You are on page 1of 2

Ma Luisa Hadjula vs Atty Madianda

AC 6711
( Canlas, P.A)
Complainant alleged that she and respondent used to be friends as they both worked at the BFP
(Bureau of Fire Protection). Complainant claimed that she approached respondent for some legal
advice and in the course of their conversation, she disclosed personal secrets and produced copies
of marriage certificate, baptismal certificate etc. However, respondent refused to have her as client
and instead directed her to a lawyer friend.
Complainant filed criminal and disciplinary actions against respondent in relation to the alleged
demand for a cellular phone by the respondent to grant complainants as the latter was part of BFP
promotion board
COUNTER COMPLAINT was filed by the respondent based on the information she received from
complainant when the latter tried to seek legal services from her. (Anti graft and corruption; Immoral
conduct )
Whether the act of respondent in using the information she acquired from complainant when the
latter tried to seek legal advice from her was a violation of the rule on confidentiality.

The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon
the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the
burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this instance, to
keep inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The
fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to handle the clients case is hardly of
consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that no formal professional engagement
follows the consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract whatsoever was
executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship

What at bottom is before the Court is two former friends becoming bitter enemies and filing
charges and counter-charges against each other using whatever convenient tools and data
were readily available.

Rollon vs Naraval
AC. 6424
( Canlas, P.A )
Complainant went to the respondent office to seek his assistance in a case filed before the
complainant in the MTC for Collection of Sum of Money
Complainant then delivered all necessary documents to the respondent including the payment of
8,000 pesos as filing fees and service fees.
After several follow-ups to inquire as to the status of the case, respondent informed petitioner that
the case had yet to be filed as he was very busy.
Complainant then opted to withdraw the amount paid to Atty Naraval because of the latters failure to
comply with their agreement. Despite the demand however, respondent failed to return the money to
the complainant.
Whether the act committed by respondent is a violation of CPR
Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give their candid and
best opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor
understating their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of
success is not only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers. If they find that their
clients cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and
submit, rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic
undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients
Respondent should have given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the status of the
case. Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and complainant had been decided against
the latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and executory. But he withheld such vital
information from complainant. Instead, he demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee and thereby
gave her hope that her case would be acted upon.