LEGARDA VS CA
his client, warmth and zeal in the maintenance and
FACTS: Petitioner Victoria Legarda was the owner of a
parcel of land and the improvements located at 123
West Avenue, Quezon City. On January 11, 1985
respondent New Cathay House, Inc. filed a complaint
against the petitioner for specific performance with
preliminary injunction and damages in RTC alleging that
petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the
private respondent through its representative, Roberto
V. Cabrera, Jr., of the aforestated property of petitioner.
Respondent drew up the written contract and sent it to
petitioner, that petitioner failed and refused to execute
and sign the same despite demands of respondent.
Petitioner engaged the services of counsel to handle her
case. Said counsel filed his appearance with an urgent
motion for extension of time to file the answer within
ten (10) days from February 26, 1985. However, said
counsel failed to file the answer within the extended
period prayed for. Counsel for private respondent filed
an ex-parte motion to declare petitioner in default. This
was granted by the trial court on March 25, 1985 and
private respondent was allowed to present evidence ex-
parte. Thereafter, on March 25, 1985, the trial court
rendered its decision.
Said counsel for petitioner received a copy of the
judgment but took no steps to have the same set aside
or to appeal therefrom. Thus, the judgment became
final and executory. The property of petitioner was sold
at public auction to satisfy the judgment in favor of
private respondent. The property was sold to Roberto V.
Cabrera, Jr., representative of private respondent, and a
certificate of sale was issued in his favor. The
redemption period expired after one year so a final deed
of sale was issued by the sheriff in favor of Cabrera,
who in turn appears to have transferred the same to
private respondent.
During all the time, the petitioner was abroad. When,
upon her return, she learned, to her great shock, what
happened to her case and property, she nevertheless did
not lose faith in her counsel. She still asked Atty.
Coronel to take such appropriate action possible under
the circumstances.
As above related, said counsel filed a petition for
annulment of judgment and its amendment in the Court
of Appeals. But that was all he did. After an adverse
judgment was rendered against petitioner, of which
counsel was duly notified, said counsel did not inform
the petitioner about it. He did not even ask for a
reconsideration thereof, or file a petition for review
before this Court. Thus, the judgment became final. It
was only upon repeated telephone inquiries of petitioner
that she learned from the secretary of her counsel of the
judgment that had unfortunately become final.
HELD: A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of
defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability, to the end that nothing can be
taken or withheld from his client except in accordance
with the law. He should present every remedy or
defense authorized by the law in support of his client's
cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full
discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer should
not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the
judge or the general public. 12
Judged by the actuations of said counsel in this case, he
has miserably failed in his duty to exercise his utmost
learning and ability in maintaining his client's cause. 13 It
is not only a case of simple negligence as found by the
appellate court, but of reckless and gross negligence, so
much so that his client was deprived of her property
without due process of law.
The Court finds that the negligence of counsel in this
case appears to be so gross and inexcusable. This was
compounded by the fact, that after petitioner gave said
counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by
asking him to file a petition for annulment of the
judgment in the appellate court, again counsel
abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he
received a copy of the adverse judgment of the
appellate court, he did not do anything to save the
situation or inform his client of the judgment. He
allowed the judgment to lapse and become final. Such
reckless and gross negligence should not be allowed to
bind the petitioner. Petitioner was thereby effectively
deprived of her day in court.
Thus, We have before Us a case where to enforce an
alleged lease agreement of the property of petitioner,
private respondent went to court, and that because of
the gross negligence of the counsel for the petitioner,
she lost the case as well as the title and ownership of
the property, which is worth millions. The mere lessee
then now became the owner of the property. Its true
owner then, the petitioner, now is consigned to penury
all because her lawyer appear to have abandoned her
case not once but repeatedly.
PEREZ VS DELA TORRE
FACTS: Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of
Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur. In December
2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for
ransom were apprehended and jailed by the police
authorities. R went to the municipal building of
Calabanga where Ilo and Avila were being detained and
made representations that he could secure their freedom
if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions.
However, unknown to the two accused, respondent was
representing the heirs of the murder victim. Because of
their extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against
them, including herein complainant who was implicated
in the extrajudicial confessions as the mastermind in the
criminal activities for which they were being charged.
R’S CONTENTION: Both the accused sought his
assistance in executing their extra judicial confession. H
e also apprised them of their constitutional rights and of
the possibility that they might be utilized as a state-
witness. Lastly, he also advised them to inform their
parents about their decision.
HELD: violated RULE 15.03, CANON 15
There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties.
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is
the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is
his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client." This 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.
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 his first client
in any matter in which he represents him and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to
use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he
did not offer his legal services to accused Avila and Ilo
but it was the two accused who sought his assistance in
executing their extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless,
he acceded to their request to act as counsel after
apprising them of their constitutional rights and after
being convinced that the accused were under no
compulsion to give their confession.
The excuse proferred by the respondent does not
exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits a
lawyer from representing conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
As found by the IBP, at the time respondent was
representing Avila and Ilo, two of the accused in the
murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was
representing the family of the murder victim. Clearly, his
representation of opposing clients in the murder case
invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his
clients.
What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in the
execution by the two accused of their confessions
whereby they admitted their participation in various
serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was
retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.
Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of
the law, should have exercised his better judgment
before conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. It did
not cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their
counsel and instead, he even assisted them in executing
the extrajudicial confession.
FINAL PENALTY: Suspended for THREE YEARS.
GONZALES VS SAGUCIO
FACTS: Gonzales filed a case for sum of money and
damages before the MTCC where she was represented
by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN
AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar
Cabucana handling the case and herein respondent as
an associate/partner. on February 26, 2001, a decision
was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party
to pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest
and P6,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Sheriff Romeo
Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of execution
issued in connection with the judgment which prompted
Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff with
this Court.
In September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went
to the house of Gonzales. They harassed Gonzales and
asked her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding
her complaint before this Court. Gonzales thereafter filed
against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and
unjust vexation.  Notwithstanding the pendency of Civil
Case No. 1-567, where respondent’s law firm was still
representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented
the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against the
said spouses.
R’S CONTENTION: His representation was only a pro
bono and that the spouses pleaded with him as no other
counsel was willing to take their case.  He entered his
appearance in good faith and opted to represent the
spouses rather than leave them defenseless. 
HELD: violated RULE 15.03, CANON 15
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of
interests in this case, as the civil case handled by their
law firm where Gonzales is the complainant and the
criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the Gatcheco
spouses are not related, has no merit.  The
representation of opposing clients in said cases, though
unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very
least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which this
Court cannot allow.[30]
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who
represented Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus,
there could be no conflict of interests.  We do not
agree.  As respondent admitted, it was their law firm
which represented Gonzales in the civil case.  Such
being the case, the rule against representing conflicting
interests applies.
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and
with honest intention will also not exculpate him as such
claim does not render the prohibition inoperative.[33]
In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn
down the spouses as no other lawyer is willing to take
their case cannot prosper as it is settled that while there
may be instances where lawyers cannot decline
representation they cannot be made to labor under
conflict of interest between a present client and a
prospective one.[34] Granting also that there really was
no other lawyer who could handle the spouses’ case
other than him, still he should have observed the
requirements laid down by the rules by conferring with
the prospective client to ascertain as soon as practicable
whether the matter would involve a conflict with another
client then seek the written consent of all concerned
after a full disclosure of the facts.[35] These respondent
failed to do thus exposing himself to the charge of
double-dealing.
We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales.  defendants." Such a revelation is a categorical admission
However, we are not bound by such desistance as the
present case involves public interest.[36] FINAL
PENALTY: fined – 2,000 with a STERN WARNING
LIM VS VILLAROSA
FACTS: Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely
Dennis G. Jalbuena married to her daughter, Carmen J.
Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein
complainant married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni organized a corporation namely
the Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC) where she owned
almost ninety seven percent (97%). In reality PRC is a
single proprietorship belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni.The
only property of the corporation is the Alhambra Hotel,
constructed solely through the effort of the spouses
Jalbuena on that parcel of land now claimed by the
Cabiles family. Sometime on the year 1997 the case
above-cited (Civil Case No. 97-9865) was filed before
the court against the sisters. That [he], being RETAINED
counsel of the spouses Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena
was RECOMMENDED by the spouses to the sisters to
answer the complaint filed against them.
As counsel to the sisters, [he] filed a Motion for
Extension Of Time To File Answer and ultimately, [he]
filed an Answer With Counter-Claim And Prayer For
Issuance Of Writ Of Preliminary Injunction.
SIBULO VS CABRERA
FACTS: In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito1 versus
Reynaldo Marcelo, et al." defendant Reynaldo Marcelo
retained the services of the herein respondent as his
lawyer. Subsequently, however, the respondent also
entered his appearance as counsel for plaintiff Brenda
Sucaldito in the same case, without withdrawing his
appearance as counsel for defendant Reynaldo Marcelo.
In view of such development Atty. Reyes Geromo,
former counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the Manila
Regional Trial Court a motion to disqualify the
respondent on the ground of unethical conduct.2 Finding
merit in the said motion, the trial court ordered the
disqualification of respondent in the case.
Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the
aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209, brought the
present administrative complaint against respondent,
praying for the latter's removal from or suspension in
the practice of law, on the ground of unethical
practice/conduct.
HELD: Violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15
Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing
complained of, when he stated in his Answer that he
"merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same
time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor of one of the
that he (respondent) represented two conflicting
interests, which representations or appearances are
prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client
in all aspects of subject civil case. When he agreed to
represent the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in
the same case, he could no longer serve either of his
said clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did
necessarily conflict with his duty to the defendant. The
relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that
double dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery,
should be avoided.
FINAL PENALTY: FINED in the amount of TEN
THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a warning
DE GUZMAN VS DE DIOS
FACTS: In 1995, complainant engaged the services of
respondent as counsel in order to form a corporation,
which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in
Olongapo City. On December 15, 1997, the corporation
required complainant to pay her unpaid subscribed
shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred
and thirty five thousand pesos (P2,235,000.00) or
22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997.
On January 29, 1998,3 complainant received notice of
the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a
copy of a board resolution dated January 6, 1998
authorizing such sale.4 Complainant soon learned that
her shares had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario,
one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted
complainant from the corporation completely. While
respondent rose to be president of the corporation,
complainant lost all her life's savings invested therein.
Complainant alleged that she relied on the advice of
Atty. de Dios and believed that as the majority
stockholder, Atty. de Dios would help her with the
management of the corporation. Meantime, Mr. Del
Rosario transferred one hundred (100) shares to
respondent in payment of legal services as evidenced by
a Deed of Waiver and Transfer of Corporate Shares of
Stock.
Respondent claims that there was no attorney-client
relationship between her and complainant. The claim
has no merit. It was complainant who retained
respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as
counsel in behalf of complainant.
HELD: There was evidence of collusion between the
board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board of
directors now included respondent as the president,
Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki as
chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki
Sato as director.7 The present situation shows a clear
case of conflict of interest of the respondent. Lawyers
must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings
with their clients and the public at large, with honesty
and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests and engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 10
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no
falsehood or consent to its commission and to conduct
herself as a lawyer according to the best of her
knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source
of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. 12
The acts of respondent Atty. de Dios are clearly in
violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court
will not tolerate.
FINAL PENALTY: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS
TEODOSIO VS NAVA
FACTS: Respondent Mercedes Nava alleged that
petitioner acted as counsel for Melanie Batislaong in
several casesfiled by them against Melanie Batislaong
and herself, respondent Mercedes Nava. in various
branches of the Iloilo City Regional Trial Court while
acting as counsel for Letecia Espinosa and Ma. Gilda
Palma in cases.
While the complaints against them were pending
preliminary investigation,  Espinosa and Palma hired
petitioner’s services in seeking the annulment of certain
trust receipt agreements allegedly falsified by Nava
HELD: Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Under Canon 6 of the previous Canons of Professional
Ethics, a lawyer is deemed to represent conflicting
interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires 
him  to oppose.[16] The rule is designed to remove from
attorneys the opportunity to take advantage of the
secrets of clients obtained during the existence of the
client-attorney relation.
Based on the facts of this case, we hold that petitioner’s
conduct does not amount to a violation of the rule.  The
records bear out petitioner’s contention that based on
the causes of action of the cases involving Melanie
Batislaong on one hand and Letecia Espinosa and Ma.
Gilda Palma on the other, he could simultaneously
represent them without any possible violation of the
client-attorney confidentiality.  In the cases filed by him
for Espinosa and Palma (Civil Case Nos. 21511 and
21493), it is only Nava against whom the former have
an adverse interest as it was the latter who allegedly
falsified the trust receipt agreements to the prejudice of
Palma and Espinosa.  Indeed, were it not for the offer of
Palma and Espinosa to settle their obligation, there
would have been no need to implead Batislaong as a
defendant.  On the other hand, in the other cases in
which Batislaong is a party, either as plaintiff in Civil
Case No. 21417 or as an accused in Criminal Case Nos.
78200,  79688, and 44181, neither Palma nor Espinosa
are parties.  Indeed, it is Nava who is the respondent in
the first case and the private complainant in the last two
criminal cases.  Under the foregoing circumstances, the
danger that petitioner may abuse his clients’ confidences
to the detriment of the other is absent.
PORMENTO VS PONTEVERDA
FACTS: The rift between complainant and respondent
began when complainant's counterclaim in Civil Case No.
1648 filed with the RTC of Bacolod City was dismissed.
Complainant claims that respondent, who was his lawyer
in the said case, deliberately failed to inform him of the
dismissal of his counterclaim despite receipt of the order
of dismissal by the trial court, as a result of which,
complainant was deprived of his right to appeal said
order. Complainant only came to know of the existence
of the trial court's order when the adverse party in the
said case extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage
executed over the parcel of land which is the subject
matter of the suit. In order to recover his ownership
over the said parcel of land, complainant was
constrained to hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra
refused to institute an action for the recovery of the
subject property.
Complainant was forced to initiate a criminal case for
qualified theft against the relatives of the alleged new
owner of the said land. Respondent is the counsel of the
accused in said case. Complainant claims that as part of
his defense in said criminal case, respondent utilized
pieces of confidential information he obtained from
complainant while the latter is still his client.
In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located at Escalante,
Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration of Heirship
and Sale of said land was prepared and notarized by
respondent. Since there was another person who claims
ownership of the property, complainant alleges that he
heeded respondent's advice to build a small house on
the property and to allow his (complainant's) nephew
and his family to occupy the house in order for
complainant to establish his possession of the said
property. Subsequently, complainant's nephew refused
to vacate the property prompting the former to file an
ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court of
Escalante, Negros Occidental, docketed as Civil Case No.
528. Respondent acted as the counsel of complainant's
nephew.
HELD: 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 the present case, we find no conflict of interests
when respondent represented herein complainant's
nephew and other members of his family in the
ejectment case, and in the criminal complaint, filed by
herein complainant against them. The only established
participation respondent had with respect to the parcel
of land purchased by complainant, is that he was the
one who notarized the deed of sale of the said land. On
that basis alone, it does not necessarily follow that
respondent obtained any information from herein
complainant that can be used to the detriment of the
latter in the ejectment case he filed.
While complainant alleges that it was respondent who
advised him to allow his nephew to temporarily occupy
the property in order to establish complainant's
possession of said property as against another claimant,
no corroborating evidence was presented to prove this
allegation. Defendant, in his answer to the complaint for
ejectment, raised the issue as to the right of the vendor
to sell the said land in favor of complainant. However,
we find this immaterial because what is actually in issue
in the ejectment case is not the ownership of the subject
lot but the ownership of the house built on the said lot.
Furthermore, the subject matter of I.S. Case No. 99-188
filed by complainant against his nephew and other
members of his family involves several parts of trucks
owned by herein complainant.This case is not in any
way connected with the controversy involving said parcel
of land. In fine, with respect to Civil Case No. 528 and
I.S. Case No. 99-188, complainant failed to present
substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for
violating the prohibition against representation of
conflicting interests.
However, we find conflict of interests in respondent's
representation of herein complainant in Civil Case No.
1648 and his subsequent employment as counsel of the
accused in Criminal Case No. 3159.
The subject matter in Civil Case No. 1648 is Lot 609
located at Escalante, Negros Occidental, the same parcel
of land involved in Criminal Case No. 3159 filed by
herein complainant against several persons, accusing
them of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut
trees within the premises of the said lot.
Nonetheless, be that as it may, it cannot be denied that
when respondent was the counsel of complainant in Civil
Case No. 1648, he became privy to the documents and
information that complainant possessed with respect to
the said parcel of land. Hence, whatever may be said as
to whether or not respondent utilized against
complainant any information given to him in a
professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous
relationship should have precluded him from appearing
as counsel for the opposing side.
Thus, respondent should have declined employment in
Criminal Case No. 3159 so as to avoid suspicion that he
used in the criminal action any information he may have
acquired in Civil Case No. 1648. Moreover, nothing on
record would show that respondent fully apprised
complainant and his new clients and secured or at least
tried to secure their consent when he took the defense
of the accused in Criminal Case No. 3159. Thus, we find
respondent guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests.
FINAL PENALTY: GUILTY of representing conflicting
interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
NAZARIA VS HERNANDEZ
FACTS: Sometime in 1961, complainant’s husband
abandoned her and her son, Luciano S. Hernandez, Jr.
Shortly thereafter, her husband’s numerous creditors
demanded payments of his loans. Complainant engaged
the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent.
He advised her to give him her land titles covering Lots
848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City so he could
sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He then
persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor
without any monetary or valuable consideration.
Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the
lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors.
Complainant also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and 1141-A,
likewise located in Zamboanga City, which were
mortgaged to her creditors. When the mortgages fell
due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced
her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his
favor. As a result, respondent became the registered
owner of all the lots belonging to complainant.
Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that
respondent did not sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead,
he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her
land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her
real properties worth millions.
HELD: violated CANON 16 AND CANON 17
CANON 16 - Respondent breached this Canon. His acts
of acquiring for himself complainant’s lots entrusted to
him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross
misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.3 Such
conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only
himself but also the name and honor of the legal
profession. He violated this Court’s mandate that
lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially
in their dealing with their clients and the public at large,
with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
CANON 17 - The records show that complainant
reposed such high degree of trust and confidence in
herein respondent, that when she engaged his services,
she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to
sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would
be used to pay her creditors. Respondent, however,
abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell
her properties to others but to himself and spent his
own money to pay her obligations. As correctly observed
by Investigating IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro,
respondent is duty-bound to render a detailed report to
the complainant on how much he sold the latter’s lots
and the amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously, had
he sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could have
earned more. Records show that she did not receive any
amount from respondent. Clearly, respondent did not
adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty as
complainant’s counsel.
Undoubtedly, respondent’s conduct has made him unfit
to remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen
below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. We have
been exacting in our demand for integrity and good
moral character of members of the Bar. They are
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession and refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege.7 And whenever it is made to
appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust
and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes
not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which
made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege
of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.8
Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his
integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal
profession.
FINAL PENALTY: DISBARRED.
MARISSA VS MACARILAY
FACTS: Sometime in year 2000, Complainant and one
Jenelyn Balaoro ('Balaoro') bought a lot from one
('Mohammad'). Complainant and Balaoro, however,
could not register the sale with the Register of Deeds
and cause the transfer of the title in their names
because Mohammad failed to surrender the owner's
duplicate certificate of title for said lot. Subsequently,
Complainant learned from Reina Ong ('Ong') that
Mohammad had mortgaged the said lot to a third party.
in January or February 2002, Ong introduced
Complainant to Vic Paule ('Paule'), an employee of the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Complainant allegedly
gave Paule P8,000.00 for the help the latter will give her
in securing a copy of the mortgage contract concerned.
On March 18, 2002, Complainant, Balaoro and Ong met
with Paule and proceeded to the office of Respondent,
the lawyer recommended by Paule. During said meeting,
Complainant consulted Respondent about the problem
concerning the transfer of the subject lot title.
R advised that they should file an adverse claim with the
Register of Deeds. Respondent, however, required an
acceptance fee of P20,000.00. Thus, on the same day,
Complainant issued a check to R for P20,000.00 as
payment of the acceptance fee. Subsequently, R asked
Complainant for P3,000.00 as notarization fee and
P5,000.00 as filing fee for the adverse claim. On April 5,
2002, Complainant and Balaoro went to R’s office and
paid said amounts. On the same day, R himself typed
the affidavit of adverse claim in the presence of
Complainant and Balaoro and the latter subsequently
signed the same. On May 16, 2002, upon R’s advice,
Complainant gave R another P20,000.00 in check as
filing fee for the suits to be filed against Mohammad.
Complainant inquired from R about the status of the
case(s) against Mohammad but the latter could not give
any further developments other than that the affidavit of
adverse claim had already been filed with the Register of
Deeds. It appears that R was having problems about the
fact that Mohammad's whereabouts are unknown and R
was not sure what to do about it. Subsequently,
Complainant received assurance from R that the case
against Mohammad was already filed in court although
Respondent could not identify the particular court except
that it was pending in the sala of one Judge Regala.
Upon verification with the courts and the fiscal's office
[at] Quezon City, Complainant learned that no case,
whether criminal or civil, was ever filed by Respondent
against Mohammad. Complainant then called
Respondent regarding her findings and even suggested
service of summons by publication upon Mohammad,
having receiv[ed] advice from one Atty. Noel Sorreda
('Atty. Sorreda') that such manner of service is
appropriate in view of the lack of information regarding
Mohammad's whereabouts. Respondent, however,
immediately got angry so Complainant did not insist on
her inquiries and suggestions.
On March 24, 2003, upon Complainant's request, Atty.
Sorreda called Respondent to inquire about the specific
branch where the case against Mohammad was
supposedly pending. Respondent got angry and hung up
the phone. Upon learning this, Complainant authorized
Atty. Sorreda to terminate the services of Respondent on
her behalf. Atty. Sorreda called Respondent a second
time but was able to talk only with presumably
Respondent's lady-receptionist or secretary whom Atty.
Sorreda requested to just relay to Respondent his
message regarding the termination of Respondent's
services. On March 26, 2003, Atty. Sorreda, upon
Complainant's request, sent a letter to Respondent
confirming the verbal termination of services, and also
asking for the turnover of the pertinent documents that
were with Respondent. Subsequently, Complainant
herself wrote Respondent a letter affirming the contents
of the earlier letter of Atty. Sorreda. In a letter dated
April 4, 2003, Respondent denied the fact of his
termination by Atty. Sorreda and invited Complainant to
his office to talk things over. Complainant responded
through Atty. Sorreda in a letter dated May 16, 2003 by
reiterating the termination of Respondent's services and
the request for the turnover of documents. In a letter
dated May 23, 2003, Respondent enclosed the
documents requested. Since it appears from the
documents turned over that Respondent never filed a
suit against Mohammad, Complainant wrote Respondent
demanding the return of the money she paid for the
anticipated legal services Respondent was supposed to
render but which were not actually rendered.
Respondent's failure to respond to said letter prompted
Complainant [to] send a follow-up letter dated July 16,
2003. Instead of returning the money, Respondent
wrote Complainant a letter dated July 14, 2003 denying
receipt of any amount from Complainant other than the
P20,000.00 acceptance fee and demanding payment of
alleged unpaid attorney's fee of P40,000 and fees for
notarial services of P3,000.00 which Respondent
allegedly advanced for Complainant. Thus, Complainant
filed the present administrative case for disciplinary
action, likewise praying for the return of the money she
paid for the anticipated legal services Respondent was
supposed to render but which were not actually
rendered.
HELD: violated Canons 15, 16, 17 and 18
A lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature; 8
it is delicate, exacting and confidential. 9 It requires a
high standard of conduct and demands utmost fidelity,
candor, fairness, and good faith.10 The legal profession
demands vigilance and attention expected of a "good
father of a family."11 Lawyers should adopt the norm
expected of people of good intentions. In brief, they
must always be protective of the interests of their clients
as good parents would be protective of their own
families.
These duties are further stressed in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically in the following
pertinent provisions:
"CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients.
"CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his
possession.
"Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
"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.
"Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
"Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for information."
Admittedly, respondent received the amount of P20,000
as acceptance fee for the cases he had agreed to file on
behalf of complainant. Plainly, he was less than candid
in his dealings with his client; he displayed lack of
honesty and fidelity to her cause. Sufficiently established
were the following acts: (1) despite his receipt on May
16, 2002, of P20,000 for filing fees, he did not file the
cases he had agreed to handle; (2) he deceived
complainant when he lied by saying that a civil
complaint had been filed in the sala of one "Judge
Regala" of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; (3)
respondent refused to return the money he had received
for the filing fees. These misrepresentations, lies and
lapses constituted a breach of his sworn duty as a
lawyer and of the ethical standards he was required to
honor and observe.
respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by
failing to file the complaints as he was supposed to.
Unbelievable is his claim that the complaints were ready
as early as April 5, 2002, but that these were not filed
anyway because complainant had refused to sign them,
absent the correct address of the defendant (Albaria
Mohammad).
Finally, respondent should have returned the money to
complainant following his failure to file the cases.24
Where the client gives money to the lawyer for a specific
purpose -- such as to file an action or to appeal an
adverse judgment -- the latter should, upon failure to do
so, immediately return it to the former.25 The unjustified
withholding of funds belonging to the client warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action against the lawyer.26
Likewise established was the obvious fact that the only
legal service rendered by respondent consisted of the
notarization of the Deed of Sale covering the property
purchased by complainant and the filing of the adverse
claim. We agree with Commissioner Villadolid that
P8,000 was sufficient compensation for the services
actually rendered. Hence, respondent must return to
complainant the balance of P40,000 plus legal interest.
The failure of respondent to discharge his duty properly
constitutes an infringement of ethical standards and of
his oath. Such failure makes him answerable not just to
his client, but also to this Court, to the legal profession,
and to the general public.2
FINAL PENALTY: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS, ORDERED
to return to Marissa L. Macarilay the amount of P40,000,
with interest at 6 percent per annum from May 16,
2002, until full payment.

First, evidence abound that it was complainant who was

insistent that the cases be filed. She repeatedly inquired
about the case, but respondent would not give her any
clear answer. Later on, he lied to her by saying that the
complaint was pending in the sala of one Judge Regala.
His deception on top of his failure to file the cases were
raised in the letter dated March 26, 2003,20 written by
Atty. Noel Sorreda, her new counsel. In his April 4, 2003
reply,21 respondent did not mention anything about the
complaints that had allegedly been prepared as early as
April 5, 2002.

Second, his alleged lack of knowledge of the correct

address of the defendant is not a hindrance to the filing
of a complaint. Indeed, such address is material to the
service of summons22 which, however, presupposes that
a complaint has been properly filed in court.
Furthermore, Section 14 of Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court23 provides for remedies when the defendant's
address is unknown. Thus, respondent should have
nevertheless filed the complaint, especially because
complainant had already given him payment for the
filing fees. His attempt to cover up his negligence by
wrongfully shifting the blame to her cannot be
countenanced by this Court.