CANON 14

BLANZA & PASION v. ATTY. ARCANGEL

(A.C. No. 492, September 5, 1967)

FACTS:
Complainants ask the Court to take disciplinary action against the respondent for professional non-
feasance. It arises when respondent volunteered to help complainants in their respective pension claims in
connection with the death of their respective husbands. However, they noticed that respondent had lost
interest in the progress of their claims and refused to surrender the pertinent documents when asked to.

Respondent admitted having received the documents from complainants, but explained that it was
for photostating purposes only. According to him, his failure to immediately return the said documents
was due to complainants refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photostating costs which prevented
him from withdrawing said documents from the Photostat service.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that xxx A lawyer shall not refuse
his services to the needy. xxx The evidence is insufficient to warrant the taking of the disciplinary action
against the respondent. As a man of law, respondents conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially
so when he volunteers his professional services. Yet, respondent was not able to comply with that standard.
It was unnecessary to have complainants wait and hope for six long years on their pension claims. Upon
refusal to cooperate, respondent should have terminated their professional relationship instead of hanging
indefinitely. Thus, Atty. Arcangel is reminded of what the high standards of his chosen profession require
of him.

CANON 14
SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. ATTY. FOJAS
(A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995)

FACTS:
On September 8, 1993, the complainants, former clients of the respondent, pray that the latter be
disbarred for malpractice, neglect and other offenses which may be discovered during the actual
investigation of this complaint. The complainant further asserts that they were not able to receive a positive
judgment because of the respondents negligence. However, the respondent claims that even though he
made a mistake, it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration which was unfortunately denied
by the court. He further claims that the complainants filed this case to harass him because he refused to
share his attorneys fees in the main labor case he had handled for them.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants

HELD:
Yes. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person
who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject to Canon 14 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
xxx The respondent admits that it was his duty to file an answer and that he failed to do so. His lack of
diligence was compounded by his erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or grave abuse
of discretion and by his continued refusal to file an answer even after he received the Court of Appeals'
decision in the certiorari case. Thus, the Supreme Court decided that respondent should be reprimanded.
 CANON 14

RAMOS v. ATTY. DAJOYAG, JR.

(A.C. No. 5174, February 28, 2002)

FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Ernesto M. Ramos against Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag, Jr. for negligence
in failing to appeal a ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission,[1] which affirmed the dismissal
by the Labor Arbiter of a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by complainant against DCCD Engineering
Corporation. In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, dated November 15, 1999

This fact arose out of case G.R. 125244 (Ernesto Ramos vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
DCCD Engineering Corp., et al.) Our motion for last extension of time within which to file [a] petition for
review on certiorari [was] DENIED, petitioner having been previously warned in the resolution of July 24,
1996 that no further extension will be given per resolution of the First Division of [the] Honorable Court
dated August 26, 1996. Our petition for certiorari filed on August 14, 1996 was dismissed per resolution of
the First Division of [the] Honorable Court dated December 2, 1996 for having [been] filed out of time. Our
motion for reconsideration [of] the resolution [dated] December 2, 1996, which dismissed the petition for
certiorari, was likewise denied with finality per resolution dated February 19, 1997 of the First Division of
[the] Honorable Court.

Because it was not my fault or shortcoming but that of my lawyer, Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag, Jr.,
for his failure [in] his devotion to his client, warmth and zeal in the defense of his clients rights, it is
requested that said erring lawyer be duly sanctioned and my petition for certiorari be reconsidered and
accepted. Or through another counsel, I be allowed to file another petition for certiorari with [an] important
addendum, which my said former lawyer failed to mention due to time constraint in filing [the] petition
for certiorari.[2]

Respondent denied the allegations against him. Commenting on the complaint

It appears that the Resolution granting my request for 1st extension contained a warning that no
further extension would be given. BUT I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE WHEN I FILED MY
MOTION FOR LAST EXTENSION FOR ONLY 20 DAYS, I HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THE COPY OF
SAID RESOLUTION. And in fact, even at the time I filed the basic Petition for Certiorari, I HAVE NOT
YET STILL received said July 24, 1996 Resolution.

I RELIED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN THE HONEST BELIEF THAT THE FIRST MOTION FOR
EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS WOULD BE GRANTED - WITHOUT THE WARNING - SINCE IT WAS
MERELY A FIRST EXTENSION. Then even as I was terribly saddled with heavy load and at times had
some difficulty in getting in touch with complainant, I dropped everything to be able to beat the supposed
deadline of August 14th, 1996.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation canon 14.04 of the code of prefessional.

HELD:
First. Respondent pleads good faith and excusable neglect of duty. He stresses the fact that he filed the
petition for certiorari within the 20-day period of extension that he sought in his second motion for
extension and claims that he learned that the period of extension granted in his first motion for extension
was inextendible only after the expiration of the two periods of extension that he prayed for.

Regardless of the agreement he had with complainant with respect to the payment of his fees,
respondent owed it to complainant to do his utmost to ensure that every remedy allowed by law is availed
of.[7] Rule 14.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins every lawyer to devote his full attention,
diligence, skills, and competence to every case that he accepts. Pressure and large volume of legal work do
not excuse respondent for filing the petition for certiorari out of time.[8]

Second. Complainant prays that we admit and consider the merits of the petition for certiorari filed by
respondent, or that he be allowed to file anew a separate petition for certiorari. We understand the plight of
the complainant, but we cannot grant his plea. This is an administrative case, separate from G.R. No. 125244
in which the dismissal of the petition for certiorari was made. The resolution of the Court in that case
operated as a judgment on the merits and is now final.[10] Indeed, public policy and sound practice demand
that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed
by law,[11] and that every party be bound by his counsels decision regarding the conduct of the case,
including his mistakes, save only when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless, and inexcusable as
to amount to a deprivation of the clients day in court.[12] This is not the situation in this case.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag, Jr. is REPRIMANDED. He is admonished henceforth to

exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards his clients and the courts and
warned that repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with.

CANON 14

ABAQUETA v. ATTY. FLORIDO

(A.C. No. 5948, January 22, 2003)

FACTS:
The complainant, Gamaliel Abaqueta filed this administration complaint against respondent Atty.
Florido for conflict of interest. Abaqueta engaged the professional services of Atty. Florido in a special
proceeding entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaqueta Susana Uy Trazo(1st
Case).Atty. Florido was able to file Objections and Comments to Inventory and Accounting, registering
complainants objection.

Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money against complainant
Abaqueta in a case entitled, Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona (2nd Case).
Respondent Atty. Florido signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap-Abaqueta, averring,
inter alia, that Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal owners of those certain parcels of
land. However, the parcel of land referred to as conjugal party of the complainant and Milagro Yap-
Abaqueta are the very same parcel of land in the 1st Case. In short, respondent lawyer made allegations in
the 2nd Case, which were contrary to and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for complainant
in the 1st case. Complainant also avered that respondent Atty. Florido admitted that he was never
authorized to appear as counsel for Milagro Yap-Abaqueta in the 2nd case, and that Atty. Florido failed to
indicate n the Complaint the true and correct address of herein complainant, which Atty. Florido knew as
far back as August 2, 1990.

In Atty. Florido's defense, he always acted in good faith in his professional relationship with
complainant in spite of the fact that they have not personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the
Complaint on information and documents supplied by Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, indicating that he was sole
and exclusive owner of the properties. Eight years later, long after the 1st case was settled, and the attorney-
client relationship between complainant and respondent lawyer was terminated, Mrs. Milagros Abaqueta
through Mrs. Baclig, engaged his services to file the 2nd case. Mrs. Baclig presented to him a deed of absolute
sale dated July 7, 1975, showing that the properties subject hereof were not complainants exclusive property
but his conjugal property with his wife, the same having been acquired during the subsistence of their
marriage. Thus, in all good faith, respondent alleged in the complaint that said properties were conjugal
assets of the spouses.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Florido violated Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
representing Milagros Yap.

HELD:
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who
may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline such employment, subject, however, to Canon
14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client. The reason for the prohibition
is found in the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree. Indeed, as we stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera, "The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so
that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided."

Credence cannot, however, be given to the charge that respondent fraudulently and maliciously
falsified the true and correct address of the complainant notwithstanding respondent's knowledge thereof.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law

for Three (3) months.

CANON 14

GONE VS. GA
(A.C. 7771, April 6, 2011)

FACTS:
This case stemmed from the complaint for disciplinary action dated 23 October 1989 filed by
Patricio Gone against Atty. Macario Ga before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). The complaint was due to Atty. Ga's failure to reconstitute or turn over the records
of the case in his possession. Complainant Gone reported that Atty. Ga is his counsel in NLRC Case No.
RB-IV-2Q281-78 entitled "Patricio Gone v. Solid Mills, Inc." The case was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter
and was elevated to the Notional Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Complainant allged that when the records of his appealed case was destroyed, the respondent did
not do anything to reconstitute any record about the case. Complainant even asked the respondent to return
the records of the cases the respondent atty. was in possession of but continuously refused the request of
the complainant causing the latter injustice to his family.

On February 16, 1999 the IBP commissioner issued an order directing the respondent to file his
answer on the complainant.

Respondent answered that when the records was destroyed, he was relieved to have received
summons from the NLRC however the complainant did not appear on the two scheduled hearings set by
the NLRC so the case was shelved.

Two hearing s were set by the IBP commissioner wherein the complainant was present and the
respondent was absent so there was no choice but to reset the hearing. On November 10, 2000 the
complainant was the absentee this time around. The respondent prayed for time to file a motion for Dismiss

The IBP censured Ga for violating rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the code of professional responsibility.
The IBP was further directed to confirm if respondent has complied with Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94
dated 19 September 2007 directing him to reconstitute and turn over the records of the case to complainant.
No motion for reconsideration was filed by any of the parties.

Thus, on 2 September 2009, the Court issued a resolution requiring Atty. Ga to explain his failure
to comply with IBP Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94. Record of the instant case reveals that the resolution
dated 2 September 2009 was received by Atty. Ga on 15 October 2009. To date, Atty. Ga has yet to comply
with the resolution.

ISSUE:
Is there anyway that the respondent violated Canon 14?

HELD:
No. However it was discussed in the case that an Attorney, if he cannot handle the case should
refuse to accept the case according to the rules in canon 14. In the case however the respondent accepted it
but failed to perform the necessary efforts to fulfill his duties with his clients. It said that a lawyer is not
obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline
employment subject however, to the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once
he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed to him.

The court agrees with the IBP finding the respondent guilty of violating Canon 18 rule 18.03

CANON 14

CATALAN VS. SILVOSA

(A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012)

FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr against Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa. Atty.
Catalan has three causes of action against Atty. Silvosa.

In his first cause of action, Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of appearing as private counsel in a
case where he previously appeared as public prosecutor, hence violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Catalan also alleged that, apart from the fact that Atty. Silvosa and the
accused are relatives and have the same middle name, Atty. Silvosa displayed manifest bias in the accused's
favor. Atty. Silvosa caused numerous delays in the trial of the Esperon case by arguing against the position
of the private prosecutor.

In his second cause of action, Atty. Catalan presented the affidavit of Pros. Toribio. In a case for
frustrated murder where Atty. Catalan's brother was a respondent, Pros. Toribio reviewed the findings of
the investigating judge and downgraded the offense from frustrated murder to less serious physical
injuries. During the hearing before Comm. Funa, Pros. Toribio testified that, while still a public prosecutor
at the time, Atty. Silvosa offered her P30,000 to reconsider her findings and uphold the charge of frustrated
murder.

Atty. Catalan relies on Rule 6.03 which states that "A lawyer shall not, after leaving government
service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service." Atty. Silvosa, on the hand, relies on Rule 2.01 which provides that "A lawyer shall
not reject, except for valid reasons the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed" and on Canon 14 which
provides that "A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defense of respondent involving Canon 14 is applicable.

HELD:
No it is not applicable. Yes the canon 14 states that an attorney must not refuse except for valid
reasons a case to defend the defenseless however atty. Silvosa conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which
provides that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of facts.

Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Hilado vs. David:

An attorney is employed that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or counselor
when 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 pleadings, or advocating
his client's cause in open court.

The bare relationship between a client and an attorney may cause an incompatibility of interests.
That is why it is not allowed. The reason for this rule is to prevent any dishonest practitioner from
fraudulent conduct. Also it protects honest attorneys from suspicions of unprofessional practice. This
prohibition applies to Silvosa even if the attorney has honest intetions and acted in good faith.

Respondent was suspended for representing conflicting interests and due to his bribery of
Prosecutor Toribio. However he was disbarred for his conviction of the crime of direct bribery under
Section 27 of rule 28

CANON 14

FRANCISCO, TAN AND JOAQUIN V. PORTUGAL

(A.C. No. 6155)

FACTS:
Complainants, police officers SPO3 Francisco, SPO3 Tan, and PO3 Joaquin were involved in a
shooting incident and were later found guilty of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted
homicide. They then sought the legal services of Atty. Jaime Portugal. After filing an Urgent Motion for
Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, Portugal did not contact his clients again. In an attempt
to contact him, they went to his house but found out that Portugal moved out of his former address. The
aforementioned motion he filed was also denied for late filing and non-payment of docket fees and
consequently warrants of arrest were issued against the three policemen.

On August 2003 they filed a complaint against Portugal for violation of the Lawyers Oath, gross
misconduct, and gross negligence. Only PO3 Joaquin appeared in the conciliation conference. Respondent
presented the following arguments: he was not the original counsel of the three, there was no formal
engagement undertaken between the parties, and that he filed the motion on time. Furthermore, he also
requested to be discharged from the case but was denied by Joaquin.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Portugal violated Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Rule 14.01 of the Code states that A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on
account of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of
said person.
 The defense counsel branded his own clients as being the culprits that salvaged the victims. He
described them as the accused police officers who had been convicted of homicide for the salvage of Frolan
Cabiling and Jose Chua and attempted homicide of Mario Macato.
Regarding the contentions of the respondent, the IBP found them to be devoid of merit. There was
indeed a failure to submit the motion on time. And regardless of his opinions toward his clients, it was his
obligation as a lawyer to handle the said case with the same degree and fervor he renders to his other cases
since he agreed to take up the cause of his clients. Had he wanted to withdraw from the case, he should
have filed the notice of withdrawal himself.

He was suspended from the practice of law for three months.

CANON 14

VOLUNTAD RAMIREZ VS. BAUTISTA

FACTS:
In her Affidavit-Complaint dated 29 March 2005, complainant alleged that on 25 November 2002,
she engaged the legal services of respondent to file a complaint against complainant's siblings for
encroachment of her right of way. For his legal services, respondent demanded P15,000 as acceptance fee,
plus P1,000 per court appearance. Complainant then paid respondent the P15,000 acceptance fee. On 29
May 2003, or six months after she hired respondent, complainant severed the legal services of respondent
because respondent failed to file a complaint within a reasonable period of time as requested by
complainant. Complainant then retrieved from respondent the folder containing the documents and letters
pertaining to her case which complainant had entrusted to respondent. Complainant claimed that she was
dissatisfied with the way respondent handled her complaint considering that during the six months that
elapsed, respondent only sent a letter to the City Engineer's Office in Navotas City concerning her
complaint. On 8 March 2004, complainant sent a letter to respondent, reiterating that she was terminating
the services of respondent and that she was asking for the refund of P14,000 out of the P15,000 acceptance
fee. Complainant stated in her letter that due to respondent's "failure to institute the desired complaint on
time" against complainant's brothers and sisters, complainant was compelled to hire the services of another
counsel to file the complaint. Respondent failed to refund the P14,000, prompting complainant to file on 10
May 2005 her complaint dated 29 March 2005 with the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court.
Complainant charged respondent with violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, violation of the lawyer's oath, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the public.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant?

HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case of complainant.
The Court also agreed with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent breached his
duty to serve his client with competence and diligence. Respondent is also guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." However, we do not
find respondent guilty of violating Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility since respondent
immediately turned over to complainant the folder containing the documents and letters pertaining to her
case upon the severance of respondent's legal services.

Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is expected to serve his client
with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion. As held in Santiago
v. Fojas:
 It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment,
subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he
agrees to take up the cause of [his] 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. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client, save by the rules of the law, legally applied. This simply means
that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends
of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the
legal profession.

In this case, respondent attributes his delay in filing the appropriate criminal case to the absence of
conciliation proceedings between complainant and her siblings before the barangay as required under
Article 222 of the Civil Code and the Local Government Code. However, this excuse is belied by the
Certification to File Action by the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, Office of the Barangay Council,
Barangay Daanghari, Navotas. The Certification to File Action was issued on 1 July 2002, which was more
than four months before complainant engaged respondent's legal services on 25 November 2002.
Respondent's allegation that complainant failed to inform him about the existence of the Certification to
File Action is hard to believe considering complainant's determination to file the case against her siblings.
Clearly, respondent has been negligent in handling complainant's case.

CANON 14

ATTY. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF PAN-ASIA INTERNATIONAL

COMMODITIES, INC. VS. ATTY. ROSENDO MENESES III

FACTS:
The respondent, Atty. Rosendo Meneses III, was a legal officer of Frankwell Management and
Consultant, Inc., (Frankwell) which engaged his services to a criminal case in accordance to his retainer. He
was tasked to counsel Arthur Bretaa, one of the accused in said case. Respondent received Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50, 000.00) from Bretaa to be given to a certain Gleason as consideration for an out-of-court
settlement, and with the understanding that a motion to dismiss the case would be filed by respondent.
Atty. Augusto G. Navarro, for and in behalf of Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc., Complainant,
which is under Frankwell, filed an Administrative case against Respondent, before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the IBP (Commission) due to his continued failure to account for the
amount of P50, 000.00. Respondent contends that Bretaa was not an employee of Frankwell, which
retained him as its legal counsel; and that the settlement of said case cannot be concluded because the same
was archived and the accused Bretaa is presently out of the country.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is required to inform the complainant and Consequently, Frankwell
regarding the P50, 000.00 and the Case development.

HELD:
 Yes. It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to
become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject, however, to the provisions of Canon 14
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity
to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. Respondent
Meneses, as counsel, had the obligation to inform his client of the status of the case and to respond within
a reasonable time to his client's request for information. Respondent's failure to communicate with his client
by deliberately disregarding its requests for an audience or conference is an unjustiable denial of its right
to be fully informed of the developments in and the status of its case.

CANON 14

FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO VS ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA

(A.C. 6708/CBD Case No. 01-874, August 25, 2005)

FACTS:
Complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao filed and administrative case for disbarment against,
Respondent, Atty. Nestor A. Bamba due to conflicting interests when the latter filed a case against her while
representing her in another case, and for committing other acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.
Complainant was president and managing director of Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB) June 2000 to
January 2001 and hired Respondent for Legal Services for the Corporate Affairs of AIB and for a personal
case regarding ejectment. Complainant claims that Respondent proposed to her that she organize her own
security agency and that he would assist her in its organization. Complainant then resigned as president
of AIB and organized Quiambao Risk Management Specialists, Inc. (QRMSI), in which respondent is a
"silent partner" represented by Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez. Respondent denies the allegation that he is a
"silent partner" of QRMSI. Although respondent does admit that he represented the complainant in the
aforementioned ejectment case and represented AIB in the replevin case against complainant. Respondent
avers that he was led to believe that his duties in Legal Services of AIB involved personal cases of its officers.
Respondent asserts that the complainant expressly consented to his continued representation in the
ejectment case thus causing the Conflict of Interest that he is being charged with.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was duty-bound to act as counsel to both AIB and Complainant despite
the evident conflict of interest.

HELD:
No. Although Respondent is bound by the Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
they have the right to decline such employment. Although there are instances where lawyers cannot decline
representation, they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a
prospective one. Respondent is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15.
 CANON 15

HORNILLA & ATTY. RICAFORT v. ATTY. SALUNAT

(A.C. No. 5804, July 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Complainants filed an administrative complaint, alleging that respondent is a member of ASSA
Law and Associates and retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA),
with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, against respondent Atty.
Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest.

Respondent was the counsel for the PPSTA Board Members in an intra-corporate case was filed
against the members of the Board of Directors for the terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1997 and a complaint for
unlawful spending and the undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA by the Complainants who are
members of the PPSTA. He refused to withdraw his appearance even if the complainants argued that he
was guilty of conflict of interest for he was engaged by the PPSTA and was paid out of its corporate funds.
Respondent, as Managing Partner of the ASSA Law and Associates, claimed that his appearance was in
behalf of the law firm; he only filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency" and that it was complainant
Atty. Ricafort who filed the said case against the members of the PPSTA and its Board.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that xxx A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. xxx Conflicting interest arise when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties, i.e. when a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members
of the same corporation's board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them.

In the case at bar, based on the records, the respondent violated Rule 15.02 when he appeared as
counsel for the parties against the PPSTA filed suit. He filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency and by
filing the said pleading constituted conflict of interest, even though the complaint was in behalf of and to
protect the interest of the corporation in the name of the individual members of the PPSTA. Thus, the
Supreme Court held that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest and admonished the respondent to
observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.

CANON 15

CASTRO-JUSTO v. ATTY. GALING

(A.C. No. 6174, November 16, 2011)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of the respondent in connection with
dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his
professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks.
Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before
filing her complaint.

The complainant received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by respondent for and on
behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter's daughter Karen Torralba. Further,
respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila. Complainant submits that by
representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Respondent alleged that complainants are long time friends. Also, that the filing of the Motion for
Consolidation which is a non-adversarial pleading does not evidence the existence of lawyer-client
relationship. He insisted that his actions were merely motivated by an intention to help the parties achieve
an out of court settlement and possible reconciliation.

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found respondent guilty of Canon
15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. xxx Applying this in the case, respondent was not able
to show any proof that he had obtained the written consent of the conflicting parties. Further, the take-over
of a client's cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the
opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from
the attorney-client relationship. Thus, the respondent should be sanctioned.

CANON 15

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC. v.

ATTY. FUNK
(A.C. No. 9094, August 15, 2012)

FACTS:
The case is a disbarment case against a lawyer who sued a former client in representation of a new
one. Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Funk and alleged that
respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the
foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases. Complainant
alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma on behalf of
Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the foundation.

As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro
Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the attorney-client
relationship was always between Santos and him. He was more of Santos personal lawyer than the lawyer
of Hocorma Foundation.

Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the latter
would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma
Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma and follow up with it
Santos sale or donation of a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect
all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds that Santos provided. It was
Santos intention since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat Institute free of rent and expenses. According to
Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion that the
foundation followed. After Santos died, respondent was elected President of Mabalacat Institute.

The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funks fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four
years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the respondent.
After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15, Rule
15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of four court
appearances against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended Atty. Funks
suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in violation of the
CPR when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.

HELD:
YES. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable
that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his
relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client without the
foundations written consent.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or
discharging inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former
clients doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the
trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship.

Respondent collected attorneys fees from the foundation. Thus, he had an obligation not to use
any knowledge he acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation
existed at all, when he sued the foundation.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Board of the IBP SUSPENDS Atty.
Richard Funk from the practice of law for one year effective immediately.

CANON 15

MARCELO v. JAVIER, SR.

(A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992)

FACTS:
In a verified letter-complaint 1 dated May 19, 1988, complainant Domingo R. Marcelo charges
respondent Atty. Adriano S. Javier, Sr. with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in connection with a
transaction over complainant's residential lot as security for a loan.

On November 13, 1984 Domingo Marcelo, complainant, mortgaged his unregistered land
consisting of 1,045 square meters located at Cambaog, Bustos, Bulacan to mortgagee Sy Hun Tek as security
for a loan in the alleged amount of P80,000.00 payable on November 15, 1985 with legal interest, with the
deed of mortgage having been prepared and notarized by respondent as the family lawyer of the
mortgagee. Of the alleged amount of the loan, complainant only received P50,000.00 from which was
deducted P2,500.00 as installment or the loan for the month of December, 1984, and a further amount of
P5,000.00 was taken by respondent for the titling of said property under Act. No. 496. In effect, complainant
only received the actual amount of P42,500.00. As of the filling of the instant administrative case,
respondent had not yet caused the mortgaged property to be duly titled. Complainant was not given a
copy of the mortgage deed, much less the chance to read the same, and he learned of the contents of said
deed only when he secured a certified true xerox copy thereof from the Records Management and Archives
Office in Manila.

A few weeks thereafter, complainant learned that the mortgaged property had been foreclosed and
sold to one Enrico Perez, a resident of the place where the land is situated. There was no public auctionnor
the posting of appropriate notices thereof as prescribed by law. Moreover, the sale of the mortgaged
property by Sy Hun Tek to Perez was within the redemption period.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Yes. The facts such as the respondents inability to apprise the complainant in full the total amount
stated in the deed of real estate mortgage as his obligation thereunder, as well as of the terms and conditions
stipulated therein and his incapacity to deal directly with the complainant regarding the obtention and
preparation of the loan constitutes respondents failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance
with the strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of
Professional Ethics, thereby occasioning unwarranted inconvenience and hardship on complainant.

While complainant should have been more discerning and less gullible in his business dealings,
nonetheless respondent lawyer should likewise have been conscientious in seeing to it that justice
permeates every aspect of a transaction for which his services have been engaged, in conformity with the
avowed duties of a worthy member of the Bar. If respondent was indeed the reasonably prudent and
respectable attorney that he represents himself to be, instead of taking undue advantage of the naivete and
lack of education of complainant, he should have fully explained the legal intricacies and consequences of
the subject transaction as would aid the parties in making an informed decision. Such responsibility was
plainly incumbent upon him; failing therein, and with his advanced age duly considered, he must now face
the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion, albeit apparently his first.cd

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Adriano S. Javier, Sr. from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same or
any other misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on the records
of said respondent, with copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly
circularized to all courts. SO ORDERED.

CANON 15

RCBI BOHOL VS. FLORIDO

(A.C. 5736, June 18, 2010)

FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank
of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido (respondent) for "acts
constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his
clients in physically taking over the management and operation of the bank through force, violence and
intimidation."|||

In his comment, respondent denied RBCI's allegations. Respondent explained that he acted in
accordance with the authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and
validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid
change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused
to comply. He said that they went to Garay to ask him to step down but Garay reacted violently. S

The IBP ruled that respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as a
lawyer. There is no legal basis on taking over the management premises of RCBI without a valid court
order.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent attorney violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?
 Deleted: RULING
HELD:
Yes. The respondent violated Canons 1,15 and 19 of the code. The first and foremost duty of a
lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the
laws of the land. Likewise, 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.

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance
with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client.

The Supreme Court agreed to the report of IBP that there is no legal basis over of the management
of RCBI and that the respondent attorney should have known that what his client was against the law and
should have stopped them for his duty is not to his client but with the administration of the law.

CANON 15
HEIRS OF BALLESTEROS SR. VS. APIAG
(A.C. 5760, September 30, 2005)

FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Julian B. Ballesteros as Administrator of the Ballesteros
Estate and President and Manager of the Rural Bank of Pagadian, Inc. against Atty. Manileo N. Apiag the
retained counsel of the Ballesteros Estate and the Bank.

Complainant alleged that respondent violated the terms of the Legal Services Retainership
Agreement and Canons 15, 17, 18, 19 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant charges respondent for reneging on his obligations as retained counsel in the
following instances

In civil case 1645-1648 Respondent filed the ejectment cases on 26 November 1998, which were
raffled to Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Pagadian City, presided by Judge Absin. In all
these cases, parties were required to submit their position papers. Respondent failed to submit the position
papers. On 8 December 1999, Judge Absin issued four identical Orders dismissing the ejectment cases.
Complainant claims that respondent never informed him of the dismissal of the ejectment cases.

Respondents answer to this is that he submitted those position papers to the complainant however
the complainant did not return the drafts despite several reminders.

In civil case 3395, where in it involved an Action for Reconveyance of Real Property, Complainant
asserts that the failure to move for reconsideration would enable the defendants to sell the property

Respondent also did not attend to the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 3844 wherein the
complainant was present

ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 15.

HELD:
No. The respondent did not violate Canon 15 for he has done nothing outside the law. The
respondent did not act unfairly nor did he induce any unlawful act to the complainant. The respondent
abided by the law. However due to his lack of competency and his irresponsibility to his client, he violated
canon 18 and 19.

The Code mandates that every "lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." The
Code further states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable." The Code provides that "a lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information." Furthermore, "a lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the

The respondent failed to file position papers and did not inform his clients. As well as failed to file
pre trial brief and failed to attend pre trial conference and failed to file a motion for reconsideration in the
reconveyance of the real property case thus making him incompetent and not mindful of his clients
interests.

CANON 15

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO VS. ATTY. CARLOS SAGUCIO

(A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006)

FACTS:
Ruthie-Lim Santiago, daughter of Alfonso Lim who is a stockholder and former President of
Taggat Industries, Inc., filed a complaint against Atty. Carlos Sagucio for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working
as government prosecutor. Atty. Sagucio was alleged to be guilty of representing conflicting interests when
he was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat. He should have inhibited himself
from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat employees. He even harassed and
threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the claim.

He was also alleged to be guilty of engaging in the private practice of law when the complainant
presented evidence proving that respondent received the amount of P10,000 pesos as retainer's fee for the
months of January and February 1995, another P10,000 pesos for the months of April and May 1995 and
P5,000 for the month of April 1996.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Carlos Sagucio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilty.

HELD:
No, the Supreme Court exonerated respondent from the charge of Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The Court found no conflict of
interests when respondent handled the preliminary investigation pertaining a complaint filed by the
Taggat employees regarding the non-payment of wages which occurred from April 1996 to July 15 1997 .
Complainant failed to present a single evidence to prove her allegations. The fact that respondent was the
former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government
prosecutor was labor-related is not sufficient basis to charge him for representing conflicting interests.

Respondent was only found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for six months.
 CANON 15

GONZALES V. CABUCANA
(A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006)

FACTS:
Before this Court is a complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales) praying that Atty.
Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for representing conflicting interests.

On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for sum of money and damages filed before the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567 where she was represented
by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty.
Edmar Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner; on February 26, 2001,
a decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00
with interest and P6,000.00 as attorney's fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of
execution issued in connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the
said sheriff with this Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales;
they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint before
this Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave
oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; notwithstanding the pendency of Civil Case No. 1-
567, where respondent's law firm was still representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the
Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses; 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 the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01, 15.02, 15.03, 21.01 and 21.02.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
We find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. 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. 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, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the
full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. As we expounded in the recent case of
Quiambao vs. Bamba, 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. It is of no
moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to
oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired
from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the
opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or
conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them would affect the performance of the duty
of undivided fidelity to both clients.

 CANON 15
ERLINDA ABRAGAN, ET.AL VS ATTY. MAXIMO RODRIGUEZ
(A.C. 4346, April 3, 2002)
FACTS:
In 1986, complainants hired the services of the respondent to represent them in Civil Case No.
11204 for Forcible Entry. The case was won by the complainants. Subsequently, when the lawyer allegedly
surreptitiously dealt with the subject property with other persons, the petitioner severed the lawyerclient
relationship. On August 1991, complainants filed a case of indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando
Loncion et al. Respondent represented the sheriff. The counsel employed by the complainants was a former
student of respondent, and said counsel, was advised by respondent, and withdrew from the case without
the complainants consent. The complainants' allegations against the respondent, who, after representing
them initially, then transferring allegiance and services to the adverse parties (Lonchion, Palacio and NHA
Manager), came back to represent them without any regard for the rules of law and the Canons of
Professional Ethics, which is highly contemptible and a clear violation of his oath as a lawyer and an officer
of the courts of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Violated Rule 15.03.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. Petitioners were the same complainants in the indirect
contempt case and in the Complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 11204. Respondent should have
evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect contempt
proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh their
actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large. They must conduct themselves
beyond reproach at all times.

CANON 15
ROMEO H. SIBULO V ATTY. STANLEY R. CABRERA
FACTS:
In the Civil Case No. 90-55209, the defendant in the said case retained the services of respondent,
Atty. Stanley R. Cabrera. However, respondent also appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Romeo Sibulo,
the complainant, brought the complaint forward. Respondent stated that he "merely accepted a case from
a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants."
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent's appearance as counsel for both is a violation of Canon 15
HELD:
Yes. Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated in his Answer
that he "merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor of
one of the defendants." Such a revelation is a categorical admission that he (respondent) represented two
conflicting interests, which representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:

"CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY

IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject civil case. When he agreed
to represent the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no longer serve either
of his said clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with his duty to the
defendant. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing which could
sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.
 CANON 16

TAROG v. ATTY. RICAFORT

(A.C. No. 8253, March 15, 2011)

FACTS:
In 1992, the Tarogs sought the advice of Atty. Miralles regarding their bank-foreclosed property
located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Miralles advised them to engage a Bicol-based attorney for that purpose
and they went to see Atty. Ricafort accompanied by Vidal Miralles, their friend who was a brother of Atty.
Miralles.They ultimately engaged Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on account of his being well-known in
the community. Having willingly accepted the engagement, Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay
P7,000.00 as filing fee, which they gave to him. He explained the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in
court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property. The Tarogs
and Vidal went to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver the P65,000.00. When Arnulfo said that he had first
to encash the check at the bank, Atty. Ricafort persuaded him to entrust the check to him instead so that he
(Atty. Ricafort) would be the one to encash it and then deposit the amount in court. On that representation,
Arnulfo handed the check to Atty. Ricafort. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the
status of the consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but
in his own account. He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries about when
the amount would be returned, however, the Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the
money was in good hands. In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be
deposited in court, insisting that the amount was payment for his legal services under a "package deal,".
Commissioner Reyes concluded Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of the vulnerability of his clients and by
being dishonest in his dealings with them by refusing to return the amount of P65,000.00 to them which
the IBP Governor approved of.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ricaforts acts and actuations constituted breach of his fiducirary duties as an
attorney.

HELD:
Yes, Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his
clients that came into his possession, and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his
clients reposed in him. Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his professional
employment, he had the obligation to deliver such funds to his clients (a) when they became due, or (b)
upon demand. Atty. Ricaforts plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients rendered him
liable for violation of Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01, supra, and Canon 17, all of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. His acts and actuations constituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional
ethics that impaired public confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.

CANON 16

ALMENDAREZ, JR. v. ATTY. LANGIT

(A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006)

FACTS:
Complainant, as attorney-in-fact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de Almendarez, was the plaintiff
in an ejectment case. Respondent served as complainants counsel. While the case was pending, defendant
Roger Bumanlag deposited monthly rentals for the property in dispute to the Branch Clerk of Court. The
trial court rendered a decision in the ejectment case and issued an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction
of the decision.
 The complainant learned that respondent was able to withdraw the rentals deposited by
Bumanlag. Respondent received a total of Php 255,000, as evidenced by two receipts signed by him. The
withdrawals were made through Daroys authorized representative Antonia Macaraeg, but Daroy
personally delivered the money to respondent. Respondent did not inform complainant of these
transactions. Hence, complainant filed this case for disbarment against respondent for failing to account
for complainants funds.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Langit failed to account for money he held in trust for complainant

HELD:
Yes. The Court sustains the IBP findings that respondent failed to account for money he held in
trust for complainant, The Report considered complainants evidence clear and convincing enough to
justify the disciplinary action against respondent for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides xxx A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. xxx

The respondent received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended for his
client. As stated in Rule 16.01 xxx A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client. xxx In the case at bar, the respondent received the money in his capacity as a counsel for
complainant, thus, the former held the money in trust for complainant. Yet, respondent received the money
without accounting for and returning such sum to its rightful owner. He should have immediately notified
complainant of the trial courts approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals.

A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself by the mere fact
that the client owes him attorneys fees. Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
xxx A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a
lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. xxx Applying this in the case,
respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain the
money. Respondents failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the latters demands gives rise
to the presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and benefit. Thus, this is a gross
violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in legal
profession.

CANON 16

LICUANAN v. ATTY. MELO

(A.C. No. 2361, February 9, 1989)

FACTS:
On 1979, Licuanan won a case against her tenant Aida Pineda whereby Pineda was ordered to pay
the rents due to Licuanan. Pineda complied and she started paying the rents to Licuanans lawyer, Atty.
Manuel Melo. So for 12 months, Melo received the rental payments but he did not turn over the said
payments to Licuanan. Licuanan did inquire about said payment but Melo withheld information about the
fact that Pineda was actually paying. As a consequence, Licuanan filed a case against Pineda. Pineda in
turn filed a damage suit against Licuanan as she claims that the case filed by Licuanan against her is
groundless as she was in fact paying her rents.

Eventually, Licuanan find out that Melo failed to deliver to her the rents. Licuanan then filed an
affidavit complaint against Melo. Melo in his defense said that he withheld information about the rent
payments for a year because he merely wanted to surprise Licuanan about the success of the collections.
The Solicitor General subsequently recommended the suspension of Melo for not less than one year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Melo should be suspended.

HELD:
No. As ruled by the Supreme Court, he should be disbarred. Melos retaining of Licuanans money
for more than a year breached his oath and transgressed the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such
action did not merely deprive Licuanan of the use of her money but also caused her to file a groundless
suit against Pineda and on top of that, Licuanan had to defend herself in a damage suit filed against her in
turn by Pineda. In all, Melos actuations make him guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in
office. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has violated his oath not to delay
any man for money or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven himself
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He deserves the severest punishment
of disbarment.

CANON 16

CHUA & HSIA v. ATTY. MESINA, JR.

(A.C. No. 4904, August 12, 2004)

FACTS:
Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia administratively charged respondent Atty.
Simeon M. Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.

Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother. Respondent's mother defaulted
in paying a loan that she obtained in a bank, thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother
if paying the said obligation, to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed among that that in
consideration for the act of complainants, the property which they are leasing will be transferred to their
name. The complainants complied with the terms of the agreement. A deed of sale concerning such
property was executed. However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax, respondent instructed
complainants to execute another deed of sale which will be antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax
was not yet in effective.

Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale, respondents instructed his clients, the herein
complainants, to execute a simulated deed of sale which will reflect that the property was re-conveyed to
his mother.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

HELD:
Yes. The Court finds that indeed, the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. First, by advising
complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains
taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the
government is aggravating. Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another
document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed
the Melencio property to his mother, he committed dishonesty. Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent
inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the owners copy of his mothers title
upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale executed by his mother in
favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty. That the signature of Felicisima M. Melencio
in the 1985 document and that in the 1979 document are markedly different is in fact is a badge of
falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.

A propos is this Courts following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez

As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required
to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings
where the parties trade at arms length. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to
assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by
virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of
his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an
attorneys favor.

Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the reconveyance of the Melencio property
to complainants, consideration of whether he should be ordered to honor such promise should be taken up
in the civil case filed for the purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while that in the case at bar is
moral fitness.

Respondent ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby DISBARRED.

CANON 16

ARROYO-POSIDIO VS. ATTY. VITAN

(A.C. No. 6051, April 2, 2007)

FACTS:
In the instant case, respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan received the amount of P100,000.00 as legal
fees from complainant for filing additional claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo.
After several months, however, respondent failed to institute an action. Judgment is rendered in favor of
the complainant for the complaint filed before the MTC for an action to recover the sum of money and
damages against the respondent. The respondent appealed to the RTC which affirmed the MTC decision
in toto. The respondent Atty. Issued an amount of P120,000.00 in favor of the complainant but the check
was dishonored as the account was closed. Respondent refused to honor his obligation and denied the
complainants allegations, claiming that the said amount was partial payment for his services. The IBP
Board of Governors modified the penalty from findings of the Investigating Commissioner from
suspension to reprimand with stern warning that a similar misconduct will warrant a more severe penalty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Vitans refusal to return the payment received for services which were not
rendered constitutes a violation of his oath and of Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires the lawyer to account
for all money or property collected or received for or from his client. Where a client gives money to his
lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse judgment, consummate a
settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step
and spend the money for it, immediately return the money to his client. Respondent's refusal to return
complainant's money upon demand, his failure to comply with the lawful orders of the trial court, as well
as the issuance of a bouncing check, reveal his failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance
with the strictures of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court believes that a penalty
of suspension is called for under the circumstances. Thus, Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is suspended from the
practice of law for one year effective from notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt more severely.

CANON 16

RAMOS VS. ATTY. MANDAGAN

(A.C. No. 11128, April 6, 2016)

FACTS:
Complainant Pedro Ramos alleged that respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan demanded
from him P300,000.00 to be used as a bail bond for a murder case filed against him before the
Sandiganbayan in the event that his petition for bail in the said criminal case is granted. The respondent
collected an additional amount of P10,000.00 for operating expenses. Ramos' petition for bail was denied
by the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel without returning the amount
of P300,000.00 despite the demand sent by Ramos' counsel. In her answer as directed by the IBP-CBD,
respondent argued that the said amount was not intended for payment of bail, but as mobilization expenses
for preparation of witnesses, defenses, and other documentary exhibits for both Ramos and his co-accused
Gary Silawon. Atty. Mandagan likewise alleged that Ramos never paid her for acceptance, appearance fees,
and legal services rendered in the entire course of the proceedings until her withdrawal as counsel. The
Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors
in a Resolution, finding Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and for failure to render an accounting
of funds, and recommended that Atty. Mandagan be suspended for a period of 1 year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent lawyer is liable for gross misconduct in violation of Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mandagan's failure to make an accounting or to return the money to Ramos is a violation
of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty. Mandagan should be scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted to her in her professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from
members of the bar. Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance with the rule stated in Canon 16
of the CPR: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.; Rule 16.01: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the clien.t and Rule 16.03: A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.
CANON 16

LEMOINE V. BALON
(A.C. No. 5829)

FACTS:
French national Daniel Lemoine engaged the legal services of Atty. Amadeo Balon as arranged by
Lemoines friend Garcia, regarding an insurance claim with the Metropolitan Insurance Company. On
December 1998, Lemoine left for France. When he returned to the Philippines on January 1999, respondent
said that the claim was still pending. It was not until December 1999, that complainant found out that there
was already a settlement made between Metropolitan Insurance and Balon on December 1998. Balon
received the amount of P525,000. However he refused to turn over the proceeds of the claim to Lemoine,
contending that he is entitled to 50% thereof. He also alleged that he gave Lemoines friend Garcia a total
amount of P233,000, which the respondent argued, was the amount of insurance claim Lemoine was
entitled to less the attorneys fees and expenses.
 Lemoine filed a verified complaint against Balon for estafa and misconduct before the IBP.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Balon violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Canon 16 states that A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. Balon breached this canon the moment he did not inform Lemoine that he has
received the proceeds of the insurance claim. That he did not bring the matter to judicial determination was
indicative of his purpose to coerce the client into agreeing that he receive 50% of the proceeds. In addition,
respondents claim that he already delivered the amount of P233,000 to Garcia without documentation was
betrayed by the respondents statement that he and Garcia were not on good terms at that time. It was also
hard to believe that a lawyer would make a transaction without documenting such.
Atty. Balon was consequently disbarred for being guilty of malpractice, deceit, and gross
misconduct in the practice of his profession as a lawyer. Additionally, he was ordered to deliver the amount
of P525,000 to complainant Lemoine within 30 days from notice.

CANON 16

LINSANGAN V. ATTY. TOLENTINO

(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

FACTS:
Complainant Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a
complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious
collection on their claims.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting
that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize
respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. By engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrower, respondent violated
Rule 16.04:

Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money
to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the free exercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling
as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in
connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires interest in the subject matter of the case or
an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own
recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.

CANON 16

ATTY. RICARDO SOLOMON VS ATTY. JOSELITO FRIAL

(AC No. 7820, September 12, 2008)

FACTS:
According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead of depositing the attached cars
in the court premises, turned them over to Atty. Frial, Lo's counsel. Atty. Salomon claimed that on several
occasions, the Nissan Sentra was spotted being used by unauthorized individuals. As to the Volvo, Atty.
Salomon averred that during mediation, Atty. Frial deliberately withheld information as to its
whereabouts. As it turned out later, the Volvo was totally destroyed by fire, but the court was not
immediately put on notice of this development.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline the Commission observed that while there is perhaps no
direct evidence tying up Atty. Frial with the use of the Nissan Sentra, the unyielding fact remains that it
was being used by other persons during the time he was supposed to have custody of it. In addition,
whoever drove the Nissan Sentra on those occasions must have received the car key from Atty. Frial. When
Atty. Frial took custody of the Nissan Sentra and Volvo cars, he was duty bound to keep and preserve these
in the same condition he received them so as to fetch a good price should the vehicles be auctioned. As to
the burnt Volvo, the destruction of the Volvo in Atty. Frial's residence was not an ordinary occurrence; it
was an event that could have not easily escaped his attention. Accordingly, there is a strong reason to
believe that Atty. Frial deliberately concealed the destruction of said vehicle from the court during the
hearings in Civil Case No. The Commission thus recommended that Atty. Frial be suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Frial violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. For his negligence and unauthorized possession of the cars, the Court finds Atty. Frial guilty
of infidelity in the custody of the attached cars and grave misconduct.

From the evidence adduced during the investigation, there is no question that Atty. Frial is guilty
of grave misconduct arising from his violation of Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 which states a lawyer shall account
for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Money of the client or collected for
the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and
accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used
by him.

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect the court's
order and processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of
attachment the court issued. Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of
the attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no business using
it. He did not inform the court or at least the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is
that he took custody of them without so much as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority.
 CANON 16

TANNU REDDI VS ATTY. DIOSDADO SERBIO, JR.

(AC No. 7027, January 30, 2009)

FACTS:
The complainant nurtured philanthropic desires of her own consisting primarily in opening a
hospital with modern facilities in an underdeveloped part of Asia. Together with Immaculada Luistro, a
Filipino citizen, who was her assistant of over 10 years, complainant visited Philippines for the first time in
2000. Noting the level of poverty in the country and the lack of medical services for the poor, she decided
to put up a hospital. Immaculada suggested to complainant to consider engaging in the real estate business
in the Philippines in order to speed up the generation of funds. Heeding the suggestion, complainant
returned to the Philippines in 2003 to explore opportunities in the real estate business. Complainant was
introduced to respondent who would help her acquire real properties for development and/or resale. Since
she could not acquire ownership of lands in the Philippines, respondent advised her to use corporate
vehicles to effect the purchases. Three corporations were thus formed Tagaytay Twins, Inc., Manila Chic
Twins, Inc., and Tanu, Inc. However, complainant was unaware that the transactions of sale of several
lands she had entered into were all bogus, since the sellers were not the real owners of the land or the land
itself is non-existent.

Complainant demanded from respondent the return of the amount of US$3,000,000, claimed to be
part of the total sum of money she had sent to him for all the transactions that did not come about. No
amount has been returned to complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 state that A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his possession and A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client." In the present case, respondent failed to account for the sums
of money he received from complainant and failed to return the same upon demand. All that respondent
presented to account for the money is a handwritten acknowledgment of a supposed partial payment of
P500,000 for the Makati property, purportedly executed by one Mangco. By any standard, this document
is a mere piece of paper, Mangco not having been presented, if he exists at all, to confirm that he indeed
issued the receipt. Since respondent failed to credibly account, upon demand, for the money held by him
in trust an element of misappropriation complainant' claim that respondent employed deceit on her
is established.
 CANON 17

TIONG v. ATTY. FLORENDO

(A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)

FACTS:
The complainant and his wife Ma. Elena T. Tiong are real estate lessors in Baguio City. They
engaged the services of respondent as legal counsel and administrator of their businesses whenever
complainant would leave for the United States of America. Sometime in 1993, the complainant began to
suspect that respondent and his wife were having an illicit affair. Later on, it was confirmed and respondent
admitted the relationship. The parties met again on the 15th of May 1995 and in the presence of a notary
public, respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship and
seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness. Notwithstanding the affidavit, complainant instituted the
present suit for disbarment charging the respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that xxx A lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. xxx In the case at bar, the
respondent violated trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant by his act of having an affair
with his clients wife. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession.
Thus, respondent s found guilty of gross immorality.

CANON 17

CREDITO, ET AL. v. ATTY. SABIO

(A.C. No. 4920, October 19, 2005)

FACTS:
Complainants charged Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company (Biscom) of illegal dismissal. Biscom
appealed to the NLRC which reversed the labor arbitrers Decision that ordered the reinstatement of
complaints to their former jobs and the payment of back wages which and dismissed the Complaint.
Complainants asked respondent to elevate the case to the Supreme Court and allegedly gave the
respondent money from their members. The Petition was dismissed which Atty. Sabio allegedly kept from
the complainants knowledge for more than three years. The allegation was refuted by the respondent and
according to him the Motion for Reconsideration was not filed out of time but was denied by the Court.

In the Report and Recommendation of the IBP, respondent was found guilty of simple negligence,
illegal and unjust actuations as a practicing lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that xxx A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him. xxx In the case at bar, Atty. Sabio failed to pay the total revised docket and other legal fees and to
attach the required certification on forum shopping that leads to the dismissal of the Petition of the
complainants and he overlooked basic procedural requirements. Strict compliance with the required
payment had always been enjoined since docket and other legal fees for appeals and petitions are mere
statutory privileges and not matters of right. There was negligence in complying with the Circular when
he failed to attach certification of non-forum shopping and neglected to show he had pleaded. The
respondent failed to pay the Court the required amount on time even if he was entrusted with enough
money for the filing of the petition whether the contributions were from his 40 clients who signed the
Petition or 200 clients in the labor case. Also, he failed to inform his clients on the status of the Petition. The
clients individually followed up the case meaning he did not really verbally inform them. Thus, the Court
agreed with the IBP that Atty. Sabio should be disciplined, for violating Canon 17and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

CANON 17

ROLLON v. ATTY. NARAVAL

(A.C. No. 6424, March 2005)

FACTS:
On October of 2000, Consorcia Rollon, the complainant, went to the office of Atty. Camilo F.
Naraval, herein respondent, together with her son, Freddie Rollon, to seek his assistance in a case filed
against her before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 6, Davao City entitled 'Rosita Julaton vs.
Consorcia S. Rollon' for Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer for Attachment. After going over the
documents the complainant brought with her pertaining to the said case, Atty. Naraval agreed to be her
lawyer and required her to pay the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for the filing and partial
service fee, which was paid by her on October 18, 2000. However, Rollon was informed later by her son
that Atty. Naraval was not able to act on her case because the latter was so busy. Even after several follow-
ups were made with Atty. Naraval, still there was no action done on the complainants case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Naraval is guilty of violating Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
YES. Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can
efficiently handle. Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers agree to handle a case, they
should undertake the task with dedication and care. If they do any less, then they fail their lawyer's oath.
The court stated that the circumstances of the case indubitably show that after receiving the amount of
P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case
of complainant. His continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals his cavalier attitude
and appalling indifference toward his client's cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Not only
that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of the case that had
been entrusted to him. To top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him. Furthermore,
after going through her papers, respondent should have given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits
and the status of the case.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO
RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, complainant's eight thousand pesos
(P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well as the National
Office and the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. SO ORDERED.
 CANON 17

BRENNISEN v. ATTY. CONTAWI

(A.C. No. 7481, April 24, 2012)

FACTS:
Lorenzo Brennise, herein complainant, is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in San
Dionisio, Paraaque City covered by Transfer Certi1cate of Title (TCT) No. 21176 2 of the Register of Deeds
for the Province of Rizal. Being a resident of the United States of America (USA), he entrusted the
administration of the subject property to Atty. Ramon Contawi, the respondent, together with the
corresponding owner's duplicate title. Unbeknownst to complainant, however, respondent, through a
spurious Special Power of Attorney (SPA) 3 dated February 22, 1989, mortgaged and subsequently sold the
subject property to one Roberto Ho ("Ho"), as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale 4 dated November 15,
2001. As a result, TCT No. 21176 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 150814 5 issued in favor of Ho.
Thus, on April 16, 2007, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent for
having violated his oath as a lawyer, causing him damage and prejudice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Contawi violated his lawyer's oath when he mortgaged and sold
complainant's property, which was entrusted to him, without the latter's consent.

HELD:
Yes. The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of Commissioner De Mesa and the
IBP Board of Governors that respondent acted with deceit when, through the use of a falsified document,
he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale of his client's property for his personal benefit.
Indisputably, respondent disposed of complainant's property without his knowledge or consent, and
partook of the proceeds of the sale for his own beneft. His contention that he merely accommodated the
request of his then financially-incapacitated office assistants to confirm the spurious SPA is implausible, as
he was fully aware that complainant's signature reflected thereon was forged. As aptly opined by
Commissioner De Mesa, the fraudulent transactions involving the subject property were effected using the
owner's duplicate title, which was in respondent's safekeeping and custody during complainant's absence.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, having clearly violated his lawyer's
oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct,
is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

CANON 17

FORONDA VS. ATTY. ALVAREZ, JR.

(A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014)

FACTS:
Complainant, Almira C. Foronda sought the services of the respondent for the nullification of her
marriage and the latter agreed for a fee of P195,000.00. She expected the immediate filing of the petition for
the nullity of her marriage after the full payment of attorney's fees on June 10, 2008. However, the
respondent filed the said petition only on July 16, 2009. The respondent gave out different reasons for the
delay in an attempt to exculpate himself. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the week
after she signed the contract of service with the respondent, the latter invited her to be an investor in the
lending business allegedly ran by the respondent's sister-in-law. The respondent failed to pay the entire
obligation as promised and he issued security checks to the complainant twice, but both were dishonored
for being drawn against a closed account. The complainant seeks the disbarment of the respondent. In a
mandatory conference before the IBP-CBD, the Investigating Commissioner, recommended the penalty of
two years suspension from the practice of law with a warning that a repetition of the offenses shall merit a
heavier penalty. This was modified by the Board of Governors of the IBP and it directed the suspension of
the respondent from the practice of law for one year with warning that repetition of the similar conduct
shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Baldado v. Mejica). It cannot be
denied that the respondent's unfulfilled promise to settle his obligation and the issuance of worthless
checks have seriously breached the complainant's trust. The Court finds that the penalty of six months
suspension from the practice of law is commensurate, with a stern warning that a repetition of any of the
infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall merit a heavier penalty.

CANON 17

NONATO VS. ATTY. FUDOLIN, JR.

(A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015)

FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. replaced Atty. Garcia as representative of the
complainants father, the late Restituto Nonato in an ejectment proceeding filed before the MTC of
Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The complainant asserted that during the pendency of the ejectment
proceedings, the respondent failed to fully inform his father Restituto of the status and developments in
the case. Restituto could not contact the respondent despite his continued efforts. Respondent failed to file
his position paper despite notice from the MTC requiring him to do so. His omission greatly prejudiced his
client as the Court in fact dismissed the ejectment suit. The respondent wrote the complainant and
apologized for his repeated failure to communicate with him. He reasoned out that he failed to file the
position paper due to his poor health. In a Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation for the respondents suspension for one
month from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors denied the respondents motion to reconsider
the resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent could be held administratively liable for negligence in the
performance of duty.

HELD:
Yes. In this case, the record clearly shows that the respondent has been remiss in the performance
of his duties as Restituto's counsel. He neglected to file the required position paper, and did not give his
full commitment to maintain and defend his client's interests. Aside from failing to file the required
pleading, the respondent never exerted any effort to inform his client of the dismissal of the ejectment case.
The respondent's excuse that he had an undetected stroke and was suffering from other illnesses is
unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. The respondent could have requested an extension of time to
file the required position paper, or at the very least, informed his client of his medical condition. All told,
the respondent violated, among other things, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.

 CANON 17

VILLANUEVA VS. GONZALES

FACTS:
In 2000, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of transferring the title
over a piece of property located in Talisay, Cebu. Complainant, as mortgagee, wanted to transfer the title
to her name because the mortgagor failed to redeem the property within the redemption period and the
sheriff had already issued a sheriff's definite deed of sale in complainant's favor. Complainant gave
respondent P8,000 as acceptance fee, the property's TCT, and other pertinent documents.

After receiving the money, TCT, and other documents, respondent began to avoid complainant.
Whenever complainant went to respondent's office at BPI Building, Escario St., Cebu City, respondent's
secretary would tell her that respondent could not be disturbed because he was either sleeping or doing
something important.

In a letter dated 2 July 2003, complainant told respondent that she had lost her trust and confidence
in him and asked him to return the P8,000, TCT, and other documents. Respondent refused to return the
money, TCT, and other documents. After some time and after complainant's daughter confronted him,
respondent finally returned the money. However, until now, respondent has not returned the TCT and
other documents. Thus, complainant filed a complaint dated 10 September 2003 against respondent before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). ESHAIC

In an Order dated 7 October 2003, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered
respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. Respondent did not submit an answer. In an Orde dated
21 April 2004, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Rebecca Villanueva-Maala ordered respondent to
submit his answer to the complaint, and set the mandatory conference on 2 June 2004. Respondent did not
submit an answer or attend the mandatory conference. The Commission on Bar Discipline considered the
case submitted for resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client. Canon 18 of the Code states that "[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Clearly, respondent did not serve complainant with fidelity, competence, or diligence. He totally
neglected complainant's cause. An attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant was
established when respondent accepted the acceptance fee. Since then, he should have exercised due
diligence in furthering his client's cause and given it his full attention. Respondent did not
render any service.

Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he is bound by the Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In Emiliano Court Townhouses v. Atty. Dioneda, the Court held that the act of receiving money
as acceptance fee for legal services and subsequently failing to render such service is a clear violation of
Canons 17 and 18.
 CANON 17

PITCHER V. ATTY. GAGATE

(A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013)

FACTS:
Complainant Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Rustico B. Gagate to settle the business affairs of her deceased husband, David B. Pitcher (David).

Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Moscoso Bantegui (Bantegui) at the company
premises in order to discuss the settlement of Davids interest in the company. Subsequently, however,
respondent, without the consent of Bantegui, caused the change in the lock of the Consulting Edge office
door. This prompted Bantegui to file a complaint a complaint against complainant and respondent. In turn,
complainant and respondent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, whereby respondent undertook
the filing of the cases against Bantegui, for which complainant paid the amount of P150,000.00 as acceptance
fee and committed herself to pay respondent P1,000.00 for every court hearing.

Charge of grave coercion were filed against complainant and respondent and were issued warrants
of arrest against them. Due to the foregoing, respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he
had filed the necessary motions in court. Eventually, however, respondent abandoned the grave coercion
case and stopped communicating with complainant. Failing to reach respondent despite diligent efforts,
complainant filed an administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD).

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence.
In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause. However,
respondent abandoned his clients cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending.

Respondents act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to evade arrest in the criminal
case can hardly be maintained as proper legal advice since the same constitutes transgression of the
ordinary processes of law. By virtue of the foregoing, he remained unmindful of his clients trust in him
in particular, her trust that respondent would only provide her with the proper with the proper legal advice
in pursuing her interests.

 CANON 17

ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME VS ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO

(AC No. 10945, February 23, 2016)

FACTS:
Complainants Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame (Ramiscals) engaged the legal
services of respondent Atty. Edgar S. Orro to handle a case in which they were the defendants seeking the
declaration of the nullity of title to a parcel of land situated in the Province of Isabela. Upon receiving the
P10,000.00 acceptance fee from them, the respondent handled the trial of the case until the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) decided it in their favor. As expected, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA),
and they ultimately filed their appellants' brief. Upon receipt of the appellants' brief, the respondent
requested from the complainants an additional amount of P30,000.00 for the preparation and submission
of their appellees' brief in the CA. They obliged and paid him the amount requested.

Later on, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The respondent did not inform the Ramiscals of
the adverse decision of the CA which they only learned about from their neighbors. They endeavored to
communicate with the respondent but their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally reached him,
he asked an additional P7,000.00 from them as his fee in filing a motion for reconsideration in their behalf,
albeit telling them that such motion would already be belated. Even so, they paid to him the amount sought.
To their dismay, they later discovered that he did not file the motion for reconsideration; hence, the decision
attained finality, eventually resulting in the loss of their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable
worth of P3,391,600.00.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 17 of Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. As a member of the Law Profession in the Philippines, the respondent had the foregoing
professional and ethical burdens. But he obviously failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his
knowledge and discretion and with all good fidelity to his clients. By voluntarily taking up their cause, he
gave his unqualified commitment to advance and defend their interest therein. Even if he could not thereby
guarantee to them the favorable outcome of the litigation, he reneged on his commitment nonetheless
because he did not file the motion for reconsideration in their behalf despite receiving from them the
P7,000.00 he had requested for that purpose. He further neglected to regularly update them on the status
of the case, particularly on the adverse result, thereby leaving them in the dark on the proceedings that
were gradually turning against their interest. Updating the clients could have prevented their substantial
prejudice by enabling them to engage another competent lawyer to handle their case. As it happened, his
neglect in that respect lost for them whatever legal remedies were then available. His various omissions
manifested his utter lack of professionalism towards them.
 CANON 17

JOSE FRANCISCO BAENS VS ATTY JONATHAN SEMPIO

(AC No. 10378, June 9, 2014)

FACTS:
The complainant engaged the services of the respondent to represent him and file a case for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes V. Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint affidavit
dated March 15, 2010, the complainant alleged, among others, that the respondent: (1) despite receiving the
sum of P250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in the said case, failed to file the corresponding petition, and
it was the complainant's wife who successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08, for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage on December 8, 2008; (2) even with the complainant furnishing him a copy of the Summons
dated December 15, 2008, belatedly filed an Answer and was able to file it only on March 13, 2009 which
was after the 15-day period stated in the Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the
ground of improper venue as neither the complainant nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmarias,
Cavite; (4) never bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the
hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2403-08 was decided on October 27, 2009 without
the complainant being able to present his evidence.

The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violation of the Code and
recommended that the respondent be suspended for six (6) months from the practice of law. Specifically,
the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to the case and was
grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering the fact that he has already been fully
compensated.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The Court held that it cannot be doubted that the respondent violated Canon 17. The
respondent is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full
attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee
or for free. His reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process and his actions were
evidently prejudicial to his clients' interests. A lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not
merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly
representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing
and filing the reduced pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their
termination even without prodding from the client or the court.