1

COMPILATION OF CASE DIGESTS

ASSIGNMENTS 4 - 7

PASIA, PAMELA G.
JD1-A

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

JUDGE ELMER H. ALEA

 2

ASSIGNMENT NO. 4

WALTER T. YOUNG vs. CEASAR G. BATUEGAS

A.C. No. 5379.
May 9, 2003

FACTS:
Atty. Walter T. Young filed a complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar
Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno Llantino and Franklin Q. Susa for allegedly
committing deliberate falsehood in court and violating the lawyer's oath.

Counsels for accused filed a Manifestation w/ Motion for Bail alleging that
their client voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority but when in fact
accused was only in custody as shown by the Certificate of Detention executed
by Atty. Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management Division
of the NBI.

Clerk of court, Susa, also a respondent on this case filed the motion on Dec
15, 2000 despite the irregularities of the case of (lack of notice of hearing to
the private complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and failure to
attach the Certificate of Detention which was referred to in the Motion as
Annex

ISSUE:
WON the counsel is guilty of deliberate falsehood in declaring custody of
the accused.

HELD
Yes. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a
contemptuous conduct that the court strongly condemn. They violated their
oath when they resorted to deception.

Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is

required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at least, he must be asked
for his recommendation. In the case at bar, the prosecution was served with
notice of hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled date.
Although a motion may be heard on short notice, respondents failed to show
any good cause to justify the non-observance of the three-day notice rule.
Verily, as lawyers, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not
to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
 3

Clerk of court should not be made administratively liable for including the
Motion in the calendar of the trial court, considering that it was authorized by
the presiding judge. However, he is reminded that his administrative
functions, although not involving the discretion or judgment of a judge, are
vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. Thus, he should not
hesitate to inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on the part of
lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of procedure.
Batuegas, Nazareno and LLantino are hereby suspended for 6 months.
Complaint against Susa, dismissed for lack of merit.

TEODORO I. CHAVEZ vs. ATTY. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA

Adm. Case No. 2152
April 19, 1991

FACTS:
This is a complainant of Teodoro Chavez who prayed for the
disbarment of respondent Escolastico R. Viola, a member of the Philippine
Bar, for gross misconduct or malpractice. The letter-complaint stated that
respondent Viola was engaged by Felicidad Alvendia, Jesus Alvendia and
Jesus Alvendia, Jr. as their counsel in connection with Civil Case filed
sometime in 1966 with the then CFI Bulacan against Teodoro Chavez, Lucia
dela Cruz, Alpon dela Cruz and Eugenio dela Cruz.

In the complaint respondent alleged, on behalf of the Alvendias that

Felicidad Alvendia and Jesus Alvendia were the holders of Foreshore Lease
Applications covering portions of public land situated in Barrio Baluarte in
Bulacan, and that lease contracts had been executed in their favor by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Chavez then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Viola. Chavez said
that because of the conflicting claims that Viola prepared in behalf of his
clients, he had willingly aided in and consented to the pursuit, promotion and
prosecution of a false and unlawful application for land registration, in
violation of his oath of office as a member of the Bar. The CFI dismissed the
complaint filed for non-appearance of the Alvendias.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Viola is in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
 4

HELD:
Yes. It is clear to the Court that respondent Viola violated his lawyer’s
oath and as well Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which stated
that “the conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should
be characterized by candor and fairness”. He has been deplorably lacking in
the candor required of him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
In his apparent zeal to secure the title to the property involved for his clients,
he disregarded his overriding duty to the court and to the law itself.

Respondent Escolastico R. Viola is guilty of committing a falsehood

in violation of his lawyer’s oath and of the CPR, the Court resolved to suspend
respondent from the practice of law for a period of 5 months.

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER

SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
Adm. Case No. 7006
October 9, 2007

FACTS:

Luis Bucalon, was found to be guilty of homicide and not murder with
the evidence as basis. Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to fix
that amount of bail bond, with which Senior state prosecutor and deputized
prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo contests stating that murder
is non-bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration
which was consequently denied. Atty. Bagabuyo resorted to the media, after
he was ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this time at Radio
Station DXKS. He attacked once again Judge Tan and his disposition on the
proceedings of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza.
Judge Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused,
declaring that the evidence thus presented by the prosecution was sufficient
to prove the crime of homicide and not the charge of murder. Consequently,
the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond.
Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State Prosecutor and the
deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto mainly on the ground that
the original charge of murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not
subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
 5

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of Professional
Conduct.

HELD:

As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority
of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken.
Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutions
which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky foundation. It
is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude.

The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges
but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so,
precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.

Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05,

Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the CPR, and of violating the Lawyer’s
Oath, for which he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year effective
upon finality of this Decision.

JORGE MONTECILLO vs. FRANCISCO M. GICA

No. L-36800
October 21, 1974

FACTS:
Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of Slander. Atty. Del
Mar represented Montecillo and he successfully defended Montecillo in the
lower court. Atty. Del Mar was also able to win their counterclaim thus the
lower court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.
Atty. Del Mar moved for a reconsideration of the Appellate Court's decision
with a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
on "knowingly rendering unjust judgment" and "judgment rendered through
negligence", and that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be deceived. Court
of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration. Atty. Del Mar then fled a
second Motion for Reconsideration where he again made threats. The CA then
ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should not be punished for
contempt.
 6

Atty. Del Mar sent three CA Justices a copy of a letter which he sent
to the President of the Philippines asking the said justices to consider the CA
judgement. CA did not reverse its judgment. Eventually, the CA suspended
Atty. Del Mar from practice. The issue reached the SC and Atty. Del Mar
asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA decision as to the
Montecillo case. The SC denied both. Del Mar also intimated that even the
Supreme Court is among “the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly
committing injustice.”
Atty. Del Mar also filed a case against SC justices before the CFI
Cebu but the Judge who handled the case dismissed the same because under
the jurisdiction of American laws, that a justice of the SC of the Philippines
cannot be held civilly liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.

RULING:
Yes. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful
attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and
authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has
taken. Atty. Del Mar’s contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the
courts. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build
and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so
essential to the power administration of justice. Respondent Atty. Quirico del
Mar for his misconduct towards the Supreme Court, is suspended from the
practice of law until further orders of this Court.

FOODSPHERE, INC., vs. ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR

A.C. No. 7199
July 22, 2009

FACTS:
On June 22, 2004, a certain Alberto Cordero allegedly bought from a
grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver
spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with
the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered
a colony of worms inside the can. Cordero’s wife thus filed a complaint with
the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD). Laboratory
examination confirmed the presence of parasites in the Liver spread.
 7

Respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which put

complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31-September 6, 2004 issue
of Balitang Patas BATAS, he wrote an article captioned “kadiri ang cdo liver
spread!” In another article, he wrote “iba pang produkto ng cdo silipin!” which
appeared in the same publication
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several
others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel. The complaints were
pending at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint.
Despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a
status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and
broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent
continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Held:

The Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession,
a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.

The respondent’s acts of asking for exorbitant fees against the

petitioner even to the point of harassing and compelling the same to purchase
advertisement slots in his program in the guise of public service do not
convince. In fact, such acts constitute blatant disregard of the ethics which
must be upheld by members of the legal profession. Verily, the practice of law
is not a right but a privilege with a high burden to be dignified at all times.
Indeed, the acts of the petitioner not only amount to dishonoring and
discrediting those in the legal profession but also those engaged in the media
profession. Hence, the disciplinary action against respondent is warranted and
justified.

Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and breach
of ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, suspended from the practice of law for three years effective
upon his receipt of this Decision.
 8

ASSIGNMENT NO. 5

WILLIAM S. UY vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES

Adm. Case No. 5280
March 30, 2004

FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and
file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with
respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees
and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be
filed before the Regional Trial Court.

Respondent went to complainant’s office demanding a certain amount

other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent left his office after
reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was
shocked to find out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of
a new certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint against him with
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public Documents.
Respondent claims that he gave complainant a handwritten letter telling
complainant that he is withdrawing the petition he prepared and that
complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition thereby terminating
the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant; that there was
no longer any professional relationship between the two of them when he filed
the letter-complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts and
allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were culled from
public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds.

The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the
Canons of Professional Responsibility and recommended for his suspension
for 6 months.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?

HELD:

No. The facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification
of Public Documents filed by respondent against complainant were obtained
by respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent
volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the
land he has redeemed from complainant. Clearly, there was no attorney-client
relationship between respondent and complainant. The proposed filing of the
petition was only incidental to their personal transaction. When respondent
 9

filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily
involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in
any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the
affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a misconduct that is
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

The administrative case filed against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales is dismissed

for lack of merit.

RILLORAZA, AFRICA, DE OCAMPO and AFRICA VS.

EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC. and
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY
G.R. No. 104600
July 2, 1999

FACTS:
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) represented by the
law firm San Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin (SAGA), filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for recovery of revenue shares
against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). Atty.
Francisco D. Rilloraza, a partner of the firm appeared for ETPI.

It paid SAGA the billed amount of P100,000.00. The trial court issued a
resolution granting ETPI's application for preliminary restrictive and
mandatory injunctions. During this period, SAGA was dissolved and four of
the junior partners formed the law firm Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo &
Africa (RADA), which took over as counsel in the case for ETPI. The latter
signed a retainer agreement with counsel.

Parties arrived at an amicable settlement and the same was entered as a

judgement. The petitioner filed a motion for the enforcement of Attorney’s
lien.

ISSUE:

W/N Rada is entitled to the awards they are claiming.

 10

RULING:

Yes. The SC ruled that the petitioners are entitled to attorneys' fees. They
are not convinced with the petitioner's arguments that the services RADA
rendered merit the amount they are claiming.

When a client employs the services of a law firm, he does not employ the
services of the lawyer who is assigned to personally handle the case. Rather,
he employs the entire law firm. This decision, however, should not be
interpreted as to impose upon petitioner any additional burden in collecting
its attorney's fees. The petitioner must avail itself of the proper remedy in
order to forestall the possibility of any injustice on or unjust enrichment of
any of the parties.

The Court grants the petition, reverses the decision of the Court of
Appeals in and remands the case to the court of origin for the determination
of the amount of attorney's fees to which petitioner is entitled.

ORBIT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY VS

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and MELECIO
CRESPO in behalf of minor ROSALINE CRESPO
G.R. No. L-38768
July 23, 1974

FACTS:

On June 13, 1974, Messrs. Sergio D. Vendero and Renerio R. Bartonico

as counsel for petitioner filed the petition at bar for review of respondent
Workmen's Compensation Commission's decision and resolution directing
petitioner to pay respondent-claimant the principal sum of P4,360.00 as
compensation and burial expenses.

Workmen's Compensation Commission or any government agency for

that matter cannot say that voluntary payment and the evidence of such
payment violate the provisions of Act 3428 simply because the same did not
pass through its office

The court found that material facts bearing on the petition's lack of
merit had been suppressed. In denying the petition for lack of merit, the Court
required counsel to show cause why they should not be disciplinary dealt with
for suppressing from their statement of the case and questions of law involved
in the petition the material facts found in the Workmen's Compensation
Commission's decision.
 11

Counsel promptly filed their explanation and apology. They pleaded

haste and time pressure and begged forgiveness and promised to be more
cautious and discreet in so filing a pleading with this Honorable Court or with
any court, body or commission for that matter.

ISSUE:

W/N counsel should be reprimanded for suppression of material information.

RULING:

Yes. The Court has stressed that members of the bar owe fidelity to the
courts as well as to their clients and that they must show faithful adherence to
the provisions of Rule 7, section 5 that the signature of an attorney constitutes
a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief with the admonition therein that for a
willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary
action. The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is required so that
needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be
avoided leaving the courts free to devote their time and attention to
meritorious and truly contentious cases. In this, the attorney plays a major role
of advising his client to refrain from seeking further appellate review and
action in plainly untenable cases.

The Court administers a reprimand to Attys. Sergio D. Vendero and Renerio

R. Bartonico.

TEODORO R. REGALA vs
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 105938
September 20, 1996

FACTS:
Among the defendants named in the case are herein petitioners and
herein private respondent Raul S. Roco, who all were then partners of the law
firm (ACCRA Law Firm). ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its
clients, more specifically, in the performance of these services, the members
of the law firm delivered to its client documents which substantiate the client’s
equity holdings. In their dealings with their clients, the members of the law
firm acquire information relative to the assets of clients as well as their
 12

personal and business circumstances.Petitioners and private respondent Raul

Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of the
companies in keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as
nominees-stockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration
proceedings.

Respondent Sandiganbayan denied the exclusion of petitioners in PCGG for

their refusal to comply with the conditions required by respondent PCGG.
ACCRA lawyers moved for a reconsideration of the above resolution but the
same was denied by the respondent Sandiganbayan. Hence, the ACCRA
lawyers filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the attorney-client privilege includes the identity of the
clients?

RULING:
Yes. In modern day perception of the lawyer-client relationship, an attorney
is more than a mere agent or servant, because he possesses special powers of
trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. A lawyer is also as
independent as the judge of the court, thus his powers are entirely different
from and superior to those of an ordinary agent. An attorney also occupies
what may be considered as a “quasi-judicial office” since he is in fact an
officer of the Court and exercises his judgment in the choice of courses of
action to be taken favorable to his client. Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client
relationship includes the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate
and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good
faith, that is required by reason of necessity and public interest based on the
hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil
which is fatal to the administration of justice.
 13

ASSIGNMENT NO. 6

VERONICA S. SANTIAGO v. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS

Adm. Case No. 4103
Sep 07, 1995

FACTS:

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) declared complainants’

illegal expulsion of Salvador from Far Easter University Faculty Association.
Salvador sought for damages but Atty. Fojas moved to dismiss it for res
judicata and lack of jurisdiction because it was already decided by Med-
Arbiter and it is only cognizable by the DOLE. Complainants were directed
to file their answer within a non-extendible period of fifteen days from notice.
Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration
and dismissal of the case.The complainants were declared in default, and
Salvador was authorized to present his evidence ex-parte and won damages
and attorney’s fees.

Complainants Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma. Socorro Manas,

and Trinidad Nordista were the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and
Auditor, respectively, of the FEUFA.They allegedly expelled from the union
Paulino Salvador. Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin declared illegal Salvador's
expulsion and directed the union and all its officers to reinstate Salvador's
name in the roll of union members with all the rights and privileges
appurtenant thereto. This resolution was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment.

The trial court granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon
Salvador's motion for reconsideration, however, it reconsidered the order of
dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the complainants herein to file
their answer within a period of fifteen days from notice.

ISSUE:
Whether the Atty. Fojas committed culpable negligence, and breached Canon
18 and 15 Rule 18.03 and 15.05 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill,
and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee or for free. He is not excused by reasons of pressure and large volume of
legal work. the negligence cannot be excused by a “losing cause”. Even if it
was a losing case, he should be honest to the client. Respondent is liable for
inexcusable negligence.
 14

Atty. Amado R. Fojas Is reprimanded and admonished to be more careful in

the performance of his duty to his clients.

MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, vs.

ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO
A.M. Case No. 3195
December 18, 1989

FACTS:
A notice to vacate issued against the petitioner Cantiller. Cantiller then
asked the Atty. Potenciano to handle their case. The complainant was made to
sign by respondent what she described as a “poorly conceived, and
haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment”. Petitioner paid
Potenciano as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid
to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano
did not succeed in locating the judge.

Complainant paid Potenciano allegedly as purchase price of the apartment

and to cover the expenses of the suit. Cantiller found out that the amounts
were not necessary to be paid. Contrary to Potenciano’s promise that he would
secure a restraining order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel for
complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement.
Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

HELD:

Yes. Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond
reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with
an ordinary business proposition since it is a matter of public interest. Lawyers
are indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this
jurisdiction. At a time when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled
at the legal profession, strict compliance with one's oath of office and the
canons of professional ethics is an imperative.

This Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges

against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for an
indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated
himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.
 15

RODOLFO MILLARE v. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO

Adm. Case No. 3283
July 13, 1995

FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment. Pacifica Millare, the mother of the
complainant, obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC in Abra which
ordered Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case. Co,
through respondent as counsel, appealed the decision to the RTC Abra. She
neither filed a supersedeas bond nor paid the rentals adjudged by the MTC.
The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Co's appeal from the decision of the RTC for
failure to comply with Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129 and Section 22(b) of the
Interim Rules and Guidelines. According to the CA, Co should have filed a
petition for review and not an ordinary appeal. The judgment of the MTC
became final and executory on November 19, 1986.

On January 2, 1987, a Manifestation and Motion was filed by respondent as

counsel for Co, arguing that the decisions of the MTC and the RTC were null
and void for being contrary to law, justice and equity for allowing the lessor
to increase by 300% the rentals for an old house. The CA gave due course to
respondent's Manifestation and Motion and let the records remain with it.

Respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Decisions of the

MTC and the RTC, insisting that the decisions were not in accordance with
existing laws and policies. The CA dismissed the petition for annulment.

ISSUE:
WON respondent shall be held guilty of malpractice.

HELD:
Yes. Under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is
required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice. It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or
wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions,
repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating
and delaying the execution of a judgment.

Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the

execution of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping.
Respondent is suspended for one year.
 16

ERLINDA ABRAGAN vs. ATTY. MAXIMO G. RODRIGUEZ

AC. No. 4346
Apr 03, 2002

FACTS:
In 1986, the petitioners hired the services of the respondent and the
latter, represented the former in the case before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Cagayan de Oro City. Subsequently, when the lawyer allegedly
surreptitiously dealt with the subject property with other persons, the
petitioner severed the lawyer – client relationship
On August 1991, complainants filed a case of indirect contempt against
Sheriff Fernando Loncion, et al. Respondent represented the sheriff. Since the
counsel employed by the complainants was a former student of respondent,
said counsel, egged by the suggestions of respondent withdrew the case
without the petitioner’s consent.

As a result of such withdrawal, subsequent events occurred to the

prejudice of the complainants. Acts of respondent lawyer plus his continuing
and ongoing illegal and unethical maneuvers have deprived the herein
petitioners of their vested rights.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Rodriguez should be disbarred.

RULING:
Yes, Atty. Rodriquez should be disbarred. He falls short of the integrity
and good moral character required from all lawyers. He clearly violated Rule
15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides
that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. In the case at bar,
petitioners were the same complainants in the indirect contempt case and in
the Complaint for forcible entry. Respondent should have evaluated the
situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect
contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients,
and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with
the latter and the public at large. They must conduct themselves beyond
reproach at all times.
Maximo G. Rodriguez is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended for 6 months
from the practice of law.
 17

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON vs. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR.

A.C. No. 5098
April 11, 2012

FACTS:
Josefina M. Aniñon had previously engaged the legal services of Atty.
Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over
a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed
a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of
Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant
accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained
from her in filing the civil case.
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the
preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having
received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the
present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez,
Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him
and had instigated the complaint for this reason.
In a resolution in 2004, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt
and approve the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after
finding it to be fully supported by the evidence on record and Respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP
Board of Governors denied his motion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests.

RULING:
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendations of
the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. The SC rules that the
relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with
the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality
that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s most confidential
information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information
between them.
 18

Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to

his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and
discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s
duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client
against another client in the same action; he also accepted a new engagement
that entailed him to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a
property in which his legal services had been previously retained.
The Court resolves to adopt the findings and recommendations of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty.
Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is suspended for on 1 year from the practice
of law.
To be held accountable under this rule, it is "enough that the opposing
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and
the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of them
would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
 19

ASSIGNMENT NO. 7

SPOUSES SERAFIN AQUINO and RUMELIA AQUINO vs. COURT

OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 109493
July 2, 1999

FACTS:

Judge Angeles of the RTC Caloocan City charged Atty. Thomas C. Uy

Jr. with violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At
the outset Norma Trajano, accused in said criminal case, expressed her desire
and offered to settle the civil aspect of the criminal case against her to which
the private complainant Primitiva Del Rosario acceded. When the case was
called for the second time, Norma Trajano manifested that she had already
settled in full the civil aspect of the criminal case pending. However, Del
Rosario manifested that she did not receive the amount of sixteen thousand
five hundred (P16,500.00) pesos which was paid to his lawyer, thereby
constraining this court to direct Atty. Thomas C. Uy to turn over the money
to the private complainant which he received in trust for his client.

Atty. Uy however argued that his client did not like to accept the money but
the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, who manifested in
open court her willingness to accept the money. The Court again directed Atty.
Uy to produce the money but the latter argued that he kept it in his office.
Consequently, the Court suspended the proceedings to enable Atty. Uy to get
the money from his law office which is located only at the second floor of the
same building where this court is located. Unfortunately, Atty. Uy did not
show up anymore and not even his shadow appeared in Court.

Del Rosario received the money after Judge Angeles issued the Order.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid substitution of attorneys.

RULING:
No, there was no valid substitution of attorney

Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that the proper
procedure for the withdrawal of a lawyer as counsel in a case. It provides:
Section 26 – Change of Attorneys – An attorney may retire at any time from
an action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in
court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding,
without consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and
attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In
 20

case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered
on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and the written notice of
the change shall be given to the adverse party.

In the present case, petitioners admit that Atty. Barican represented

them in the proceedings before the lower court but that Atty. Mala substituted
Atty. Barican when the case was elevated to the court of Appeals. No proof
was presented by the petitioners to show compliance with the above
procedural requirements for the withdrawal of Atty. Barican and the
substitution of Atty. Mala in his stead, no written application for substitution
or written consent of the client was filed in court. The Certification made by
Atty. Barican to the effect that he was the former counsel of record of the
petitioners but that he withdrew as their counsel is not controlling in the
absence of compliance with the above procedural requirements. It is therefore
irrelevant that Atty. Mala did not receive the copy of the resolution of the
court of Appeals which dismissed their appeal since he was not the counsel of
record and had never entered his appearance as counsel of the petitioners.

The instant Petition is hereby denied.

JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES vs. ATY. THOMAS C. UY, JR.

A.C. No. 5019
April 6, 2000

FACTS:
In a letter addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice, Judge Angeles
of the RTC of Caloocan City charged Atty. Uy Jr. with violation of Canon 16
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The accused manifested that she had already settled in full the civil
aspect in the criminal case handled by respondent under the sala of judge
complainant. Accused further alleged that she paid P20,000.00 directly to the
private complainant and the balance of P16,500.00 was delivered to Atty. Uy,
Jr., the lawyer of the private complainant and conformably produced in open
court the receipt for such payment signed by no less than the aforesaid lawyer.
However, private complainant manifested that she did not receive the
amount paid to his lawyer, herein respondent, thereby constraining the court
to direct respondent to turn over the money to private complainant which he
received in trust for the client. Atty. Uy however argued that his client did not
like to accept the money but the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own
client, the herein private complainant, who manifested in open court her
willingness to accept the money.
 21

The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money but the latter
argued that he kept it in his office. Consequently, the Court suspended the
proceedings to enable Atty. Uy to get the money from his law office which is
located only at the second floor of the same building where this court is
located. However, respondent did not show up anymore.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

RULING:
Yes, respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary it
requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. It is designed to remove all
such temptation and to prevent everything of that kind from being done for
the protection of the client. Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession." Furthermore, Rule
16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client." The Canons of
Professional Ethics is even more explicit: "The lawyer should refrain from
any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes
advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly report
and account for the P16,500 he had received from Trajano on behalf of his
client. Although the amount had been entrusted to respondent, his client
revealed during the hearing that she had not yet received it. Worse, she did
not even know where it was.
It is not clear whether Atty Uy had in fact appropriated the said amount,
in fact, his client acknowledged that she had received it. They do show,
however, that respondent failed to promptly report that amount to her. This is
clearly a violation of his professional responsibility. It is settled that money
collected by a lawyer in favor of his clients must be immediately turned over
to them and that lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property
received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct.
Verily, the question is whether the lawyer has adhered to the ethical
standards of the bar. In this case, respondent has not done so.
Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr. is hereby suspended for 1 month.
 22

IMELDA A. NAKPIL vs. ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES

A.C. No. 2040
March 4, 1998

FACTS:
Jose Nakpil and Carlos Valdes were friends since the 1950s. Due to
their friendship, respondent (CPA-lawyer) became the business consultant,
lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils.

Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a summer residence in

Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested respondent to purchase the Moran
property for him. They agreed that respondent would keep the property in
thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Title was then issued
in respondent’s name. Nakpils occupied the summer house. When Jose Nakpil
died in 1973, respondent acted the legal counsel and accountant of Jose’s
widow. Respondent’s law form, Carlos J. Valdes & Assoc. handled the
proceeding for the settlement of Jose’s estate.

Ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate

proceedings. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of
Jose’s estate. He transferred his title to the Moran property to his company,
Caval Realty Corporation.

Complainant sought to recover Moran property by filing with the them

CFI Baguio an action for reconveyance with damages. During the pendencey
of the action for reconveyance, complainant filed this administrative case to
disbar the respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
In violation of the trust agreement, respondent claimed absolute
ownership over the property and refused to sell the property to complainant
after the death of Jose Nakpil. Respondent initially acknowledged and
respected the trust nature of the Moran property. Respondent exercised bad
faith in transferring the property to his family corporation. Respondent’s act
of excluding Moran property resulted to his lack of fidelity to the cause of his
client Canon 17. If he truly believed that it was his, he should have formally
presented his claim in the intestate proceedings instead of transferring it to his
own company and concealing it from complainant. His misuse of his legal
expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical.
 23

An attorney cannot represent adverse interests, however, representation

of conflicting interests may be allowed where the parties consent to the
representation, after full disclosure of the facts. Disclosure alone is not enough
for the clients must give their informed consent to such representation. The
lawyer must explain to his clients the nature and extent of conflict and possible
adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by his clients. In the present
case, there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors
are adverse to each other.

Respondent’s defense that complainant knew that his law firm was legal
counsel of the estate and that his accounting form was the auditor of both the
estate and the two claimants against it was not taken by the Court. There is
nothing in the records to show that respondent or his law firm explained the
legal situation and its consequences to complainant. Respondent is a CPA-
lawyer actively participating in both professions. He is the senior partner in
his law and accounting firms. Complainant is not charging respondent with
breach of ethics for being the common accountant of the estate and the two
creditors. He is charged for allowing his accounting firm to represent two
creditors of the estate, and at the same time allowing his law firm to represent
the estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented.

The Court finds respondent Atty. Carlos J. Valdes guilty of misconduct.

He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year.

ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES vs. PROSECUTOR

DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ
A.C. CBD No. 167
March 9, 1999

FACTS:

Encarnacion Pascual,the sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes

was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. The complaint assigned to
Prosecutor Diosdado S. Ibañez for preliminary investigation. In the course of
the investigation, Encarnacion Pascual gave P1,804.00 to respondent as
payment of her Social Security System contributions in arrears. Respondent,
however, did not remit the amount to the system. The fact of non-payment
was certified to by the SSS on October 2, 1989.

Over a year later, complainant filed with the RTC Tarlac a complaint
for professional misconduct against Ibañez due to the latter's failure to remit
the SSS contributions of his sister-in-law. The complaint alleged that
 24

respondent's misappropriation of Encarnacion Pascual's SSS contributions

amounted to a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

In the meantime, the case was referred to the IBP-Tarlac. Upon receipt
of the case, the Tarlac Chapter forwarded the same to the IBP's Commission
on Bar Discipline.

In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of accommodating

Pascual's request to make payments to the SSS did not amount to professional
misconduct but was rather an act of Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed
that the action was moot and academic, the amount of P1,804.00 having
already been paid by him to the SSS. He disclaimed liability on the ground
that the acts complained of were not done by him in his capacity as a
practicing lawyer but on account of his office as a prosecutor.

The Commission recommended that the respondent be reprimanded.

On November 5, 1998, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and
approved its Commission's recommendation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct and have violated
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Respondent’s non-remittance for over one year of the funds coming
from Encarnacion is gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The belated payment does not excuse his misconduct. Neither
would his defense that the acts complained of were not done by him in his
office as a prosecutor exculpate him from responsibility. While Encarnacion
may not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a
lawyer’s handling of funds of a client is applicable.
Respondent’s failure to immediately remit the amount gives rise to the
presumption of misappropriation. That is in gross violation of general
morality as well as professional ethics, it impairs public confidence in the
legal profession and deserves punishment.
The SC has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of
morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of every member
of the Bar. The Court reprimands respondent.