I.

IRISH
PAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN [G.R. Nos 154297-300, February 15, 2008]
Question:
The Chief Public Attorney of PAO, Atty. Duque personally appeared before the
Special Division of the Sandiganbayan to request the relief of the appearance of PAO
as de oficio counsel for the accused, President AAA and BBB in their criminal cases
before the Sandiganbayan, but denied. After being denied, the Chief Public Attorney
of PAO filed an Urgent and Ex-Parte Motion to be relieved as Court-Appointed
Counsel with the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, praying to be relieved of her
duties and responsibilities as counsel de oficio of the accused on the ground that she
had swelling workload and that the accused are not indigent person. Hence, they are
not qualified to avail themselves of the services of PAO, which the court approved
because they found that her reasons were plausible. The remaining eight PAO
lawyers filed an Ex-Parte Motion to be relieved as Court-Appointed Counsel with the
respondent Court on the ground that the accused, former President AAA and BBB,
are not indigents, therefore they are not qualified to avail the services of PAO. The
respondent court issued a Resolution denying the motion, but retaining two of the
eight PAO lawyers.
Then, the petitioners filed a motion of reconsideration reiterating that they were
not qualified to avail themselves of the services of PAO, since they could afford the
services of private counsels of their own. They argued that the only exception
wherein they can appear on behalf of non-indigent client is when there is no available
lawyer to assist such client in a particular stage of the case, during the arraignment
and during the taking of the direct testimony of any prosecution witness subject to
cross-examination. In defense of the respondent, Special Division of the
Sandiganbayan. They stated that they were facing a crisis when they issued the
subject Resolution. At that time, the accused relieved the services of his counsels on
nationwide television. The both accused were adamant in hiring new counsels
because they allegedly did not believe in and trust the Sandiganbayan.
(a) Are the petitioners, PAO lawyers should be relieved to their duties and
responsibilities as counsels de oficio of the accused on the ground of not being
qualified to avail their services because of non-indigence?

Answer:
a. No, the petitioners should not be relieved to their duties and responsibilities as
counsels de oficio of the accused on the ground non-indigence because Canon 14 of
Rule 14.02 of Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall not
decline, except for a serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio
or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapter for
rendition of free legal aid”

In this case at bar, the PAO lawyers filed a petition to be relieved from their
duties and responsibilities as counsels de oficio of former President AAA and BBB
on the ground the accused where not indigents because the Public Attorney’s Office
duty is to provide free legal assistance to the indigent and low-income persons.
Therefore, they are not qualified to avail the services of their office. However, in the
situation of the case of former President AAA and BBB wherein the accused had
announced in a National TV that he had relieved his counsels and they would not
employ other counsels, so the Sandiganbayan has no choice but to appoint counsels
from PAO for the administration of Justice. The PAO lawyers shall not decline the
appointment that were given to them by Sandiganbayan without serious and sufficient
cause, and the accused being non-indigent is not a serious and sufficient cause in the
administration of justice because a lawyer’s primary duty in court is to assist in a
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Therefore, the PAO lawyers should not be relieved from their appointment as
counsels de oficio of President AAA and BBB because they shall not decline from
 appointment without serious and sufficient cause, and being not indigent is not a
serious and sufficient cause to have a speedy and efficient administration of justice.

II. BRYAN

Atty. Duque filed Motion for Reconsideration praying that the fine in the amount
of P5,000.00 imposed upon him for his failure to file the required memorandum for
his client AAA be reduced to P2,000.00 and that the warrant for his arrest and
detention be lifted. Atty. Duque was required to show cause why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with for failure to file the required memorandum. He failed to
comply with the June 28, 1999 Resolution and repeatedly failed to comply with the
subsequent resolutions dating November 22, 1999, July 12, 2000, and February 14,
2001 respectively, increasing further the fine to P5,000.00 payable within 10 days
from notice, otherwise, he will be ordered arrested and detained until he files the
required memorandum. Per Certification of the Disbursement and Collection Division
of the Court, no payment of fine was made by Atty. Duque. On September 17, 2001,
the Court issued a Resolution for the issuance of warrant of arrest against Atty.
Duque and directed the National Bureau of Investigation to arrest and detain him until
he fully complies with the Resolution of February 14, 2001. On October 11, 2001,
Atty. Duque filed the Memorandum and paid the amount of P5,000.00 as court fine.

Atty. Duque’s main excuse for not filing the required Memorandum within the
period was due to his client's failure to provide the necessary expenses for the
preparation of the Memorandum. He claims that AAA, who went to the United States
without leaving any address, paid him "a meager sum of P7,000.00 for handling the
case from the Regional Trial Court, to the Court of Appeals and now the Supreme
Court." He further alleges that he became very sick and was ejected from his address
that he had to transfer from one place to another.

1. Is the client’s failure to provide the necessary expenses for memorandum

preparation a valid excuse for Atty. Duque to not file the same? Explain.

2. Will the warrant of his arrest and detention prosper considering he filed the
memorandum and paid the P5,000.00 court fine on October 11, 2001?

Answer:

1. No. Atty. Duque’s excuse is not valid. Under Rule 14.04, Canon 14 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to
pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients. He should be reminded that the legal profession is not a
money-making venture but a noble involvement in the administration of justice. He
must represent his client with utmost fidelity, competence and diligence under
Canons 17 & 18. Moreover, his duty is enshrined in the Attorney's Oath which every
lawyer has to take before he is allowed to practice law, i.e., "to delay no man for
money or malice." His repeated failure to file the client’s memorandum is a clear
violation of his oath.

A lawyer, like other human beings, has a right to a livelihood and adequate
compensation is necessary to enable him to serve his client effectively. However,
counsel may enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident in
the main action in which his services were rendered when something is due his client.
The non-filing of pleadings required by the Court is not a remedy.

2. No. The order for his arrest is a consequence of his non-compliance with the
Court's resolutions requiring him to file the client’s Memorandum and his detention
 would depend on the time when he will comply. Considering that he has filed AAA’s
Memorandum and paid the required fine on October 11, 2001, his arrest and detention
is now rendered moot and academic.

III. PRINCESS

AAA engaged the service of Atty. Duque to represent him and file a case for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife. In AAA’s affidavit, AAA alleged
that Atty. Duque: (1) despite receiving the sum of P250,000.00 to cover for the
expenses in the said case, failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was AAA’s
wife who successfully instituted the Civil Case for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage; (2) even with AAA furnishing Atty. Duque a copy of the Summons,
belatedly filed an Answer which was after the 15-day period stated in the Summons;
(3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the ground of improper venue as
neither AAA nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite; (4) never
bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the
hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, the Civil Case for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage was decided on October 27, 2009 without AAA being able to present his
evidence.

In his defense, Atty. Duque explained that (1) after a meeting with the
complainant, he drafted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and asked
AAA to go over said draft after which he proceeded to file the same with the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon City; (2) AAA was aware that said petition will be
filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the verification and certification of the
petition; (3) the case became pending and was later on withdrawn because of AAA’s
refusal to testify; (4) what contributed to the delay in filing the Answer was the fact
that he still had to let AAA go over the same and sign the verification thereof; (5) he
was not able to attend the hearings for the case because he did not receive any notice
from the trial court; and (6) it was only on December 2, 2009 when he found out that
the trial court has already rendered its decision and that AAA had changed counsels.

Is Atty. Duque guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Yes. Atty. Duque particularly violated Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 17 states that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.” And
Rule 18.03 states that“a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” In the case, it was
clear that Atty. Duque’s acts of (1) failing to file the Civil Case for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage despite receiving P250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in the
said case; (2) belatedly filing an Answer which was after the 15-day period stated in
the Summons; (3) failing to make an objection on the petition on the ground of
improper venue as neither AAA nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas,
Cavite; (4) never bothering to check the status of the case and thus failing to discover
and attend all the hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, the Civil Case for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was decided on October 27, 2009 without AAA
being able to present his evidence, are violation of Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The excuse given by Atty. Duque that he did not
receive any notice from the trial court is highly intolerable. As a lawyer, it is his duty
to observe diligence to his client’s legal matter. Hence, Atty. Duque is guilty of
violating Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

IV. FREDERICK
Complainant AAA alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services
of respondent Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila
City Councilor BBB.  After she paid his professional fees, Atty. Galing drafted and
 sent a letter to BBB demanding payment of the checks.  Atty. Galing advised AAA to
wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her
complaint.

On 10 July 2003, AAA filed a criminal complaint against Ms. BBB for estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila.

On 27 July 2003, AAA received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by Atty.
Galing for and on behalf of BBB, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter’s
daughter CCC.  Further, on 8 August 2003, Atty. Galing appeared as counsel for BBB
before the prosecutor of Manila.

Complainant submit that the respondent by filing a Motion for Consolidation and
appearing as counsel on behalf of BBB, violates the Canon of Professional
Responsibility. Is Complainant correct?

A: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.”
By seeking the legal advice and the subsequent drafting of letter of demand by
Respondent, attorney-client Relationship was established between the complainant
and the respondent.
And by filing of Motion of Consolidation and representing BBB and CCC as their
counsel against the complainant criminal complaint, Atty. Galing established
attorney-client relationship between him and BBB and CCC. In effect, Atty Galing
represent a conflicting interest.
Hence, AAA is correct

V. CATHERINE
Atty. AA appeared as counsel for both petitioner XX and his ex-wife, YY. He
first appeared for petitioner in 1983, in a special proceeding, wherein he declared
before the court that the properties in that case were the “sole and exclusive
properties” of XX. Several years later, in 1991, he appeared for YY, wherein he
declared that “plaintiff and defendant XX are the conjugal owners of those certain
parcels of land”, referring to the same parcels of land. Additionally, petitioner
claimed that in the second (1991) case, Atty. AA deliberately gave the wrong address
to the court (Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija) when he actually knew that petitioner
lived in Aparri, Cagayan. He believed that respondent’s conduct constitutes
professional misconduct and malpractice as well as trifling with court processes.
Petitioner also claims that Atty. AA did not secure his consent before representing his
ex-wife.

1. Is there any violation committed by Atty. AA?

ANSWER:

Yes. Atty. AA violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 which states that, “A lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.”
There is a conflict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of two or
more opposing parties. The test is whether or not on behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for the other
client. In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him
when he argues for the other client. There is a representation of conflicting interests
if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and
 also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired through their connection.
The act of Atty. AA of handling the cases stated was clearly violative of the
prohibiton on representing conflicting interests as he has to refute in the present case
what he argued in the previous suit.

2. Is/Are there any instance/s when a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interest
even if the consent of both clients were secured?
ANSWER:
Yes. Where the conflict is any of the following:
1. Between the attorney’s interest and that of a client;
2. Between a private client’s interests and that of the government or any of its
instrumentalities.

3. In the given case, supposedly after being engaged as the counsel for XX in the XX
v. YY case (1983), Atty. AA represented YY in a murder case in 1989 where the
latter was the accused. Is there any conflict of interest if Atty. AA will be engaged as
the counsel for YY in the present case?
ANSWER:
None. There is no conflict of interest in a situation where a lawyer represents his
present client against his former client, so long as no confidential information
acquired during the previous employment was used against the former client by the
lawyer. The prohibition does not cover a situation where the subject matter of the
present engagement is totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the attorney.

VI. ARIEL

Atty DUQUE is the collaborating counsel for the heirs of AAA in a settlement of
the estate of BBB. In the course of the proceeding, heirs of CCC and heirs of AAA
moved for the removal of PETER as administrator. Subsequently, Atty. DUQUE filed
an entry of appearance as collaborating counsel for PETER in the same case and
moved for the reconsideration of the RTC decision.
The heirs of CCC then filed an instant disbarment complaint before the IBP
claiming that Atty. DUQUE violated his oath as attorney for representing conflicting
interest.
Atty. DUQUE argued in his defense that he never appeared as counsel for the
complainant heirs of CCC and heirs of AAA. He averred that he only accommodated
the request of DDD, one of the heirs of AAA to temporarily appear on her behalf as
their counsel on record is not available on said date of hearing and that his appearance
thereat was free of charge. Further, he stated that he obtained the consent od DDD to
withdraw from the case and that no confidential information was disclosed to him or
their counsel on record at any instance, therefore he did not violate his oath or the rule
prohibiting representation of conflicting interest. Records, however shows that Atty.
DUQUE did not obtained all the consent of the heirs of AAA particularly that of
EEE.

Is the contention of Atty DUQUE meritorious? Explain.

ANSWER:
No, the contention of Atty DUQUE is bereft of merit.
Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited 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 on totally unrelated
cases.
 Here, Atty DUQUE being the collaborating counsel for the heirs of AAA in the
settlement of estate proceeding, represented the administrator who was removed due
to acts prejudicial to the interest of his clients. An act that is clearly vested with
conflict of interest. His contention that his appearance in the estate proceedings is
only temporary, and that is free of charge, and that no confidential information
obtained by him in the course of that proceeding is of no moment, for case law
provides an absolute prohibition from representation with respect to opposing parties
in the same case.
Furthermore, the aforesaid rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or
merely probable or even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to
represent conflicting interests.
Lastly, respondent was remiss in his duty to make a full disclosure of his
impending engagement as PETER’s counsel to all the Heirs of CCC particularly
EEE, and equally secure their express written consent before consummating the same
as he only obtained the permission of DDD.
Premises considered, Atty DUQUE'S contention being lacked of merit, should
therefore be made liable for representing conflicting interest.

VII. BANILIND

Atty. Duque-1 is acting as collaborating counsel with Atty. Duque-2 in

representing AAA, BBB and other heirs of the late CCC in the settlement of the estate
of DDD. The heirs of CCC together with the heirs of DDD, moved for the removal of
EEE, the husband of the late DDD, as administrator for having committed acts
prejudicial to their interests and, in his stead, sought the appointment of the latter’s
son, FFF, which the RTC granted in an order dated September 20, 2007.
Subsequently, or on October 10, 2007, Atty. Duque-1 filed an Entry of Appearance as
collaborating counsel for EEE, the opposing party, and moved for the reconsideration
of the RTC Order which was eight (8) days before AAA, the surviving spouse of
CCC and the mother of BBB, consented to the withdrawal of Atty. Duque-1’s
appearance. Is Atty. Duque-1 guilty of representing conflicting interest in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Answer:
YES, under Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
“A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts”. It is then explicit that a lawyer is
prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former
client in any manner. In this case, the heirs of DDD and the heirs of CCC succeeded
in removing EEE as administrator. It is also clear that Atty. Duque-1 was the
collaborating counsel not only for AAA but for all the heirs of CCC in which he
failed to equally secure their express written consent and he was remiss in his duty to
make a full disclosure of his impending engagement as EEE’s counsel before
consummating the same. Hence, when he proceeded to represent EEE for the purpose
of seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case, he clearly worked
against the very interest of the heirs of CCC in which he is guilty of representing
conflicting interest in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

VIII. SIEGLYN

AAA engaged the services of Atty. Duque to recover properties against BBB.
AAA appealed the RTC judgment to the CA. However, Atty. Duque failed to file the
required appellant’s brief in the Court of Appeals despite obtaining two extensions
which prompted the dismissal of their case pending in the Court of Appeals.
Disappointed with the result, AAA then filed a complaint seeking disciplinary
sanctions against Atty. Duque citing inexcusable negligence.
 Can Atty. Duque be sanctioned for his actions? (2%)

Yes. Atty. Duque violated Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that "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” and Canon 18.03 of the
Code which requires that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable.”

In the case at bar, Atty. Duque’s failure to file appellant’s brief in the Court of
Appeals despite obtaining two extensions demonstrated inexcusable negligence. A
lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good faith and with a genuine intent
to file the required pleading within the extended period. The court acts in granting the
request on the premise that the applicant has a justifiable excuse for failing to meet
the time required. Without that implicit trust, the request for extension shall be
considered merely a ruse to postpone or circumvent the appealed ruling. Therefore,
the motion should be viewed as a way of preventing the judgment from reaching
finality and execution, and of allowing the mover to trifle with the process and mock
the administration of justice. All who file motions for extension in bad faith misuse
the legal process, obstruct justice, and thus become liable to disciplinary action.

IX. ROBERTO
Complainants, AAA et.al were high-ranking officials of Far Easter University
Faculty Association (FEUFA), allegedly expelled BBB from FEUFA. BBB then
commenced with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint to
declare his illegal expulsion from the union. DOLE directed the complainant union to
reinstate BBB as union member with all the rights and privileges thereto. BBB sought
for damages and filed a civil case with the RTC. Atty. FFF, respondent and counsel of
AAA et. al., moved to dismiss the civil case filed by BBB against AAA for res
judicata and lack of jurisdiction because the illegal dismissal case was already
decided by Med-Arbiter and it is only cognizable by the DOLE.
RTC granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon BBB'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
nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice. Instead of filing an answer, the
respondent lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case which
were denied by RTC. The respondent filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition
for certiorari.
The respondent lawyer did not file the complainants’ answer and because of that
the RTC declared AAA in default, and BBB was authorized to present his evidence
ex-parte and won damages and attorney’s fees.
The complainants, still assisted by the respondent, elevated the case to the Court
of Appeals, which, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.

Is Atty. FFF committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary

action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in civil case for which
reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was rendered against
them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, which was received ex-parte?

ANSWER:
Yes.
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is
the opposite of negligence. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of
 success is eternal diligence to the cause of the client (Edquibal v. Ferrer, A.C. No.
5687, February 3, 2005).
In the given case, Atty. FFF clearly violated Canon 18 by failing to file for the
complainants an answer in civil case for which reason the latter were declared in
default and judgment was rendered against them. Complainants alleged in their reply
that the respondent lawyer’s failure to file an answer was not an honest mistake but
was "deliberate, malicious and calculated to place them on the legal disadvantage, to
their damage and prejudice" for, as admitted by respondent lawyer in his motion to
set aside the order of default, his failure to do so was "due to volume and pressure of
legal work."
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.
ATTY. FFF is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED

X. WINNIE

Mr. Bautista filed with the Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the
Court of Appeals (a) Decision dismissing their petition for annulment of judgment;
and (b) its denying their motion for reconsideration. Such petition were denied twice
because of petitioner’s failure to show a reversible error had been committed by the
Appellate Court. This prompted Mr. Bautista to write Chief Justice Vergara assailing
the latter of his partiality by alleging that he pressured Justice Delegado, the ponente
handling the petitioner’s case, to favor his adversary XXX Corporation. Mr. Bautista
alleged that this information was transmitted to him by his counsel, Atty. Sevillano,
who he claims is a close friend of the ponente. Petitioner further alleged that an
irregularity or bribery attended the denial of his petition for review by insinuating that
the travels of Atty. Sevillano and the ponente abroad were financed by XXX
Corporatiom. Mr. Bautista explained that the contemptuous statements in his letter
merely reiterate the tenor of Atty. Sevillano’s statements. It was admitted by Atty.
Sevillano that he and Justice Delegado have known each other since 1964 and that he
informed Mr. Bautista that the ponente was "a very very good, close and longtime
friend".

Cite the specific rule/s violated by Atty. Sevillano, if any. Justify your answer.

Yes. Atty. Sevillano violated Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence
any public official, tribunal or legislative body." Further, Rule 15.07 provides that "a
lawyer must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness. By telling Mr. Bautista that he is a very close friend of the ponente, Atty.
Bautista impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition of his
case. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mr. Bautista’s expectation
crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and disrespectful
accusations against Chief Justice Vergara and the ponente. Atty. Sevillano’s
statements led Mr. Bautista, not only to suspect but also to believe, that the entire
Court, together with Chief Justice Vergara and the ponente, could be pressured or
influenced.

XI. SYRINE

A complaint of disbarment was filed by the Board of Directors of AAA Bank

against Atty. Duque for acts constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as
 counsel of BBB Group who are minority stockholders of the said bank, led his clients
in physically taking over the management and operations of the bank through
violence and intimidation. In his comment, Atty. Duque explained that he sent a
termination notice to the bank manager but the manager refused to comply. Having
learned such non-compliance, Atty. Duque, together with his clients went to AAA
Bank and asked the manager to step down but the manager refused to do so. Atty.
Duque then instructed the security guards to prevent entry of individuals into the
premises of bank and changed the bank’s vault locks. He said he acted in authority
granted to him by his clients who are lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors
of AAA Bank, and that he was only effecting a lawful and valid change of
management. Is Atty. Duque’s claim valid? Why/Why not? Explain.

Answer:

No. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall
represent his clients with zeal within the bounds of the law. Moreover, a lawyer’s
duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. In the same light, given
that his clients are elected Board of Directors of the Bank, Rule 15.07 of the same
Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his clients compliance with the law and
principles of fairness. It is a lawyer’s duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and
lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their
adversaries. Hence, his claim of having acted with authority given to him by his
clients when he let the said group forcibly take over the management and premises of
the bank is invalid and he has fallen short of the standard required of him.

XII. JOSEPH

Atty. Roque, counsel of Mr. AAA, allegedly misappropriated funds which

rightfully belongs to Mr. AAA which were supposedly the payment of a broadcasting
network regarding an interview about his son’s death. Atty. Roque-1 appropriated
only P30,000.00 to Mr. AAA and failed to account the balance of P170,000.00.

Did Atty. Roque commit any ethical/professional responsibility violation for

which he can be held liable? If a problem exists, what are its implications or potential
consequences?

Answer:

Yes, Atty. Roque violated Canon 16 Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.

The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require that
respondent lawyer should promptly account for the said funds which he received and
held for the benefit of his client. The client has the right to know how the funds were
applied, used or disbursed by his counsel.

In the case at bar, it is clear, therefore, that respondent has fallen short of his duty
as a lawyer under Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Hence, Mr. AAA can file for a disbarment case against Atty. Roque
and the counsel should be penalized accordingly.

XIII. CHARLENE
 Complainant, AAA through her employee BBB, entrusted the amount of Php
300.000 to Atty Duque, which the latter was supposed to give to CCC to redeem the
rights of his deceased father as tenant of a ricefield. The receipt of the money was
evidenced by an acknowledgement receipt. In the said receipt, Atty. Duque said that
he would deposit the money in court because CCC refused to accept the same.

AAA found out that Atty Duque had been losing a lot of money in cockfights. To
check if the money was truly deposited to the court, AAA pretended to borrow Php
80,000 and promised to return the amount for the next hearing but Atty Duque
refused saying that the money cannot be easily withdrawn from the court.

Subsuquently, AAA discovered that Atty Duque did not deposit the money to the
court, instead, he used it for his personal needs. Despite repeated demands, Atty
Duque refused to return the money prompting AAA to file a case with the IBP.

In his answer, Atty Duque insisted that there is no lawyer-client relationship

between him and AAA, for it was BBB whom he had a transaction which. He also
claimed that he never knew AAA ot that BBB was employed by AAA before the case
was filed.

QUESTIONS:

1. Did Atty. Duque violate the Code of Professional Responsibility? If yes, what
specific canons did he violate?

2. Assuming tha Atty Duque’s claim that there is really no lawyer-client relationship
between him and AAA is correct, will the case filed against Atty. Duque still prosper?

ANSWERS:

1. Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides under Canon 1, Rule 1.01
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Atty. Duque has been totally dishonest when he told AAA the lie that he depositted
the money to court, deceiving his client to misappropriate the money for himself.

Furthermore, the lawyer also violated Canon 16 that states that a lawyer shall hold in
trust all the moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possesion.
What the lawyer did in the case at bar is the entire opposite of holding I trust the
money and properties of his client, he appropriated the same for himself.

Atty. Duque was also bound to render an accounting to AAA showing that the money
was spent for a paritcular purpose under Rule 16.01, but he failed to do so. He also
violated Rule 16.03, stating that a lawyer shall deliver funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand, when he failed to account for the money despite repeated
demands.

2. Yes. Even if it true that there is no lawyer-client relationship between him and
AAA, under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be
removed or disciplined not only for dishonest and malpractice in the profession, but
also for gross immoral misconduct not connected to his proffesional dealings.

Being a member of the bar is not a right but a privilege. It is granted only to those
who are morally upright be it in their professional or personal dealings.

XIV. JENNIFER
 CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED vs. NICOLAS C.
TORRES
A.C. No. 10438, September 23, 2014
Atty. Duque is the Legal and Claims Manager of AAA Corporation who was
tasked to serve as its legal counsel and to oversee the administration and management
of legal cases and medical-related claims instituted by seafarers against complainant’s
various principals. Among the cases he handled in his capacity as Legal and Claims
Manager were the claims of seafarers Mangi, Sampani, Delgado, and Chua.
AAA Corporation issued checks in the amounts of P524,000.00, P652,013.20,
P145,650.00, P97,100.00, and P296,808.40 as settlement of the respective claims of
Mangi, Sampani, Delgado, and Chua. However, complainant later discovered that,
save for the check in the amount of P145,650.00 issued to Delgado, respondent never
gave the checks to the seafarers and instead, had them deposited at International
Exchange Bank, Banawe, Quezon City Branch, under Account No. 003-10-06902-1.5
With respect to Sampani, complainant also discovered that he only received the
amounts of P216,936.00 and P8,303.00 or a total of P225,239.00 out of the requested
amount of P652,013.20, through checks not issued by complainant.
Did Atty. Duque, in his capacity as a lawyer, commit any violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility? If so, what rule did Atty, Duque violate? Explain.
Yes. He violated the Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to return money entrusted to him
by the complainant.
It is fundamental that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith. The highly
fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for
the money or property collected or received for or from his client. This is the standard
laid down by Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR, which read:
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand.
In the foregoing light, it has been held that a lawyer’s failure to return upon
demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption
that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in
him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics.
It is well-settled that “when a lawyer receives money from the client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing
that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money
for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his
client.” This, respondent failed to do.
Clearly, respondent’s acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty, abuse of
trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant, and betrayal of his client’s
interests which he is duty-bound to protect. They are contrary to the mandate of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Such malfeasance is not only
unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; it also reveals a
basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.
XV. ZYRENE

Complainants AAA and her brothers and sisters hired the services of Atty. Duque
as their counsel in a civil case involving their shares in the estate of their deceased
mother, BBB. The Clerk of Court handed the settlement amount of P1,001,332.26
corresponding to (6) shares to Atty. Duque upon his representation that he is
authorized to receive the money and to oversee the distribution to complainants of
their respective shares. Complainants did not receive their shares from Atty. Duque
despite repeated demands. It was only when they engaged the services of Atty.
Duque-1 for a legal action of Estafa against Atty. Duque that the latter decided to
return the money but after deducting and retaining P250,000.00, which he claims to
be his attorney’s fees per his verbal agreement with AAA. Complainants alleged that
they have already paid Atty. Duque P86,000.00 and even agreed to pay an additional
P14,000.00 but there was no agreement to the effect that he will be paid P250,000.00.
Still, Atty. Duque failed to return the amount of P236,000.00, which is the balance
after deducting P14,000.00 from P250,000.00. Did Atty. Duque commit any violation
of the CPR? Explain.

ANSWER:

Yes. Atty. Duque violated Canon 16 of the CPR which states that “A LAWYER
SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT
THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.” Rule 16.03 also states that “A
lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.”

In the case at bar, when complainants demanded that the sum of P1,001,332.26 be
delivered to them, Atty. Duque should have heeded promptly. Had they not hired a
lawyer and charged him with Estafa, he would not have turned over the money to
them. While it may be true that he has "a lien over the funds," he should have notified
complainants about it in due time. He has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally
as lawyer’s lien, the sum of P250,000.00. There was even no proof of agreement
between him and complainants that he could retain the said amount as attorney’s fees.
His allegation or claim is not proof. His failure to return the money to complainants
upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it in violation of
the trust reposed on him.

XVI. MYRNA

1. Complainant, AAA, alleges that Atty. Duque befriended her and convinced her to
part with her title to a parcel of land located in Dasmariñas, Cavite. After the lapse
of five months, AAA demanded the return of her title from Atty. Duque who
promised to return the same but failed to do so. After ten months, Atty. Duque
was nowhere to be found. AAA, with the help of an informer, was able to locate
respondent who turned out to have transferred his residence. Upon confrontation,
Atty. Duque retorted that he could not give back the title to the land. Instead, he
offered to buy the property. He issued checks which when deposited bounced for
the reason “closed accounts”.

Did Attorney Duque violate Rule 16.04 the Code of Professional

Responsibility?
 YES. Respondent’s act of having borrowed the title to the land of complainant,
his presumed use of the said title for his personal gain, his failure to return the same
despite repeated demands and worse, his issuance of three checks in exchange for the
said land title which bounced, constitute gross misconduct and violation of Rule
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a
client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in
a legal matter he is handling for the client.”

XVII. JOYCE
none
XVIII. ANGELO

Atty. Duque was employed as a broadcaster in a radio broadcasting program soon

after passing the bar. As a practice, he forewarns his clients that he was just a new
lawyer and that they should not expect too much from him because of his limited
legal experience. He was then assigned by the radio broadcasting program as a
counsel of AAA in her labor case where the latter filed for illegal dismissal against
her former employer. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the AAA but
reversed by the NLRC, declaring that there was no illegal dismissal, upon the appeal.
Atty. Duque gave due diligence to the case especially in the appeal and even advised
client every week. By the time the decision was rendered, Atty. Duque confronted
AAA about lying about her employment and that because of this, there is a possibility
that she could lose the appeal. He advised complainant to get a more experienced
lawyer for her appeal because as a new lawyer he was not confident he could handle
her appeal. Thereafter, complainant no longer contacted him and at some time, he
even had to ask her whereabouts from her relatives. Complainant then blamed Atty.
Duque for the reversal for his failure to file Motion for Reconsideration from the
decision of NLRC for his excuse that he did not know how to file such.

1. Is Atty. Duque’s claim that he was just a new lawyer and hence he did not
know how to file a motion for reconsideration a valid reason for his inaction?
Explain.
2. Is the action of AAA a valid ground for the withdrawal of services? Explain

ANSWER:

1. No. His excuse that he did not know how to file a motion for reconsideration is
lame and unacceptable. it was incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his
books and refamiliarize himself with the procedural rules for a motion for
reconsideration. Filing a motion for reconsideration is not a complicated legal task.
Rule 18.03 states that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable”. In this case, his
excuse is not acceptable and will render him negligent. His client is entitled to every
remedy and defense that is authorized by law, in this case, on is the Motion for
Reconsideration. Thus, as a counsel, Atty. Duque’s duty is to serve his client with
competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the
bounds of law the interest of his client and never to neglect legal matters entrusted to
him. Notwithstanding the fact that he is a new lawyer, he is still expected with
rudiments of law and procedure.
2. No. Firstly, without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as
counsel,
respondent remains counsel of record and whether or not he has a valid cause to
withdraw
 from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client. Section 26 of the Rule 138 of
the
Rules of Court provides that an attorney may only retire from the case either by a
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 attorney is recorded
in the case. Atty. Duque did not comply with this obligation. In this case, even if
AAA absconded, there is no written consent that was manifested and filed with the
court. Thus, Atty. Duque will still be the counsel of record. Secondly, if assuming
that there is a written consent that was manifested and filed with the court, the action
of AAA is not a good cause for the withdrawal as provided for in the Rule 22.01 of
Canon 22. of the Code of Professional responsibility towit:
(a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case;
(b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility;
(c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could
not get along to the detriment of the case;
(d) when the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case effectively; (e) when the client
deliberately
fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon; (f) when the lawyer is elected or
appointed to
public office; (g) other similar cases.

XIX. ALEXA

19) JOSE ALLAN TAN vs. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE [A.C. NO. 7766, AUGUST 05,
2014]
Atty. Diamante rendered his legal services to AAA in pursuing a case for partition
of property against the heirs of the late spouses BBB and CCC. After accepting the
engagement, Atty. Diamante filed the corresponding complaint but was eventually
dismissed by the RTC. Atty. Diamante was informed about the dismissal but AAA
was only informed 10 days after when he visited the former’s office. During that visit,
Atty. Diamante allegedly asked for the amount of ₱10,000.00 for the payment of
appeal fees and other costs, but since AAA could not produce the said amount at that
time, instead, asked and was given the amount of ₱500.00 purportedly as payment of
the reservation fee for the filing of a notice of appeal before the RTC. On September
12, 2007, AAA handed the amount of ₱10,000.00 to Atty. Diamante, who on even
date filed a notice of appeal before the RTC.
The RTC subsequently dismissed AAA’s appeal for having been filed beyond
reglementary period provided by the law. AAA was not informed about the dismissal
of his appeal and instead Atty Diamante showed AAA a false Court Order dated
November 9, 2007 directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing to prove
his filiation to the late BBB, within 15 days from receipt of the notice. Considering
the technical requirements for such kind of testing, AAA proceeded to the RTC and
requested for an extension of the deadline for its submission. It was then that he
discovered that the court order was spurious and that his appeal had been long
dismissed.

1. Is Atty. Diamante’s claim that AAA’s failure to timely produce the amount of
1,400.00 for the appeal fees a valid reason in the late filing of his appeal? Explain.
2. Is Atty Diamante’s act of negligence in timely filling complaint that resulted to
the dismissal of it and consecutively concealing it’s dismissal by fabricating a
Court order a violation of the CPR? Explain.

ANSWER:
 No. AAA’s failure to timely produce the appeal fees is unacceptable by the
court because Atty. Diamante should have acted as his lawyer with diligence, skill
and competence whether he accepts it with a fee or not. Furthermore, AAA on
Sept. 12, 2007, handed to Atty. Diamante the amount of Php 10,000.00 as
payment. Atty. Diamante was negligent because he informed AAA of its
dismissal only upon the latter’s visit to his office 10 days after. It is the foremost
duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important information he may
have acquired affecting his client’s case. He should notify his client of any
development as regards to his case and should not leave him in the dark on how
he is defending his client’s interests. It is also to keep the client informed and to
not cause misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in him. Atty.
Diamante never bothered to inform him and according to Rule 18.04 – A lawyer
shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to client’s request for information. Atty. Diamante violated the
CPR and did not do characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and
candor in his relationship to his client. In the case, if AAA did not visited Atty.
Diamante, he would have not known about the dismissal of the case which is his
duty as an attorney to inform AAA; which he failed to do as his attorney. AAA
has been left out of his legal rights as his client when Atty. Diamante did not
informed him instantly about its dismissal. He was left-out on his own and wasn’t
fully aware of the development of the case.
Yes. The act of Atty. Diamante in not informing AAA the dismissal of his
complaint due to the late filling of it was a clear violation of the Rule 18.04, of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides; Rule 18.04 –
A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to client’s request for information. As an officer of the
court, Atty Diamante is bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal
proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing, failing in which
whether in his personal or private capacity, he becomes unworthy to continue his
practice of law. A lawyer’s inexcusable neglect to serve his client’s interests with
utmost diligence and competence as well as his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and
deceitful conduct in order to conceal such neglect should never be countenanced, and
thus, administratively sanctioned. Furthermore, to conceal his act of negligence he
showed AAA a false court order directing him to submit a DNA testing to prove his
affiliation to BBB and upon visit of AAA to RTC he found out that his complaint
was long over dismissed by the court. Atty Diamante did not only prejudice AAA his
legal rights but also wasted ample amount of his time and effort to produce such
money. The dishonest and deceitful conduct of Atty. Diamante is clearly a violation
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides;
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. In view of the foregoing, respondent’s conduct of employing a crooked and
deceitful scheme to keep complainant in the dark and conceal his case’s true status
through the use of a falsified court order evidently constitutes Gross Misconduct. His
acts should not just be deemed as unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law and
ultimately punishment of disbarment.

XX. GENEVIE

Complainant AAA and her husband BBB filed their Notice of Appeal. Thereafter,
the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered them to file their Appellants’ Brief. They chose
Atty. Duque to represent them in the case. On their behalf, he filed a Memorandum
on Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus, CCC filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Appeal. The CA granted the Motion in a Resolution dated 16 December 2003. No
Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution dismissing the appeal was filed
by the couple. It is because Atty. Duque never informed them of the adverse decision.
The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January 2004.
 Complainant AAA claims that she paid Atty. Duque a fee of P7,000.00. Also, she
asked Atty. Duque "several times" about the status of the appeal, but despite inquiries
he deliberately withheld response.

QUESTION:
1. Is there any "lawyer-client" relationship established? Explain.
2. Did Atty. Duque violate the Code of Professional Responsibility in handling his
client's case? Explain.
ANSWER:
1. Yes, acceptance of money from a client establishes a lawyer-client relationship
and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. That moment wherein Atty. Duque accepted the case
including the amount of P 7,000 signifies the establishment of "lawyer-client"
relationship.
2. Yes. Atty. Duque violated the Rules 18.02, 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for his negligence and malpractice in handling his client's
case. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation. His failure to file the proper pleading is negligence on
his part. Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. As
counsel, he had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to
do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 provides that a lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to
the client’s request for information.
Hence, Atty. Duque failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer
violates his duties to his client, he engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct
for which he should be held accountable.

XXI. HEINRICH

Atty. Duque in behalf of his client AAA sent a demand letter claiming for
separation pay to BBB, the employer of AAA. The demand letter contained threats
that failure of BBB to settle the amount will constrained Atty. Duque to file other
multiple charges such as Tax Evasion, Falsification of Documents and Cancellation
of Business License against BBB. Did Atty. Duque violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Answer. Yes, his action violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon
19 of the said Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within
the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Code provides that a lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Atty. Duque by
threatening BBB to file multiple charges base on unfounded cases, if should the latter
fail to pay the subject amount of money clearly violates Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the
CPR. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount
to blackmail. (Pena vs Aparicio, Adm. Case No. 7298, June 25, 2007).

XXII. PEE-JAY

Atty. XXX, the legal counsel of Ms. GGG wrote a demand-letter in connection of
the claim of his client from Mr. OOO for the support of the latter’s only child with the
claimant. A few days thereafter, Atty. XXX wrote a letter addressed to Dr. AAA, an
emissary of Mr. OOO. In this letter, Atty. XXX listed down the alleged additional
financial demands of his client against Mr. OOO and discussed the courses of action
that he would take against him should the latter fail to comply with his obligation to
 support Ms. GGG and her son. Mr. OOO did not comply with the demands against
him. Consequently, Atty. XXX filed criminal and administrative complaints against
Mr. OOO. The administrative cases were subsequently denied due course and
dismissed. The foregoing prompted Mr. OOO to file the present case for disbarment
against Atty. XXX. The records show that the respondent offered monetary rewards
to anyone who could provide him any information against the complainant just so he
would have a leverage in his actions against the latter.

(a) What Rule/s of the Code of Professional Responsibility was/were violated by

Atty. XXX, if
Any? Explain.

The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the
bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that “a lawyer shall employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.”
The respondent’s action is deemed to be malicious as the cases he instituted against
the complainant did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms.
GGG. Clearly, the respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01.
His behavior is inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the rules that a
lawyer shall not, for corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding and
he shall not do any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

XXIII. EDNALIN

Atty. Duque entered into agreement for his legal services with AAA where it is
provided that the latter will pay him on a contingent basis, as follows: twenty percent
(20%) of total monetary claims as settled or paid and an additional ten percent (10%)
in case of appeal. It was likewise agreed that any award of attorney’s fees shall
pertain to Atty. Duque’s compensation.
The Local Arbiter (LA) granted the monetary claims of AAA. However, AAA’s
employer filed an appeal. During the pendency of the proceedings, AAA died. After
explaining the terms of the lawyer’s fees to BBB, wife of the late AAA, Atty. Duque
caused her substitution as complainant.
The court granted the monetary claim of BBB amounting to P3,454,079.20. Out
of her total monetary claim, she paid Atty. Duque the sum of P680,000.00.
Dissatisfied, Atty. Duque filed a motion to record and enforce the attorney’s lien
alleging that BBB reneged on their contingent fee agreement. The court awarded the
attorney’s fees of Atty. Duque and allowed him to received an equivalent amount of
39% of the monetary award. Does the court committed an error of law in its decision
and resolution? Explain.

Answer.
No. There are two concepts of attorney’s fees. The ordinary concept refers to
the reasonable compensation paid to the lawyer by his client for the legal services he
has rendered to the latter. The other concept is the amount of damages which the
court may award to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. (Bach v.
Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices, G.R. No. 160334, September 11,
2006)
The court apply the ordinary concept of attorney’s fees, or the compensation that
Atty. Duque is entitled to received for representing BBB, in substitution of her
husband, before the labor tribunals and before the court. The court observed Sec. 24,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court in determining Atty. Duque’s compensation.
The said Rule provides: Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney’s; agreement as to
fees. – An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than
 a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of
attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written
contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or reasonable.
The criteria found in the Code of Professional Responsibility are also to be
considered in assessing the proper amount of compensation that a lawyer should
receive. Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the said Code provides:
Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
Rule 20.01. – A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining
his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP
Chapter to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client
from the services;
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or establiished; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of thhe
court in order that clients may be protected from unjust charges. The amount of
contingent fees agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel
will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher
compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that the lawyer may
get nothing if the suit fails. (Sesbreño v. Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 884, 893 (1995).
Considering that Atty. Duque successfully represented his client, it is only
proper that he should receive adequate compensation for his attorney’s fees by the
court. The fact that the practice of law is not a business and the attorney plays a vital
role in the administration of justice underscores the need to secure him his
honorarium lawfully earned as a means to preserve the decorum and respectability of
the legal profession. (Calalang v. De Borja, 66 SCRA 176 (1975). A lawyer is as
much entitled to judicial protection against injustice or imposition of fraud on the part
of his client as the client is against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the
court is not alone to ensure that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also
to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital consisting of his brain and
with his skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of
time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any
attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just compensation. It would
be ironic if after putting forth the best in him to secure justice for his client, he
himself would not get his due. (Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law
Offices, G.R. No. 160334, September 11, 2006)

XXIV. FE- MARIE

AAA engaged the legal services of Atty Duque in a civil case. Notwithstanding
his receipt of documents and attorney’s fees, he never rendered legal services. The
Client then terminated the client-lawyer relationship and demanded the return of her
money, but the lawyer refused. AAA then filed a bar complaint against him. He was
found by the Supreme Court guilty of gross malpractice and misconduct. Upon
 learning the SC’s decision, Atty Duque verified the status of the civil case where he
learned of the Trial Court’s decision that the documents submitted by AAA were not
official record but it was found out that he knew of the falsification long before the
trial court’s decision. He filed a motion for reconsideration on the SC’s decision
arguing, among others, that he did not render legal services because of client’s
fraudulent representation.

Question:

1. In light of knowing that the documents submitted by AAA were falsified, what
should Atty. Duque, as the counsel of the client, do?

2. Provided that Atty Duque rendered legal services to AAA in her civil case, may
he withdraw as counsel of AAA should the latter refused to rectify her fraudulent
representation and still insists in going to trial? Explain.

Answer:

1. It is to be noted that once a lawyer accepts money from the client, a lawyer-client
relationship is established. In the present case, since Atty Duque accepted money
from AAA, he is to be considered as the counsel of the client. One of his duties is
to call-out AAA of her fraudulent representation and ask her to rectify the same as
provided for in Rule 19.02, Canon 19 of the CPR which states that “a lawyer who
has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation
perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the clients
to rectify the same xxx”. In the present case, it is obvious that Atty. Duque failed
to follow the rule because of his inaction as the counsel of the client.

2. Yes. If despite Atty Duque’s advice to rectify the fraudulent representation, AAA
still insists to go trial, he may withdraw as the counsel of the case as provided for
in Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, Canon 19 of
the same Code provides that one of the duties of a lawyer is to represent his client
with zeal within bounds of the law. His conduct must always be observant of law
and ethics.

XXV. MAE HAZEL

Engr. AAA, a contractor, and BBB are engaged in a Construction Agreement for
a Three-Storey Commercial Building. They availed the notary services of Atty.
Duque, BBB’s father, for the notarization of the Construction Agreement worth
P5,000,000.00. After notarizing the agreement, Atty. Duque demanded Engr. AAA
P50,000.00 as notarial fee. Being unfamiliar with the cost of notarial services, Engr.
AAA still paid Atty. Duque P 30,000.00 in cash and issued a check for the remaining
P20,000.00.

Before the maturity date of the check, Engr. AAA requested to Atty. Duque not to
deposit the check because it is not yet funded. Engr. AAA informed Atty. Duque that
his son did not yet paid him the initial payment of the Construction Agreement. But
Atty. Duque still deposited the check and it was consequently dishonored for
insufficient funds. BBB’s initial payment to Engr. AAA amounting to P 2,500,000.00
was also dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account.

Subsequently, Atty. Duque filed a complaint against Engr. AAA for violation of
BP 22 before the MTC. While Engr. AAA filed a complaint before the IBP claiming
that the notarial fee of P50,000.00 was exorbitant.
 1.Is the notarial fee demanded to Engr. AAA excessive?

2.Can Atty. Duque be sanctioned for his actions?

Answers:

1. No. In the long line of cases, it is recognized in legal practice in real estate
transactions and construction projects to base the amount of notarial fees on the
contract price. The fee only represented 1% of the contract price of P 5,000,000.00,
thus, it cannot be said that the notary demanded more than a reasonable compensation
for his service.

Furthermore, the subsequent act of paying Atty. Duque by a cash and a check is a
proof that Engr. AAA agreed to the amount demanded by Atty. Duque. Engr. AAA
also failed to negotiate to Atty. Duque about his concern.

2.Yes. Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that “a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and
shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.” In the
case at bar, there is no imposition, injustice or fraud taken against Atty. Duque that
will resort him to a suit to recover the remaining compensation against Engr. AAA.

Atty. Duque had been inconsiderate despite of the fact that Engr. AAA explains
why he has runs out of fund. He lacks being compassionate to his client which
undermines the principle embodied in Canon 15 that “a laywer should observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.”

Hence, Atty. Duque can be reprimanded for violation of Canon 20, Rule 20.4 and
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

XXVI. MEL MARI

Case Assigned: Senior Marketing Corporation vs. Atty. Aquilino Bolinas (A.C. No.
6740)
Atty. Duque (Respondent); AAA Company (Complainant)

Atty. Duque acting as AAA Company’s counsel from 1995 to 2002, had access to
the documents related to the cases he handled against the complainant. Due to
business reversal and financial constraints, the complainant terminated his services as
retainer. His termination irked him and in obvious vindictiveness, he accepted cases
filed against complainant by its employees.
Atty. Duque’s act of accepting the cases and in representing complainant's
employees in a case filed against complainant without its consent violated his oath of
office. In the respondent’s comment, he denied having access to all documents related
to cases he had handled as he was only furnished photocopies of documents on
certain accounts which he used as basis for sending letters and filing appropriate legal
actions. Atty. Duque, however, admitted handling the cases of complainant's
employees and that he accepted the cases more than one (1) year after his services
were terminated by the complainant.

Questions:
1. May Atty. Duque use the termination of his services as counsel to the complainant
to justify his representation of a party in conflict of his former client?
 2. In the case at bar, is the respondent duty bound to continue protecting his former
client’s secrets and confidence even after a year or more of his termination as the
latter’s counsel?

Answers:
1. No. 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. As
provided in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of facts”. Therefore, Atty. Duque is guilty for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. Yes, attorneys are legally bound to practice lawyer-client privileged
communication even after his termination. As provided in Canon 21 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility “A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets
of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated”. Atty. Duque
failed to uphold this duty thus, his defence regarding his engagement to such
cases after a year or more of his termination is not valid.

XXVII. JAIME

Atty. Duque-27 was the legal counsel of Mrs. AAA in a Civil Case and
Administrative Case. Pursuant to a favorable decision, a writ of execution pending
appeal was issued in favor of AAA, Atty. Duque- 27 garnished the bank deposits of
the defendnt, but did not turn over the proceeds to AAA. 
AAA won the Civil Case and demanded that Atty. Duque-27 should turn over the
proceeds of the garnishment, but the latter refused claiming that he had paid part of
the money to the judge while the balance was his, as attorney's fees. Because of his
refusal,AAA filed an administrative case for disbarment.The IBP Board of Governors
found that the respondent was guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of
client's funds and recommending to the Court his one-year suspension from the
practice of law.
In retaliation,the Atty. Duque-27 filed a series of lawsuits against the MMM
family except FFF, committed barratry,forum shopping, exploitation of family
problems,and use of intemperate language when he filed several frivolous and
unwarranted lawsuits against the complainants and their family members, their
lawyers, and the family corporation. He also filed also cases against the chairman and
members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to recommend his suspension
from the practice of law for one year. In addition to the twelve (12) cases filed, the
respondent also re-filed cases which had previously been dismissed.
Did Atty. Duque- 27 commit any ethical/administrative violation that can result
for his disbarment?
Answer:
Yes, Atty. Duque-27 violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by filling frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that violated his duties as
an officer of the court in aiding in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
He also violated of Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,when he use matters and information acquired by the respondent
 during the time when he was still AAA's counsel. Information as to the structure and
operations of the family corporation, private documents, and other pertinent facts and
figures used as basis or in support of the cases filed by the respondent in pursuit of his
malicious motives were all acquired through the attorney-client relationship.
Hence, Atty. Duque- 27 should be disbarred from the practice of law based on his
conduct that was unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to
an attorney.

XXVIII. JAMES
NONE

XXIX. MARJORIE
In 1998, Atty. Duque appeared as counsel for AAA for the latter’s complaint for
illegal dismissal against his former employer. Thereafter, AAA made several
unsuccessful visits to the office of Atty. Duque to follow-up on the progress of the
case. After a final visit in April 2000, AAA decided to follow-up the case himself
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and was shocked to learn
that his complaint was actually dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute,
the parties not having submitted their position papers.
In his defense, Atty. Duque attributes his failure to timely file the position paper
to the fact that: (a) he was pre-occupied with his function as a councilor and as a
practicing lawyer; (b) it was his policy to inform clients that they should be the one to
follow-up their cases with his office; and (c) AAA conveyed a message to him that he
had another lawyer to handle the case.
Did Atty. Duque violate any provision of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
Yes. For his failure to timely file the position paper, Atty. Duque violated Canon
18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 18
provides that “A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence”. Rule
18.03 further provides that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable”. Rule 18.04
also states that “A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.” Once
a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty bound to serve his client with
competence and diligence, and must assert every remedy and defense authorized by
law. In this case, Atty. Duque’s failure to file the position paper shows neglect of a
legal matter entrusted to him by his client which constitutes inexcusable negligence.
If indeed Atty. Duque’s workload prevented him from timely filing, he should have
informed AAA of such fact and availed himself of legal remedies such as a request
for more time to file or maybe even the hiring of a collaborating counsel or
substitution, so as not to leave AAA in the dark as to the mode and manner in which
his interests are being defended.
Given his defense, is Atty. Duque justified in abandoning AAA’s case?
No. Rule 22.02 of Canon 22 provides that “A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter”. The severance of the relation of attorney-client is not
effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating
 that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the
adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues to be the counsel in the case. In
this case, Atty. Duque’s claim that he took no further action because AAA conveyed
a message to him that he had another lawyer to handle the case cannot be justified
because there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Duque and this new
counsel. A lawyer cannot withdraw or terminate his services and leave his client in
the cold unprotected.

XXX. CARLA
AAA engaged in the services of Atty. Duque as her counsel in five (5) cases and
in the Retainer Agreement of the same date, complainant agreed to pay respondent
the amount of P200,000.00 as Acceptance Fee for the said cases, with an Appearance
Fee of P1,500.00 pesos per hearing; and in the event that damages are recovered, she
would pay respondent 10% thereof as success fee. Complainant later issued two
checks amounting to P51, 716.00, but respondent failed to file a case against Swire
Realty and Development Corp. As for the other 4 cases referred by complainant to
respondent were filed in court but were dismissed or terminated for causes not
attributable to respondent. Through her new counsel, Atty. Duque-1, she filed a
charge against Atty. Duque for the return of the acceptance fee given.

Should the respondent lawyer be compelled to return the acceptance fee?

Answer:
No. The only payment given to complainant by respondent is the amount of
P51,716.54.00, then complainant still owes respondent more, as respondent rendered
his legal services in 4 out of the 5 cases. An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but
is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts
regardless of the outcome of the litigation. That complainant was dissatisfied with the
outcome of the four cases does not render void the above retainer agreement for
respondent appears to have represented the interest of complainant