RP VS ANIANO DESIERTO

Facts:
Respondents, subordinates and close associates of Dictator Marcos, are
members of the Boards of Directors of United Coconut Planter Bank and
United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. They are charged with taking undue advantage
of their public office and close relationship with Dictator Marcos in unlawfully
misappropriating huge amounts of coconut levy funds in connection with the
acquisition of 16 oil mills in order to establish a monopoly, violating RA 3019
(Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act). The PCGG then transmitted the case to
the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action, OMB-0-90-2811.
Thereafter, the Graft Investigation Officer II, Amanete, issued a resolution
recommending the dismissal of said case, finding no sufficient evidence to
believe that violation of Anti-Graft Law was committed.
Petitioner filed with the SC a x x x petition for certiorari on the ff grounds: (a)
respondents made convenient use of PD 961, PD 1468 and LOI 926 to carry
out their grand design to establish a coco monopoly to the detriment of poor
coco farmers; (b) there is no legal basis for the contention that the acts of
respondents had been decriminalized; and (c) allegations in the complaint are
deemed admitted as respondents failed to submit their counter-affidavit.
Respondents Regala and Concepcion contend, inter alia, that petitioner has
no cause of action against them because their acts were performed in the
course of their duties as counsels.
Issues:
1. If the petition should be entertained though it was filed by the PCGG
without the intervention of the OSG.
2. If respondents Regala and Concepcion should be dropped as patiesdefendants in OMB-0-90-2811.
Held:
1. The ends of substantial justice affords an exception that the OSG should
have filed he instant petition in behalf of the Republic. If the ends of
substantial justice would be better served, and the issues in the action could
be determined in a more just, speedy and inexpensive manner, then the
petititon shold be entertained, even assuming arguendo that the PCGG has
no authority to file said petition.
2. Yes. In Castillo vs Sandiganbayan and Republic of the Philippines, the Court
excluded lawyer Gregorio Castillo as party-defendant to the case, citing
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan. x x x The Ombudsman is directed to proceed with
the preliminary investigation of OMB-0-90-2811 and to exclude respondents
Regala and Concepcion as defendants therein.

SPOUSES SORIANO VS ATTY.. REYNALDO REYES

FACTS:
Complainants alleged that sometime in the latter part of 1990, they engaged
the services of respondent in a case they filed against Peninsula
Development Bank entitled, Norton Resources and Development Corporation,
et al. v. Peninsula Development Bank. The case was for Declaration of Nullity
with Injunction and/or Restraining Order docketed as Civil Case No. 20-46590.[2] While the case was pending, respondent reassured complainants that
he was diligently attending to the case and will inform them of the status of
their case.
In 1994, complainants again engaged the services of respondent in a case
they filed against the Technology and Livelihood Resource Center entitled,
Spouses Antonio M. Soriano and Norma Soriano v. Technology and Livelihood
Resource Center for Declaration of Nullity with Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order docketed as Civil Case No. 22-674-94.[3] During the
pendency of the second case, complainants inquired from respondent the
status of the earlier Civil Case No. 20-465-90, the latter informed them that
the same was still pending and/or ongoing.
Later, complainants learned that Civil Case No. 20-465-90 was dismissed[4]
on 16 December 1991 for failure of the respondent to file a pre-trial brief.
As to Civil Case No. 22-674-94, complainants likewise found out that the case
was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

ISSUE:
W/N ATTY. REYNALDO REYES SHOULD BE DISBARRED.

HELD:
yes.
Respondents failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable
negligence For one, the lawyers are compelled to prepare their cases in
advance. They eliminate haphazard preparation. Since pre-trial is a serious
business of the court, preparation of the lawyers and parties for the pre-trial
in both questions of fact and of law cannot be overemphasized as an
essential requirement for a pre-trial conference. Pre-trial briefs also apprise
the courts of the additional points the parties are willing to stipulate upon, or
the additional points which could be inquired into for the purpose of

additional stipulations. They also apprise the court of the respective demands
of the parties, thus, enabling the court to discuss more intelligently an
amicable settlement between or among the parties.[19] The failure to submit
a pre-trial brief could very well, then, be fatal to the case of the client as in
fact it is a ground for dismissal of the case. [20] For this reason, respondents
failure to submit the pre-trial brief to the court within the given period
constitutes negligence which entails disciplinary action. Not only is it a
dereliction of duty to his client but to the court as well.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable. In this case, by reason of Atty.
Reyess negligence, complainant suffered actual loss. He should have given
adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is why a practicing
lawyer may accept only so many cases that he can efficiently handle.
Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced. 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 lawyers oath.
Atty. Reynaldo Reyes is found GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) year effective upon finality hereof with WARNING that a
repetition of the same negligent act charged in this complaint will be dealt
with more severely.

WILLIAM ADECER VS EMMANUEL AKUT

FACTS:
Originally, there was a Criminal Case in which complainants were charged
with committing a crime (Other deceits) punishable under the Revised Penal
Code (Other Deceits). Respondent, Atty. Akut was their legal counsel in the
criminal case. Complainant accuses Atty. Akut for being negligent.
First, despite Atty. Akuts receipt of a copy of the Decision and the consequent
running of the fifteen (15)-day period to file a petition for probation,
respondent went out of town without contacting complainants to give them
proper legal advice. Furthermore, Atty. Akuts admission that complainants
were [1] under the impression that they first had to pay off their civil
liabilities prior to filing a petition for probation and [2] unaware that they had
only fifteen (15) days from their counsels receipt of a copy of the decision to
file their petition, proves that Atty. Akut failed to give complainants timely
legal advise.
Atty. Akut explained that he was out of his office most of the time because, he
and his wife were always out of town looking for faith healers to cure the
malignant brain tumor of his wife, who eventually succumbed to the cancer.

Allegedly, after attending the "important" hearings, he immediately went out

of town seeking faith healers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Akut is guilty of negligence.
HELD:
Yes. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Atty. Emmanuel A. Akut is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. Every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of his
impression that one case or hearing is more important than the other. We
commiserate with respondent for the loss of his wife, however, failure of an
attorney to file a timely motion for reconsideration or an appeal renders him
liable for negligence.
By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he represents that he will exercise
ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having
reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the
clients interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary