First Case

CORAZON PERIQUET, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and THE PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION (Formerly Construction
Development Corp. of the Phils.), respondents.
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed as a toll collector by
the Construction Development Corporation of the
Philippines (CDCP) for willful breach of trust and
unauthorized possession of accountable toll tickets
allegedly found in her purse during a surprise inspection.
She then filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor
Arbiter, wherein she received a favorable ruling. She
was ordered to be reinstated and to be paid back wages.
Thereafter, she was paid by CDCP her back wages.
Petitioner then executed a quitclaim and waived her
reinstatement. However, she filed another action to claim
her back wages and for reinstatement. She was again
paid by CDCP and was given a different position in the
company. For receipt of payment from CDPC, she again
executed another quitclaim. However, after 9 years after
the decision for her reinstatement, the petitioner filed a
motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of the
decision and again claiming payment of back wages and
reinstatement.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can still be
reinstated and receive back wages despite her conflicting
claims.
Ruling: No, the petitioner can no longer demand for
reinstatement and payment of back wages as she had
already waived her right to reinstatement by her
execution of 2 quitclaims. Moreover, the back wages
cannot be rightfully claimed because claiming of such is
only limited to 3 years from the time of illegal dismissal.
Moreover, the counsel of the petitioner should have
advised his client against making untenable and
inconsistent claims like the ones raised in this petition.
Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must
unquestioningly do the bidding of the client. A counsel
must counsel.

Second Case
CHAMELYN A. AGOT, Complainant, vs. ATTY.
LUIS P. RIVERA, Respondent
Facts: Complainant alleged that she was invited as maid
of honor in her best friends wedding on December 9,
2007 at the United States of America. To facilitate the
issuance of her US visa, complainant sought the services
of respondent who represented himself as an
immigration lawyer. In consideration therefor,
complainant paid respondent the amount of P350,000.00
as down payment and undertook to pay the balance
of P350,000.00 after the issuance of the US visa.
However, respondent failed to perform his undertaking
within the agreed period. Worse, complainant was not
even scheduled for an interview in the US Embassy. As
the demand for refund of the down payment was not
heeded, complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa
and the instant administrative complaint against
respondent. Respondent, Atty. Rivera, claimed that his
failure to comply with his obligation under the Contract
was due to the false pretenses of a certain Rico Pineda,
who he had believed to be a consul for the US Embassy
and to whom he delivered the amount given by the
complainant.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for violating the CPR
Ruling: Yes. As officers of the court, lawyers are bound
to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency,
but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
As such, Atty. Rivera violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1,
Corollary to such deception, respondent likewise failed
to perform his obligations under the Contract, which is
to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in favor
of complainant. This constitutes a flagrant violation of
Rule 18.03, Canon 18.
Furthermore, respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to refund the
amount of P350,000.00 that complainant paid him.
In this case, not only did respondent fail to facilitate the
issuance of complainants US visa and return her money,
he likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting
himself as an immigration lawyer, resulting in undue
prejudice to his client. Under these circumstances, a
penalty of suspension of 2 years was imposed, and an
order to return the P350,000.00 he received from
complainant as down payment.