RAFOLS V.

BARRIOS
A.C. NO. 4973, 15 MARCH 2010.

Facts:
The complainants were the plaintiffs in civil case wherein they sought the cancellation of
a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Branch 37 of the RTC presided by Judge Dizon, Jr.
The complainants were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as
acceptance fee.

On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence and
informed complainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The
respondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending
in his sala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor, assuring their
success up to the Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.

The complainants paid Judge Dizon a total amount of P160,000.00. Accordingly, the
respondent demanded P25,000.00 as his expenses in securing the testimony of Soledad
Elevencionado-Provido in Iloilo City to be used as evidence in their civil case. In addition, the
respondent requested the complainants to borrow P60,000.00 from the bank because he
wanted to redeem his foreclosed Isuzu Elf, and because he needed to give P11,000.00 to his
nephew who was due to leave for work abroad.
Judge Dizon was dismissed from service in an earlier decision of the Court.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Barrios engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.

Ruling:
The Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC, but it
resolved to impose the supreme penalty of disbarment, which it believes is the proper penalty.

The respondent' denials were worthless and unavailing in the face of the uncontradicted
evidence showing that he had not only personally arranged the meeting between Manuel and
Judge Dizon, Jr., but had also communicated to the complainants the judge's illegal reason for
the meeting.

The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions. The attorney is a
vanguard of our legal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency
but also a very high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in order that the
people's faith and confidence in the legal system are ensured. Thus, he must conduct himself,
whether in dealing with his clients or with the public at large, as to be beyond reproach at all
times. Any violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition on
the attorney of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.

Specifically, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging

in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an
attorney shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support
the activities of the Integrated Bar.

The respondent did not measure up to the exacting standards of the Law Profession,
which demanded of him as an attorney the absolute abdication of any personal advantage that
conflicted in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his clients.

The conclusion that the respondent and the disgraced Judge Dizon, Jr. were
conspirators against the former's own clients, whom he was sworn to protect and to serve with
utmost fidelity and morality, is inevitable for the Court to make in this administrative case. And,
being conspirators, they both deserve the highest penalty. The disbarment of the respondent is
in order, because such sanction is on par with the dismissal of Judge Dizon, Jr.

Adjudication:
Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. is disbarred.
ANINON V. SABITSANA, JR.,
A.C. NO. 5098, 11 APRIL 2012.

Facts:
Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana
in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by
her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of
Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant
accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the
civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the
Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana
asserted that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez,
Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana)
and had instigated the complaint for this reason.

In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be fully
supported by the evidence on record and Respondent was suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one year.

Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors
denied his motion.

Issue
Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

Ruling
The SC agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP
Board of Governors. The SC rules that the relationship between a lawyer and his/her client
should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of
confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s most confidential
information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them.
Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based on
an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-
bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client.
Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is
present in a given case.

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client
and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for
one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a
violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the
lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, substantial evidence proved to support Atty.
Sabitsana’s violation of the above rule: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of
Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and third,
the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and
executed for the complainant.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in
the same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose
the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal services had been previously
retained.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.

BELLEZA V. MACASA
A.C. NO. 7815, 23 JULY 2009.
Facts:
Chua, friend of Dolores referred Atty. Macasa, for legal servicesin connection with the arrest of
her son for Violation of RA 9165. Atty. Macasa agreed to handle the case for P30,000.00.
Dolores made 3 partial payments on different occasions and P18,000 purpose of posting a bond
to secure the liberty of his son, however no receipt was issued by Atty. Macasa. Dolores found
out that Atty. Macasa did not remit the amount to the court supposed to be intended for the
provisional liberty of her son. She demanded the return of P18,000 several times but
respondent ignored her. Moreover, Atty. Macasa failed to act on the case of complainants son
and complainant was forced to avail the services of a PAO lawyer.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Macasa grossly neglected his duties for the cause of his client.

Ruling:
Yes. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainants son. A
lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time,
knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to
the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld
from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.

A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his
client with competence and diligence.[17] He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from
such relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the
following representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability
other lawyers similarly situated possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution
or defense of the litigation entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence
in the use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to his clients cause; and that he will
take all steps necessary to adequately safeguard his clients interest.[18]

A lawyers negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel
and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant,
particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyers
lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical.[19]

In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainants son and receiving his
attorneys fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal
assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed,
on account of respondents continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services
of the Public Attorneys Office.

Respondents lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainants son was reprehensible.
Not only did it prejudice complainants son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to
counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure
the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latters constitutional right to
bail.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby found GUILTY not only of

dishonesty but also of professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John Belleza’s right to
counsel and to bail under Sections 13 and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for violating
Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is therefore DISBARRED from the practice of law effective
immediately.

Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the amounts of

₱30,000 and ₱18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this
decision until full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of
payment of the amount within ten days from payment. Failure to do so will subject him to
criminal prosecution.

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into the
records of respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa and the Office of the Court Administrator to be
furnished to the courts of the land for their information and guidance.

OVERGAARD V. VALDEZ
A.C. NO. 7902, 31 MARCH 2009.

FACTS
Overgaard is a Dutch national who engaged the services of Atty. Valdez. They entered into a
retainer agreement, providing that for 900K, Valdez would represent Overgaard as counsel in 2
cases filed by him (Estafa and a mandamus case) and 2 cases filed against him (Other Light
threats and violation of the Anti-Violation against women and their children act).
Overgaard sent $16, 854 to Atty. Valdez via telegraphic bank transfer. 4 months after,
Overgaard demanded for a report on the status of his cases. In spite of many phone calls and
emails, Valdez couldn’t be reached. Hence, Overgaard inquired on his own, and discovered that
Valdez didn’t file his entry of appearance in any of the cases, that a counter-affidavit was
required from him, and that the criminal cases against him have already been arraigned and
warrants were issued for his arrest. He was constrained to find a new lawyer.

Overgaard then wrote again and tried to locate Valdez to demand the return of documents
entrusted to the latter, as well as the $16K payment. No word was heard from Valdez.
Overgaard filed a case with the IBP for Valdez’s dismissal for gross malpractice, immoral
character, dishonesty and deceitful conduct.

The IBP required Valdez to file an answer, but he did not comply. He also failed to attend the
hearing and was declared in default. Later,a clarificatory hearing was set, but Valdez never
showed. IBP found him guilty of violating canons 1, 15, 16, 17, and 18 and his penalty was a 3-
year suspension and he was ordered to return Overgaard’s money.

HELD
SC agrees with the findings of IBP, but declared that Valdez be disbarred for falling below the
standards required of lawyers.
Canon 18 provides that a lawyer must serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule
18.03 requires a lawyer to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence will
make him liable. Valdez should indeed be liable because he was not just incompetent, he was
useless; not just negligent, he was indolent; and rather than helping his client, he prejudiced
him. He abandoned his client and left him without any recourse. It was a clear evasion of duty.
Also, his failure to act on the disbarment case against him, without any explanation, is a clear
evidence of negligence on his part.

Rule 18.04 requires that a lawyer keep his client informed of the status of his case and to
respond within reasonable time to the client’s request for information. Despite Overgaard’s
efforts, Valdez avoided his client and never bothered to reply. Clearly, the rule was violated.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This Court’s en banc decision
in Administrative Case No. 7902 dated September 30, 2008, entitled Torben B. Overgaard v.
Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, is AFFIRMED

FORONDA V. ALVAREZ
A.C. NO. 9976, 25 JUNE 2014.

FACTS:
The complainant is an overseas Filipino worker based in Dubai. During her vacation in the
Philippines in May 2008, she contracted the services of respondent to file a petition for the
annulment of her marriage for an agreed packaged fee of P195,000.00 which she paid in full by
June 2008. Respondent, however, filed the petition for the annulment of her marriage only in
July 2009.

In June 2008, respondent obtained P200,000.00 from complainant with the promise to pay the
same with interest at 4% per month starting July 2008 until June 2009. Respondent issued
complainant eleven (11) checks for P8,000.00 each postdated checks monthly from 10 July
2008 until 10 May 2009 plus a check for P108,000.00 payable on 10 June 2009 and another
check for P100,000.00 payable on 8 June 2009. When presented for payment, the first two (2)
checks were good but the rest of the checks were dishonored for being drawn against a closed
account.

When complainant demanded payment, respondent issued to her eight (8) new replacement
postdated checks dated 25th of every month from June 2009 to January 2010. All of the
replacement checks, however, were likewise dishonored for being drawn against a closed
account. When respondent was unable to pay respondent, complainant filed a criminal
complaint against him for violation of BP 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Muntinlupa. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed after complainant executed an
affidavit of desistance after she was paid a certain amount by respondent.

ISSUE:

a) Whether or not the respondent is guilty of delay in filing of the petition for
annulment of marriage of the complainant.
b) Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he failed to settle his obligation to the complainant.

HELD:
a) YES, for delaying in filing the petition for complainant, respondent should be deemed
guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility;

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.” “He is required by the
Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost
devotion.” “A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the
interest of his client, he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps
maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.

b) YES, The respondent’s act of issuing worthless checks is a violation of Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that “a lawyer shall not engage in
 unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The issuance of checks which were
later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal
honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and
constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

It cannot be denied that the respondent’s unfulfilled promise to settle his obligation and the
issuance of worthless checks have seriously breached the complainant’s trust. She went so far
as to file multiple criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against him. “The relationship of an
attorney to his client is highly fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that ‘a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.’ Necessity and public interest enjoin lawyers to be honest and
truthful when dealing with his client.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. is SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS
from the practice of law with a stem warning that a repetition of any of the offenses involved in
this case or a commission of similar acts will merit a more severe penalty. Let a copy of this
Decision be entered in Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. 's record as a member of the Bar, and notice of
the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SALVADOR V. GRUPO
A.C. NO. 5020, 18 DECEMBER 2001.

The Case
This is a complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for
malpractice and gross misconduct.

The Antecedent Facts

Complainant Rosario N. Junio alleged that she engaged the services of respondent then a
private practitioner, for the redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 20394 registered in the name of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes, and
located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol. Complainant entrusted to respondent the amount of
P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the redemption of the aforesaid property. Respondent,
however, for no valid reason did not redeem the property; as a result of which the right of
redemption was lost and the property was eventually forfeited. Despite repeated demands made
by complainant and without justifiable cause, respondent had continuously refused to refund the
money entrusted to him.
In his Answer, petitioner admitted receiving the amount in question for the purpose for which it
was given. However, he alleged that the subject land could really not be redeemed anymore.
After he failed to redeem the property, he requested the complainant that he be allowed, in the
meantime, to avail of the money because he had an urgent need for some money to help defray
his children's educational expenses. According to respondent, it was a personal request and a
private matter between respondent and complainant. He averred that the family of the
complainant and that of the respondent were very close and intimate with each other.
Complainant, as well as two of her sisters, had served respondent's family as household
helpers for many years when they were still in Manila. They were considered practically part of
respondent's own family. That is why, when complainant requested assistance regarding the
problem of the mortgaged property, respondent had no second-thoughts in extending a lending
hand. Respondent did not ask for any fee.It was simply an act of a friend for a friend according
to the respondent. Respondent also alleged that he executed a promissory note for the amount
he borrowed from the complainant.
Complainant filed a reply denying that respondent informed her of his failure to redeem the
property and that respondent requested her to instead lend the money to him.

Issues
1. Whether or not there was a violation of Canon 16.04 of the CPR.
2. Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

Ruling
1. Although complainant denied having loaned the money to respondent, the fact is that
complainant accepted the promissory note given her by respondent on December 12,
1996. In effect, complainant consented to and ratified respondent's use of the money.
Respondent's liability is thus not for misappropriation or embezzlement but for violation
of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from
borrowing money from their clients unless the latter's interests are protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice. In this case, respondent's liability is
 compounded by the fact that not only did he not give any security for the payment of the
amount loaned to him but that he has also refused to pay the said amount. His claim that
he could not pay the loan "because circumstances . . . did not allow it" and that, because
of the passage of time, "he somehow forgot about his obligation" only underscores his
blatant disregard of his obligation which reflects on his honesty and candor.

2. As explained in Hilado v. David: To constitute professional employment it is not essential

that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous
occasion… It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or
charged for… If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind,
consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in
such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established…

WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty of violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and orders him suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) month and to pay to complainant within 30 days from notice, the amount of P25,000.00
with interest at the legal rate, computed from December 12, 1996.

BALTAZAR, ET AL. V. BANEZ, JR.,

A.C. NO. 9091, 11 DECEMBER 2013

FACTS
Complainants are the owners of three parcels of land located in Dinalupihan, Bataan. In 4
September 2002, they entered into an agreement, they stood to be paid P35,000.000 for all the
lots that would be sold in the subdivision. For that purpose, they executed a Pecial Power of
Attorney authorizing Fevidal to enter into all agreements concerning the parcels of land and to
sign those agreements on their behalf. Fevidal did not update complainants about the status of
the subdivision project and failed to accout for the titles to the subdivided land. Complainants
also found that he had sold a number of parcels to third parties, but that he did not turn the
proceeds over to them. Neither were complainants invited to the ceremonial opening of the
subdivision project. Thus, on 23 August 2005, they revoked the Special Power of Attorney they
had previously executed in his favor. Complainants subsequently agreed to settle with Fevidal
for the amount of P10,000,000, but the latter again failed to pay them. Complainants engaged
the professional services of respondent for the purpose of assisting them in the preparation of a
settlement agreement.

Instead of drafting a written settlement, respondent encouraged them to institute actions against
Fevidal in order to recover their properties. Complainants then signed a contract of legal
services, in which it was agreed that they would not pay acceptance and appearance fees to
respondent, but that the docket fees would instead be shared by the parties. Under the contract,
complainants would pay respondent 50% of whatever would be recovered of the properties. In
preparation for the filing of an action against Fevidal, respondent prepared and notarized an
Affidavit of Adverse Claim, seeking to annotate the claim of complainants to at least 195 titles in
the possession of Fevidal.

A certain Luzviminda Andrade (Andrade) was tasked to submit the Affidavit of Adverse Claim to
the Register of Deeds of Bataan. The costs for the annotation of the adverse claim were paid by
respondent. Unknown to him, the adverse claim was held in abeyance, because Fevidal got
wind of it and convinced complainants to agree to another settlement. Meanwhile, on behalf of
complainants, and after sending Fevidal a demand letter dated 10 July 2006, respondent filed a
complaint for annulment, cancellation and revalidation of titles, and damages against Fevidal
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bataan on 13 October 2006. Complainants found it
hard to wait for the outcome of the action. Thus, they terminated the services of respondent on
8 June 2007, withdrew their complaint against Fevidal on 9 June 2007, and finalized their
amicable settlement with him on 5 July 2007. Respondent filed a Manifestation and
Opposition15 dated 20 July 2007 before the RTC, alleging that the termination of his services
and withdrawal of the complaint had been done with the intent of defrauding counsel. On the
same date, he filed a Motion for Recording of Attorney’s Charging Lien in the Records of the
Above-Captioned Cases. When the RTC granted the withdrawal of the complaint, he filed a
Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration.

After an exchange of pleadings between respondent and Fevidal, with the latter denying the
former’s allegation of collusion, complainants sought the suspension/disbarment of respondent
through a Complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 14 November
2007. Complainants alleged that they were uneducated and underprivileged, and could not taste
the fruits of their properties because the disposition thereof was "now clothed with legal
problems" brought about by respondent.

The Complaint

In their complaint, they alleged that respondent had violated Canons 1.01, 1.03, 1.04,12.02,
15.05, 18.04, and 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Case
On 14 August 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline adopted and approved the Report
and Recommendation of the investigating commissioner. It suspended respondent from the
practice of law for a period of one year for entering into a champertous agreement.

Issue/s
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable

Held
Such contracts are contrary to public policy and are thus void or inexistent. They are also
contrary to Canon 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that lawyers
shall not lend money to a client, except when in the interest of justice, they have to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling for the client. A reading of the contract
for legal services shows that respondent agreed to pay for at least half of the expense for the
docket fees. He also paid for the whole amount needed for the recording of complainants’
adverse claim. While lawyers may advance the necessary expenses in a legal matter they are
handling in order to safeguard their client’s rights, it is imperative that the advances be subject
to reimbrusement. The purpose is to avoid a situation in which a lawyer acquires a personal
stake in the clients cause. Regrettably, nowhere in the contract for legal services is it stated that
the expenses of litigation advanced by respondents shall be subject to reimbursement by
complainants.
In addition, respondent gave various amounts as cash advances (bali), gasoline and
transportation allowance to them for the duration of their attorney-client relationship. In fact, he
admits that the cash advances were in the nature of personal loans that he extended to
complainants.

Clearly, respondent lost sight of his responsibility as a lawyer in balancing the clients interests
with the ethical standards of his profession. Considering the surrounding circumstances in this
case, an admonition shall suffice to remind him that however dire the needs of the clients, a
lawyer must always avoid any appearance of impropriety to preserve the integrity of the
profession.

WHEREFORE, Attorney Juan B. Bañez, Jr. is hereby ADMONISHED for advancing the litigation
expenses in a legal matter her handled for a client without providing for terms of reimbursement
and lending money to his client, in violation of Canon 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He us sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt
with more severly.

NONATO V. FUDOLIN, JR.,

A.C. NO. 10138, 16 JUNE 2015.

Fact:
 The complainant alleged that his father, the late Restituto Nonato (Restituto), was the duly
registered owner of a property that became the subject of ejectment proceedings filed by
Restituto against Anselmo Tubongbanua ( Anselmo), before the MTC.

 The complainant alleged that although his father Restituto paid the respondent his
acceptance fees, no formal retainer agreement was executed. The respondent also did not
issue any receipts for the acceptance fees paid.

 The complainant asserted that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings before the
MTC, the respondent failed to fully inform his father Restituto of the status and
developments in the case. Restituto could not contact the respondent despite his continued
efforts.
 The respondent also failed to furnish Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions and other
documents filed with the court.

 Thus, Restituto and the complainant were completely left in the dark regarding the status of
their case.

 After an exchange of initial pleadings in the ejectment proceedings, the MTC ordered the
parties to submit their respective position papers.

 Since neither party complied with the court’s directive, the MTC dismissed the complaint.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of dismissal. He justified
his failure to file the position paper by arguing that he misplaced the case records, adding
that he was also burdened with numerous other cases.

 The MTC denied the motion. Because of the patent negligence, the complainant informed
the respondent that his failure to file the position paper could be a ground for his disbarment.

 Furthermore, the complainant, without the respondent’s intervention, entered into an oral
extrajudicial compromise with the daughter of defendant Anselmo.

 In 2007, the respondent wrote the complainant and apologized for his repeated failure to
communicate with him. He reasoned out that he failed to file the position paper due to his
poor health. He also claimed that he had suffered a stroke and had become partially blind,
which caused the delay in the preparation of the pleadings in the ejectment case.

 The Investigating Commissioner recommended the respondent’s suspension for one (1)
month from the practice of law.

Issue: Whether the respondent failure to execute his duty due to his health condition is an
inexcusable violation of his Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
 Yes, A lawyer is bound to protect his client’s interests to the best of his ability and with
utmost diligence. He should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient
 manner; and provide the quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would
expect from a competent lawyer in a similar situation.
 By consenting to be his client’s counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that he will exercise
ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by his profession,
and his client may reasonably expect him to perform his obligations diligently.
 The failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. In this
case, the record clearly shows that the respondent has been remiss in the performance of
his duties as Restituto’s counsel. His inaction on the matters entrusted to his care is plainly
obvious. He failed to file his position paper despite notice from the MTC requiring him to do
so. His omission greatly prejudiced his client as the Court in fact dismissed the ejectment
suit.
 Because a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence, there is a need for the
client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case.
 A client should never be left groping in the dark; to allow this situation is to destroy the trust,
faith, and confidence reposed in the retained lawyer and in the legal profession in general.
 The court find the respondent’s excuse – that he had an undetected stroke and was
suffering from other illnesses – unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought.
 Even assuming that he was then suffering from numerous health problems (as evidenced by
the medical certificates he attached), his medical condition cannot serve as a valid reason to
excuse the omission to file the necessary court pleadings.
 The respondent could have requested an extension of time to file the required position
paper, or at the very least, informed his client of his medical condition; all these, the
respondent failed to do. with all the premises considered, the court suspends the
respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby SUSPEND Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon'
18, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also WARN him that the
commission of the same or similar act or acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. is DIRECTED to formally MANIFEST to this Court, upon receipt of
this Decision, the date of his receipt which shall be the starting point of his suspension. He shall
furnish a copy of this Manifestation to all the courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has
entered his appearance as counsel.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to Atty. Fudolin's records with the Office of the Bar
Confidant and posted on the Supreme Court website as a notice to the general public.

UY V. TANSINSIN, A.C. NO. 8252, 21 JULY 2009.

Fact:
 Complainant was the defendant in an ejectment case filed with the MeTC. To defend her
rights, complainant engaged the services of respondent who timely filed an Answer to the
complaint for ejectment. Required to file a Position Paper, respondent, however, failed to file
one for and on behalf of the complainant.
 Eventually, a decision was rendered by the MeTC against the complainant. Complainant,
through respondent, elevated the case to the RTC by filing a Notice of Appeal.
 The RTC dismissed the appeal solely because of the failure of respondent to file a
memorandum on appeal. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having
been filed out of time.
 Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel, complainant
initiated the disbarment case against respondent, before the IBP Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD).
 Complainant averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to respondent, but the latter
failed miserably in his duty as a lawyer and advocate. She also claimed that respondent’s
failure to file the required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross
incompetence and gross negligence, which caused grave injury to complainant. Lastly,
complainant alleged that not only did respondent fail to file the required pleadings, he also
was remiss in informing her of the status of the case.
 Respondent admitted that complainant obtained his legal services, but no legal fee was ever
paid to him. Respondent explained that he could not submit an intelligible position paper,
because the contract between complainant and her lessor had long expired. He added that
 he failed to file the position paper and memorandum on appeal, because complainant told
him that she would work out the transfer of ownership to her of the land subject matter of the
ejectment case.
 In effect, respondent said that he did not submit the required pleadings, because he knew
that the law favored the plaintiff as against the defendant (complainant herein) in the
ejectment case.

Issue: Whether the respondent, due to his failure to file the required position paper on time,
violated his Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
 Yes, the court sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors except on the
imposition of the six-month suspension.
 Verily, respondent’s failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the
developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and
commitment to their client’s cause.
 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.
 A lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he
should provide a quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect of a
competent lawyer in a like situation.
 By agreeing to be his client’s counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence
or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he
undertakes to do, to protect the client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary
therefor; and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.
 It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment case) required the parties to submit their
respective position papers. However, respondent did not bother to do so, in total disregard
of the court order. In addition, respondent failed to file the memorandum on appeal this time
with the RTC where complainant’s appeal was then pending.
 The Civil Case was, therefore, dismissed on that ground alone. The importance of filing a
memorandum on appeal cannot be gainsaid.
 The appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal. Such submission is not
a matter of discretion on his part. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform this
duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal.
 Respondent’s failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Resposibility19 which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
 Aside from failing to file the required pleadings, respondent also lacked candor in dealing
with his client, as he omitted to apprise complainant of the status of her ejectment case. It
bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence.
 Thus, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the
developments in his case. A client should never be left groping in the dark, for to do so
would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in
particular and in the legal profession in general.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accordingly, respondent ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.

TEJANO V. BATERINA, A.C. NO. 8235, 27 JANUARY 2015.

SOLATAN V. INOCENTES, ET AL.,
A.C. NO. 6504, 9 AUGUST 2005.

FACTS:
Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar
Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment
complex when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They
represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment
cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments.

Solatan’s sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan and
other members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed
against her and a decision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the
premises. Solatan was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He
informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a new lease contract by virtue
of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty.
Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito Apartments.

During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal agreement was made in which complainant
agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorney’s fees and costs
of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the
attorney’s fees.

Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano
enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment.
Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow
complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camano’s advice, complainant
presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas
stove was not returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the
Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying.

Complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Camano and Atty.
Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of
law for 1 year and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
2) Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients.
1. An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being
retained. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case.

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all
transactions and dealings with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a
party with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. However,
the advice given by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the rightful owner
of the incorrectly levied properties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It
should not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have
no interest over the properties. The act of informing complainant that his properties would be
returned upon showing proof of his ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the
essence of double dealing and betrayal.

2. Atty. Inocentes’ failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of
his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law office, Atty.
Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers
in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter’s dealings with
complainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by
virtue thereof. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible
to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases
handled by persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting
necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons
under their charge.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution

dated 16 April 2004 is AFFIRMED in respect of the sanction meted out on Atty. Camano. Atty.
Inocentes is hereby ADMONISHED to monitor more closely the activities of his associates to
make sure that the same are in consonance with the Code of Professional Responsibility with
the WARNING that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt with more severely.
PENA V. APARICIO,
A.C. NO. 7298, 25 JUNE 2007.

Facts:
 Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal
dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against
complainant Fernando Martin Pena. Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay, but
Pena rejected the claim as baseless.
 Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for separation pay.
Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts
they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral
damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents,
and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.

Issue:
 WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR, enjoining every lawyer to
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law? YES
 NB: Rule 19.01. 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."

 WON it is proper to disbar Aparicio? NO, reprimand only

Held:
 Under Canon 19, 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 leverage
to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's
client.
 In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also
amount to blackmail. Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of
accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints,…obtaining of value from a
person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing
 some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice." The letter in this case contains more
than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges
against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay.
Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 It was not respondent's intention to point out complainant's violations of the law as he so
gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise to "keep silent"
about the said violations if payment of the claim is made on the date indicated.
 DECISION: While the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that
disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he
wrote the same out of his overzealousness to protect his client's interests. Accordingly,
the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.
 On the sui generis character of disbarment proceedings, the Court ratiocinated in In re
Almacen:

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 inflict punishment, it is in
no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor
therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio.

Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether
or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving
the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by
purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no
longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office
of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant
or a prosecutor.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is granted. The 26 May 2006 Resolution of the
IBP Board of Governors is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Lolito G.
Aparicio is hereby found liable for violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

DALISAY V. MAURICIO
A.C. NO. 5655, 23 JANUARY 2006.
PROVISION INVOLVED:
Rule 15.02 -- “A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.”

FACTS:
● October 13, 2001 -- Complainant Valeriana Dalisay engaged respondent Atty.
Mauricio Jr’s services in Civil Case No. 00-044. She paid Php56,000 for his legal
services, but respondent never rendered legal services for her. She terminated their
attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money. Respondent refused.
○ IBP investigated and found out that no action nor pleadings were made by the
respondent except his alleged conferences and opinions rendered when Dalisay
frequented his law office. Recommended refund of Php56,000 to Dalisay and to
dismiss complaint.
○ April 22, 2005 -- Court rendered respondent guilty of malpractice and gross
misconduct. Suspended for six months.
● Upon learning decision, Atty.Mauricio went to MTC and inquired about the status of the
Civil Case. He found out that the tax declarations and title submitted by complainant are
not official records. Thus, he filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against her charging
her of falsification of documents.
○ Atty.’s MR stated the following arguments:
1. Dalisay did not engage his services as counsel for the Civil Case
2. He was hired on October 2001, two months after the decision for the Civil
Case was rendered (August 2001)
 3. Dalisay refused to provide him with documents related to the case,
preventing him from doing his job
4. Dalisay tampered with evidence and falsified documents.

○ Complainant Dalisay filed her reply, saying:

1. Atty. violated principle of confidentiality when he filed falsification
charges against her
2. Atty. should have returned the money
3. Atty. should have verified the authenticity of her documents
4. Atty’s refusal to return money constitutes contempt

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Mauricio violated the principle of confidentiality between him and complainant? YES

RATIO:
1. Once a lawyer accepts money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is
established, giving rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. He is expected to be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, and must serve client with
competence and diligence. This did not happen here, because Atty. Mauricio had been
remiss in the performance of his duties by not appearing as counsel despite acceptance
of money.
2. Respondent’s assertion that complainant did not engage his services for the Civil Case
is obviously a last-ditch attempt to evade culpability. He categorically stated in his
Affidavit-Complaint that Dalisay engaged his services for that Case, and he cannot just
change his version because it will be contrary to rules of fair play, justice, and due
process.
3. It bears reiterating that respondent did not take any action on the case despite having
been paid for his services. This is tantamount to abandonment of his duties as a lawyer
and taking undue advantage of his client.
4. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in the Civil
Case, it is still not sufficient to exonerate respondent because of Rule 19.02 (He should
have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation, and if
client refuses, the lawyer shall terminate his relationship with client). First, he did not
follow said canon. Second, the pleadings show that he learned of the alleged
 falsification when their attorney-client relationship has already been terminated and only
after the “news of his suspension spread in the legal community.” Clearly, respondent
was motivated by vindictiveness in filing of charges against complainant.

WHEREFORE, we DENY respondent’s motion for reconsideration. Our Decision dated April 22,
2005 is immediately executory. Respondent is directed to report immediately to the Office of the
Bar Confidant his compliance with our Decision.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to his personal record and copies furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to
all courts.

OLVIDA V. GONZALES
A.C. NO. 5732, 16 JUNE 2015.

Facts:
Alfredo Olvida in November 2000 engaged the services of the respondent in the filing and
handling of a case for Termination of Tenancy Relationship against tenant Alfonso Lumanta
who was no longer religiously paying the rentals for a coconut farm in Tibungco, Davao City,
owned by his wife and under his administration. Alfonso had left the leased property unattended
and in a sorry state.

The case was filed on January 22, 2001 and the complainant represent his wife Norma Rodaje-
Olvida in the case. At the hearing, the DARAB exerted effors to resolve the case amicably, but
the parties failed to come to an agreement, prompting the Board to require the parties to submit
their position papers within 40days.

The complainant repeatedly called the respondent's office for information about the position
paper. He did this until April 25, 2001, the last day of its submission, but failed to contact the
respondent. Thus, he was compelled to go to the respondent's office; but again, he failed to see
the respondent whose secretary could not provide him any information about the status of the
case.
After fruitlessly going back and forth the respondent's office, the complainant finally contacted
the respondent's secretary, about the position paper and told him that the position paper had
already been filed. When he asked for a copy, he was told that there was none as it was the
respondent himself who prepared the position paper on his computer.

Nine months after the expiration of the period for the filing of the position paper — a copy of the
decision dismissing the case for lack of merit was received by Alfredo. When he read the text of
the decision, he discovered that Atty. Gonzales did not file the position paper in the case.

The complainant felt gravely aggrieved by this turn of events, especially after he learned that the
respondent already had a copy of the decision even before he received his own, and had not
informed him about it. The complainant terminated the respondent's services.
More than seven years after he was first required by the Court to do so, the respondent filed his
comment. He explained that the complainant pressed charges against him not because he
failed to file a position paper — under DARAB rules, the filing of a position paper can be
dispensed with — but because he lost the case.

On August 9, 2010, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The IBP Board of Governors found Atty. Gonzales guilty and was
recommended suspension from the practice of law for a period of four (4) months.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is negligent in discharging his duties as a lawyer in the handling of
complainant's case against his former tenant Alfonso

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, is liable as charged.

He grossly violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A

lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.

On the matter alone of keeping complainant posted on the status of the case, the respondent
failed to comply with his duty under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 that "a lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of the case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information."

In Re: Atty. David Briones, the failure of the counsel to submit the required brief within the
reglementary period is an offense that entails disciplinary action. His failure to file an appellant's
brief has caused the appeal to remain inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his
client, the accused himself, who continues to languish in jail pending the resolution of his case.

Further, the respondent kept to himself his receipt of a copy of the DARAB's adverse decision
which he received even before the complainant received his own. This failure to communicate
was downright dishonest and unethical and cannot but aggravate the respondent's inexcusable
neglect in not filing a position paper in the case. It also showed the respondent's gross lack of
professionalism in dealing with his client; worse than this, his office, through his secretary, had
even made the complainant believe that the position paper had already been filed.

Therefore, premises considered Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales is suspended from the practice of law
for three (3) years.

FALAME V. BAGUIO
A.C. NO. 6876, 7 MARCH 2008.

Facts:
On Petition for Review1 is the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of
Governors dismissing the disbarment complaint filed by the Heirs of Lydio "Jerry" Falame
(complainants) against Atty. Edgar J. Baguio (respondent), docketed as CBD Case No. 04-
1191.
In their Complaint2 against respondent, complainants alleged that on 15 July 1991, their father,
the late Lydio "Jerry" Falame (Lydio), engaged the services of respondent to represent him in an
action for forcible entry docketed as Civil Case No. A-2694 (the first civil case) and entitled
"Heirs of Emilio T. Sy, represented by Anastacia Velayo Vda. De Sy and Belen V. Sy vs. Lydio
'Jerry' Falame, Raleigh Falame and Four (4) John Does," in which Lydio was one of the
defendants.
Complainants recounted that respondent, as counsel for the defendants, filed the answer to the
complaint in the first civil case. Subsequently, when the parties to the first civil case were
required to file their respective position papers, respondent used and submitted in evidence the
following: (1) a special power of attorney dated 1 July 1988 executed by Lydio in favor of his
brother, Raleigh Falame, appointing the latter to be his attorney-in-fact; and (2) the affidavit of
Raleigh Falame dated 23 July 1988, executed before respondent, in which Raleigh stated that
Lydio owned the property subject of the first civil case.

Complainants claimed that even after the Municipal Trial Court of Dipolog City had ruled in favor
of the defendants in the first civil case, Lydio retained the services of respondent as his legal
adviser and counsel for his businesses until Lydio's death on 8 September 1996.

However, on 23 October 2000, in representation of spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame,

respondent filed a case against complainants allegedly involving the property subject of the first
civil case, entitled "Spouses Rally F. Falame and Noemi F. Falame v. Melba A. Falame, Leo A.
Falame, Jerry A. Falame, Jr., Sugni Realty Holdings and Development Corporations, their
representatives, agents and persons acting in their behalf" and docketed as Civil Case No. 5568
(the second civil case) before the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 6.

Firstly, complainants maintained that by acting as counsel for the spouses Falame in the second
civil case wherein they were impleaded as defendants, respondent violated his oath of office
and duty as an attorney. Plainly, they contended that the spouses Falame's interests are
adverse to those of his former client, Lydio.

Secondly, complainants claimed that respondent knowingly made false statements of fact in the
complaint in the second civil case to mislead the trial court. In so doing, respondent violated
paragraph (d), Section 208 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, complainants asserted further.
Lastly, complainants alleged that the second civil case is a baseless and fabricated suit which
respondent filed as counsel for complainants' uncle against the heirs of respondent's deceased
client. Specifically, they averred that respondent filed the case for the sole purpose of retaining,
maintaining and/or withholding the possession of the subject property from complainants who
are its true owners. Complainants concluded that respondent violated paragraph (g), Section 20
of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
In their Position Paper dated 7 September 2004, in addition to their previous charges against
respondent, complainants claimed that respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he represented the cause of the spouses Falame against
that of his former client, Lydio.

On 25 June 2005, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2005-167 adopting
and approving Investigating Commissioner Winston D. Abuyuan's report and recommendation
for the dismissal of this administrative case.

Issue:
Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors erred in passing Resolution No. XVI-2005-167
adopting and approving Investigating Commissioner Winston D. Abuyuan's report and
recommendation for the dismissal of the administrative case

1. W/N Atty. Baguio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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. 34 The test is whether, on behalf
of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to contest for that which his duty to another client requires
him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will develop. 35 The rule covers not only
cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used. 36 In addition, the rule holds even if the
inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no
intention to represent conflicting interests.

In relation to this, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a

lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed on him. His highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards
and costs even to himself. 41 The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease
with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edgar J. Baguio is found GUILTY of representing conflicting

interests and meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND. He is further admonished to observe a
higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession and to bear in mind that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

REGALA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 105938, 20 SEPTEMBER 1996.

Facts of the case

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), raised a complaint before the
Sandiganbayan (SB) against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and Teodoro Regala and his partners
in the ACCRA law firm, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes shares of
stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil Case No. 0033), entitled
"Republic of the Philippines versus Eduardo Cojuangco, et al."

During the course of the proceedings, PCGG filed a "Motion to Admit Third Amended
Complaint" which excluded private respondent Raul S. Roco from the complaint on his
undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as
nominee/stockholder.

In their answer to the Expanded Amended Complaint, ACCRA lawyers requested that PCGG
similarly grant the same treatment to them as accorded Roco. The PCGG has offered to the
ACCRA lawyers the same conditions availed of by Roco but the ACCRA lawyers have refused
to disclose the identities of their clients. ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for certiorari, invoking
that the Honorable Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion:
 In subjecting petitioners ACCRA lawyers who acted to the strict application of the law of
agency
  In not considering petitioners ACCRA lawyers and Mr. Roco as similarly situated and,
therefore, deserving of equal treatment.
 In not holding that, under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege prohibits
petitioners ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their client(s) and other
information requested by PCGG.
 In not requiring that the dropping of party-defendants by the PCGG must be based on
reasonable and just grounds and with due consideration to equal protection of the law

ISSUE
Whether or not client’s identity in a case involving and acquiring companies allegedly sourced
from ill-gotten wealth is privileged and disclosure of such is unethical.

RULING
The court held that the client identity in this case is privileged. As a matter of public policy, a
client's identity should not be shrouded in mystery. This general rule is however qualified by
some important exceptions:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's
name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's
advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability
3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by
revealing the client's name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime.

The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at bench, therefore, clearly
reveal that the instant case falls under the first and third exception.

The attorney-client privilege, as currently worded in the Rules of Court provides the
disqualification by reason of privileged communication. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court further
emphasizes the importance of maintaining client confidence. Furthermore, this duty is explicitly
mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 15 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to client.

The Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan are hereby annulled and set aside.
 WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan
(First Division) promulgated on March 18, 1992 and May 21, 1992 are hereby ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan is further ordered to exclude petitioners Teodoro D.
Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U.
Escueta and Paraja G. Hayuduni as parties-defendants in SB Civil Case No. 0033 entitled
"Republic
C ARO of the Philippines
LINE C ASTANEDA J IMENEZ vs v.ATT
Eduardo
Y. EDG AR Cojuangco,
FRANC ISC OJr., et al."
A.C . No . 10548 De c e m b e r 10, 2014
Me n d o za , J. NATURE: Privile g e d C o m m u n ic a tio n
FAC TS:
Ma rio C re sp o , a ka Ma rk J im e n e z, file d a c o m p la in t fo r e sta fa a g a in st C a ro lin e Jim e n e z, e t a l. Ma rk Jim e n e z’s
c o m p la in t fo r e sta fa w a s b a se d o n C a ro lin e ’s a lle g e d p a rtic ip a tio n in th e fra u d u le n t m e a n s in se llin g th e Fo rb e s
p ro p e rty w h ic h w a s a c q u ire d b y C la rio n w ith h is m o n e y. C o m p la in a n t w a s d u ty b o un d to re m it a ll th e p ro c e e d s
o f th e sa le to Ma rk Jim e n e z a s th e true a n d b e n e fic ia l o w n e r. Ho w e ve r, C a ro lin e a n d h e r c o -re sp o n d e n ts,
m isa p p ro p ria te d a n d c o n ve rte d th e fu n d s fo r th e ir p e rso n a l u se a n d b e n e fit.

C a ro lin e w a s sh o c ke d u p o n re a d in g th e a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t fo r e sta fa file d b y Ma rk Jim e n e z a g a in st

h e r. Sh e fe lt e ve n m o re b e tra ye d w h e n sh e re a d th e a ffid a vit o f Atty. Fra n c isc o , o n w h o m sh e re lie d a s h e r
CASTANEDA V. FRANCISCO
p e rso n a l la w ye r a n d C la rio n ’s c o rp o ra te c o u n se l a n d se c re ta ry o f C la rio n . Th is p ro m p te d h e r to file a d isc ip lin a ry
c a se a g a in st Atty. Fra n c isc o fo r re p re se n tin g c o n flic tin g in te re sts. Ac c o rd in g to h e r, sh e u su a lly c o n fe rre d w ith
A.C. NO. 10548, 10 DECEMBER 2014.
Atty. Fra n c isc o re g a rd in g th e le g a l im p lic a tio n s o f C la rio n ’s tra n sa c tio n s. Mo re sig n ific a n tly, th e p rin c ip a l
d o c u m e n ts re la tive to th e sa le a n d tra n sfe r o f C la rio n ’s p ro p e rty w e re a ll p re p a re d a n d d ra fte d b y Atty. Fra n c isc o
o r th e m e m b e rs o f h is la w o ffic e . Atty. Fra n c isc o w a s th e o n e w h o a c tive ly p a rtic ip a te d in th e tra n sa c tio n s
in vo lvin g th e sa le o f th e Fo rb e s p ro p e rty. With o u t a d m ittin g th e truth o f th e a lle g a tio n s in h is a ffid a vit, c o m p la in a n t
a rg u e d tha t its e xe c u tio n c le a rly b e tra ye d th e tru st a n d c o n fid e n c e sh e re p o se d o n h im a s a la w ye r. Th u s, sh e
p ra ye d fo r th e d isb a rm e n t o f Atty. Fra n c isc o .

In h is d e fe n se , Atty. Fra n c isc o m a in ly a rg u e d th a t h e vio la te d n e ith e r th e rule o n d isc lo su re s o f p rivile g e d

c o m m u n ic a tio n n o r th e p ro sc rip tio n a g a in st re p re se n tin g c o n flic tin g in te re sts, o n th e g ro u n d th a t C a ro lin e w a s
n o t h is c lie n t. He w a s th e la w ye r o f Jim e n e z a n d th e le g a l c o u n se l o f C la rio n , b ut n e ve r o f th e C a ro lin e . He m ig h t
h a ve a ssiste d h e r in so m e m a tte rs, b u t th e se w e re a ll u n d e r th e n o tio n th a t Jim e n e z h a d g ive n h im a u th o rity to
d o so . Fu rth e r, th o ug h h e a c te d a s le g a l c o u n se l fo r C la rio n , n o a tto rn e y-c lie n t re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n h im a n d
c o m p la in a n t w a s fo rm e d , a s a c o rp o ra tio n h a s a se p a ra te a n d d istin c t p e rso n a lity fro m its sh a re h o ld e rs. Wh ile h e
a d m itte d th a t th e le g a l d o c u m e n ta tio n fo r th e tra n sfe r o f sh a re s a n d th e sa le o f th e Fo rb e s p ro p e rty w e re
p re p a re d b y h im a n d n o ta rize d b y th e m e m b e rs o f h is la w firm , h e a ve rre d th a t th e se a c ts w e re p e rfo rm e d in h is
c a p a c ity a s th e c o rp o ra te se c re ta ry a n d le g a l c o u n se l o f C la rio n , a n d n o t a s a la w ye r o f c o m p la in a n t. Th e re fo re ,
h e se rve d n o c o n flic tin g in te re sts b e c a u se it w a s n o t a "fo rm e r c lie n t" a n d a "su b se q ue n t c lie n t" w h o w e re th e
o p p o sin g p a rtie s in litig a tio n .
ISSUE/ S:
WO N th e ru le o n p rivile g e d c o m m u n ic a tio n w a s vio la te d . NO .
DO C TRINES | HELD:
Ele m e n ts o f la w ye r-c lie n t p rivile g e : (1) Th e re e xists a n a tto rn e y-c lie n t re la tio n sh ip , o r a p ro sp e c tive a tto rn e y-c lie n t
re la tio n sh ip , a n d it is b y re a so n o f th is re la tio n sh ip th a t th e c lie n t m a d e th e c o m m u n ic a tio n ; (2) Th e c lie n t m a d e
th e c o m m u n ic a tio n in c o n fid e n c e . (3) Th e le g a l a d vic e m u st b e so u g h t fro m th e a tto rn e y in h is p ro fe ssio n a l
c a p a c ity.

Th e C o u rt h o ld s th a t th e e vid e n c e o n re c o rd fa ils to d e m o n stra te th e c la im s o f c o m p la in a n t. As d isc u sse d , th e

c o m p la in a n t fa ile d to e sta b lish th e p ro fe ssio n a l re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n h e r a n d Atty. Fra n c isc o . Th e re c o rd s a re
fu rth e r b e re ft o f a n y in d ic a tio n th a t th e "a d vic e " re g a rd in g th e sa le o f th e Fo rb e s p ro p e rty w a s g ive n to Atty.
Fra n c isc o in c o n fid e n c e . Ne ith e r w a s th e re a d e m o n stra tio n o f w h a t sh e h a d c o m m un ic a te d to Atty. Fra n c isc o
n o r a re c ita l o f c irc um sta n c e s u n d e r w h ic h th e c o n fid e n tia l c o m m u n ic a tio n w a s re la ye d . All th a t c o m p la in t
a lle g e d in h e r c o m p la in a n t w a s th a t "sh e so u g h t le g a l a d vic e fro m re sp o n d e n t in va rio u s o c c a sio n s."29
C o n sid e rin g th a t c o m p la in a n t fa ile d to a tte n d th e h e a rin g s a t th e IBP, th e re w a s n o te stim o n y a s to th e sp e c ific
c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n a lle g e d ly d ivulg e d b y Atty. Fra n c isc o w ith o u t h e r c o n se n t. It is, th e re fo re , d iffic u lt, if n o t
im p o ssib le , to d e te rm in e if th e re w a s a n y vio la tio n o f th e ru le o n p rivile g e d c o m m un ic a tio n . As h e ld in Me rc a d o ,
suc h c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n is a c ru c ia l lin k in e sta b lish in g a b re a c h o f th e ru le o n p rivile g e d c o m m u n ic a tio n
b e tw e e n a tto rn e y a n d c lie n t. It is n o t e n o u g h to m e re ly a sse rt th e a tto rn e y -c lie n t p rivile g e .30 It c a n n o t b e
g a in sa id th e n th a t c o m p la in a n t, wh o h a s th e b urd e n o f p ro vin g th a t th e p rivile g e a p p lie s, fa ile d in th is re g a rd .

Th e rule o n p rivile g e d c o m m u n ic a tio n p re su p p o se s a la w ye r-c lie n t re la tio n sh ip . Bu t h e re , th e re w a s n o p ro o f o f

suc h la w ye r-c lie n t re la tio n sh ip . C o n se q u e n tly, th e rule o n la w ye r-c lie n t p rivile g e d o e s n o t a p p ly.

1
While the Court finds no violation of the rule on conflict of interests and disclosure of privileged
communication, the acts of Atty. Francisco, in actively and passively allowing Clarion to make
untruthful representations to the SEC and in other public documents, still constitute malpractice
and gross misconduct in his office as attorney, for which a suspension from the practice of law
for six (6) months is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Edgar B. Francisco GUILTY of violation of Canons 1 and

10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a more severe penalty.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered into the records of Atty. Edgar B. Francisco and furnished
to the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and all courts in the Philippines, for their information and guidance.

Atty. Francisco is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision so
that the Court can determine the reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.
ORCINO V. GASPAR
A.C. NO. 3773, 24 SEPTEMBER 1997.

FACTS:
Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file
against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. Orcino bound herself to pay respondent
legal fees ofP20,000.00 — P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract and the balance
to be paid on or before the conclusion of the case. She was also to pay P500.00 per
appearance of respondent before the court and fiscal.  This agreement was embodied in a
contract executed on February 22, 1991. Orcino complied with the contract and Atty. Gaspar
entered into his duties. Atty. Gaspar, however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August
1991.  It was at this hearing that the court, over complainant’s objections, granted bail to all the
accused. Orcino immediately went to respondent’s residence and confronted him with his
absence. Gaspar explained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing. She asked for
the records of the case saying that she could refer them to another lawyer. Gaspar then gave
her the records. Orcino never returned the records nor did she see Gaspar.  On September 18,
1991, Atty. Gaspar filed before the trial court a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel without the
consent of Orcino. The court issued an order directing Gaspar to secure complainant’s consent
to the motion and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this
consent. Oricno refused to sign her conformity. Atty. Gaspar did not appear at the hearings nor
did he contact Orcino, thus she was compelled to engage the services of another lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gaspar had the right to terminate the attorney-client relation

HELD: 
The 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. An attorney who undertakes to conduct an
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He cannot 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. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides: “Sec. 26.  Change of attorneys — An attorney may retire at any time from any
action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court.  He may also
retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should
the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire.  In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change
shall be given to the adverse party.” In the present case, Orcina did not give her written consent
to Gaspar’s withdrawal.  He did not even file an application with the court for it to determine
whether he should be allowed to withdraw.

But granting that respondent’s motion without complainant’s consent was an application for
withdrawal with the court, the Supreme Court found this reason insufficient to justify the
withdrawal.  Atty. Gaspar’s withdrawal was made on the ground that “there no longer exists the
xxx confidence” between them and that there had been “serious differences between them
relating to the manner of private prosecution. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:

“CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE
AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Rule 22.01– A lawyer may
withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the
matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and
rules
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry
out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.”

The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds mentioned.  Neither can this be
considered similar or analogous to any. Orcina was upset by Atty. Gaspar’s absence at the
hearing where bail was granted to the suspected killers of her husband and it was thus natural
for her to react by confrontation. Her words were uttered in a burst of passion and cannot be
construed to have intended to terminate Atty. Gaspar’s services.  She made this clear when she
refused to sign his “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.”

Even if Atty. Gaspar was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and
leave complainant in the cold unprotected. 

The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court.
Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record.
Return the amount owed to Orcina. Admonished to exercise prudence. 

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is admonished to exercise more prudence and judiciousness

in dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to return to complainant within fifteen (15) days
from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) representing a portion of his legal
fees received from the latter with a warning that failure on his part to do so will result in the
imposition of stiffer disciplinary action.