A.C. No. 620 March 21, 1974 was fair and justified.
was fair and justified. It is no less true, however, that in failing to inform
JOSE ALCALA and AVELINA IMPERIAL, petitioners,
vs.
HONESTO DE VERA, respondent
FACTS:
In a civil case for annulment of a sale of 2 lots filed by one
Semenchuk against Sps. Alcala on the ground that one of the lots cannot
be located or did not exist, herein respondent represented sps. Alcala.
Trial Court rendered judgement rescinding the contract of sale on the
ground that Semenchuk was not able to take material possession of the
lot in question and that it has been occupied by one Ruperto Ludovice
and his brothers for a number of years already.
On April 19, 1963, respondent Atty. de Vera received a copy
of the decision but he failed to inform his clients of the judgment against
them. On July 17, 1963, a sheriff came to complainants' house to serve
a writ of executionissued in said case. Totally caught by surprise, Jose
Alcala immediately wrote to the trial court and inquired for the status of
case 2478. The deputy Clerk of Court, in his reply dated July 22, 1963,
informed Alcala that the case was decided on April 17, 1963, that a copy
of the decision was received by respondent attorney on April 19, 1963,
and that since no appeal was taken, a writ of execution was issued by
the trial court on motion of the plaintiff Semenchuk.
spouses Alcala instituted civil case 2723 for damages against
Atty. Honesto de Vera for having failed to inform them of the decision in
case 2478 as a result of which they lost their right to appeal from said
decision. The court denied it for failure to show that they indeed
suffered damages.
Complainants instituted this complaint for disbarment
against their former counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not disbarment is proper.
HELD:
For indifference, loyalty and lack of interest of respondent in
handling complainant's defense.
The evidence proving existence of lot offered by sps. Alcala
which respondent allegedly failed to present was rendered unnecessary
for the commissioner appointed already reported that the lot existed
but the same was in the possession of other persons. The fact that the
plaintiff, Semenchuk, was not awarded any damages, attorney's fees,
and costs shows that respondent attorney exerted his utmost to resist
plaintiff's complaint.
For gross negligence and malpractice committed by
respondent for failure to inform his clients of the decision in the civil case.
Petitioners do not appear to have suffered any material or
pecuniary damage by the failure of respondent Atty. De Vera to notify
them of the decision in Civil Case No. 2478 since the decision rendered
The respondent represented Mrs. Jalandoni in a civil case. Utmost trust
his clients, the petitioners, of the decision in said civil case, respondent
failed to exercise "such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal
profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of
professional employment"
The correctness of the decision in the civil case is no ground
for exonerating respondent of the charge but at most will serve only to
mitigate his liability. While there is no finding of malice, deceit, or
deliberate intent to cause damage to his clients, there is, nonetheless,
proof of negligence, inattention, and carelessness on the part of
respondent in his failure to give timely notice of the decision in question.
Fortunately for respondent, his negligence did not result in any material
or pecuniary damage to the herein complainants and for this reason We
are not disposed to impose upon him what may be considered in a
lawyer's career as the extreme penalty of disbarment.
The disbarment of an attorney is not intended as a
punishment, but is rather intended to protect the administration of
justice.
Act of respondent manifests a lack of total dedication or
devotion to their interest expected of him under his lawyer's oath and
the Canons of Professional Ethics. Respondent's inaction merits a severe
censure from the Court.
GUILTY only of simple negligence in the performance of his duties as a
lawyer of complainants, and We hereby SEVERELY CENSURE him
A.C. No. 5303
June 15, 2006
Lim Jr. vs. Atty: Villarosa
FACTS:
Respondents was the lawyer of Lumot A. Jalandoni a Chairman or
President of Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC). That Mrs. Jalandoni has
two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuena married to her daughter,
Carmen J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein complainant
married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
That Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni organized a corporation namely the Penta
Resorts Corporation (PRC) where she owned almost ninety seven
percent (97%). In other words, in reality, Penta Resorts Corporation is a
single proprietorship belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni. That the only
property of the corporation is as above-stated, the Alhambra Hotel,
constructed solely through the effort of the spouses Jalbuena on that
parcel of land.
and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and
confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his
client were entrusted to the respondent. The latter was provided with
all the necessary information relative to the property in question and
likewise on legal matters affecting the corporation (PRC) particularly
involving problems which affect Hotel Alhambra. Said counsel was
privy to all transactions and affairs of the corporation/hotel.
The respondent handled the entire case and sometime presented Mrs.
Jalandoni as a witness, eventually respondent filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel for Mrs. Jalandoni without any approval or
knowledge form the said client, which resulted to irreparable injury to
Mrs. Jalandoni because it suffered unexpected defeat.
Thereafter, spouse’s jalbuena was sued by PRC for estafa, and the
respondent represented the spouse’s jalbuena before the city
Prosecutor of Bacolod. In his contention the respondent said there is a
retainership agreement between them and Dennis Jalbuena and that
he cannot refuse to the said client.
A case was filed against the respondent, due to conflict of interest to
his clients and for not releasing the significant documents which
belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni or PRC and which was allegedly used for the
benefit or advantage of Spouses Jalbuena in the case filed against them
by PRC.
ISSUE:
Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented
and handled by respondent
Whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of
record in Civil Case
HELD: Yes
1. 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.
The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided but also those in
which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
thereof, and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the previous
employment. The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the
opposing parties are present clients either in the same action or in a
totally unrelated case; the second part pertains to those in which the
adverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former client in
a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the present
controversy.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or
not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases.
The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties connection to
PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named
as party-litigant in some of the cases mentioned.
An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being
retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for his
client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with that
of his client in the same general matter. The prohibition stands even if
the adverse interest is very slight; neither is it material that the
intention and motive of the attorney may have been honest.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence
of the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of
the facts, constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the
lawyer to disciplinary action.
Even respondents alleged effort to settle the existing controversy
among the family members was improper because the written consent
of all concerned was still required. A lawyer who acts as such in settling
a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.
2. No
Canon 22 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of
his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in
which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new
lawyer is recorded in the case. A lawyer who desires to retire from an
action without the written consent of his client must file a petition for
withdrawal in court. He must serve a copy of his petition upon his
client and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for The complainant and his relatives were among the investors who fell
hearing, otherwise the court may treat the application as a mere scrap prey to the pyramiding scam perpetrated by ICS Corporation led by
of paper. Respondent made no such move. He admitted that he Emilia Sison and several others. They engaged the services of Atty. Era
withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was to represent and assist him and his relatives in the prosecution of
supposedly approved by the court on April 28, 1999. The conformity of criminal case against Sison and her group.
Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa because of the
appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place.
Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter
demanding the return or refund of the money subject of their
The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for
complaints. He also prepared the complaint-affidavit that Samson
respondent but to act as additional counsel. Mrs. Jalandonis
signed and swore to and subsequently presented to the Office of the City
conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean
Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCPQC). After the preliminary investigation,
conformity to respondents desire to withdraw as counsel.
the OCPQC formally charged Sison and the others with several counts of
Respondent’s speculations on the professional relationship of Atty.
estafa in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 (RTC), in Quezon City.
Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case.
Respondent should not have presumed that his motion to withdraw as
In April 2003, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives to
counsel would be granted by the court. Yet, he stopped appearing as
discuss the possibility of an amicable settlement with Sison and her
Mrs. Jalandonis counsel beginning April 28, 1999, the first hearing date.
cohorts. He told Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the
No order from the court was shown to have actually granted his
cases would just be a waste of time, money and effort for them, and that
motion for withdrawal. Only an order dated June 4, 1999 had a
they could settle the cases with Sison and her group, with him
semblance of granting his motion:
guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property located in
Antipolo City belonging to ICS Corporation in exchange for their
That Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminaza professional
desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance he
engagement on her behalf despite respondents withdrawal did not
prepared, and in turn they received a deed of assignment covering land
absolve the latter of the consequences of his unprofessional conduct,
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-4475 executed by
especially in view of the conflicting interests already discussed.
Sison in behalf of ICS Corporation.
Respondent himself stated that his withdrawal from Civil Case No. 97-
9865 was due to the possibility of a conflict of interest.
After an amicable settlement and several negotiations with Sison
Be that as it may, the records do not support the claim that respondent
and her cohorts, Atty. Era expressed that he already accomplished his
improperly collected P5,000 from petitioner. Undoubtedly, respondent
professional responsibility towards Samson. They also later found out
provided professional services to Lumot A. Jalandoni. Furthermore,
that they could not liquidate the property subject to the amicable
there is no evidence that the documents belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni
settlement. During the hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore
were deliberately withheld. The right of an attorney to retain
appear for Samson and his group. They found out that Atty. Era had
possession of a client’s documents, money or other property which
already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her
may have lawfully come into his possession in his professional capacity,
other criminal cases involving the same pyramiding scam.
until his lawful fees and disbursements have been fully paid, is well-
established.
On January 20, 2005, Samson executed an affidavit alleging the
foregoing antecedents and prayed for Atty. Era’s disbarment on the
ground of his violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in
him as their counsel.
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent. Atty. Era was required to file his Comment. After several extensions,
Atty. Era finally filed his Comment on April 11, 2006 in the OBC. He
alleged that the lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his
group entered into the compromise settlement.
The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.
IBP Recommendation: the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Era
guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests, failing to
serve his client with competence and diligence and champion the latter’s
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion – suspended from
the practice of law for 6 months
IBP Board of Governors: adopted and approved the IBP
recommendation with modification that Atty. Era be suspended from
the practice of law for 2 years.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Era violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
on conflict of interests.
Ruling.
YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP.
The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate when the parties
entered into a compromise settlement, for the fact remained that he
still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well as
to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or
otherwise concluded by the trial court. It is also relevant to indicate that
the execution of a compromise settlement in the criminal cases did not
ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because the
approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also
because the compromise would have applied only to the civil aspect, and
excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of the Civil Code.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts." Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to
their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense
of their rights. He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to
preserve the clients’ cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his
clients likewise served the ends of justice.
Contrary to Atty. Era’s ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to
Samson and his group, the termination of the attorney-client
relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to
or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is
that the client’s confidence once given should not be stripped by the
mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after the
severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will
injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer
previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use
any of the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation. In this
regard, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly
declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."
The lawyer’s highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client
at all hazards and costs even to himself. The protection given to the
client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing to employ the attorney
and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them.
It even survives the death of the client.
In the absence of the express consent from Samson and his group after
full disclosure to them of the conflict of interest, therefore, the most
ethical thing for Atty. Era to have done was either to outrightly decline
representing and entering his appearance as counsel for Sison, or to
advice Sison to engage another lawyer for herself. Unfortunately, he did
neither, and should now suffer the proper sanction.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA
guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for two years effective upon his receipt of this decision, with a warning
that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
NOTES:
Prohibition against conflict of interest rests on 5 rationales, rendered
as follows:
1st : the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent
them with undivided loyalty
2nd : the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance the
effectiveness of legal representation
3rd : a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the client’s
confidential information
4th : conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients,
such as by inducing a client to make a gift to the lawyer
5th : some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal
system in obtaining adequate presentations to tribunals.
Reason: the rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The
nature of their relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D. RABANAL VS. ATTY.
FAUSTINO F. TUGADE
A.C. NO. 1372. JUNE 27, 2002
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant spouses
Cayetano and Lirio Rabanal against Atty. Faustino F. Tugade. It is alleged
that respondent, as counsel for complainant Cayetano Rabanal, did not
file the appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals despite having been
granted by the appellate court an extension of time to file the same, as
a result of which the appeal filed by Cayetano was dismissed and the
decision of the then Circuit Criminal Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan
became final and executory.
Respondent claims however that he was not the counsel of complainant
Cayetano Rabanal prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration
before the Court of Appeals and he could not be held responsible for the
dismissal of complainant’s appeal for failure of counsel to file the
appellant’s brief.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer should be disciplined
Held:
Yes. The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that
there was a professional relationship which merits attorney’s fees for
professional services rendered. A written contract is not an essential
element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express
or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent
to his profession. In this case, complainant sought and received legal
advice from respondent Tugade, who admitted that he agreed to sign
the appellant’s brief to be filed and that he received P600.00 from
complainant spouses. It is therefore clear that a lawyer-client
relationship existed between the two. He thus violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
RULE 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
RULE 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.