VI.

DUTY OF THE LAWYER TO HIS CLIENTS

A. Duty not to Refuse to Provide His Services

NERY vs. SAMPANA

A.C. No. 10196, September 9, 2014

CARPIO, ACTING C. J. EN BANC

FACTS: A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Sampana for making his client believe that the
Petition for her Adoption by an alien adopter was already filed despite payment of fees.
According to Atty. Sampana he already prepared the Petition, but since Nery failed to furnish
him a copy of the Certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt from the Japanese Embassy,
he did not file the Petition.

ISSUE: Can a Certification of the alien’s qualification be dispensed with in a petition for

adoption by an alien adopter?

HELD: Yes, a certification of the alien’s qualification can be dispensed with in a petition for
adoption by an alien adopter. Under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, an alien adopter can
jointly adopt a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino
spouse, and the certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived. Hence, Atty.
Sampana could file the Petition for Adoption despite the absence of the said certification.
MICHAEL RUBY vs. ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT, Respondents.

FACTS:

The complainant alleged that he and his mother, Felicitas Ruby Bihla (Felicitas), engaged the services of
the respondents in connection with a case for cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation.

. Pursuant to the retainer agreement 2 dated August 29, 2009, the complainant and Felicitas would pay
Atty. Espejo the amount of P100,000.00 as acceptance fee

The complainant and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay the amount of P5,000.00 as appearance fee for
every hearing

On September 15, 2009, the complainant gave Atty. Espejo the amount of P50,000.00 as payment for
filing fee. However, the actual filing fee that was paid by her only amounted to 7,561.00; she failed to
account for the excess amount given her despite several demand letters therefor. Atty. Espejo allegedly
asked the complainant to give Atty. Bayot the amount of P30,000.00 – the remaining balance of the
acceptance fee agreed. The complainant asserted that the same was not yet due, but Atty. Espejo told
him that Atty. Bayot was in dire need of money. The complainant gave Atty. Bayot the amount
of P8,000.00 supposedly as partial payment.

On September 25, 2009, Atty. Espejo called the complainant informing him of the need to file a separate
petition for the issuance of a TRO. She allegedly asked for P50,000.00 to be used as "representation
fee."

On October 23, 2009, the complainant deposited the amount of P4,000.00 to the bank account of Atty.
Bayot as appearance fee for the hearing on the motion to serve summons through publications,
however, Atty. Bayot allegedly did not appear in court and instead met with the complainant at the
lobby of the Quezon City Hall of Justice, telling them that he already talked to the clerk of court who
assured him that the court would grant their motion

Thereafter, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to the status of his
complaint. He further claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied that he was their counsel. Atty.
Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone who was the counsel of the complainant and that he was
merely a collaborating counsel.

This prompted the complainant to file an administrative case with the Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.

Atty. Bayot claimed that he was not the counsel of the complainant; that he merely assisted him and
Atty. Espejo. He averred that Atty. Espejo, with the complainant’s consent, sought his help for the sole
purpose of drafting a complaint. He pointed out that it was Atty. Espejo who signed and filed the
complaint in the RTC. He further pointed out that he had no part in the retainer agreement that was
entered into by the complainant, Felicitas, and Atty. Espejo. As to the P12,000.00 that was given him, he
claimed that he was entitled to P4,000.00 thereof since the said amount was his appearance fee. On the
other hand, the P8,000.00 was paid to him as part of the acceptance fee. He denied requesting from the
complainant the amount of P4,000.00 as appearance fee, alleging that it was the latter who insisted on
depositing the same in his bank account.

Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the counsel of record of the complainant in the case before the RTC.
He pointed out that he had no part in the retainer agreement entered into by the complainant and Atty.
Espejo. Thus, Atty. Bayot claimed, the complainant had no cause of action against him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship exists between Atty. Bayot and the complainant?

RULING:

YES.

It is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in the case that was filed in the RTC. Equally
undisputed is the fact that it was only Atty. Espejo who signed the retainer agreement. However, the
evidence on record, including Atty. Bayot’s admissions, points to the conclusion that a lawyer-client
relationship existed between him and the complainant.

Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that was filed with the RTC. He was likewise the
one who prepared the motion to serve summons through publication. He likewise appeared as counsel
for the complainant in the hearings of the case before the RTC. He likewise advised the complainant on
the status of the case.

More importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted that he received P8,000.00, which is part of the acceptance fee
indicated in the retainer agreement, from the complainant. It is true that it was Atty. Espejo who asked
the complainant to give Atty. Bayot the said amount. However, Atty. Bayot admitted that he accepted
from the complainant the said P8,000.00 without even explaining what the said amount was for.

The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client relationship existed between Atty.
Bayot and the complainant. "Documentary formalism 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."28
Further, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.29 Accordingly, as
regards the case before the RTC, the complainant had two counsels – Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.

Accordingly, Atty. Bayot owes fidelity to the cause of the complainant and is obliged to keep the latter
informed of the status of his case. He is likewise bound to account for all money or property collected or
received from the complainant. He may be held administratively liable for any inaptitude or negligence
he may have had committed in his dealing with the complainant.
 Jessie Campugan vs A y. Victorio, Jr. and A y. Caluya (Quilala)

FACTS:

A y. Victorio, Jr. had replaced A y. Edgardo Abad as counsel of the complainants in a civil ac on seeking
annulment of a TCT.

The par es entered into an amicable se lement during the pendency of the civil case whereby
complainants agreed to sell the property and the proceeds therof shall be divided equally between the
par es, and the complaint and counterclaims thereon would be withdrawn by them.

Pursuant to such term, A y. Victorio, Jr. led a Mo on to Withdraw Complaint which the RTC granted.
Since then, A y. Victorio could no longer be located nor contact.

Complainants then found out upon veri ca on in the Register of Deeds in Q.C. that new annota ons were
made in the TCT, speci cally (1) an annota on reques ng the cancella on of the a davit of adverse claim,
no ce of lispendens, and (2) an annota on of the decision gran ng the mo on to withdraw complaint.

Feeling aggrieved, the led an appeal en consulta with the LRA assailing the unlawful cancella on of their
no ce ofadverse claim and lis pendends thereon.

Unable to receive any response or assistance from A y. Victorio Jr. despite their having paid him for
hisprofessional services, the complainants felt that said counsel had abandoned their case. They also
submi edthat there was connivance and conspiracy at work between A y. Victorio, A y. Tolen no and, A
y. Quilala intaking advantage of their posi on in cancelling their no ce of adverse claims and lis pendens
without a courtorder.

A y. Victorio, Jr. assserted in his comment that the complainants, a er having aggressively par cipated in
theamicable se lement, could not now claim that they had been deceived nor feign ignorance of the
condi onscontained therein: that he did not commit any abandonment reasoning that he should not be
held responsiblefor their representa on in other proceedings, such as that before the LRA, which
required a separateengagement.

Issue: Whether A y. Victorio, Jr. should be disbarred for not assis ng complainants in their separate
proceedingin the LRA..

Held: No. A y. Victorio, jr. could not be held liable for abandonment.

A orney-Client Rela onship; The Law Profession did not burden its members with the responsibility of
inde niteservice to the clients; hence, the rendi on of professional services depends on the agreement
between the aorney and the client.

A y. Victorio, jr. could not be faulted for the perceived ina en on to any other ma ers subsequent to the
terminaon of the Civil case. Unless otherwise expressly s pulated between them at any me during the
engagement, thecomplainants had no right to assume that A y. Victorio's legal representa on was inde
nite as to extend to hisrepresenta on of them in the LRA.
A y. Victorio, Jr.'s alleged failure to respond to the complainants' calls or visits, or to provide them with
hiswhereabouts to enable them to have access to him despite the termina on of his engagement in the
civil casedid not equate to abandonment without the credible showing that he con nued to come under
the professionalobliga on towards them a er the termina on of the Civil Case