Basic Legal Ethics: II-D

Veronica Santiago // Benjamin Hontiveros // Socorro

Manas // Trinidad Nordista
~ versus ~
Atty. Amado Fojas

CODE TO REMEMBER:
Failure to file an answer.

CANONS INVOLVED:
14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.

FACTS:

Complainants in this case are former clients of the

herein respondent, Atty. Amado Fojas.

The previous case was about the complainants who

were officers of the FEU Faculty Association, who
allegedly expelled from their Union one Paulino Salvador.
The latter seek help from DOLE to declare his expulsion
from the union as illegal as well as filed with the RTC a
complaint for damages and attorney’s fees.

Herein respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

case in which the trial court judge granted, but required
the complainants to file their answer within 15 days from
notice. Instead of filing the answer, respondent Fojas filed
a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the case.

The complainants were declared in default. Hence

this petition to disbar Atty. Amado Fojas for “malpractice,
neglect, etc.”

The respondent admits his mistake in failing to file

the answer but he alleges that:
1. It was cured by filing a motion for
reconsideration
2. The complainants filed the case to harass him
because he refused to share his attorney’s fees in the
labor case he had handled for them.
3. He further stated that the failure was due to
forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and
pressure of legal work.

ISSUE:
 WON the respondent committed culpable
negligence in failing to file for the complainants’ an
answer.

RULING:

No lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or

advocate for every person who may wish to become his
client. A lawyer has the right to decline employment,
subject, however to Canon 14 which states:

A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.

Overzealous – full and continuing awareness of

his duty to file an answer

Volume and pressure of legal work – purely

based on forgetfulness because of his other commitments

The respondent contended that the failure

was due to forgetfulness occasioned by a large
volume and pressure of legal work.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no

excuse for respondent’s inability to exercise due
diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer.

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.

Reprimanded.
 Rosario Junio
~ versus ~
Atty. Salvador Grupo

CODE TO REMEMBER:
Recovery of P25,000 intended for redemption of a
parcel of land

CANONS INVOLVED:

Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money

from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent
advice.

FACTS:

The complainant engaged the services of herein

respondent for the redemption of a parcel of land in the
name of her parents (Rogelio & Rufina Nietes, Conception
Loay, Bohol).

Complainant entrusted to respondent P25K to be

used for the redemption of the said land. However,
respondent failed to redeem the property which caused
forfeiture.

In respondent’s answer:

1. He admitted to receive the amount but the land

could not really be redeemed anymore;

2. When the transaction failed, respondent

requested to allow him to avail the money due to an
urgent need for his children’s educational expenses;

3. The family of the complainant and the

respondent are very close and intimate with each other.
Complainant and her sisters served respondent’s family
as household helpers. Hence, there is no client-attorney
relationship involved.

Complainant denied:

1. That respondent informed her of his failure to

redeem the property;

2. That respondent requested her to instead lend

the money to him.
 Investigating Commissioner recommended that
respondent be reprimanded and ordered to pay the
amount of P25K with interest.

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved

with modification to suspend the respondent for 1 year.

ISSUE:

WON there is no client-attorney relationship in this

case.

RULING:

As stated in Hilario vs David, it is not essential

that the client should have employed the attorney
professionally on previous occasion.

If a person consults with his attorney in his

professional capacity, then the professional employment
is established.

Court suspended Atty. Grupo for a period of 1

month and ordered him to pay the complainant P25,000
with interest at the legal rate, computed from December
12, 1996.
 Benedicto Hornilla and Atty. Federico Ricafort
~ versus ~
Atty. Ernesto Salunat

CODE TO REMEMBER:
- Association versus its Board of Directors
- Derivative Suit Doctrine

CANONS INVOLVED:
Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.

Rule 16.06 -

FACTS:

The respondent in this case is a member of the

ASSA Law and Associates who is also the counsel of the
Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA)
wherein his brother is a member of the Board.

The complaints, who are members of the PPSTA,

filed a complaint in SEC and in the Office of the
Ombudsman against the members of the Board of
Directors.

Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for

the Board. However, complainants contend that
respondent was guilty of conflict of interest because he
was engaged by the PPSTA and was being paid out of its
corporate funds where complainants have contributed.

Respondent’s answer:

1. He entered his appearance as counsel for the

Board Members in behalf of the ASSA Law and
Associates;

2. The SEC Case was handled by another partner of

the firm, Atty. Agustin Agustin;

3. He pointed out that his relationship with Aurelio

Salunat, his brother, was immaterial.

IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be

suspended for 6 months.

Board of Governors approved the decision of IBP-

CBD.
ISSUE:

WON Salunat is representing conflicting interests.

RULING:

A corporation’s board of directors:

1. Exercises all powers provided for under the

Corporation Code;
2. Conducts all business of the corporation;
3. Controls and holds all property of the
corporation.

Derivative Suit is when corporate directors

committed a breach of trust and the corporation is unable
or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a
stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other
stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation.

In this case, a lawyer engaged as counsel for a

corporation cannot represent members of the same
corporation’s board of directors in a derivative suit
brought against them.

Therefore, respondent is guilty of representing

conflicting interests. He is admonished to observe a
higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his
profession.