BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO MAGULTA (383 SCRA 276) 2.
2. Yes, a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He
Facts:
Dominador Burbe sought the legal advice of Atty. Alberto
Magulta in a money claim against certain parties for breach of
contract. Atty. Magulta suggested that Burbe immediately file a
necessary complaint to which Burbe deposited the amount of
P25,000.00 to him as payment for the filing fee. Atty. Magulta
informed Burbe that the complaint had already been filed in court.
Suspicious that he was being given the run-around by
his counsel, Burbe went to the Office of the Clerk of Court where
he was informed that there was no record at all of a case filed by
Atty. Magulta. When Burbe confronted Atty. Magulta about his
deception, the latter continued to lie until the former showed him
the certification. Only then did he admit that he spent the money
for personal use.
Thus, Burbe filed a complaint against Atty. Magulta for
misrepresentation, dishonesty, and oppressive conduct. In his
Answer, Atty. Magulta alleged that the amount paid by Burbe was
for attorney's fees for the services he availed which he never paid
for up to that point, and not for the filing fee.
Issues:
1. Did a lawyer-client relationship exist between Atty. Magulta
and Burbe even if the latter never paid him for services
rendered?
2. Did Atty. Magulta's misconduct merit his disbarment?
Ruling (J. Panganiban):
1. Yes. A lawyer-client relationship was established from the
very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal
advice regarding the former’s business. To constitute
professional employment, it is not necessary that any
retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material
that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case
for which his service had been sought.
Further, the practice of law is a profession and not a
business. In failing to apply to the filing fee the amount given
by Burbe—as evidenced by the receipt issued by Atty.
Magulta's law office—the latter also violated the rule that
lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted to them in their professional capacity.
2. No. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects
the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of
the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be imposed
as a penalty.
For being guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Magulta was suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one year.
RABANAL VS. ATTY. FAUSTINO TUGADE (383 SCRA 484)
Facts:
Cayetano Rabanal was one of the accused-appellants in
a criminal case where he was found guilty of homicide and the
case was appealed to the Court of Appeals Rabanal terminated
the services of his previous counsel and engaged in the services
of Atty. Faustino F. Tugade. However, despite the extension of
time granted to him totaling to 60 days,, Atty. Tugade failed to file
the appellant’s brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Thus,
Rabanal sought the suspension from the practice of law or the
disbarment of Atty. Tugade through an administrative complaint.
Atty. Tugade claims that he was not the counsel of
Rabanal prior to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before
the Court of Appeals and he could not be held responsible for the
dismissal of complainant’s appeal for failure of counsel to file the
appellant’s brief.
Issues:
1. Is a written contract necessary for the establishment of a
lawyer-client relationship?
2. Did Atty. Tugade violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
3. Did Atty. Tugade's lack of diligence merit a penalty?
Ruling (J. Mendoza):
1. No. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession.
should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him,
remembering always that his actions or omissions are
binding on his clients. In this case, the failure of respondent
to file the appellant’s brief resulted in the dismissal of the
appeal.
3. Yes. Atty. Tugade showed lack of due care for his client’s
interest and willful neglect of his duties as an officer of the
court. For violating Rules 12.03 and 18.03, Atty. Tugade was
suspended from the practice of law for six months.
WILLIAM UY V. ATTY. FERMIN GONZALES (ADM CASE NO.
5280, MARCH 30, 2004)
Facts:
William S. Uy engaged the services of Atty. Fermin
Gonzales to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new
certificate of title. After discussing the circumstances surrounding
the lost title as well as the fees and costs, Atty. Gonzales finalized
a petition. When said petition was about to be filed, Atty. Gonzales
went to Uy's office and demanded a certain amount other than
what was previously agreed upon. This request was refused by
Uy. Thereafter, Uy found out that instead of filing the petition for
the issuance of a new certificate of title, Atty. Gonzales filed a
complaint against him for falsification of public documents.
In his Comment, Atty. Gonzales explained that he and Uy
had a personal dealing concerning the property which they both
have interests in. However, Uy's conduct infuriated him which
prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling Uy that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that Uy should get
another lawyer to file the petition. Thereafter, the IBP issued a
resolution suspending Atty. Gonzales from the practice of law for
six months.
Issues:
1. Did an attorney-client relationship exist between Atty.
Gonzales and Uy?
2. Did Atty. Gonzales violate Canon 21 of the CPR when he
alleged the facts which he obtained through his dealings with
Uy?
Ruling (J. Austria-Martinez):
1. No. Atty. Gonzales volunteered his service to hasten the
issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has
redeemed from Uy which the latter had earlier bought from
his son. The preparation and the proposed filing of the
petition was only incidental to their personal transaction.
2. No. Whatever facts alleged by Atty. Gonzales against Uy
were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity
but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his
deceased son. To hold otherwise would be precluding any
lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his
personal or proprietary interests.
Thus, the IBP Resolution was reversed and set aside and the
administrative case filed against Atty. Gonzales was dismissed.
MERCADO V VITRIOLO (459 SCRA 1, MAY 26, 2005)
Facts:
Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant administrative complaint
against Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the
practice of law. The complainant alleged that respondent
maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public
document against her, a former client, based on confidential
information gained from their attorney-client relationship.It
appears that the respondent filed a criminal action against
complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor,Pasig
City.Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in
the Certificates of Live Birth of her children.More specifically, she
allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is
married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage
was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally
married to Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on
April 11, 1978.According to the respondent, hi action does not
violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney
and client because the bases of the falsification case are two
certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no
way connected with the confidence taken during the engagement
of respondent as counsel.

Issue:
WoN respondent violated the rule on privileged communication
between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case for
falsification of public document against his former client.
his first client in any matter in which he represents him and
Ruling:
No. In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on
him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is
strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation
is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is
required by necessity and public interest. The mere relation of
attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be
confidential. Applying all these rules to the case at bar, they hold
that the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants
allegations. Complainant did not even specify the alleged
communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her
claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She
contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged
communication when he instituted a criminal action against her
for falsification of public documents because the criminal
complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment
then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell out
these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. Also,
the complainant had failed to appear during the hearings of IBP.
Without her testimony it is impossible to determine if there was
any violation of the rule on privileged communication. The case
was dismissed against the respondent was dismissed due to lack
of merit.
fiduciary nature is intended for the protection of the client.
- Factors essential to establish the existence of the
privilege, viz.: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought, (2)
from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in
confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently
protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor,
(8) except the protection be waived.
AVITO YU V ATTY CESAR TAJANLANGIT (ADM CASE NO.
LIM V VILLAROSA (490 SCRA 494)
Doctrine: An attorney may only retire from a case either by
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 lawyer is recorded in the case. A
lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written
consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court.
He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the
adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing,
otherwise the court may treat the application as a “mere scrap of
paper.”
— PETITION TO BE REINSTATED IN THE ROLL OF ATTYS
PACANA JR. V PASCUAL-LOPEZ (594 SCRA 1)
Doctrine: In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including its
weak and strong points. Such knowledge must be considered
sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given to
him to take advantage of his client; for if the confidence is
abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also
to avoid the appearance of treachery and double—dealing for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice.
It is for these reasons that we have described the attorney-client
relationship as one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
PORMENTO SR. V PONTEVEDRA (454 SCRA 167)
Doctrine: A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent
client against a former client when the subject matter of the
present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject
matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the
former client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a
new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client
in a matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment,
there being in that instance no conflict of interests. Where,
however, the subject matter of the present suit between the
lawyer’s new client and his former client is in some way
connected with that of the former client’s action, the lawyer may
have to contend for his new client that which he previously
opposed as counsel for the former client or to use against the
latter information confided to him as his counsel.
- In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a
mandatory requirement which may not be dispensed with
except for valid and compelling reasons.
- Jurisprudence instructs that 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
also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test to determine if there is a
representation of conflicting interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the
full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
the performance thereof.
ESPIRITU V ULEP (458 SCRA 1)
Ruling: Money of the client or collected for the client or other
trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be
reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any
circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.
Consequently, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds
or property held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use
to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by,
his client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of
professional ethics; it impairs the public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment.
- The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary in
nature. Being such, it requires utmost good faith, loyalty,
fidelity and disinterestedness on the part of the attorney. Its
- For misappropriating and failing to promptly report and deliver
money received on behalf of their clients, some lawyers have
been disbarred while others have been suspended for six
months. Since this appears to be the first case of respondent
in the IBP-CBD, we impose the lighter penalty on him.
5691, MARCH 13, 2009)
Ruling: The Court also agrees with the IBP that it was not at all
improper for respondent to have withdrawn the cash bonds as
there was evidence showing that complainant and respondent
had entered into a special fee arrangement. But, however
justified respondent was in applying the cash bonds to the
payment of his services and reimbursement of the expenses he
had incurred, the Court agrees with the IBP that he is not
excused from rendering an accounting of the same.
MACARUBBO V MACARUBBO (AC 6148, JANUARY 22, 2013)
Ruling: To be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant
must, like any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy
the Court that he is a person of good moral character.
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and
acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his
personal life. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
discipline and even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is
its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their
ways, as in this case.
(Context: Na-disbar siya kasi ang dami niyang kabit haha)

ORCINO V GASPAR (AC 3773, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997)

Ruling: A client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-
client relation at any time with or without cause. The right of an
attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for
sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to
its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without
reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case
before its final adjudication arises only from the client’s written
consent or from a good cause.
- A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special
proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court
and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. Should the
client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an
application with the court. Assuming, nevertheless, that
respondent was justified in terminating his services, he,
however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected.
- A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client only in
the following instances: (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. Thus, a case
arising from a simple misunderstanding between client and
counsel does not fall under any of the grounds where a lawyer
may validly withdraw.

ESPINA V CHAVEZ (AC 7250, APRIL 20, 2015)

Ruling: What Rule 19.01 prohibits is the filing or the threat of
filing patently frivolous and meritless appeals or clearly
groundless actions for the purpose of gaining improper
advantage in any case or proceeding. Two elements are
indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed to have violated
this rule: (i) the filing or threat of filing a patently frivolous and
meritless action or appeal and (ii) the filing or threat of filing the
action is intended to gain improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
- Unless the criminal complaint is patently frivolous and obviously
meant to secure an improper advantage, a lawyer who files
such criminal complaint should not be automatically deemed to
have violated Rule 19.01.