EDUARDO, RAY BRADLEY B.
Legal Ethics – Sat. 6:00-9:00pm
LEGAL ETHICS CASE ANALYSIS
Who (parties) and what Victoria C. Sousa v. Atty. J. Albert R. Tinampay, A.C. No.
(case no. / date) 7428, Nov. 25, 2019.
Why and how
Complainant (all the
circumstances that
lead to file a case)
Respondent
(defenses)
What is the
recommendation of the
IBP-CBD?
What is the
recommendation of
OCA?
Issues raised to the SC
Dispositive portion
(final decision)
- The complainant is a co-defendant in a civil case for
annulment of sale. The complainant appointed the
respondent as an attorney-in-fact.
- The respondent did not appear in the proceedings before
the MCTC, and, although he was present in the refiled
case in the RTC, he remained silent and did not submit
any notice for his substitution as the new counsel of the
complainant. Thus, the complainant’s case was declared
in default.
- He was never the counsel of the complainant. He insisted
that Atty. Cabilan was the counsel of record of the
complainant. He averred that he represented the
complainant’s co-defendants in the refiled case, and that
there was no retainer agreement between him and the
complainant.
- He admitted that he billed the complainant amounting to
Php 41, 500.00 as referral fee.
- That the respondent failed in his duty to safeguard the
interest of his client during the pre-trial of the refiled case.
It was recommended that the respondent should be
reprimanded.
- The IBP Board of Directors adopted and approved the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD with modifications. It
found that the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1
year.
- The court granted the respondent’s motion for
reconsideration and resolved to reverse and set aside the
case.
- null
- Whether or not the respondent should be reprimanded
notwithstanding the ruling of IBP Board.
- The court finds that the respondent is negligent and
unmindful of his sworn duties to the complainant.
- Atty. Tinampay was found guilty of violating Canons 17,
18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR. He was
suspended for 1 year from the practice of law and sternly
warned that the repetition of the same shall be dealt with a
EDUARDO, RAY BRADLEY B.
Legal Ethics – Sat. 6:00-9:00pm
What are the core
moral values that were
ignored?
What are the virtues
that are missing
What are the vices that
the respondent got
involved in?
What are the lessons
that I learned from this
case so that no case of
similar can be filed
against me in the
future?
more severe penalty.
- Love for truth; respect for one’s reputation.
- Competence
- Diligence
- Zealousness
- Heedlessness
- Incompetence
- A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Canon
17). All proceedings must be dealt with accordingly to the
best of his capacities and the interest of his client with due
diligence of a good father.