FRANCISCO V PORTUGAL

FACTS:






SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando
M. Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in
the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another.
As a result, Informations were filed against them before the
Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder eventually they
were convicted. Complainants engaged the services of herein
respondent for the accused.
Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but it was denied still the respondent filed an
Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration,
with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and filed with
this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again
despite the frequent telephone calls they made to his office.
When respondent did not return their phone inquiries,
complainants went to respondent’s last known address only to find
out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.
More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were
constrained to personally verify the status of the petition and they
were shocked that their petition was denied due to late filing and
non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained
finality and warrants of arrest had already been issued against
them.
Complainants filed before the SC an affidavit-complaint against
Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal(respondent) for violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence for alleged
mishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with
finality.
Respondent contends that he was not the original counsel of the
accused.
He only met the accused during the promulgation of the
Sandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of
homicide and one count of attempted homicide.
He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand,
assist the accused, and be present at the promulgation of the
Sandiganbayan decision and the petition was filed within the
reglementary period.
Respondent sent a letter the PO3 Joaquin for his formal withdrawal
as counsel but the latter did not reply.
Upon the investigation of the IBP, it ruled respondent guilty of
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the imposition of penalty ranging from reprimand to
suspension of six (6) months.

ISSUE: Whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in
handling G.R. No. 152621-23,which eventually led to the ad cautelam
petition’s dismissal with finality
HELD:YES,










SC ordered for the suspension of the respondent from the
practice of law for three (3)months
. The SC agreed to the IBP that the dismissal of thead cautelam
petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of respondent
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion.
In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the
accused, respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in
defending the accused for it is not only the property of the
accused which stands to be lost but more importantly, their right
to their life and liberty.
Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules,
ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among those,
the fiduciary duty to his client which is of very delicate, exacting
and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity
and good faith that is required by reason of necessity and public
interest.
In this case, respondent ought to know that he was the one who
should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not the accused.
His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and gave
the minstructions on how to go about respondent’s withdrawal
from the case defies credulity.
It should have been respondent who undertook the appropriate
measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation.
He should not have relied on his client to do it for him if such was
truly the case.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to
terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without
cause.
The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation
other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates
to carry it to its conclusion.
He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause.
A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final
adjudication arises only from the client’s written consent or from a
good cause

sought a special extension of five days. our Canons of Professional Ethics demand.03 of CPR HELD: YES   Atty. even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. that in Dec 2001. However.03 of CPR. and when the last show cause order was issued by this Court. a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client. 1968 however Adriano ignored the said resolution. a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required service. counsel's statements in his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless words. He is suspended for three years from the practice of law. is the primary consideration IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. that respondent went to the Municipal bldg. For failing to comply. All of these motions for extension were granted by the Court and the brief was nearly due. No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief. Adriano sought a 30-day extension to file appellant’s brief in mimeograph form. after agreeing to take up the cause of a client. Calabanga. the Supreme Court resolved to impose upon Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further noncompliance. more than sufficient time was afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio.    By specific authority. Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by both Avila and Ilo. On December. And yet when he received notice of his appointment. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15. Adriano as member of the bar deserve disciplinary action. it is a profession in which duty of public service. that unknown to the two accused. 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. "should always exert his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf. For the reasons given Attorney Lope E. ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Rule 15. . respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim. Correspondingly. DANILO DE LA TORRE FACTS:    Held:Yes. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed. Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days from notice. Camarines sur. LOPE ADRIANO vs.  Furthermore. several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom. REMEGIO ESTABIA    Facts:         Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital punishment. After obtaining 4 extensions. at best. among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities. " A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner". of Calabanga where the accused were being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions. Adriano was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office as attorney. he. Lawyering is not a business.   NESTOR PEREZ vs ATTY. Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebia’s counsel de oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on review. 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. Adriano’s pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to be numb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and respect that should be accorded this Court. have dubious claim to veracity. then. Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan. this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney. A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18. not money. no brief was filed. Adriano was suspended from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of one year.

the parties not having submitted their position papers. Respondent Atty. The complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City. Canoy alleged that Atty. The dismissal was without prejudice. as it would be "too difficult and a financial burden to attend making follow-ups with hundreds of clients. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:  CANON 17. Ortiz deigned to represent.          Thereafter. Ortiz in April of 2000. Ortiz further contends that the complainant was free to call or visit his office and that it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the ones to follow-up their cases with his office. Jose Max Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client¶s case. He is SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS from the practice of law. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. In course of a lawyer-client relationship. Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. the labor arbiter hearing the complaint ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers.03 of the CPR." Eventually. he was also representing the interest of the victim¶s family. 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. should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accused¶s choice of counsel WHEREFORE. Ortiz. effective upon his receipt of this Decision.A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. In the comment filed by Atty. during which Canoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present. "he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer. he was providing his services mostly to indigent clients. for failure to prosecute. much less the fact that he failed to submit the position paper. Atty. he contends that since he entered the legal profession in 1987. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste." Atty. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998.  Respondent attorney violated. Under Rule 15. Atty.     Complainant Elmer Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer." and he withdrew from his other cases and his "free legal services. he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City. In 1998. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case. Ortiz had never communicated to him about the status of the case. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.  . CANOY V ORTIZ Issue: Whether or not Atty. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients. Respondent. inter alia. Ortiz’s contentions justify his failure to submit a position paper for the complainant. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client¶s confidence. who presumably knows the intricacies of the law. De la Torre was representing the said two accused. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Facts: Held: NO. a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. "his desire to help was beyond physical limitations. Ortiz admits though that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy. “at considerable financial sacrifice to himself”. 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.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigants who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation. Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. including the weak and strong points of the case. mostly indigents" with only two office personnel. After a final visit at the office of Atty. Canoy decided to follow-up the case himself with the NLRC.          Perez was able to show that at the time that atty.

Ortiz's schedule. ISSUE: WN respondent is liable for negligence HELD: . he should have informed Canoy of such fact. and there is no reason to deviate from the norm in this case. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the services of another counsel. Jose Max S. If indeed Atty. subject to a lien. cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold unprotected. They deserve quality representation as well. there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being defended. with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more severely Elsie Aromin vs. 744. Rule 22. 22. Boncavil did not inform the claimants of the decision. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable WHEREFORE. no matter how well-meaning. it was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to him. he engaged the services of respondent to represent him in the case which is a collection for the sum of 105. PONENTE: Mendoza FACTS:   Ballesteros engaged services of respondent Atty. A building contractor. the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal. he cannot now shift the blame to complainant for failing to inquire about the status of the case.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Valentin O. 1999. Ortiz is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from notice. workload. Also. Valentin Boncavil A. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence. but despite several extensions given by the trial court.               However.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall. Sept. did not file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal. ISSUE: WON BONCAVIL SHOULD BE PUNISHED ADMINISTRATIVELY HELD: YES    Atty. Indeed. Assuming that Atty. “There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. C.80. election to public office. VILLAR FACTS   Complainant is plaintiff in a civil case in MTC. immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled. Atty. since. and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party. however. or physical condition was such that he would not be able to make a timely filing. there was no apparent coordination between Atty. and until then. Ortiz and this new counsel. Boncavil from the practice of law for six (6) months from notice with a warning that a repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty. respondent failed to file his formal offer of exhibits. this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer. The case went its usual course. Assuming that were true. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services. 5135. It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. Upon receipt of the adverse decision in the 2 cases. the Court RESOLVED to suspend respondent Atty. respondent Atty. from the consequences of negligent acts. No. as stated above. Boncavil was suspended for 6 months from notice with a warning that repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.” WHEREFORE. he. JARDIN V. Boncavil in two cadastral cases. the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case. did not file a written offer of evidence despite the directive of the trial court and only filed a motion to substitute 4 years after the complainant’s father died. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling. Boncavil violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility providing that A lawyer should serve his client with competence and diligence and Rule 18. and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty.

Saquilabon.03 of the CPR aptly provides: Rule 15. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. NICANOR V. breach of attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed by respondent. Jalbuena. constitutes inexcusable negligence. neither does it bear her conformity The grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot A. and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment. Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests. in view of the foregoing. breach of attorney-client confidentiality was committed by respondent. the second part pertains to those in which theadverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former . This is an estafa case filed by the representatives of PRCitself against spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena It is worthy to note that from the outset. A careful perusal of said Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was furnished to Lumot A. Whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of record of Jalandoni. one day before its scheduled hearing. without due notice prior to a scheduled hearing. 97-9865. Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner: There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation. et al. respondent already knew that Dennis G. VILLAROSA is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Later on. The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Jalandoni. hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to the respondent. to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. respondent. is situated. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is 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. Jalandoni who is the Chairman/President of Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC) and owns the biggest shares of stocks in the corporation. Jalbuena. fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients. It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client. Issues: 1. This is Civil Case No. WHEREFORE. Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter. which as this court held in Perla Compania v. his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible.    The failure to file formal offer of evidence is in pari materia with failure to file brief. Deogracias Villar is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon finality hereof. otherwise. Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. was sued which involved the possession of land where Alhambra hotel. the only property owned by PRC. was that he is a retained counsel of Dennis G. and JALANDONI V VILLAROSA 2. Lumot A. we must look into the cases involved. Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by respondent. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.        Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need for candor.03 ± A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Carmen J. Rule 15. Respondent has been languid in the performance of his duties as counsel for the complainant. The first part of the rule refers to cas es in which the opposing parties are present clients either in the same action or in a totally unrelated case. He has not met the extensions of time set by the trial court. Jalandoni. with the WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely   To effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest. respondent ATTY. Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests. Facts: Held:          In this case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel. surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel. respondent Atty.The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent.

respondent stated that it was he who was not notified of the hiring of Atty. Jalandoni¶s conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean conformityto respondent¶s desire to withdraw as counsel. or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the lawyer. neither is it material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have been honest. Mrs. He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing. Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties¶ connection to PRC. whether or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases. A lawyer who acts as such insettling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it. After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client. The appearance of Atty. In his comment." Respondent made no such move. it has been held that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to represent him.Jalandoni was specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases mentioned. Salunat with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for unethical practice regarding conflict of interests. Canon 22 of the CPR reads: Canon 22 ± A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. The next bone of contention was the propriety of respondent¶s withdrawal as counsel for Lumot A. it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably restricted. That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed. The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer Accordingly. which withdrawal was supposedly approved by the court on April28. The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as follows: The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client. 1999. Nicanor V. Alminaza and Mrs. in the absence of the written consent of all partiesconcerned after a full disclosure of the facts. effective upon receipt of this decision. The conformity of Mrs. The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former clientin any manner. he cannot. with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely HORNILLA V SALUNAT Facts:    Hornilla filed a complaint against Atty. 1999. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty.Even respondent¶s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family members wasimproper because the written consent of all concerned was still required. respondent Atty. Thus. in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to. He admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26. or conflicting with that of his client in the same general matter The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight. Respondent¶s speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. by the lawyer or by the court. Said counsel is a member of the ASSA Law Office and acted as the lawyer for the Philippine Public School Teacher’s Association. constitutes professional misconduct which subjects thelawyer to disciplinary action . Alminaza in court. without the free and intelligent consent of his client.Jalandoni.Alminaza as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew from the case with the knowledge of Lumot A.             client in a matter which is related. Nor does it require approval of the court. The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests. even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. WHEREFORE. Jalandoni and with leave of court. An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and          hearing. to the present controversy. otherwise the court maytreat the application as a "mere scrap of paper. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. In a squabble between the PPSTA and some of its board members pending SEC resolution for unlawful spending and undervalued . supposedly in his place. Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. A client may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. directly or indirectly. in view of the foregoing. An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance.

13. Respondent says he only appeared in behalf of ASSA since he was a partner. simple coercion and unjust vexation. ultra vires acts. a stockholder (in this case a member because PPSTA is non-stock) may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation. v.. and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong. Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds. This is what is known as a derivative suit. but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. 21. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. since it is the corporation suing. there is conflict of interest in him representing the Board while his law office represents the corporation.. . ultra vires acts. entitled Philippine Public School Teachers Assn. 15. Salunat appeared as counsel for said board members. Surely. or negligence.15. 1992-1995 Board of Directors of the Philippine Public LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY. 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 10.03. this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. The corporation should be included as a party in the suit. Salunat was admonished by the Supreme Court. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is 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 shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. et al. a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation.01.01. Moreover. the corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder filing suit for the corporations behalf is only nominal party. Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds. and settled is the doctrine that in a derivative suit.03. they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint. he only filed a Manifestation for extreme urgency.02. 05-975657. and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong. but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Inc. Atty. In brief.     Also. The suit filed by Hornilla et al against the Board of PPSTA is a derivative suit. Gonzales thereafter filedagainst the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass.02 and 21. where respondent¶ s law firm was still representing Gonzales. there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. if he argues for one client. JAN 23. Salunat cannot represent the Board Members of PPSTA because he is a member of ASSA Law Office which is the retained law firm of PPSTA. or negligence.  sale of real properties. the records show that SEC Case No. 2006 FACTS:    Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales.            Respondent Atty. to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the stockholders. even though it was the members who filed the case and not the corporation itself. Therefore. the real party in interest is still the corporation (PPSTA) and the suing members (Hornilla et al) are only the nominal party. In such a case. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client. grave oral defamation. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.02. MARCELINO CABUCANA AUSTRIA MARTINEZ. it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim. grave threats. RULE 15. In the case at bar. Issue: Whether or not there is conflict of interest   Held: Yes. to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the stockholders.. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided. herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said sps.

diligence. ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLON’S lawyer and required her to payP8.  Respondent alleged that he never appeared and represented of such case since it was his brother. practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. March 4. 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. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in said case. skill and competence. it was their law firm which represented Gonzales in the civil case.C. Otherwise. 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. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney clientrelationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to a client’s cause. Atty.05 ANDCANONS 16. ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLON had likewise entrusted to him . together with her SON. Hence.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. 6424.000 as filing and partial service fee As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL. 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. PANGANIBAN J     ROLLON. their clients would be prejudiced. the rule against representing conflicting interest applies. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. As respondent admitted. Atty. In the case at bar.         FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15. ISSUE: WON respondent violated Rule 15. if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively and competently. thus there could be no conflict of interest is no merit.03. 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. went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed against her (Collection of Sum of Money) After going through the documents. But once they agree to handle a case. Such being the case. records show that after receiving P8. 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. Canon 15 of CPR and taking consideration of mitigating circumstances. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation. attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal. Cabucana is fined the amount of P 2.03 of CPR FACTS:    HELD: YES           Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15. lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their client. ROLLON’S SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy After several follow-ups and still no action. which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. Respondent¶s allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales. 17 & 18 Ordinarily.000. ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal service to ROLLON and despite ROLLON’S repeated demands. ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and the P8.000paid by ROLLON because he has no money ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15and 18 IBP BOARD OF GOVERNOR’S RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8. No. 2005. And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention. Thus.000 ISSUE: W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED HELD: YES. 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. for violation of Rule 15. care and utmost devotion.000 with stern warning that a commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely ROLLON V NARAVAL A.

. a Filipino citizen. Immaculada suggested her to engage into a real estate business tospeed up the generation of funds.Furthermore. SEBRIO    ISSUE: Whether or not on his acts he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility that would warrant his disbarment HELD:  PER CURIAM  FACTS:          Complainant was an American citizen of Indian descent and a practicing endodontist in New York.05 and Canons 16. Inc. Despite demands no single centavo was returned. he isORDERED TO RESTITUTE. Influenced by her parents who were both engaged in charitable activities she decided to open hospital with modern facilities in an underdeveloped part of Asia. Manila Chic Twins. Three corporations were thus formed Tagaytay Twins. within thirty (30) days from notice of thisDecision. she returne dto Philippines on 2003 to start the business.Respondent enticed her into buying several parcels of land located at Tagaytay City. 3. Las Piñas City. dishonest. 2. x x x. and Tanu.000 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her case would be acted upon. .000). with her assistant for 10 years Immaculada Luistro(Immaculada). ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion on the merits and status of the case. complainant’s eight thousand pesos (P8. at the rate of six percent perannum. report and recommendation/decision by Resolution of January 22. until fully paid REDDI VS. Rule 15.. the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her and had long become final executory. the Commission did not buy his reasons.06 of the CPR which provides: A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official.01 of the CPR which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful.. The case was referred to IBP for investigation. or other gross misconduct in such office.CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16. Complainant thereupon presented evidence ex-parte and submitted her position paper.828and handled different transactions relating to complainant’s business. ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital information from ROLLON and even demanded P8. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. instead considered respondent to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings. or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. from October 18. She saw the needs of the poor people for medical services so she planned to open a hospital for them. However. Diosdado C. Apparently. after going through her papers. immoral or deceitful conduct.  In addition thereto. On his answer he admitted to receive only the amount of US$544. Quezon City. Jr. Rule 1. hence complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent. WHEREFORE. 2007 On the mandatory conference scheduled. and Pasay City whichall transactions did not come about. or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. respondent was absent andonly sent a representative for resetting.    Furthermore. In response to the suggestion. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice. 4. T he amount of US$3. grossly immoral conduct. malpractice. Camilo Naraval is foundGUILTYof violating Rule 15. She was introduced to Atty.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. plus interest thereon. effective upon hisreceipt of this Decision. On the year 2000. 17 and 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and is herebySUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. they visited Philippines. The commission enumerated the following that had been infringed by respondent: 1.000. and advised that since she could not owned a property she had to use corporate vehicles to effect the purchases.obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and for legal processes. Atty. On his answer or comment on the complaint against him as well as based on the investigation of the Commission it was clearly shown that respondent committed grave violation to the Code of Professional Responsibility.Inc. Sebrio. Inc. 2000. Section 27. CANON 1 which states: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution. Makati City.000 which wascalculated as the total expenses was demanded to return from therespondent. tribunal or legislative body.

as far as the general public is concerned. accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged. To that end. Thus. and installed their own staff to run the bank. Moreover. respondent miserably failed to do. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. and by taking advantage of complainants naiveté in the workings of the real estate business in the Philippines. destroyed the bank’s vault. way short of the exacting standards required of him as a member of the bar and anofficer of the court. he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. If the practice of law. June 18. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. not honorable. fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. is condemnable and unethical . through force and intimidation. Any means. however.828. affirmed. while the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because of the existence of a prejudicial question. depict a man whose character falls way. the bank manager. those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also. real property acquisitions which turned out to be bogus.C. A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. Respondent added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was already dismissed. NazarenoRelampagos group. in their lives. His defenses raised in his Comment consist mainly in bare denials.         Rural Bank of Calape. filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. is DISBARREDand his name isORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. he respondent’s acts constitute dishonest and deceitful conduct with respect to the intended transactions. it is not enough that he denies the charges against him. respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their allegations. those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. 2010CARPIO. or confirmed by the affiants and that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution . uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. Jr. in connivance with other persons. is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals. The respondent failed to maintain the good moral character that must be kept all throughout his life in the practice of law. is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals. Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified. It is the lawyer’s duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system. Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed against him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against RBCI’s counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon 15. respondent received a total of US$544. which he could not properly account for.and only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. his client’s success is wholly subordinate.828from complainant. respondent Diosdado C. however. accord continuing fidelity to them WHEREFORE. According to RBCI. than the possession of legal learning.07. The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent scheme.             By his own admission. J. even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause. HELD: YES     RBCI v FLORIDO  A. Garay. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. respondent is no longer fit to remain as such. of much greater import. No. Sebrio. 5736. forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. in their lives. This. He is ORDERED TO RETURN tocomplainant the amount of US$544. in fact. Inc. respondent and his clients.:  FACTS:  The Court held that respondent was guilty as charged and suspended for a year. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. If the practice of law.

and thereafter. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seeking compensation from the UST for their illegal dismissal. even though he was an interested party since he was one of the officers who were dismissed (conflict of interests)     Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests. Atty Marino. union atty and interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution. The important fact in this case is that Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1. The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed.02 and 15. In the same manner. J  FACTS:       Atty Marino. . This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to him at the expense of the other faculty members. Mariño Jr. In the same year. 2. Jr. He also ought to have disclosed his interest WHEREFORE. The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective bargaining agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired. the administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment to settle backwages. Eduardo J. actually impels him to do less than his best for his client.Accordingly. when he obtained the attys fees of P4. the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including Atty Marino. Atty. Rule 15. when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the diverse roles of union president. Both as lawyer and president of the union was duty bound to protect and advance the interest of the union members and the bargaining unit above his own. first. or worse. as president. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is―whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an atty 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.000. is REPRIMANDED for his misconduct with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed on him upon a repetition of the same act. respondent Atty.   For this reason. Marino.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. court finds respondent Atty. Jr. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. In 1989. it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an atty to pu himself in a position where self-interest tempts.[8] It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries WHEREFORE. negotiated with UST as union attorney.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union.200. Marino was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of the Decision ISSUE: WoN Marino should be reprimanded HELD: YES   GAMILLA v MARIÑO BELLOSILLO.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting toP35 Milllion.