AGOT V.

RIVERA

Facts:

1. Agot alleged that she was invited as maid of honor in her best friend’s wedding at USA. To facilitate the issuance
of her US visa, Agot sought the services of Atty. Rivera who represented himself as an immigration lawyer and
they entered into a contract of legal services whereby respondent undertook to facilitate the release of a US
immigrant visa in Agot’s favor prior to the scheduled wedding.
2. Atty. Rivera failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed period and Agot was not even scheduled for
interview in the US embassy.
3. Atty. Rivera did not refund the downpayment Agot paid. Agot filed a criminal complaint for estafa and the
instant administrative complaint against respondent.
4. IBP found Atty. Rivera administratively liable and be suspended for a period of 4 months. The investigating
commissioner found him guilty of engaging in deceitful conduct for (a) misrepresenting himself as an
immigration lawyer; (b) failing to deliver the services he contracted; and (c) being remiss in returning
complainant’s downpayment.
5. The IBP approved the recommendation with modification increasing the period of suspension to six months.

Issue: Whether Atty. Rivera should be held administratively liable for violating CPR.

Ruling:

1. Yes. As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also
of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
2. Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. In the instant case, respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer, which resulted to complainant
seeking his assistance to facilitate the issuance of her US visa and paying him the amount of ₱350,000.00 as
downpayment for his legal services. In truth, however, respondent has no specialization in immigration law but
merely had a contact allegedly with Pineda, a purported US consul, who supposedly processes US visa
applications for him.
4. Corollary to such deception, respondent likewise failed to perform his obligations under the Contract, which is
to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in favor of complainant. This constitutes a flagrant violation of
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
5. CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 – A lawyer
shall not neglecta legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
6. Anent the proper penalty for respondent’s acts, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers
neglected their client’s affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter’s money and/or property despite
demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.
7. Also, in Jinon v. Jiz,22 the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his failure to return the
amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never performed. In this case, not only did respondent
fail to facilitate the issuance of complainant’s US visa and return her money, he likewise committed deceitful
acts in misrepresenting himself as an immigration lawyer, resulting in undue prejudice to his client. Under these
circumstances, a graver penalty should be imposed upon him. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it
appropriate to increase the period of suspension from the practice of law of respondent from six (6) months, as
recommended by the IBP, to two (2) years.

NERY v. SAMPANA
Facts:

1. Nery engaged the services of Sampana for the annulment of her marriage and her adoption by an alien adopter.
The petition for annulment was granted and Nery paid P200k to Sampana. Nery also paid Sampana for the
adoption process.
2. Sampana informed Nery that he already filed the petition for adoption. Nery did not receive notices from the
court but Sampana said that her presence was not necessary because the hearing was only jurisdictional.
3. Nery found out that there was no petition filed in court and she sought reimbursement from Sampana but
Sampana said that he would deduct the filing fee from the reimbursement. Nery demanded the reimbursement
from Sampana but the demands were left unheeded.
4. The IBP found Sampana guilty of malpractice and recommended a penalty of three months suspension.

Issue: Whether Sampana violated the CPR.

Ruling:

1. Yes. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the client’s cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of importance. A lawyer also owes it to the court, their clients, and other lawyers to be
candid and fair.
2. In the present case, Sampana admitted that he received "one package fee" for both cases of annulment and
adoption. Despite receiving this fee, he unjustifiably failed to file the petition for adoption and fell short of his
duty of due diligence and candor to his client. Sampana’s proffered excuse of waiting for the certification before
filing the petition for adoption is disingenuous and flimsy.
3. Having no valid reason not to file the petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of the
petition.
4. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public
confidence in the legal profession. The court suspended Sampana for three years.

AC No. 5859

Mercado v. De Vera

Facts:

1. Rosario Mercado won in a civil case with Atty. Eduardo De Vera as her legal counsel. Upon execution of the
decision and collection of bank deposits for Mercado, Atty. De Vera refused to turn over the proceeds, saying
that the money was used to pay court fees and the remaining are his as attorney’s fees.
2. Mercado filed a disbarment case against Atty. De Vera for infidelity in the custody and handling client’s funds.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines sanctioned Atty. De Vera with a suspension of practice for one (1) year.
Following this, Atty. De Vera filed baseless lawsuits against most of the members of the Mercado Family under
different jurisdictions. He also filed cases against IBP governors who recommended his suspension.
3. Mercado contents that Atty. De Vera is exploiting their personal family problems just to pursue unwarranted
cases. She also alleged that Atty. De Vera is guilty of forum shopping and harassment for the filing of baseless
charges.
4. Atty. De Vera contends that he is only exhausting all the available legal remedies, and that the charges filed
against members of the Mercado family were done in good faith.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Vera violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by instituting baseless and
unwarranted suits that are only aimed to harass Mercado and her family.

Held:

1. Atty. De Vera was found guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility for
raising unfounded lawsuits against the Mercado family and several IBP board members who recommended his
suspension.
2. Such act is deemed retaliatory and is unbecoming of a member of the bar who should uphold the integrity,
honesty and dignity of the legal profession. Atty. De Vera was disbarred permanently from practice.

RE: Administrative case against Atty. Samuel C. Occena

Doctrine: Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. His guilt, however, cannot be presumed. It must indicate the
dubious character of the acts done, as well as the motivation thereof. Furthermore, a disbarred lawyer must have been
given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, produce witnesses in his own behalf,
and to be heard by himself and counsel. All these requirements have been complied with in the case at hand.

Facts:

1. Under the terms of the Last Will and Testament of the late William C. Ogan, his residuary estate was divided
among his seven children. One of them, Necitas Ogan-Occeña, was named in the will as executrix of the estate.
As such, she retained her husband, Atty. Samuel C. Occeña, as her lawyer.
2. The estate consists of bank deposits, securities (both here and in the United States of America), and real estate
in Cebu City and in Ohio, U.S.A. The deceased left no debt. Thus, the settlement of the estate should have been
simple and speedy. However, since the death of the testator on February 1, 1963, the settlement of his estate
has not yet been terminated owing largely to the dilatory tactics of Atty. Occeña.
3. Judge Ruiz learned that Necitas filed a project of partition. The probate court approved the project except
certain portions. Necitas interposed an appeal. The dispute between the executrix, on the one hand, and the
other heirs, on the other, which delayed the proceedings, centered mainly on the P250,000.00 cash and the
shares of stocks.
4. Atty. Occena also interposed numerous appeals from the orders of the probate court to prolong the
proceedings. The main causes of the delay in the probate proceedings were Atty. Occeña's claim for attorney's
fee in the amount of P250,000.00 and the executrix's refusal, through her husband, to account for the shares of
stocks belonging to the estate which, according to her, were not in her possession.
5. Judge Ruiz issued an order requiring her to submit within 30 days the latest inventory of all the securities of the
estate but she failed to comply.
6. Judge Ruiz authorized one of the heirs to take proper action on the give parcels of land in USA and the court
ordered Necitas to release 1k US dollar to the heir from the estate fund. Necitas assailed the order before the
CA in a petition for prohibition and certiorari.
7. Judge Ruiz cited the executrix for contempt of court for her failure to obey the orders.
8. The executrix and Atty. Occena were held in contempt of court for disobeying the court order to release 1k US
dollars to the heir. It bears emphasis that this incident delayed the proceedings for four (4) years.
9. Finding the executrix unfaithful in the performance of her duties, the probate court, on May 12, 1981, adjudged
her in contempt of court.
10. Atty. Occena and his wife filed a civil case for damages against Judge Ruiz but was later dismissed.
 11. Atty. Occena filed with the Tanodbayan a letter complaint against Judge Ruiz for rendering unjust interlocutory
orders but was later dismissed.
12. Atty. Occena filed an administrative case against Judge Ruiz for gross inefficiency and dishonesty but was later
dismissed because Atty. Occena failed to substantiate his charges during the investigation.
13. Atty. Occena and his wife filed a civil case for damages against Judge Ruiz but was later dismissed.
14. By filing the said civil actions, criminal charge, and administrative complaints, found to be groundless, Atty.
Occeña further delayed with malice the probate proceedings and inflicted hardship and pain upon Judge Ruiz.
15. From the start of the testate proceedings in 1963, no less than 13 petitions were filed with this Court and the
Court of Appeals by Atty. Occeña, questioning the interlocutory orders of the probate court. But most, if not all,
were without merit.
16. Judge Ruiz filed an administrative case against Atty. Occena with gross misconduct nad violation of his oath as a
lawter and willful disobedience of lawful court orders. Upon Atty. Occeña's motion, he was given an extension of
15 days within which to file his answer. However, he did not comply. Neither did he appear during the hearing.
17. On November 14, 1985, based on the evidence presented ex parte, showing that Atty. Occeña has "abused,
misused and overused the judicial system," Judge Ruiz rendered a decision suspending6 him from the practice of
law for three (3) years.
18. The IBP recommended that Atty. Occena be disbarred from the practice of law for grave violation of his oath of
office as attorney; likewise, that his name be DROPPED from the roll of attorneys."

Issue: Whether Atty. Occena violated the CPR.

Ruling:

1. YES. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a member of the Bar may be disbarred or
suspended by this Court for any (1) deceit, (2) malpractice, (3) gross misconduct in office, (4) grossly immoral
conduct, (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, (6) violation of the lawyer's oath, (7) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, and for (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
without authority to do so. Not only did Atty. Occeña commit deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and
willful disobedience to a superior court. Beyond these transgressions, he violated the lawyer's oath whereby he
imposed upon himself the following duties.
2. As shown by the records, Atty. Occeña gravely violated his oath of office in his handling of Special Proceedings
No. 423. The facts of the case succinctly show that through his atrocious maneuvers, he successfully delayed the
disposition of the case for the last thirty-eight (38) years, causing untold hurt and prejudice, not only to the
heirs, but also to Judges Ruiz and Beldia who heard the case.
3. As aptly declared by the Court of Appeals, the delay "can only benefit the executor or administrator" and "the
longer the proceedings, the bigger the attorney's fees." But the more tragic reality is the fact that Atty. Occeña
has caused a mockery of the judicial proceedings and inflicted injury to the administration of justice through his
deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral conduct. Indeed, he abused beyond measure his privilege to
practice law.
4. Atty. Occeña has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and
grossly immoral acts. This Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as
part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession, because it cannot be denied that the respect of
litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and
confidence.