HELD 1.

YES Ratio An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without
being retained. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case. Reasoning Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions
and dealings with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an
interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by
Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied
properties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It should not be construed as being
in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest over the properties. The act
of informing complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his ownership
may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal. 2. YES Ratio His
failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy
shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to
make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Reasoning Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on
the latter‘s dealings with complainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano
and liability by virtue thereof. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally

SOLATAN V INOCENTES TINGA; August 9, 2005 (jonas azura) NATURE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the
Supreme Court FACTS - Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The
Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment
complex when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They represented
the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying
tenants occupying the Genito Apartments. - Complainant‘s sister was a tenant of the Genito
Apartments. It appears that she left for the States and her apartment was used by members of her
family. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was
rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. - Complainant was occupying
said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange
the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment.
Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants
of the Genito Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal agreement was made in
which complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorney‘s
fees and costs of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the
attorney‘s fees. - Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty.
Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment.
Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow
complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camano‘s advice, complainant presented an
affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not
returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where
he was temporarily staying. - complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against
Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from
the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.
ISSUES 1. WON Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 2. WON Atty. Inocentes
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility