OCA V EGIPITO
A.M No P-05-1938 | Nov 7 2017
DOCTRINE: Any shortages in the amounts remitted and any
delays incurred in the actual remittance of collections shall
constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerks of court
concerned shall be held administratively liable.
FACTS:
 Examination Report dated June 27, 2005 submitted
by Marry Rose D. Eleno, State Auditor IV of COA
claim that there was a shortage of Ninety-Eight
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Two Pesos and Eighty-
One Centavos (P98,652.81) as of February 21, 2005.
The Collections were not deposited intact daily as
required under Section 21 of the New Government
Accounting System
 The Court then upon recommendation fo the OCA
resolved to direct respondent Crispin Egipito to
explain in writing within a period of 10 days the
reason for the accounting discrepancies and
RELIEVE him of his position as Collecting officer
pending the resolution of the administrative matter
 Egipto admitted having incurred the shortages as
reported by COA State Auditor Eleno, but explained
that he had not been able to remit his collections
because of his financial difficulties and personal
problems caused by the murder of his son and the
hospitalization of his daughter; that he had been
exerting effort to raise the funds with which to
restitute his cash shortages; and that he would
promptly inform the Court of the restitution once
the funds were raised.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable?
RULING
YES.
 Clerks of court, being the custodians of court funds
and revenues, records, properties, and premises, are
liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or
impairment of the funds or other assets entrusted to
them. Their personal accountability is always
enforceable.
 Egipto admitted his failure to remit his collections
on time on account of his personal problems
however the Court ruled that personal problems
should never justify the incurring of shortages and
the delay in remitting cash collections for the
Judiciary.
 For the delay in the remittance of his cash
collections, therefore, Egipto was guilty of
dishonesty and grave misconduct, and is punished
with dismissal pursuant to the Revised Rules of
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
 Misconduct is a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of
the additional elements of corruption, willful intent
to violate the law, or to disregard established rules,
which must be established by substantial evidence.
 An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be
considered as grave misconduct as in fact, crimes
involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate
ground for dismissal under the Administrative Code.
 Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false
statement in any material fact, or practicing or
attempting to practice any deception or fraud in
securing his examination, registration, appointment
or promotion. Dishonesty, like bad faith, is not
simply bad judgment or negligence, but a question of
intention.
RECTO v TROCINO
A.M No RTJ-17-2508 | November 7,2017
DOCTRINE: A judge owes it to his office to simply apply the law
when the law or a rule is basic and the facts are evident. Not to
know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross
ignorance of the law.
FACTS:
 The RTC issued a TPO granting temporary custody
of the 15 month old child of Marie Recto to her
former live in partner Magdaleno Peñ a. The said
TPO also prevents the minor child from being
brought out of the country without prior court
order.
 The complaint before the court against Judge Tocino
alleges that he exhibited bias and gross ignorance of
the law and acted with grave abuse of discretion and
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct upon
issuance of the TPO. The complainant claim that the
judge was not given an opportuny to file her
answer,enter into Pre-trial and without socal
worker’s case study report. He was also alleged to
have erroneously used RA 9262 t support his order.
 The complainant claim that the case filed by
Magdelano Peñ a was for custody and should have
been observed by the respondent judger and not the
Rule of Anti Violence against Women and Children
 wherein custody is only issued after an Answer is
filed and after Pre-trial is conducted and DSWD
Report has been filed
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge erred in issuing the
TPO?
RULING:
YES
● Upon review of the records, the Court agrees with
the findings and recommendation of the OCA that
Judge Trocino acted with gross ignorance of the law
when he issued the TPO.
● The respondent judge deliberately ignored the
provisions of the Family Code, the Rule on Custody of
Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to
Custody of Minors and the Rule on Violence against
Women and their Children.
● Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of the
basic rules and settled jurisprudence.
CABUELLO v TALABOC
A.C No 10532 | November 7 2017
DOCTRINE: A member of the legal profession owes his/her
client entire devotion to the latter’s genuine interest, and warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his/her rights.
FACTS
● Complainant stated that respondent, neglected the
criminal cases of his parents. Complainant alleged
that he paid for the legal services of respondent, but
she did not attend any hearing. She also failed to file
the necessary complaint against the policemen, who
arrested the accused, as agreed upon by them.
Complainant alleged that he has also paid for
respondents legal services
● Cabuello alleged that because respondent did not
attend the hearings of the case, he was forced to go
back and forth from Manila to the province for 10
months to attend to the cases of his parents. Every
time he went home to the province, he spent
P5,000.00 for his bus and plane fares and P1,000.00
for the van. He spent a total amount of about
P150,000.00 due to the negligence of respondent.
Unsatisfied with respondent’s legal services,
complainant sent respondent several demand
letters which was ignored by the lawyer in question.
● Despite the IBPs order to respondent to answer the
allegations, he failed to do so.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable?
RULING: YES
● The records show that as counsel of the
complainant’s parents, respondent was remiss in
her duty toward them by never appearing in the
hearings of the criminal case, which contributed to
the delay of the pretrial of the case for eleven
months or almost a year until the trial court finally
appointed a counsel de officio for respondent’s
clients so the pretrial and trial on the merits could
proceed.
● It is clear that respondent indeed violated Canons 17
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility :
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. Canon 18 – A lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
● An attorney is expected to exert his/her best efforts
and ability to preserve his/her clientÊ s cause, for
the unwavering loyalty displayed to his/her client,
likewise, serves the ends of justice.
● The entrusted privilege to practice law carries with
it the corresponding duties, not only to the client,
but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.
VALIN V RUIZ
A.C No 10564| November 7 2017
DOCTRINE: Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach
at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the
public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of
the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate
penalty, including suspension and disbarment
FACTS:
 The administrative complaint was filed by Manuel
and Honorio Valin with the IBP CBD against the
respondent for allegedly committing forgery and
falsification of deed of absolute sale, in breach of the
lawyers oath and violation of laws.
 The petitioner’s claim that respondent property of
their parents were transferred to respondent, a
godson of their father Pedro, for P10,000. The said
signatures in the transfer of deed and Community
Tax were falsified since their father was already
dead in Hawaii at that time.
  The respondent claim that one of Pedro’s children ,
Rogelio sold to him the property representing
Pedro. Rogelio was said to have claimed tha
property as his share. Rogelio was said to have said
that since their father was out of the country, the
SPA was then disregarded when they undertook the
transfer of title. Ruiz says that the transaction was
not public but a private one hence not subject to
administrative sanctions
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is administratively liable?
Verano’s parcel of land to secure bail bonds in
connection with at least 61 cases of Estafa and
Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
 The respondent was said to have used Verano’s
parcel of land a a bond for particulat criminal cases
that have been filed against him. Verano then
discovered the executed MOA in order to use the
subject property as guarantee to obtain bail bonds
for the filed Estafa and BP 22 cases.

RULING:  Verano claims that although there was an SPA in

favor of Atty Dioers for the latter to use as a
guarantee for the bail bonds, it was only for specific
YES ciminal cases and not the others.

 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is administratively liable ?
“a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct”. YES

 The lawyer’s oath enjoins every lawyer not only to

obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from RULING:
doing any falsehood in or out of court or from
consenting to the doing of any in court, and to
 Any form of deception or fraudulent act committed
conduct himself according to the best of his
by a lawyer in either capacity is not only disgraceful
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to
and dishonorable, but also severely undermines the
the courts as well as to his clients.
trust and confidence of people in the legal
 Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR provides that “a
profession, violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR,
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
and puts the lawyer’s moral character into serious
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
doubt as a member of the Bar, rendering him unfit to
the Court to be misled by any artifice.”
continue his practice of law

 While the SPA executed by Verano empowered Atty.
 A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law
Diores, in his private capacity, to use the subject
during good behavior and can only be deprived of it
property as guaranty for his bail bond in some of his
for misconduct ascertained and declared by
criminal cases, this did not grant him carte blanche
judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard
to use the said property to secure bail bonds in his
has afforded him. Without invading any
other criminal cases which were not included in the
constitutional privilege or right, and attorney’s right
SPA hence a reflection of the respondent’s moral
to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to
character.
suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering
him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties
and responsibilities of an attorney.

GUILLEN V ARNADO
VERANO v DIORES
A.C No 10547 | November 8 2017
A.C No 8887 | November 7 2017

DOCTRINE (S): The practice of law is imbued with public

DOCTRINE: In dealing with clients or other people, lawyers are
expected to observe the highest degree of good faith, fairness
and candor, both in their private and professional capacities.
interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties, not only to
his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts,
and to the public, and takes part in the administration of justice,
one of the most important functions of the State, as an officer of
the court.

FACTS:

FACTS:
 An administrative complaint was filed by Roman
Dela Rosa Verano against Atty Luis Diores for deceit
malpractice, gross ignorance of the law and violation
of the Lawyer’s Oath for surreptitiously using
  Complainant Freddie Guillen is the registered owner
of the City Grill Restaurant. He then invited
respondent Atty. Audie Arnado and a certain Cedric
Ebo to join the restaurant business. Each of them
had to shell out P200,000.00 to make up a total
capital of P600,000.00. A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was therefore executed and the
business was formally launched in May 2003. At
􏰀rst, everything went smoothly, until Arnado's
sister-in-law and Ebo's son participated in the
management, causing complications in the business
operations
 Guillen offered that he would waive his claims for
pro􏰀ts, provided that Arnado would return the
P200,000.00 that he paid as capital. Arnado
allegedly claimed that said refund would still be
subject to the billings of the Arnado and Associate
Law Firm. Thereafter, Guillen was surprised to 􏰀nd
out that Arnado had already caused the
incorporation of the restaurant with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was
approved on February 16, 2004. Guillen was
likewise excluded from the business without the
aforementioned refund of his capital. He was further
charged with Estafa before the O􏰁ce of the City
Prosecutor of Cebu. Thus, Guillen initiated the
present administrative case
 The IBP recommended that ATTY. AUDIE ARNADO
of Cebu City be CENSURED for his deceitful and
dishonest act in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful conduct.
ISSUE : Whether or not Atty Arnado is administratively
liable?
RULING:
YES
 Arnado is guilty of taking advantage of his
knowledge of the law and of surreptitiously easing
out Guillen from their restaurant business
partnership by registering a corporation under a
different but similar name and style, in the same line
of business, and using the same trade secrets.
Arnado, although not reflected as one of the
incorporators has deceived the public into believing
that City Grill Restaurant and City Grill-Sutukil Food
Corporation are one and the same, clearly violating
Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct.
 Arnado has certainly fallen short of the high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing required of him. On the contrary, he
employed his knowledge and skill of the law as well
as took advantage of Guillen to secure undue gains
for himself and to inflict serious damage on others.
RICO V SALUTAN
A.C No 9257| March 5,2018
DOCTRINE: An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is
innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved,
and that as an o􏰅cer of the court, he is presumed to have
performed his duties in accordance with his oath.
FACTS:
 A complaint was filed against Atty. Salutan for
misleading the court and for contempt of court.
 Complainant claims that his relatives were plaintiffs
in a civil case for Forcible Entry before the MTC and
court had ordered the defendants to restore
plaintiffs' possession of the subject properties,
remove all structures that had been introduced on
the same, and to pay reasonable sum for their
occupation of the properties.
 The court's sheriff executed a Return Service stating
that the writ could not be served on Rico since the
property subject of the case was different from the
lot which Rico was occupying. Thereafter, Villa
Abrille, through her counsel, respondent Atty.
Salutan, filed a motion for the issuance of an Alias
Writ of Execution which was only granted upon its
fourth attempt hence the administrative complaint
filed against Atty. Sulatan.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is administratively liable?
RULING/RATIO:
NO
 despite the charges hurled against Atty. Salutan,
Rico failed to show any badge of deception on the
lawyer's part. There was no court decision declaring
that Villa Abrille's title was fake or that it had
encroached on Rico's property. All that Atty. Salutan
did was to zealously advocate for the cause of his
client. He was not shown to have misled or unduly
influenced the court through misinformation. He
merely persistently pursued said cause and he did
so within the bounds of the law and the existing
rules.
 The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence
and is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges
based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be
given credence.
 As case law elucidates, disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil
nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an
action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not
 being intended to indict punishment, it is in no sense
a criminal prosecution.
MALVAR v FEIR
A.C No. 11871 | March 5,2017
DOCTRINE: A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the
adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to
compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases
against the lawyer's client.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Potenciano R. Malvar filed a complaint for
disbarment against respondent Atty. Freddie B. Feir
alleging that he received
threatening letters from Feir stating that should he
fail to pay the sum of P18,000,000.00 to his client,
Rogelio M. Amurao, a criminal complaint for
Falsification of Public Documents and Estafa, a civil
complaint for Annulment of Transfer Certificate of
Title, and an administrative complaint for the
revocation of his license as a physician would be
filed against him which the complainant
tantamounts to blackmail or extortion. The said act
by the respondent lawyer contravenes with the
Lawyer’s Oath.
 Feir countered that the said letters merely
demanded Malvar to explain how certain parcels of
land Malvar was purchasing from his client, Amurao,
were already registered in Malvar's name when
Amurao had never executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
transferring the same.
 The IBP dismissed the complaint for the lack of
merit
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for
violating the Lawyer’s Oath?
RULING:
NO
 In the instant case, Malvar claims that Feir sent him
the demand letters in order to interpose threats that
should he fail to pay the sum of P18,000,000.00, Feir
will file criminal, civil, and administrative
complaints which were, in truth, unfounded for
being based neither on valid nor relevant facts and
law.
 Blackmail is equivalent to and synonymous with
extortion, the exaction of money either for the
performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury,
or the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is
extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or
the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to
expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of
the victim.
 Feir was demanding from Malvar in the amount of
P18,000,000.00 cannot be considered as the subject
of blackmail or extortion. Feir's demand for said
amount is not an exaction of money for the exercise
of an influence but is actually a legitimate claim for
the remaining balance subject of a legitimate sale
transaction. Contrary to Malvar's claims, there is
nothing in the demand letters to show that the same
was maliciously made with intent to extort money
from him since it was based on a valid and justifiable
cause.
OCA v DUMAYAS
A.M No RTJ-15-2435 | March 6 2018
DOCTRINE: A judge is presumed to have acted with regularity
and good faith in the performance of judicial functions. But a
blatant disregard of a clear and unmistakable provision of the
Constitution upends this presumption and subjects the
magistrate to corresponding administrative sanctions.
FACTS:
 Ramon Tulfo wrote an article entitled "What's
Happening to Makati Judges?," where he raised
certain issues against three (3) Makati City judges,
one of whom is respondent Judge Dumayas for
supposedly imposing a light sentence against the
accused in one criminal case, when he should have
found them guilty of committing murder instead.
 Judge Dumayas never cited any factual or legal
reason to justify the same, as there was nothing in
the record that supports his conclusion. In fact, the
evidence presented show otherwise. By deliberately
not explaining in his Decision how he arrived at his
conclusion that Dela Paz and Datu III voluntarily
surrendered, Judge Dumayas violated Section 14,
Article VIII
 Judge Dumayas argued that judges cannot be held
civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for any
of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, as
long as they act in good faith. He vehemently denied
having conveniently ignored the existing
jurisprudence on unlawful aggression in the case in
question.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Dumayas is administratively liable ?
RULING:
YES
 Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic
rules and settled jurisprudence. A judge may also be
administratively liable if shown to have been
motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or
corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to
apply settled law and jurisprudence. In the case of
Judge Dumayas, the law is straightforward and the
facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one
does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.
 Judges are expected to exhibit more than just
cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural
laws. They must know the laws and apply them
properly in all good faith. Judicial competence
requires no less. Thus, unfamiliarity with the rules is
a sign of incompetence.
 The judge must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the
parties that his decision will be just. Ignorance of the
law is the mainspring of injustice. Judges owe it to
the public to be knowledgeable, hence, they are
expected to have more than just a modicum of
acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules;
they must know them by heart.
MIRANDA V. OCA
A.M No MTJ-17-1899 | March 7 2018
DOCTRINE: Basic is the rule that the imposition of a fine, being
penal in nature, must strictly comply with the rule or law, calling
for its imposition. Even if we were to assume that respondent
Judge reminded all lawyers to include an additional requirement
in their judicial affidavits submitted in court, he still had no
authority to impose the fine provided in the Rule for failure to
comply with his own directive.
FACTS:
 Atty. Miranda he appeared as private prosecutor
before Judge Oca when the latter was then acting
presiding judge of MeTC of Pasig
 Atty. Miranda presented private complainant,
Antonio L. Villaseñ or, together with his Judicial
Affidavit, and began to state the purpose of the
witness' testimony pursuant to Section 6 of the
Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR). However, Judge Oca
told Atty. Miranda that there was "no need for that"
and then directed the defense counsel, Atty. Ma.
Antonieta B. Albano- Placides (Atty. Placides), to
proceed to cross-examination.
 Atty. Miranda asserted that Judge Oca is grossly
ignorant of the law since the JAR neither requires
the inclusion of the offer or statement of the purpose
of the witness' testimony in the judicial affidavit nor
does it impose a fine on the party for failure to do
the same..
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Oca is administratively liable ?
RULING:
YES
 The OCA noted that the contents of a judicial
affidavit are those listed under Section 3 of the JAR,
while Section 6 thereof provides that the party
presenting the witness' judicial affidavit in place of
direct testimony shall state the purpose of the same
at the start of the presentation of the witness.
 JAR is only imposable in the following instances: (a)
the court allows the late submission of a party's
judicial affidavit; and (b) when the judicial affidavit
fails to conform to the content requirements
 Section 3 of the Judicial A􏰇davit Rule. Neither did he
have the authority to impose a 􏰆ne for failure of
complainant Atty. Miranda to include the additional
requirement he unilaterally imposed. Even if we
were to assume that respondent Judge reminded all
lawyers to include an additional requirement in
their judicial a􏰇davits submitted in court, he still
had no authority to impose the 􏰆ne provided in the
Rule for failure to comply with his own directive. In
addition, the main purpose of the subject Rule is "to
reduce the time needed for completing the
testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation."
In arbitrarily prohibiting the verbal manifestation of
the purpose of the witness' testimony, the
proceedings were delayed for 120 more days.
CAUSING v DELA ROSA
OCA IPI No 17-4663-RTJ | March 7 2018
DOCTRINE: For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the
assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the
performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous
but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was
moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like
motive. As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty
or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not
subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are
erroneous.
FACTS:
 Complainants alleged that the Libel Cases were
dismissed by former Acting Presiding Judge Gamor
B. Disalo on the ground that the right of the accused
to speedy trial had been violated.
 Complainants questioned respondent Judge Dela
Rosa's Resolution granting the prosecution's Motion
for Reconsideration because, according to them, it
was elementary for respondent Judge Dela Rosa to
know that the prior dismissal of a criminal case due
to a violation of the accused's right to speedy trial is
equivalent to a dismissal on the merits of the case
and, as such, granting the prosecution's Motion for
Reconsideration was tantamount to a violation of
the constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Complainants averred further that it was
unacceptable, given respondent Judge Dela Rosa's
position and the presumption of his knowledge of
the law, for him to have disregarded a rule as
elementary as the constitutional right of an accused
against double jeopardy. Hence the charges against
the respondent judge for gross ignorance of law,
gross misconduct and gross incompetence for
reversing the dismissal of the criminal case
 assurance that the case will be resolved in their
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Dela Rosa is administratively liable ?
RULING
 The Court agrees with the OCA that it would be
absurd to hold respondent Judge Dela Rosa liable for
his November 23, 2015 Order when he had himself
rectified this in his subsequent June 20, 2016 Order.
To rule otherwise would be to render judicial office
untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or
interpret the law in the process of administering
justice can be infallible in his judgment. To hold
otherwise "would be nothing short of harassing
judges to take the fantastic and impossible oath of
rendering infallible judgments.
 Nothing in the records of the case suggests that
respondent Judge Dela Rosa was motivated by bad
faith, fraud, corruption, dishonesty or egregious
error in rendering his decision. Other than their
bare assertions, Complainants failed to substantiate
their allegations with competent proof. Bad faith
cannot be presumed and this Court cannot conclude
bad faith intervened when none was actually
proven.
 showing that the money was spent for the intended
SEGOVIA V. JAVIER
A.C No 10244 | March 12 2018
DOCTRINE: A license to practice law is a guarantee by the
courts to the public that the licensee possesses sufficient skill,
knowledge and diligence to manage their cases. When a lawyer
accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that
he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to
handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best
judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to
him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence
in the pursuit or defense of the case.
FACTS:
 Complainants alleged that they engaged the services
of respondent as their counsel in a case involving
falsification of documents and recovery of property.
During the existence of attorney-client relationship,
respondent asked the complainants the amount of
P30,000.00 as filing fee, which they have dutifully
paid. Complainants discovered that respondent also
demanded from one Riza Rizabal Tesalona the
amount of P27,000.00 in connection with the case.
Whenever they followed-up on the case, they always
received a response from respondent to not worry
as he would file the case within the week, and an
favor. However, respondent never filed the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable ?
RULING:
YES
 In the instant case, it was undisputed that
respondent failed to file the case of falsification of
public documents and recovery of property in favor
of complainants despite receiving the money in
connection with the said case. Respondent's inaction
despite repeated follow-ups and his promise that
the case will be resolved in complainants' favor
demonstrated his cavalier attitude and appalling
indifference to his clients' cause. C
 The CPR Canon 16, Rule 16.03,Canon 18 and Rule
18.03 in general states that when a lawyer receives
money from the client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client
purpose. Conversely, if the lawyer does not use the
money for the intended purpose, he must
immediately return the money to the client.
Respondent's failure to return the money to
complainants despite failure to use the same for the
intended purpose is conduct indicative of lack of
integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust
reposed on him. His unjustified withholding of
 money belonging to the complainants warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action.
 The Court has previously held that disciplinary
proceedings should only revolve around the
determination of the respondent-lawyer's
administrative and not his civil liability, it must be
clarified that this rule remains applicable only to
claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature —
for instance, when the claim involves moneys
received by the lawyer from his client in a
transaction separate and distinct and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement,
such as the acceptance fee.
 YES.
CORTEZ V. CORTES
A.C No 9119 | March 12, 2018
DOCTRINE: Generally, the amount of attorney's fees due is that
stipulated in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as to
the amount of the lawyers compensation. In the absence thereof,
the amount of attorney's fees is fixed on the basis of quantum
meruit or the reasonable worth of the attorneys services. Courts
may ascertain also if the attorney's fees are found to be
excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances. In no
case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than
what is reasonable
FACTS:
 Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of
Atty. Cortes as his counsel in an illegal dismissal case
against Philippine Explosives Corporation (PEC). He
further alleged that he and Atty. Cortes had a
handshake agreement on a 12% contingency fee as
and by way of attorney's fees.
 Complainant narrated that after the maturity of the
first check, he went to China Bank, Southmall Las
Piñ as with Atty. Cortes and his wife to open an
account to deposit the said check. Atty. Cortes asked
complainant to wait outside the bank while he
personally, for and in his behalf, facilitated the
opening of the account. After thirty minutes, he was
asked to go inside and sign a joint savings account
with Atty. Cortes.
 Complainant alleged that when he was about to
withdraw the amount of the initial check deposited,
Atty. Cortes arrived with his wife and ordered the
bank teller to hold off the transaction. When
complainant asked why he did that, Atty. Cortes
answered that 50% of the total awarded claims
belongs to him as attorney's fees. When complainant
questioned him, Atty. Cortes became hysterical and
imposingly maintained that 50% of the total
awarded claims belongs to him. Hence the
complainant filing before the IBP for the acts
committed by herein respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable ?
RULING:
 A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this
jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid and
binding but must be laid down in an express
contract. The amount of contingent fee 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. Contracts of this nature
are permitted because they redound to the benefit of
the poor client and the lawyer especially in cases
where the client has meritorious cause of action
 In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his
client for the legal services rendered to the latter. On
the other hand, in its extraordinary concept,
attorney's fees may be awarded by the court as
indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party
to the prevailing party. The contingent fee claimed
by Atty. Cortes was, under the facts obtaining in this
case, grossly excessive and unconscionable.
 Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital
that yields profits. The returns are simple rewards
for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that,
unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater
deal of freedom from governmental interference, is
impressed with a public interest, for which it is
subject to State regulation.