly. he should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity. suspension. respondent failed to attend even with due notice and despite grants of postponements and resetting. or showing such lack of personal honesty or of good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client. as counsel. Respondent's failure to communicate with his client by deliberately disregarding its requests for an audience or conference is an unjustifiable denial of its right to be fully informed of the developments in and the status of its case. however. RIMORIN IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC vs.It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to become his client. ATTY. CUNANAN vs. ORLANDO RAYOS . ATTY. had the obligation to inform his client of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his client's request for information. Respondent Meneses. He has the right to decline employment subject. he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. to the provisions of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
SC: disbarred. Hence. August 16. Complainant acceded to respondent's proposal as she was already old and was in dire need of money. in June 1986. What matters is whether. if the evidence on record warrants. in any way. 1985. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. ü The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. January 22 1985. Respondent. the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. complainant made a demand on respondent to return the P588. May 21. exonerate the respondent. complainant filed with this Court a complaint to disbar respondent on two grounds: (1) that respondent employed clever scheme to defraud complainant. failed to return the money on June 25. memorandum of agreement was executed however. respondent deposited the amount of 588000 with Union Bank under the name of his wife in trust for 7 beneficiaries. .o.00 plus interest. 1985. 1985. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. Respondent told her that he has renewed the deposit for another month and promised to return the whole amount including interest on June 25. however. to withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust them to him for safekeeping. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.00 to be paid on installment. on the basis of the facts borne out by the record. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. Records also show that respondent filed several suits against complainant Thus. ü The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not. including his son. the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. and (2) that respondent filed frivolous cases against complainant to harass her.000. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party.000. respondent informed complainant that he could only return P400. 1985. it was not followed through because the checks issued was dishonored due to insufficient funds.Facts: January 1985: Respondent induced complainant who was then 85 y. and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.
leaving an amount of P5. dated April 23. Inc.Respondent admitted having received from complainant P17.800. it was alleged that complainant remitted to respondent 270.00 on April 19. to be unnecessary as the application for the writ was denied by the trial court. 2002 for the preliminary injunction and admitted to having a balance of P9. 2002.00 in his promissory note to the Manila Insurance Co.00 . SC: found GUILTY of violating Canon 16. which was reduced to P5.00 by reason of an additional payment of P4..He shall account for all money or property collected or received from his client and shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand ü it was established that respondent could not account for P5. However. for the alleged amount of 14000 for the injunction bond. Judge Quijano outrightly denied the allegations and advised her to file an administrative case against respondent During investigation.00 which was part of the sum given by complainant to him for the purpose of filing an injunctive bond.000. It was established that an accumulated amount of 9000 was remitted to respondent and only the unpaid 5800 remains unaccounted for by the respondent. SANTIAGO SORIANO Complainant alleged that respondent asked for money to be put up as an injunction bond.00. some documents in writing were made.800. however.800. which complainant found out later. CPR = suspension [2 years] + stern warning ü a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.000 on various dates and amounts and in several instances it was not documented nor acknowledged in writing. Judge Milagros Quijano When complainant approached Judge Quijano and asked whether what respondent was saying was true.800.ANDREA BALCE CELAJE vs.000.Respondent also asked for money on several occasions allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge handling their case. ATTY.
03) 4.03) 2.the property¶s TCT and other pertinent documents. Gonzales to transfer the title of property of her mortgagee. dated December 8. The affidavit of the insurance agent. Respondent was directed to answer. Respondent refused to return his client¶s TCT and other documents (Canon 16 & Rule 16.04) . the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. Did not perform legal services. and Rules 16. GONZALES FACTS: Vivian Villanueva engaged the services of Atty. HELD: YES. respondent lawyer avoided the complainant for 3 years and when visited at the IBP office. when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose.unaccounted for. but he did not do so. competence. 17. 18. the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client VILLANUEVA vs. Did not inform client of the status of the case. Neither did he attend the mandatory hearings. Respondent failed to serve his client with fidelity . and 18. after receiving such. Respondent refused to do so. he refused to meet her or her daughter (sleeping or doing something important). And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose. She gave him P8K. Respondent did not keep his client informed of the status of her case and refused to respond to her requests for information (Rule 18. He only returned the money when he was confronted by her daughter. However. Returned acceptance fee w/o any explanation. However. Respondent refused to account for and return his client¶s money (16.03.03) 3. he still failed to return the TCT and other documents.01 &16. ü As the Court has pronounced.03.800. and diligence (Canons 17. 18 & Rule 18. he violated Canons 16. Cornelius M.01. It is a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics and impairs public confidence in the legal profession which deserves punishment. Villanueva filed a complaint before the IBP²1. Respondent was indifferent. 2005 also states that even up to said date. respondent had not yet paid the balance of P5. 2. 4.00 ü Respondents failure to return the money to complainant upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of. Valentina Ramos. 18. She informed him thru a letter of her lost of trust and demanded that he return the money and documents. and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. ATTY. 16.04 of the CPR 1. 3.
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. ATTY. malpractice. making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him ü Atty. a They constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical behavior for which he may be suspended. not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession. Respondent did not file an answer nor attend the mandatory hearing before the IBP (showed lack of respect for IBP and its proceedings. Anorlito A. or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them. Respondent replied ³Akala niyo ba ay madaling kunin ang pera pag nasa korte na?´ Subsequently. grounds therefor. Suspended for 2 yrs. through her employee Rodolfo San Antonio. and this act constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.03 of Canon 16. stains the nobility of the profession) BARCENAS vs. Becomes due. which provides: Sec. or otherwise disciplined. ü Jurisprudence dictates that a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of client in the course of his professional employment shall deliver the same to his client when: 1. 27. . DE VERA . or other gross misconduct in such office. 16. To check if their money was still intact. 16. respondent failed to do so. they found out that Atty. case law has it that an attorney may be removed. and 2. Alvero was losing a lot of money in cockfights. demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness. Rule 1. complainant discovered the respondent never consigned the amount in court and instead used it for his personal needs. Later. and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. respondent violated Canon 1. ATTY. Alvero cannot take refuge in his claim that there existed no attorney-client relationship between him and Barcenas. HELD: YES. Alvero the amount of 300K to be consigned in court to redeem the rights of his father as tenant of a ricefield. but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties. Despite promising to return the amount. they pretended to borrow P80K from the 300K. entrusted Atty. It gave rise to the presumption that he converted the money for his own use. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. ü Atty.01. ALVERO FACTS: Reynaria Barcenas. grossly immoral conduct. Upon demand.A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. following Section 27.02. Rules 16. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice.01.5. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Alvero's failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in him. LEONARD S.
the IBP Board. Atty. Atty. De Vera allegedly made untruthful statements. in violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers which mandates that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. In a regular meeting on May 13. Velez averred that Atty. He then received a check in settlement of the case which he deposited to his personal account. making it appear that the decision of the IBP Board to withdraw the Petition questioning R. Zoilo Antonio Velez filed a complaint for the suspension and/or disbarment of Atty. De Vera as member of the IBP Board and as EVP. Leonard De Vera based on the latter's alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension order rendered against him by the State Bar of California. de Vera resigned from the California Bar which resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court of California. by 2/3 vote. of withholding from him . De Vera handled an insurance case in California involving a certain Julius Willis III who figured in an automobile accident in 1986. resolved to remove Atty. An administrative case was filed against him before the State Bar of California and it was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for three years. On April 11. he must then prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law. during the said Plenary Session. On April 15. authorizing the increase in the salaries of judges and justices. Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. 2005. It appears that the IBP Board approved the withdrawal of the Petition filed before the Court to question the legality and/or constitutionality of R. was due to influence and pressure from the Supreme Court. 2005. De Vera also allegedly instigated and provoked some IBP chapters to embarrass and humiliate the IBP Board in order to coerce and compel the latter to pursue the aforesaid Petition. If he is successful in this.The Court has emphasized that the judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Moreover. Complainant must prove by substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the hearing officer was based. 2005.A. It appears that Atty. and to increase filing fees. He was authorized by the elder Willis (father of Julius) for the release of the funds in settlement of the case. 9227. Atty. innuendos and blatant lies during the Plenary Session of the IBP 10th National Convention of Lawyers on April 22. The judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer. thereby bringing the IBP Board and the IBP as a whole in public contempt and disrepute. 2005. Thereafter. De Vera filed a letter-request with the Court for his oathtaking as IBP National President. Atty.A. 9227. he was alleged to have falsely accused IBP National President Cadiz. De Vera lacked the moral competence necessary to lead the country's most noble profession.
it was enough that he was given an opportunity to refute and answer all the charges imputed against him. de Vera did argue his case. prosecutor and judge at the same time. Rivera initially inhibited himself from voting on his own motion. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not there is substantial proof that Atty. Atty. and personally witnessed and heard Atty. Atty. De Vera vehemently insists that there is no proof that he misappropriated his client's funds as the elder Willis gave him authority to use the same and that the latter even testified under oath that he "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days. They emphasized that Atty. de Vera was given a copy of the complaint and that he was present at the Board Meeting on May 13. thus compromising the reputation and integrity of the IBP National President and the IBP as a whole. Rivera asked for another round of voting so he could vote to support his own motion. he was given the opportunity to be heard and that. de Vera. IBP National President Cadiz informed the Court of the election of IBP Governor Jose Vicente Salazar as EVP and requested that the latter's election be approved and that he be allowed to assume as National President in the event that Atty. De Vera was disbarred or suspended from the practice of law or should his removal from the IBP Board and as EVP be approved by the Court." He also questions his removal from the IBP Board on the ground that he was denied "very basic rights of due process recognized by the Honorable Court even in administrative cases" like the right to answer formally or in writing and within reasonable time. IBP Governor Romulo Rivera and that the latter voted as well for his expulsion which made him accuser. Thereafter. Atty. the right to a fair hearing. Since they all witnessed and heard Atty. thereby creating the wrong impression that the IBP National President deliberately prevented him from taking the appropriate remedies with respect thereto. 2005. De Vera was denied due process when he was removed from the IBP Board and as IBP EVP . He protests the fact that he was not able to crossexamine the complainant. in fact. On May 13. de Vera'sactuations. de Vera was removed for just and valid cause 3) Whether or not Atty. 2005 wherein the letter-complaint against him was part of the agenda. De Vera as member of the IBP Board and as IBP EVP. the IBP issued a Resolution removing Atty. The IBP Board counters that since its members were present during the plenary session.a copy of the Court's Resolution granting the withdrawal of the aforesaid Petition. an evidentiary or formal hearing was no longer necessary. when his inhibition resulted in the defeat of his motion as the necessary 2/3 vote could not be mustered. However. Atty. De Vera violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers 2) Whether or not Atty. Therein. the right to present witnesses in his behalf. de Vera emphasizes the fact that Atty.
de Vera despite a recommendation of suspension of three years as he surrendered his license to practice law before his case could be taken up by the Supreme Court of California.01. Rule 16. Nevertheless. de Vera's act of holding on to his client's money without the latter's acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. the unauthorized use by a lawyer of his client's funds is highly unethical. Atty.HELD: Atty. It is clear that he. is not proof of malpractice. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each clientseparate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. De Vera independent of the recommendation of suspension by the hearingofficer of the State Bar of California. de Vera has impliedly admitted the use of his client's funds for his own personal use. not only to himself but to the noble .02. Consequently. is guilty of deceit. Considering that there is technically no foreign judgment to speak of. He caused dishonor.Maquera that the judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. De Vera now has the burden of rebutting the evidence which he himself supplied. Atty. thus:A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME TO HIS POSSESSION. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Atty. the recommendation by the hearing officer of the State Bar of California does not constitute prima facie evidence of unethical behavior by Atty. Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. The judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer. There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty. The election of Atty. De Vera independent of the recommendation of suspension by the hearing officer of the State Bar of California. Complainant must prove by substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the hearing officer was based. De Vera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years. gross misconduct and unethical behavior. there is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty.standing alone. No final judgment for suspension or disbarment was meted against Atty. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic about this.Rule 16. by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit. de Vera. His letter-complaint praying for the disapproval of the Resolution removing him from the IBP Board and as IBP EVP is DISMISSED. Leon G. This admission constitutes more than substantial evidence of malpractice. he must then prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law. The recommendation of the hearing officer of the State Bar of California. The Court has emphasized in the case of the Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Beyond doubt. malpractice. Salazar as IBP EVP for the remainder of the term 20032005 is AFFIRMED and he is DIRECTED to immediately take his oath of office and assume the Presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007. If he is successful in this. By insisting that he was authorized by the elder Willis to use the funds.
Article VI of the IBP By-Laws. However. For. Rather. It would accordingly diminish the IBP's prestige and repute with the lawyers as well as with the general public. which speaks through the Board of Governors. The IBP Board is vested with the power to remove any of its members pursuant to Section 44. the effectiveness of the IBP. De Vera violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.US$12.the penalty of suspension for two years is appropriate. Atty. When the IBP board is not seen by the bar and the public as a cohesive unit. internecine conflicts must thus be adjusted within the governing board itself so as to free it from [he stresses that invariably arise when internal cleavages are made public. However.00 . which by itself did not speak well of the character of Atty. the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. but especially of the IBP since lawyers are said to disagree before they agree. The inherent power of the court over its officers cannot be restricted. That the elder Willis "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days" was not so much an acknowledgment of consent to the use by Atty. is diluted if the conflicts are brought outside its governing body for then there would be the impression that the IBP. The statutory enunciation of the grounds for disbarment on suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. . Therefore.Considering the amount involved here . the IBP Board was well within its right in removing Ally. de Vera or the way such character was perceived. use his client's funds. Conflicts and disagreements of varying degrees of intensity. Disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent. it was more an acceptance of the probability that Atty. it cannot effectively perform its duty of helping the Court enforce the code of legal ethics and the standards of legal practice as well as improve the administration of justice. de Vera as IBP Governor for just and valid cause. indeed. does not and cannot speak for its members in an authoritative fashion. de Vera as the latter's actuations during the 10th National IBP Convention were detrimental to the role of the IBP Board as the governing body of the IBP.profession to which he belongs. are inherent in the internal life of an organization. subject to the approval of this Court. if not animosity. under which a member of the IBP Board may be removed for cause by resolution adopted by % of the remaining members of the Board. honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. De Vera of his client's funds. like any other organization. it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and confidence. The IBP Board removed Atty. As a means of self-preservation. de Vera might.000.
The IBP Board observed due process in the removal of Atty. Tan to file a second motion for reconsideration. which was also denied. GO. in administrative proceedings. in certain proceedings of administrative character. Atty. the essence of due process is simply the opportunity Lo explain one's side. Afterwards. Thus. The right to crossexamine is not an indispensable aspect of due process. Respondent said that the CA made a mistake because it did not consider that the post office was closed on Saturdays and Sundays. Complainant periodically visited the respondent to follow-up the appeal and was assured that his appeal would be given due course. there is available trial and tribunal before which all objections and defenses lo the making of such determination may be raised and considered. The constitutional provision on due process safeguards life. de Vera received a copy of the complaint against him and that he was present when the matter was taken up. complainant could no longer talk to the respondent as the latter was always out of town.Even if the right of due process could be rightfully invoked. the right to a notice or hearing are not essential to due process of law. the constitutional requirement of due process is met by a fair hearing before a regularly established administrative agency Or tribunal.ill that is required to remove any member of the board of governors for cause is a resolution adopted by /^ of the remaining members of the board. Delano A. . Atty. He learned through a friend that the Motion was dismissed. The complainant immediately paid the same on March 24. Amaya engaged the services of the respondent. Tecson to handle his appeal after his previous counsel suffered a stroke. Tecson demanded the payment of P20K for the filing of the notice of appeal and P20K for the preparation and filing of the appellant¶s brief. Complainant was shocked because he was diligent in his payments. One adequate hearing is all that due process requires. [case of HERNANDEZ v. 2005 meeting wherein he was removed. in fact. . TECSON FACTS: Mario S. de Vera as IBP Governor. Atty. He assured complainant that the appeal would be resurrected by filing a Motion for Reconsideration and demanded another P10K to personally file the same in Manila. It cannot be said that the position of IBP EVI1 13 property within the constitutional sense especially since there is no right to security of tenure over said position as. 2001. still. supra] AMAYA vs. Respondent assured him that the appeal would be filed on time. Atty. It is not essential that hearings be had before the making of a determination if thereafter. he was informed that the appeal was dismissed because respondent filed it one day late. He was forced to hire another lawyer. Rivera. From the transcript of the stenographic notes of the May 13. liberty and property. On the first week of December. it is patent that he was given fair opportunity to defend himself against the accusations made by Atty.
The lawyer filed with CA a motion for extension of time to file Petition for Review but Abiero found out that his lawyer never filed a petition for Review. His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. he violated Rule 18. He is not required to seek prior approval from the labor arbiter before he could file a motion for execution. which he promised to return if the appeal would not be successful as in fact he did. his transaction would not be accepted because of their policy not to transact business after 4:30pm. By accepting the case. he had heated arguments with that post office and tried other postal offices in Cebu. ANDERSON vs. but when he arrived at the post office. The respondent delayed the filing of the comment for more than 2 yrs. A lawyers duty is to exert best judgement & exercise reasonable & ordinary care or defense on his case. he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client. It is not enough that a lawyer possess the qualification. He was REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED. Complainant tried to follow up the status of the case but Juanino advised him to call later. save by the rules of law legally applied. and despite numerous extensions which were all granted. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. That on the last day of paying the docket fee²a Friday. warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights. CARDEÑO Facts: Rasmus G.03 which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. He also said that there were only a few days left before the end of the15-day period for filing an appeal.Respondent¶s Defense: Atty Tecson admitted that he was complainant¶s counsel. evidenced by receipts and that he did not collect an additional 10K. he owes fidelity to such cause and must at all times be mindful to the trust and confidence reposed in him. he must also give adequate attention to his legal work. the 12th extension was even filed one day late. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Anderson an American citizen from USA Alaska filed an action before the court of first instance of Rizal to recover the title and possession of a parcel of land against the . JUANINO Facts: abiero engaged the services of the respondent as counsel de parte in NLRC NCR OCW case by ordering the respondents to pay his unpaid wages. Held: yes. Once he consents to defend the cause of his client. He averred that complainant was cocksure of winning the appeal and defendant told the former that he would do his best to help him in his appeal. He likewise averred that the case was a pro bono one and it was complainant who insisted to pay the 40K. He was forced to pay docket fees on Monday.03. ABIERO vs. Failure to appeal in CA despite instructions by the client constitutes inexcusable negligence. and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client. Held:Yes. Canons 17&18 and 18. he decided to pay thru money order. but none accepted. ( employer).
VITAN Facts: Carlos reyes hired Atty. Reynaldo Cardeño. IBP commissioner submitted in IBP and quoted him as he ignored all orders neither did he comply with any of those Orders. Nothing was done by the client as his client paid legal fees as reflected in the handwritten forms. Respondednt allowed these persons to take over in the filing of motion for reconsideration and did not even bother to check with the court if the same has been filed of not. otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to disciplinary action. REYES vs. after directing him to file an answer he failed to do so and only sent his secretary to represent him. Failed to submit the responsive pleadings and the complaint submitted to his sis in law were only a format in the sense not signed completely and no civil case no. An atty¶s duty is to safeguard the client¶s interest commences from his retainer until his effective release from the case or final disposition of the whole subject matter in litigation. The respondent stated he filed a motion for reconsideration in the case Anderson vs Maybituin then still pending. A lawyer owes to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Replied that he took the case without personally meeting the client. Jeremias Vitan for filing a complaint against his sisters in law for both refused to abide on the court¶s decision ordering the partition of the properties left by complainants brother. Atty. .sps. He must employ every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter¶s cause to succeed. He also breached the Honorable supreme court to report ³corrupt´ judges. It was incumbent upon him to insist on his client¶s participation. ³ that a lawyer never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. The complaint was for the disbarment of Atty. The CA judgement as not appealed for his lawyer Atty de Guzman died and Anderson was referred to a lawyer Atty. He filed and administrative complain alleging that Atty. Vitan. Also he has to uphold in his oath so he refused when complainants friends proposed to employ acts to corrupt the judge. Juanito Maybituin and Rosario Cerrado and Fernando Ramos but the case was dismissed declaring the defendants the true lawful owners of the land in question. Cardeño caused the loss of the case. he only knew half of the information and not knowing the person he was representing. he could have appeared personally or present evidence to support his allegations not just to send a representative. Held: Violated canon 18. Suspended 6 mos. Respondent failed to appear despite the several settings of hearings. He shall serve his client with competence and diligence.Commision has arrived at a conclusion that theres an apparent lack of interest on the part of the complainant. there was no proof that said pleading was filed which amounts to a mere scrap of paper and not an authenticated doc. not having depend entirely on the info his client gave. But that certain ³good friends´ of the complainant made representations to him made arrangements with the presiding judge who thy claimed already ³bought´. The respondents defenses that the client was uncooperative are unavailaing. he should have taken more control in handling th case. failed to perform an obligation which he owes to the client.
Canon 18. When complainants tried to repay respondent refused. An atty is expected to exert his best effort and ability to preserve his client¶s cause ANGALAN vs. In 1977 a former Filipino client now a permanent resident in NYork was looking for a property and he was referred to defendant eustaquio and decided to buy and left a money and to buy the said property under defendants name with the understanding to turn over as soon as his family shall have returned to d country. a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.102 ha property and surrendered to the sps. 1971 Angalan and complainants borrowed 15k fr. Complainants engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property. Eustaquio by affixing their thumb marks on the doc. nena. to secure the loan they mortgaged 8.Eustaquio and the complainants executed a motion to withdraw the complaint for the disbarment and an affidavit of desistance. A receipt evidencing payment was issued by the complainants for the full payment of his professional fees was also given. DELANTE This is a complaint filed by maria. warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. These are the heirs of Angalan Samal( angalan) and Sanaan Samal( Sanaan). Respondent advanced the 30k in return complainants allowed respondent to possess the property until he is paid. rosario and Josefina (Angalan) against Atty. Navarro Eustaquio and Arabella. . francisca. Eustaquio refused and learned that it was deed of absolute sale. Leonido Delante. dionicio. When complainants tried to pay sps.Held: Yes. 1977 Complainants and eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement: a) Complainants offered the sum of 30k as repurchase which defendant accept b) Upon signing plaintiff shall pay 15k the deed of reconveyance shall be executed by the defendant C. Magdalena.102 ha of 9. A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest. Complainants filed a complaint but parties failed to appear and asked to submit their position papers. ATTY. His client from NY bought the property from the sps.)While balance not paid defendants continue to possess and if necessary to gather the produce of the property Complainants didn¶t have the 30k repurchase price. Respondent then filed a complaint with the court of first instance (CFI) now RTC. Respondent stated that angalan and capul went to his office to seek advice about borrowing money.
B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian.102ha to his illiterate clients who is incapable of telling truth is unfit to be a lawyer.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank in the amount of P180. except: . she engaged the services of respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC Case No. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing and did not protect her interests He averred that the P70. He should have returned the property to complainants. ROGELIO P. It is destructive of the confidence if the public in the fidelity. NY bought the property from the sps.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide: Rule 1. And second a letter to the barrio capt. Respondent story is unbelievable for he did not give detail or proof the name of the allege client. Laguna. LUZVIMINDA C. Stated that the complainants repurchased the property through him. Respondent violated canon 16 and 17. Instead he transferred the title to his name refused to return and referred the complainants charges as malicious and untruthful.000.000. ATTY. honesty and integrity of the legal profession. Eustaquio took advantage of them. Eustaquio.02 ' A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Rule 9. TERRADO According to the complainant. Laguna. HELD: On September 21. the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent guilty of violating Rules 1. 2005.000. The court was not impressed first the complainants and Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement that would repurchase the property. C17 constitutes gross misconduct.01 and 9. the old passport showing immigration stamps.WON the respondent committed grave violation of the CPR when he bought the property from his client without their knowledge and against their will? HELD: Angalan and complainants went to respondents office not to seek advice about borrowing money but to engage his services for the purpose of recovering the property where respondent filed a complaint with the CFI. A person taking 8. instead of protecting the interest of the complainants he took advantage of them too. LIJAUCO vs. dishonest. Respondents allege that his client fr.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba. complainants allege that they are illiterate sps. 16 states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession. and when they issued a receipt and a letter address to barrio captain stating that he is the lawyer. immoral or deceitful conduct.01 ' A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.000. 5) violation of the lawyer's oath. upon the latter's death. that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank. by luring complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property respondent violated Rule 1. or other gross misconduct in office. The Php70. immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Respondent actively acted as complainant's lawyer to effectuate the compromise agreement. or c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9. Respondent's disregard for his client's interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property. Worst. By openly admitting he divided the Php70. or b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer.01. a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit. care and utmost devotion. Under Section 27. Complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. Respondent's admission that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee does not release him from liability.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the recovery of the Php180.a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that. 4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. he should undertake the task with zeal. and that she releases her claims against it. that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. 6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court. even if the plan is based in whole or in part. on a profit-sharing arrangement. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his clients interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. 2) malpractice. money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement.000. and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.02.00 savings account of complainant which is too high. . Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.000. 3) grossly immoral conduct. dishonest. except in certain cases.
MACALADLAD Facts: Atty. M to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land and was for the pd. Aparacio appeared as legal cousel for Grace Hufana in an illegal case dismissal before NLRC. Held: Yes. Atty. Atty M did not immediately account for and promptly return the money even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time of engagement.solidon even tried to reach him if he truly wanted to file the petition he could have acquired the info from atty.when Atty. In the conference the respondent in behalf of his client submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal. Also a violation of 16. canon 19. 9. Atty.03 of the CPR is a basic postulate in legal ethics.of 8mos. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession. S tried to contact and follow up on the case after 6mos.01 which reqs a lawyer to account for all the money received from the client. Solidon asked Atty. SOLIDON vs. And bal. When a lawyer takes a client's cause.02. Sternly warned. GUILTY of violating Rules 1. Atty. the courts and society.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.01. a lawyer cant blame to his client for failing to follow up because it was the lawyers duty to inform his client the status of the case.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. Atty. he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.02 and 20.of the title. Paid 50k initial pyt. The threats are not only unethical for violating canon 19 but they also amount to blackmail which is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusations or exposure or opposition in the .S.M not filed any petition for registration. That they will file and claim bigger amount including damages. Held: Yes. ATTY. SOlidon. APARICIO Facts: Atty. Complainant sent notices to Hufana to explain her absences but instead the lawyer wrote a letter reiterating claim for separation pay and a letter containing a threat to the company. In his official visit to Samar he was introduced to Atty. tax evasion by millions of income not reported. Solidon received the cert. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility to protect his interest with utmost diligence.Rule 18. The complainant Fernando Martin Pena received a notice for a mediation/conciliation conference. Macaladlad is the Chief of the legal div. 18. 6mos suspension. criminal charges for tax evasion. PENA vs. cancellation of business license.01. Canon 18. Records shoiw that attyM failed to act as he committed when he failed to file the reqd petition.03 a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. But however didn¶t recvd any communication. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services and failing to render the services is a clear violation of canon 18. and for falsification of docs. of DENR and was given the authority to engage in the practice of law.
engaged respondent¶s services as counsel in a Civil Case. DALISAY vs. A warrant of arrest was served waited for his lawyer and raised the amount needed to pay the civil indemnity.000. ADECER vs. He shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. 6mos.. VALERIANA U. The Decision was promulgated in the absence of the complainants who were accorded with due notice. respondent went to MTC to verify the status of the Civil Case. the exaction of money for the performance of a duty. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his clients claim for separation pay. respondent never rendered legal services for her. He then filed a complaint against . ATTY. upon knowing the Decision. and surprisingly. AKUT Facts: The complainants were charged with commiting a crime punishable under RPcode (Other Deceits) and the respondent was their legal counsel. the IBP recommended that respondent be required to refund the amount of P56. despite a receipt of a copy of the decision the consequent 15day running pd for the filing of the Petition for Probation respondent went out of town without contacting complainants for advise. skill and competence regardless of his impression that one case or hearing is more important than the other. Lawyer is found liable and meted out of penalty of Reprimand with Stern warning. MELANIO MAURICIO.00 to the complainant. that the complaint be dismissed. but respondent refused. In the case at bar. Held: CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion. There. Respondent received a copy of the MTCC¶s Decsion convicting the complainants of Other Deceits and sentencing to pay penalties. JR. A lawyer may be tasked to enforce his clients claim and contains more than just simple demand to pay. Claiming (atty) that the complainants had only themselves to blame for failing to file the timely petition. Facts: In 2001. His failure to file an appeal in a timely manner fir motion for reconsideration renders him liable for negligence. he learned of the trial court¶s Decision holding "the tax declarations and title" submitted by complainant "are not official records.00 from complainant. they failed to meet him seasonably for signing and verification of the petition for probation. his negligence in connection shall render him liable. but the respondent failed to file a Petition for Probation alleging he was out of town for more important hearings and his attention for his wife¶s developing tumor. As a result. Nor shall he neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.. Dalisay. Later. she terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. The availability of mobile phones or emails was not attended. Later. Suspended. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorney¶s fees in the total amount of P56. And received a copy via registered mail and has 15days to file an appeal or a petition for probation in behalf of the complainants.000. A lawyer must also give his full attention.public prints.
Mauricio was guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct Held: Yes. does honor to the bar. law is an exacting goddess demanding of her votaries not only intellectual but also moral discipline. respondent was motivated by vindictiveness. perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal.12 It gives rise to a relationship between an attorney and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate. he admitted that he verified the authenticity of complainant¶s title only after the "news of his suspension spread in the legal community. requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. it is still not sufficient to exonerate respondent. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client.13 If much is demanded from an attorney. there is absurdity in invoking subsequent knowledge of a fact as justification for an act or omission that is fait accompli. The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. Respnsblity. 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. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding.00-044. Understandably. and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. Atty. in the course of the representation. If complainant refuses. respondent is expected to know this Rule. he was guilty. respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. to the bar. Issue: WON Atty. He alleged that complainant offered tampered evidence.Here. even if assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in a Civil Case. . Instead of inaction. he also serves the ends of justice. In fine. Here. This brings us to the second reason why we cannot sustain his fourth argument. Mauricio violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against his client. First. let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his or her retainer. Mauricio violated canon 19 and rule 19. and confidential character.14 Indeed. 00-044. As a lawyer. shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same. Obviously.02 ± A lawyer who has received information that his clients has. then he should terminate his relationship with her. Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law. in filing falsification charges against complainant." To our mind.3 and/or Article 1824 of the Revised Penal Code. Here. As a matter of fact. Rule 19. exacting.02 of the code of Prof. and to the public. he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation.complainant charging her with violations of Article 1712 and 172. it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. atty.
on the other hand. or of the address of his counsel in Dumaguete City. Such failure of the petitionerand his counsel to inform the said courts of his address and that of his counsel constitutes inexcusable neglect.The notice was returned again to the CA. Roberto then filed a complaint for prohibition and damages against Garrucho and Commissioner Domingo in RTC. of Tourism and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority) requested then Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation Domingo to issue Hold Departure Orders against Ramon Binamira and Faustino Roberto." Binamira¶s motion against the petitioner was granted by the trial court. Moved Out. However. Thus. Garrucho (as Sec. OSCAR B. he has nobody but himself to blame. of the Dept. It declared the hold departure order as void ab initio. it was resent to the petitioner at his office at the Department of Tourism building. Here. Roberto then requested the lifting of the order but it was denied. Held: No. So. It is the duty of the petitioner¶s counsel to inform the trial court of his new office address. the notice was returned to the court. Negros Occidental. whose offices were located at Makati City. FLORA and RAMON BINAMIRA Facts: Here. filed a complaint-in-intervention in the case. but the said resolution was returned to the court with a notation stamped on the envelope "Return To Sender. . they were not mandated to take judicial notice of the petitioner¶s office address after he resigned from the government. petitioner was never deprived of his right to due process when the CA and RTC failed to serve the copies of the assailed resolutions and order. Petitioner Garrucho was represented by private practitioners Remollo & Associates. if the petitioner¶s appeal was dismissed on account of his failure to file his brief. A copy of the resolution was sent by registered mail to the petitioner¶s counsel. Such decision was immediately executory. It found Mauricio guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. unconstitutional and illegal. CA dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for his failure to file his brief. Binamira. SHERIFF RENATO C. Issue: WON petitioner was deprived of his right to due process when the CA and RTC failed to serve the copies of the assailed resolutions and order. PIMENTEL.Later.SC DENY respondent¶s motion for reconsideration. RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent Binamira. Later. HON. while the CA and the RTC were mandated to take judicial notice of the petitioner¶s resignation and the appointment of his successor. PETER GARRUCHO vs CA. The decision was later appealed to CA which sent a notice to the petitioner¶s counsel directing the latter to file his brief as appellant.
During the hearing . a ground never raised by the parties.00 and the . represented by counsel. The foregoing Order is not a stipulation of facts nor a confession of judgment. INC. No prudent party will leave the fate of his case entirely to his lawyer. CFI OF RIZAL. and waiver of interest in the amount of P150. which included private respondents. GEMINIANO F. the parties agreed to submit the case for decision on the basis of the evidence on record adduced by petitioner but "to exclude past interest in the amount of P150. Issue: WON public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in declaring null and void its earlier decision.It was held in ³Bernardo v. for collection of a sum of money arising from gasoline purchased on credit but not paid. for damages and attorney's fees. this petition arises. Petitioner simply claims that he was busy with his gravel and sand and trading businesses which involved frequent traveling from Manila to outlying provinces. a compromise agreement or a confession judgment with petitioner. Petitioner failed to act with prudence and diligence. vs. his plea that he was not accorded the right to due process cannot elicit this Court¶s approval or even sympathy.000. should not expect that all they need to do is sit back. hence. The party-litigant should not rely totally on his counsel to litigate his case even if the latter expressly assures that the former¶s presence in court will no longer be needed. respondent court rendered a decision declaring its decision null and void on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the counsel for the defendants had been duly authorized by their respective clients to enter into a stipulation or facts. YABUT and AGUEDA ENRIQUEZ YABUT Facts: In 1972." Consequently. a Decision 3 was rendered in favor of the petitioner and against defendants. MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES. Later. If at all. They should give the necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake is their interest in the case´. It is the duty of a party-litigant to be in contact with his counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the progress of his case. Held:Yes. Later. there has been a mutual waiver by the parties of the right to present evidence in court on the part of the defendants on one hand. Private respondents thereafter filed a Petition to Modify Decision which was opposed 5 by petitioner.00 and to award nominal attorney's fees. petitioner filed a complaint against the heirs of the deceased partners as defendants. Hence. Absence in one or two hearings may be negligible but want of inquiry or update on the status of his case for several months is inexcusable. Petitioner then filed a Motion but was denied the court of first instance. petitioner filed a complaint 1 in CFI of Rizal against the partnership La Mallorca and its general partners. relax and await the outcome of their case.000. But this was not a justifiable excuse for him to fail to ask about the developments in his case or to ask somebody to make the query for him. CA´ s´Litigants.
It has been said that the elements necessary to a valid agreement of compromise are the reality of the claim made and the bona fides of the compromise.00 and the award of a nominal attorney's fees instead of the 25% stipulated in the Sales Agreement and Invoices. among others all mistakes of procedure. the remedy of the aggrieved party is to have it reconsidered. 15 . 11 Having obtained what defendants bargained for and having wrongly appreciated the sufficiency or insufficiency of petitioner's evidence. in the introduction of certain evidence. the same is valid for as held in the case of Cadano vs. Thus. Records would show that private respondents have not submitted any evidence or pleading to contest the authority of their counsel to waive as he did waive presentation of their evidence in exchange for and in consideration of petitioner's waiver of past interest and the stipulated 25% of attorney' fees. mistake or duress. The counsels of the parties in this case had the implied authority to do all acts necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of their clients of their clients who were all present and never objected to the disputed order of the respondent court. Mistakes of counsel as to the relevancy or irrelevancy of certain evidence or mistakes in the proper defense. Parties are bound by the acts and mistakes of their counsel in procedural matters. and if denied. Even if We construe the Order of April 1. It may be that in waiving the presentation of defendants' evidence.stipulated attorney's fees of 25% of the principal amount on the part of the plaintiff. when counsel secured a waiver of the accumulated interest of P150. in which case an appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion. 13 The validity of a judgment or order of a court cannot be assailed collaterally unless the ground of attack is lack of jurisdiction or irregularity in their entry apparent on the face of the record or because it is vitiated by fraud. 1974 to be based on an oral compromise agreement. If the purported nullity of the judgment lies on the party's lack of consent to the compromise agreement. except a nominal one. 14 It is well settled that a judgment on compromise is not appealable and is immediately executory unless a motion is field to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud. the counsel for private respondents acted within the scope of his authority as agent and lawyer in negotiating for favorable terms for his clients. Cadano 12 an oral compromise may be the basis of a judgment although written evidence thereof is not signed.000. defendants opted to waive their right to present evidence in exchange for the condonation of past interest in the amount of around P150. to appeal from such judgment. when the case was submitted for decision on the evidence so far presented. private respondents are now estopped from assailing the decision dated July 25. the defendants were certainly benefited. They have the exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the litigation including the enforcement of the rights and remedies of their client. as in the instant case.00 and the 25% stipulated attorney's fees.000. or if final to apply for relief under rule 38. In fact. counsel believed that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to prove its cause of action or knowing the futility of resisting the claim. or in argumentation are. 1974. and they bind the clients.
Angeles received almost PhP 50. SC: the earlier decision favoring the petitioner was reinstated. one of the defendants in said cases had already given Atty.999. ANTONIO D.00 he received from Mr. The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients.Atty. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession. AQUINO AND FELIXBERTO D. Rivera and his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable decision.4 For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence. Atty Angeles was incorrect when he argued he has the right to retain the said amount of P42.From the foregoing. Angeles never informed the undersigned of the amount of P42. TEODORO R.999.000 from one of the defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the judgement against the latter. it is evident that the court a quo erred in issuing the Orders which nullify its earlier decision. Canon 16 ³ A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into possession.00 and to apply the same to professional fees due him from the complainant being hired as their consel. Held: Yes. Rivera and his coplaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rule 16. leaving them to discover such fact on their own. . Here. ATTY. a certain Silva. SERGIO ANGELES Facts: Atty. RIVERA.5 Here. Issue: WON Atty Angeles violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.999.00 . Silva nor remitted to them even a part of that amount. AQUINO vs. Angeles. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of Teodoro Rivera and 2 others in a civil case. however. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. Atty.01 ³ A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.01. Angeles a partial settlement of the judgment in the amount of P42. Atty. never told his clients of the amount he had received and never remitted the same to him. Angeles.
the recovery of the property involved in said Deed of Absolute Sale. they pray for an order directing the respondent to stop demanding his "1/3 share attorney¶s fees. the respondent filed in the same action. Held: Yes.As what constitute fair and reasonable fees in this case is not yet certain. The act of demanding payment for his attorney¶s fees is not a ground for administrative liability. He based his motion on a written contingency agreement on attorney¶s fees for professional services rendered whereby he is entitled to one-third share of what would be awarded to the complainants. Issues: 1. a judgment was rendered ordering the defendants to. turn over to herein complainants.Thus. said reasonable fees is not yet certain. The respondent¶s claim for attorney¶s fees was still being litigated in a Civil Case. the plaintiffs therein.Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ³ A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees´. the complaint is not yet ripe for administrative evaluation. the complainants filed a complaint praying for three things. indeed." On appeal. Angeles was guilty of serious misconduct and was ordered suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.514 square meters of "lot 2082 Albay Cadastre. He claimed that this agreement had already been implemented when "one of the three (3) lots levied upon by the sheriff to answer for the award of damages was given to (him) as his one-third share while the other two lots went to the plaintiffs as their two-third share. JUDGE KALLOS Facts: Prior to his appointment as a judge. SHIRLEY TOLEDO and ROSIE DAJAC vs. the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final and executor. the removal of the respondent from his position as RTC judge for his alleged abusive conduct unbecoming a judge. As a lawyer. The hearing on the matter being conducted by the trial court should be allowed to run its course as that court is the appropriate forum for a ruling on the dispute. Second. Considering the pendency of such claim. complainants¶ counsel in a Civil Case and he should therefore be compensated for his services. it is but just that he be fairly compensated for his services. . On 25 March 1979. Judge Kallos was complainants¶ counsel of record in a Civil Case involving the recovery of hereditary shares with damages. First. In 2002. Respondent judge was. a Civil Case for the issuance of an order constituting in his favor an attorney¶s lien to the extent of one-third over the lot awarded in favor of the complainants representing his attorney¶s fee. the possession and ownership of the total area of 4. Later. Lastly. In other words.WON respondent has the right to demand his attorney¶s fees.SC: Atty. among other things. the suspension of the determination of the instant administrative complaint until the rendition of a final judicial ruling on the matter of respondent¶s attorney¶s fees is just proper. And his filing of a claim for attorney¶s fees in a Civil Case was an appropriate legal remedy.
EJSolano. SC: the instant administrative complaint was DISMISSED for being premature and for lack of merit. but also to see that lawyers are paid their just and lawful fees.Here. DMPadua. WON respondent Judge be removed from his position as RTC judge for his alleged abusive conduct unbecoming a judge Held:No. and to that extent. RATumanda. the respondent was not yet a judge when the assailed action or conduct was allegedly committed by him. BY: KVBailon.the duty of the court is not only to see that lawyers act in a proper and lawful manner. As such. There was no evidence presented to prove respondent¶s alleged abusive conduct unbecoming a judge. CBarcelona. Here. ASoriano . 2. there is no reason to bind him by the strict standards of the Code of Judicial Conduct for acts committed as counsel to a case prior to his appointment as a judge.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.