You are on page 1of 2

Atty. Solidon v Atty. Macalalad Spouses Aranda v Atty.

Elayda
- Atty. Solidon sought the disbarment of Atty. - Spouses Aranda filed a complaint, charging
Macalalad for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule their former counsel, Atty. Elayda, with gross
18.03, and Rule 18.04 of the CPR involving negligence or gross misconduct in handling
negligence in handling a care.
their case. In the case where they are
- Macalalad (Chief of Legal Division of DENR, defendants, they alleged that Atty. Elayda’s
allowed to practice law) was on official visit handling of their case was “sorely inadequate,
when he was introduced to Solidon. He asked as shown by his failure to follow elementary
Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a norms of civil procedure and evidence”.

parcel of land. He accepted then received - Alleged that on a hearing of the case, the
initial payment, remaining will be paid when he notice was sent to Atty. Elayda and he did not
receive the certificate of title of the property.
inform the spouses Aranda despite their follow
- Macalalad has not filed any petition for up. Both did not appear in the hearing. Atty.
registration of the property sought to be titled. Elayda did not do anything to have it
Complainant claimed he tried to contact reconsidered and the court ended judgment
respondent to follow-up on the status of the adverse to spouses Aranda in which they are
case through calls, messages and even known totally unaware because no copy was sen to
acquaintances and relatives, and through a them. Atty. Elayda did not file a notice of
courier to Macalalad. However, he did not appeal hence the judgment became final and
respond.
executory then a writ of execution was issued.
- In his Answer, Macalalad posited that the delay Only then they became aware of the judgment
in the filing was caused by his client’s failure to when the Sheriff took possession of their
communicate with him. He explained that he Pajero.

had no intention of reneging on his obligation - In his Answer, Atty. Elayda said the case was
as he had already prepared the draft but failed referred to him after the complainant and their
to file because he still lacked the needed former counsel failed to appear in Court. That
evidence that his clients should have the spouses Aranda did not contact him to
furnished. Macalalad denied that complainant prepare for the case. He asked for
tried to communicate with him.
postponement to confer with them but they
- IBP found that their mutual acquaintance were not around (can’t contact them, no
repeatedly followed-up with respondent but number left). That they did not contact him.
turned a deaf ear towards the same. (the spouses admitted that they only tried to
Respondent failed to present reasonable contact him when the writ of execution was
excuse for the non-filing. It was plain being implemented)

negligence contrary to the mandate prescribed - He violated Canon 17, 18, and 19. He is duty
in Rule 18.03 of the CPR which enjoins a bound to safeguard the interest of his client
lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted with utmost diligence. He was expected to
to him and it even provides that his negligence monitor the progress of the case and exert all
shall render him liable.
effort within the bounds of law.

- The Court consistency held, in construing the - While it is true that communication is a shred
Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to responsibility between them, it is the counsel’s
perform the obligations due to the client is primary duty to inform his clients of the status
considered per se a violation. The of their case. He cannot just wait for the clients
circumstance that the client was also at fault to inquire. It is basic that he should get their
does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for contact details but he didn’t.

his negligence in handling a case. A lawyer - Also: he was at another hearing??

cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to - Atty. Elaysa was suspended for 6 months.

follow up on his case because it was the


lawyer’s duty to inform his client of the status
of the case. He shall protect the client’s
interest with utmost diligence, within the
bounds of law.

- Suspended for 6 months for violation of Rule


16.03 and 18.03 of the CPR.

Atty. Briones v Atty. Jimenez


Rural Bank of Calape, Inc (RBCI) Bohol v Atty.
- Atty. Briones file a complaint for disbarment Florido
against Atty. Jimenez for violation of forum- - Complaint for disbarment was filed by the
shopping and Rule 19.01 and Rule 12.08 of members of the Board of Directors of RBCI
CPR.
against Atty. Florido for “acts constitution
- Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the grave coercion and threats when he, as
Estate of Luz Henson. Respondent Atty. counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI,
Jimenez is the counsel of the heirs of the late led his clients in physically taking over the
Luz Henson.
management and operation of the bank
- Atty. Jimenez filed with the CA a petition for through force, violence and intimidation.

certiorari assailing the Order appointing the - RCBI alleged that respondent and his clients,
firm of Alba, Romeo, and Co to conduct an through force and intimidation, with the use of
audit at the expense of the late Henson. He armed men, forcibly took over the
then filed a petition for Mandamus alleging that management and the premises of RBCI. That
the respondent Judge therein unlawfully they forcibly evicted the bank manager,
refused to comply with his ministerial duty to destroyed the bank’s vault, and installed their
approve their appeal.
own staff to run the bank.

- Atty. Briones contends that the heirs of - Respondent denied RBCI’s allegations. He
Henson, represented by respondent, are guilty explained that he acted in accordance with the
of forum shopping thus petition shall be authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-
dismissed. (found NG, diff cause of action)
Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly
- Also, complainant claims that respondent elected BoD of RBCI. He said he’s merely
violated Rule 19.02 when they file unfounded effecting a lawful change of management. He
criminal complaint against him to obtain said a termination notice was sent to the bank
improper advantage in Special Proceeding.
manager but he refused so they asked him to
- In his Comment, respondent contends that step down to ensure smooth transition but he
when he assisted the heirs in filing a criminal acted violently. And that they also changed the
case against complainant, he was merely vault’s lock.

fulfilling his legal duty to take the necessary - According to the IBP Commissioner,
steps to protect the interest of his clients.
respondent knew that his clients could not just
- The Court found he violated 19.01 as records take over the management without valid court
reveal that before respondent assisted the order as the right to the management of RBCI
heirs in filing the criminal complaint, he sent was still pending before the trial court in civil
demand letters to comply with the order to case.

deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs. - Lawyers are instruments of justice and peace.
Considering that complainant did not reply, Their duty to protect their client’s interest is
respondent opted to file said criminal secondary to their obligation to assist in the
complaint in behalf of his client for refusal to speedy and efficient administration of justice.
obey the lawful order of the Court. (should’ve While they are obliged to present to their client
filed proper motion to RTC so they could every available legal remedy, their fidelity to
determine and define the subject residue, filing their client must always be made within the
of the criminal complaint was premature)
parameters of law and ethics. Lawyer’s duty is
- He claims he merely assisted and exercised not to his client but to the administration of
utmost prudence, but fair play demands that justice.

respondent should have filed the proper - Atty. Florido was found guilty of violating
motion to attain goal.
Canon 19, and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of CPR.
- Canon 19 of CPR enjoins a lawyer to represent Suspend for 1 year.

his client with zeal. However, the same canon


provides that its performance must be within
the bounds of law (19.01).

- Atty. Jimenez was found guilty and


reprimanded for violation of Rule 19.01 of CPR
(failed to live up to this expectation but no
evidence that he acted in bad faith.