MAGLENTE v.

AGCAOILI
A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Facts:
Complainant, as President of Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma.Corazon III, Inc. (Samahan), alleged that he
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in order to determine the true owner of the
land being occupied by the members of Samahan. In connection therewith, he gave respondent P48,000.00
intended to cover the filing fees, as evidenced by a written acknowledgment executed by respondent himself.
Respondent failed to file an action in court and explained that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay
for the filing fees in court. Complainant asked for the return of the money, but respondent claimed to have spent
the same and even demanded more money. Complainant further alleged that when he persisted in seeking
restitution of the aforesaid sum, respondent told him to shut up because it was not his money in the first place.

Issue:
W/N respondent violated the CPR.

Ruling:
Yes. Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR states: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is
duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence, care, and
devotion, whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed upon him
PENA vs. APARICIO

A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

Tinga, J.

Facts:
Atty. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the NLRC against
Pena. Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless. Thereafter,
Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. Through his letter, he
threatened complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would
file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion,
falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.

Issue:
WON Aparicio violated the CPR
Ruling:
YES. Rule 19.01. of Canon 19 of the CPR states: A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. In the
case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail.
Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in
the public prints,…obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an
accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice." The letter
contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his
client's claim for separation pay.