FIVE J TAXI v NLRC

G.R. No. 111474. August 22, 1994

DOCTRINE: Quantum Meruit – “As much as is deserved.”

FACTS: Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired by the petitioners as
taxi drivers and, as such, they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24-hour shifting schedule. Aside from the

daily boundary of P700.00 for air-conditioned taxi or P450.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi, they were
also required to pay P20.00 for car washing, and to further make a P15.00 deposit to answer for any
deficiency in their boundary, for every actual working day.

In less than 4 months, Maldigan already failed to report for work for unknown reasons.
Petitioners learned that he was working for Mine of Gold Taxi Company. With respect to Sabsalon, while
driving a taxicab of petitioners on September 1983, he was held up by his armed passenger who took all
his money and thereafter stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his discharge, he went to this
home province to recuperate.

In January 1987, Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners but once failed to remit his boundary
and abandoned his taxicab in Makati. Afterwards, it was revealed that he was driving a taxi for Bulaklak
Company. Sometime in 1989, Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his daily cash
deposits but was denied since the petitioners told him that they weren’t enough for the repairs of his
taxicab. Both of them were terminated from employment. On November 27, 1991, private respondents
filed a complaint with the manila Arbitration Office of the National Labor Relations Commission charging
petitioners with illegal dismissal and illegal deductions.

ISSUE: Whether or not Guillermo Pulia was a viable representative for the respondents.

HELD: No. On the last issue of attorney's fees or service fees for private respondents' authorized
representative, Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1691,
states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor arbiter only (1) if they represent
themselves, or (2) if they represent their organization or the members thereof. While it may be true that
Guillermo H. Pulia was the authorized representative of private respondents, he was a non-lawyer who

did not fall in either of the foregoing categories. Hence, by clear mandate of the law, he is not entitled to
attorney's fees.

Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his
client a reasonable compensation for his services necessarily imports the existence of an attorney-client
relationship as a condition for the recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless
the client's representative is a lawyer.
WILFREDO T. GARCIA v. ATTY. BENIAMINO A. LOPEZ

A.C. No. 6422. August 28, 2007

DOCTRINE: Canon 8, Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer.

FACTS: On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed

his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.

Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from
the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court that he
was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant was the counsel
of record. Complainant presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarviña and Alfredo Ku wherein they
stated that they did not engage the services of respondent and that they recognized complainant as
their only counsel of record.

In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku who
sought his help and told him that they wanted to retain his services. He asserted that it was an honest
mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not
prejudice anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility?

HELD: Yes. Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he
was representing.

Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the
causes of their clients. They are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach
at all times.

Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the srcinal applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-
client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina Jarviña and
Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the "compulsory
heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento" when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but
not all of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He
had no authorization to represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will "do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court."
NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO v. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO

A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004

DOCTRINE: Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court

FACTS: Sometime in the middle of December 2001, respondent went to complainant's residence in
Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered

to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals
which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody.

Complainant asked respondent for the srcinal copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of
Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her so she refused to give it.

In the mid-morning of January 15, 2002, while complainant was with her children, respondent,
accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of
their children. He threatened to forcefully take them away with the help of his companions, whom he
claimed to be agents of the NBI.

Alarmed, complainant immediately sought the assistance of the Tanjay City Police. In order to
diffuse the tension, complainant agreed to allow the children to sleep with respondent for one night on
condition that he would not take them away from Tanjay City.

In the early morning of January 16, 2002, complainant received information that a van arrived at
the hotel where respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod City. On the same
day, respondent filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City, a verified petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged Court of Appeals'
Resolution. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint alleging that respondent violated his
attorney's oath by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious Court of Appeals' Resolution in and
outside a court of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the CPR.

HELD: Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. Even with due recognition then
that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a client's cause, it must never be at
the expense of the truth.

Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in
describing complainant and her relatives. Respondent's actions erode the public perception of the legal
profession. They constitute gross misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
CLARITA J. SAMALA v. ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA

A.C. No. 5439. January 22, 2007

DOCTRINE: Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients. Canon 21 - A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

FACTS: Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for Disbarment on the
following grounds:

1. Serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for contending parties

2. Knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence

3. Initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees.

4. Having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be suspended.

HELD: Respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. SUSPENDED for 3 years. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. The stern rule against representation
of conflicting interests is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the
attorney's duty to represent his client with undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the client's
confidence as well as from the injunction forbidding the examination of an attorney as to any of the
privileged communications of his client.
RHEEM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. ZOILO R. FERRER

G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967

DOCTRINE: Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

FACTS: The following was filed by the counsel (Atty. Jose S. Armonio) for the petitioner: One pitfall into

which this Honorable Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the question as to whether or not a
particular subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations is the tendency of
this Honorable Court to rely upon its own pronouncement without due regard to the statutes which
delineate the jurisdiction of the industrial court. Quite often, it is overlooked that no court, not even this
Honorable Court, is empowered to expand or contract through its decision the scope of its jurisdictional
authority as conferred by law. This error is manifested by the decisions of this Honorable Court citing
earlier rulings but without making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute governing the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. This manifestation appears in this Honorable Court's
decision in the instant case. As a result, the errors committed in earlier cases dealing with the
jurisdiction of the industrial court are perpetuated in subsequent cases involving the same issue . . . .

The Court ordered counsel to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Armonio’s statements violated the duty of respect to courts.

HELD: Yes. As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that, “it is the duty of the
lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary
incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.” Worth
remembering is the attorney’s duty to the courts “can only be maintained by rendering no service
involving disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold”.

In the case, the Court felt that Atty. Armonio’s language makes a sweeping charge that the
decisions of the SC blindly adhere to earlier rulings without making “any reference and analysis” of the
pertinent statutes of the CIR. The statements made by counsel detract much from the dignity and
respect of the SC. Atty. Armonio was admonished by the SC.
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR.

A.C. No. 7199. July 22, 2009

DOCTRINE: Canon 13, Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

FACTS: Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and

Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. 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: Yes. The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of
Professional Responsibility which reads: “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.”

The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the
Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly
assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even
design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-
quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the fundamental Canon 1 also
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Respondent defied said status
quo order, despite his (respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal profession to “obey the laws as well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.”