No SCRA Ruling LEGETH Discussion

Case Ponente Person Involved When Where Details Issue Decision

. No.
24 Barcenas A.C. Peralta Respondent: Atty. April 23, On May 7, 2004, Barcenas, Whether or Yes. Atty. Alvero The decision of When a lawyer
v Atty. No. Anorlito A. Alvero 2010 the complainant in this case not Atty. breached 1.01 of finding Atty. receives money
Alvero 8159 and through her employee Alvero Canon 1 and Rules Alvero guilty of from a client for a
Complainant : Rodolfo San Antonio, breached Rule 16.01, 16.02 and misconduct particular purpose
Reynaria Barcenas entrusted to Atty. Alvero, 1.01 of Canon 16.03 of Canon 16 rendered by the the lawyer is bound
the respondent, the amount 1 and Rules of the Code of IBP-CBD Board to render an
of P300,000, which the 16.01, 16.02 Professional of Governors accounting to the
latter was supposed to give and 16.03 of Responsibility. was AFFIRMED. client showing that
to a certain Amanda Gasta Canon 16 of There is a clear the money was
to redeem the rights of his the Code of breach of lawyer- He is hereby spent for a
deceased father as tenant of Professional client relations. SUSPENDED for particular purpose
a ricefield located in Responsibility. When a lawyer a period of 2 And if he does not
Barangay San Benito, receives money years from the use the money for
Victoria, Laguna. from a client for a practice of law. the intended
particular purpose, purpose, the lawyer
The receipt of the money the lawyer is bound must immediately
was evidenced by an to render an return the money to
acknowledgment receipt accounting to the his client.
dated May 7, 2004. In the client showing that
said receipt, Atty. Alvero the money was
said that he would deposit spent for a
the money in court because particular purpose.
Amanda Gasta refused to And if he does not
accept the same. Later, use the money for
Barcenas found out that the intended
Atty. Alvero was losing a lot purpose, the lawyer
of money in cockfights. To must immediately
check if the money they return the money to
gave Atty. Alvero was still his client. These,
intact, Barcenas pretended Atty. Alvero failed
to borrow P80,000.00 from to do.
the P300,000.00 and Jurisprudence
promised to return the dictates that a
amount when needed or as lawyer who obtains
 soon as the case was set for possession of the
hearing. However, Atty. funds and
Alvero allegedly replied, properties of his
“Akala nyo ba ay madali client in the course
kunin ang pera pag nasa of his professional
korte na?” Thereafter, employment shall
Barcenas found out that deliver the same to
Atty. Alvero failed to his client (a) when
deposit the money in court, they become due,
but instead converted and or (b) upon demand.
used the same for his In the instant case,
personal needs. Despite respondent failed to
repeated demands to return account for and
the money, Atty. Alvero return the
refused. Hence, Barcenas P300,000.00 despite
filed a case with the IBP. complainant's
Atty. Alvero stressed that repeated demands.
there was no lawyer-client
relationship between him
and Barcenas. He, however,
insisted that the lawyer-
client relationship between
him and San Antonio still
subsisted as his service was
never severed by the latter.
He further emphasized that
he had not breached the
trust of his client, since he
had, in fact, manifested his
willingness to return the
said amount as long as his
lawyer-client relationship
with San Antonio subsisted.

25. Oria v A.C Ynares- Complainant: Jose E. Septembe Atty. Antonio K. Tupaz, Whether or Yes. The Court The Resolution The lawyer’s oath is
Tupaz No. Santiago Oria r 22, 2004. herein respondent, was not Atty. affirmed the of the IBP of a source of
5131 charged with negligence in Tupaz is recommendation of finding obligations and
Respondent: Antonio the performance of his negligent in his the IBP. respondent violation thereof is a
K. Tupaz duties as counsel to duties to his negligent in his ground for
complainant Jose E. Oria. client- There is no dispute duties to his suspension,
compliant. that a lawyer-client client is disbarment or other
The herein complainant filed relationship existed AFFIRMED. disciplinary action.
a legal action to recover his between the
wife’s unirrigated ricelands parties. After Atty. Tupaz is
located at Barangay Banuyo, respondent retired SUSPENDED
Gasan Marinduque which from the from the
were transferred pursuant government service, practice of law
to the Operation Land he agreed to for 6 months.
Transfer of the Agrarian represent
Reform Program, to the complainant as
alleged tenants in private counsel. He
connivance with Lourdes charged the amount
Argosino and Linda Rey, of Php 25, 000 as
filed personnel of the acceptance fee and
Marinduque Agrarian Office. received Php 5,000
as partial payment.
Thereafter, the complainant
went to the MARO and Once a lawyer
informed the Chief of the agrees to take up
Complainants Section of the the cause of a client,
said illegal transfer. On April the lawyer owes
1993, the Chief of Legal fidelity to such
Division, Ibra D. Omar Al Haj cause and must
sent a letter to always be mindful
complainant’s wife saying of the trust and
that their case has been confidence reposed
forwarded to the herein in him. He must
respondent. Thereafter, serve the client with
complainant consulted the competence and
latter about the said case diligence, and
and gave him money for champion the
expenses. The wife later on latter’s cause with
 found out that Atty. Tupaz wholeheartedly
had already retired and was fidelity, case, and
engaged in private practice. devotion.

Complainant further alleged

that when he went to the
Litigation Division of the
DAR on August 1999, he was
told by Atty. Ibra D. Omar Al
Haj, the files of the agrarian
case of the former’s wife
were missing from the
office. Thus, he filed the
instant complaint.
26. In re: A.M. Makasia A.M. No. 1162 August August 29, Oscar Landicho (who Whether or Yes. The court ruled Respondent Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of
Victorio No. r 29, 1975 1975 flunked in the 1971, 1968, not Atty. that it is evident that Victorio D. the Revised Rules of
D. 1162- and 1967 Bar Examinations) Lanuevo and Lanuevo has Lanuevo and Court of 1964
Lanuevo 1164 IN RE: VICTORIO D. wrote a confidential letter to Atty. Galang deceptively staged a Atty. Ramon E. candidates for
LANUEVO, former Bar plot to convince each Galang admission to the bar
the court about the startling should be are
Confidant and Deputy examiner individually must be of good
fact that the grade in one disbarred on hereby
Clerk of to re-evaluate the moral character.
Court, respondent.
examination (Civil Law) of at the g disbarred.
grades of Galang in
least one bar candidate was order to help him Respondent Bar
A.C. No. 1163 August raised for one reason or pass the bar without Examiners were
29, 1975 another, before the bar prior authorization of reminded to exercise
results were released that the Court. the greatest or utmost
IN RE: RAMON E. year and that there are care and vigilance in
GALANG, alias ROMAN grades in other examination His duty as a Bar the performance of
E. GALANG, 1971 Bar notebooks in other subjects Confident is limited their duties as such.
Examinee, respondent. that underwent alterations only as a custodian of
to raise the grades prior to the examination
A.M. No. 1164 August notebooks after they
the release of results.
29, 1975 are corrected by the
examiners where he is
The Court checked the tasked to tally the
IN RE: HON. BERNARDO
PARDO, HON. RAMON
records of the 1971 Bar general average of the
PAMATIAN, ATTY. Examinations and found that bar candidate. All
MANUEL TOMACRUZ, the grades in five subjects — requests for re-
 Political Law and Public
ATTY. FIDEL MANALO International Law, Civil Law,
and ATTY. GUILLERMO Mercantile Law, Criminal
PABLO, JR., Members, Law, and Remedial Law — of
1971 Bar Examining a successful bar candidate
Committee, respondent.
with office code no. 954,
Ramon Galang, underwent
some changes which,
however, were duly initialed
and authenticated by the
respective examiner
concerned.
Each of the five examiners in
his individual sworn
statement admitted having
re-evaluated and/or re-
checked the notebook
involved pertaining to his
subject upon the
representation to him by Bar
Confidant Lanuevo that he
has the authority to do the
same and that the examinee
concerned failed only in his
particular and/or was on the
borderline of passing.
The investigation showed
that the re-evaluation of the
examination papers of
Ramon E. Galang alias
Roman Galang, was
unauthorized, and therefore
he did noy obtain a passing
average in the 1971 Bar
evaluation of grades
from the bar exam
shall be made by the
candidate themselves.
With the facts fully
established that
Lanuevo initiated the
re-evaluation of the
exam answers of
Galang without the
authority of the Court,
he has breached the
trust and confidence
given to him by the
court and was
disbarred with his
name stricken out
from the rolls of
attorneys.
Galang was likewise
disbarred for
fraudulently
concealing the
criminal charges
against him in his
application for the bar
exam while under
oath constituting
perjury. The court
believed that the 5
bar examiners acted
in good faith and
thereby absolved
from the case but
reminded to perform
their duties with due
care.
Examinations.

Lanuevo admitted having

brought the five
examination notebooks of
Ramon E. Galang back to the
respective examiners for re-
evaluation or re-checking.
The five examiners having
re-evaluated or re-checked
the notebook to him by the
Bar Confidant. As
investigator conducted by
the NBI also showed that
Ramon Galang was charged
with the crime of slight
physical injuries committed
on certain de Vera, of the
same University. Confronted
with this information,
respondent Galang declared
that he does not remember
having been charged with
the crime of slight physical
injuries in that case. It must
also be noted that
immediately after the
official release of the results
of the 1971 Bar
Examinations, Lanuevo
gained possession of few
properties, including that of
a house in V+BF Homes,
which was never declared in
his declaration of assets and
liabilities. But Lanuevo’s
statement of assets and
liabilities were not taken up
during the investigation but
were examined as parts of
the records of the court.