WILLIAM S. UY vs. ATTY. FERMIN L.

GONZALES
A.C. No. 5280 : March 30, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a
new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and
discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be filed
before the Regional Trial Court.
When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainants office demanding a certain
amount other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent left his office after reasoning with him.
Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out later that instead of filing the
petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint against him with
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public Documents. The letter-complaint
contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was the subject matter
of the petition which respondent was supposed to have filed.
Respondent claims that he gave complainant a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition
thereby terminating the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant; that there was no longer
any professional relationship between the two of them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification
of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were
culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds.
The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility
and recommended for his suspension for 6 months.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?
HELD:
No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents
filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with
complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the
land he has redeemed from complainant. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between
respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to
their personal transaction.
Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his
professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and
therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily
involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21.
There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a
misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from
instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary interests.
PETITION DISMISSED for lack of merit.

G.R. No. L-961 September 21, 1949

BLANDINA GAMBOA HILADO, petitioner,
vs.
JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, JACOB ASSAD and SELIM
JACOB ASSAD, respondents.
Petitioner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had an attorney-client relationship with her
when, before the trial of the case, she went to defendants counsel, gave him the papers of the case and
other information relevant thereto, although she was not able to pay him legal fees. That respondents
law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature on the merits of her case; that this
opinion was reached on the basis of papers she had submitted at his office; that Mrs. Hilado's purpose in
submitting those papers was to secure Attorney Francisco's professional services. Atty. Francisco
appeared as counsel for defendant and plaintiff did not object to it until (4) months after. Then, plaintiff
moved to dismiss the case between her and defendant.
Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and Atty. Francisco?
Held: YES. In order to constitute the relation a professional one and not merely one of principal and
agent, the attorneys must be employed either to give advice upon a legal point, to prosecute or defend an
action in court of justice, or to prepare and draft, in legal form such papers as deeds, bills, contracts and
the like.
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid,
promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the
case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any
kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice
or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the
professional employment must be regarded as established.
An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or counselorwhen he is listening to his client's preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon,
just as truly as when he is drawing his client's pleadings, or advocating his client's cause in open court. An
acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his acting in behalf of his client in
pursuance of a request by the latter.
That only copies of pleadings already filed in court were furnished to Attorney Agrava and that, this being
so, no secret communication was transmitted to him by the plaintiff, would not vary the situation even if
we should discard Mrs. Hilado's statement that other papers, personal and private in character, were
turned in by her. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the mere relation of attorney and
client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite party's retainer in the same litigation
regardless of what information was received by him from his first client.
An attorney, on terminating his employment, cannot thereafter act as counsel against his client in the same
general matter, even though, while acting for his former client, he acquired no knowledge which could
operate to his client's disadvantage in the subsequent adverse employment
"A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future
services, and induce him to act for the client. It is intended to remunerate counsel for being deprived, by
being retained by one party, of the opportunity of rendering services to the other and of receiving pay
from him, and the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding to the contrary, is
neither made nor received in payment of the services contemplated; its payment has no relation to the
obligation of the client to pay his attorney for the services which he has retained him to perform."

Yao vs. Aurelio

A.C. No. 7023 March 30, 2006
Facts:
Bun Siong Yao is a majority stockholder of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar
Textile Finishing Corporation and since 1987, he retained the services of another stockholder, Atty.
Leonardo Aurelio, as his personal lawyer and also the brother-in-law of Yaos wife. In 1999, they had a
disagreement. Aurelio then filed cases against Yao and his wife. Yao alleged that the series of suits filed
against him and his wife constitute an abuse of the confidential information which Aurelio obtained by
virtue of his employment as counsel. Aurelio, on the other hand, claimed that he filed those which he
obtained by virtue of his being a stockholder of Solar Textile Finishing Corporation.
The investigating commissioner found that Yao discontinued paying dividends to Aurelio which
compelled the latter to file multiple criminal and civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder.
He recommended that Aurelio be suspended from practice of law. The IBP approved and adopted the said
recommendation.
Issue:
Whether or not Aurelio violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Yes, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
months. He took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at Yao and in doing so, he has
inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with Yao and his companies for his own
end.
It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a fiduciary one.
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. An attorney is not permitted
to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter
consents. It is to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arise at the inception of their relationship.
It does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ
the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the
death of the client.

GENATO V. SILAPAN
A.C. No. 4078 July 14, 2003
Third Division
FACTS:
In July 1992, respondent asked if he could rent a small office space in complainants building in
Quezon City for his law practice. Complainant acceded and introduced respondent to Atty. Benjamin
Dacanay, complainants retained lawyer, who accommodated respondent in the building and made him
handle some of complainants cases. Hence, the start of the legal relationship between complainant and
respondent.
The conflict between the parties started when respondent borrowed P200,000.00 from
complainant which he intended to use as down payment for the purchase of a new car. In return,
respondent issued to complainant a postdated check in the amount of P176,528.00 to answer for the six
(6) months interest on the loan. He likewise mortgaged to complainant his house and lot in Quezon City
but did not surrender its title claiming that it was the subject of reconstitution proceedings before the
Quezon City Register of Deeds.
With the money borrowed from complainant, respondent purchased a new car. However, the
document of sale of the car was issued in complainants name and financed through City Trust Company.
In January 1993, respondent introduced to complainant a certain Emmanuel Romero. Romero likewise
wanted to borrow money from complainant. Complainant lent Romero the money and, from this
transaction, respondent earned commission in the amount of P52,289.90. Complainant used the
commission to pay respondents arrears with the car financing firm.
Subsequently, respondent failed to pay the amortization on the car and the financing firm sent
demand letters to complainant. Complainant tried to encash respondents postdated check with the
drawee bank but it was dishonored as respondents account therein was already closed.
Respondent failed to heed complainants repeated demands for payment. Complainant then filed a
criminal case against respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and a civil case for judicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
In a Resolution, dated October 27, 1993, the Court referred the administrative case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. On August 3, 2002,
the Board of Governors of the IBP approved the report of the investigating commissioner finding the
respondent guilty as charged and recommending his suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to
complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainants alleged intention to bribe government officials
in connection with a pending case.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The privilege against
disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to
those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
Respondents explanation that it was necessary for him to make the disclosures in his pleadings
fails to satisfy the court. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect his rights as they were not
pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to use it against the complainant in
the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation and respondents professional
competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case. A lawyer must conduct himself,
especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His
relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.
Court agrees with the evaluation of the IBP and finds that respondents allegations and
disclosures in the foreclosure case amount to a breach of fidelity sufficient to warrant the imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him. However, the recommended penalty of one (1) year suspension of
respondent from the practice of law seems to be disproportionate to his breach of duty considering that a
review of the records of this Court reveals that this is the first administrative complaint against him.
Wherefore, Atty. Essex L. Silapan is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months.

ROSARIO JUNIO vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GRUPO

[A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001.]
The Case
This is a complaint for disbarment was led against respondent Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for malpractice
and gross misconduct.
The Antecedent Facts
Complainant Rosario N. Junio alleged that she engaged the services of respondent then a private
practitioner, for the redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certicate of Title No. 20394
registered in the name of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Runa Nietes, and located at Concepcion,
Loay, Bohol. Complainant entrusted to respondent the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the
redemption of the aforesaid property. Respondent, however, for no valid reason did not redeem the
property; as a result of which the right of redemption was lost and the property was eventually forfeited.
Despite repeated demands made by complainant and without justiable cause, respondent had
continuously refused to refund the money entrusted to him.
In his Answer, petitioner admitted receiving the amount in question for the purpose for which it was
given. However, he alleged that the subject land could really not be redeemed anymore. After he failed to
redeem the property, he requested the complainant that he be allowed, in the meantime, to avail of the
money because he had an urgent need for some money to help defray his children's educational expenses.
According to respondent, it was a personal request and a private matter between respondent and
complainant. He averred that the family of the complainant and that of the respondent were very close
and intimate with each other. Complainant, as well as two of her sisters, had served respondent's family as
household helpers for many years when they were still in Manila. They were considered practically part
of respondent's own family. That is why, when complainant requested assistance regarding the problem of
the mortgaged property, respondent had no second-thoughts in extending a lending hand. Respondent did
not ask for any fee.It was simply an act of a friend for a friend according to the respondent. Respondent
also alleged that he executed a promissory note for the amount he borrowed from the complainant.
Complainant led a reply denying that respondent informed her of his failure to redeem the property and
that respondent requested her to instead lend the money to him.
Issues
1. Whether or not there was a violation of Canon 16.04 of the CPR.
2. Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.
Ruling
1. Although complainant denied having loaned the money to respondent, the fact is that complainant
accepted the promissory note given her by respondent on December 12, 1996. In eect, complainant
consented to and ratied respondent's use of the money. Respondent's liability is thus not for
misappropriation or embezzlement but for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients unless the latter's
interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. In this case, respondent's
liability is compounded by the fact that not only did he not give any security for the payment of the
amount loaned to him but that he has also refused to pay the said amount. His claim that he could not
pay the loan "because circumstances . . . did not allow it" and that, because of the passage of time, "he
somehow forgot about his obligation" only underscores his blatant disregard of his obligation which
reects on his honesty and candor.
2. As explained in Hilado v. David: To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the
client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion It is not
necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for If a person, in respect
to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity
with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established
WHEREFORE, the Court nds petitioner guilty of violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and orders him suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
month and to pay to complainant within 30 days from notice, the amount of P25,000.00 with interest
at the legal rate, computed from December 12, 1996.