#1. TEODORO R. RIVERA V.

ANGELES
(SUSPENSION: 1 YEAR ---- guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client)
LAWYER’S OATH, RULE 1.01, CANON 16, RULE 16.01

FACTS:
Atty. Sergio Angeles was the counsel of record of the complainants in the civil cases where they obtained
a favourable decision in their favour and for which a writ of execution was issued in said cases. Unfortunately, no
leviable property was found in the premises of defendants. Eventually, complainants found out that Mr. Rodolfo
M. Silva, one of the defendants in said cases had already given Atty. Angeles a partial settlement of the judgment
in the amount of P42, 999.00 without their knowledge. Atty. Angeles never informed them nor remitted the same
even a part of it. Complainants thereafter sent a demand letter but received no reply, consequently, they filed a
complaint for disbarment against respondent
Respondent denied the accusations and claimed that he had the right to retain the amount and to apply
the same for his professional fees under the subsequent agreement first with Teodoro Rivera and later with Mrs.
Dely Rivera as embodied in the Deed of assignment or under the previous agreement of P20% of P206, 000.00, but
this fact was denied by complainants.
However, due to respondent’s failure to appear on scheduled hearings, the SOLGEN considered the case
submitted for resolution by declaring his right to present evidence as considered waived.
I.C. Julio C. Elamparo found respondent Angeles guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 and recommended his indefinite suspension.
BOG adopted said report and recommendation and modified the penalty to suspension from the practice
of law for 1 year for being guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client.

ISSUE:
W/N RESPONDENT ANGELES HAD VIOLATED THE CPR.

HELD:
YES, respondent was found guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client, and hence, violated the
following:

LAWYER’S OATH and RULE 1.01 ---- for failure to live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The SC
repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer’s equipment in the
practice of his profession. For it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably
diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.

CANON 16 and Rule 16.01 ---- for appropriating the subject amount all to himself. The Court is not
oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should
not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be
an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.

The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his
client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his
clients. There should never be an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his
own lawyer.