sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfd.

18 espiritu vs ulep. 1818181818

18 espiritu vs ulepf FACTS:

sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf

In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu and Ricardo Maon whereby
Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon.

18 espiritu vs ulep1818

sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf

sdfsdfsdfdf Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may deliver it to Maon. sdfsdfsdfdf

Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP
chapter then heard the case ex parte and subsequently recommended Ulep’s suspension.
Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may deliver it to Maon. 18 sdfsdfsdfdf espiritu vs ulep

FACTS:

In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu and Ricardo Maon whereby
Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon.

Espiritu handed the P50k to Atty. Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may deliver it to Maon. Ulep failed
to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter he avoided talking to Espiritu. sdfsdfsdfdf

Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. sdfsdfsdfdf
Espiritu then sought the assistance of the local IBP chapter.

Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP
chapter then sdfsdfsdfdf sdfsdfsdfdf ard the case ex parte and subsequently recommended Ulep’s
suspension.

18 espiritu vs ulep

FACTS:

In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu and Ricardo Maon whereby
Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon.
Espiritu handed the P50k to Atty. Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may deliver it to Maon. Ulep failed
to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter he avoided talking to Espiritu. Espiritu then sought the
assistance of the local IBP chapter.

Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP
chapter then heard the case ex parte and subsequently recommended Ulep’s suspension.
LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 18 espiritu vs ulep

FACTS:

In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu and Ricardo Maon whereby
Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon.

Espiritu handed the P50k to Atty. Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may deliver it to Maon. Ulep failed
to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter he avoided talking to Espiritu. Espiritu then sought the
assistance of the local IBP chapter.

Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP
chapter then heard the case ex parte and subsequently recommended Ulep’s suspension.

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 18 espiritu vs ulep

FACTS:

In 1997, a compromise agreement was reached between Oscar Espiritu and Ricardo Maon whereby
Espiritu agreed to deliver P50k to Maon.

Espiritu handed the P50k to Atty. Ulep, his lawyer, so that the latter may deliver it to Maon. Ulep failed
to deliver the money to Maon and thereafter he avoided talking to Espiritu. Espiritu then sought the
assistance of the local IBP chapter.

Thereafter, Ulep was invited but he failed to appear for five consecutive scheduled hearings. The IBP
chapter then heard the case ex parte and subsequently recommended Ulep’s suspension.
 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a
consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire
proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and
confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to the
respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.
Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the
rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et a communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of
the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
l in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence
delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to
the respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
earance o communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the
rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]
CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
n October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles. Respondent
as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire
proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence delicate and
confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to the
respondent.
communication. Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. Case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

LIM VS VILLAROSA
[A.C. No. 5303, June 15, 2006]

CORONA, J.

Facts: That respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni,
Chairman/President of PRC was sued before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al.
vs. Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who formally
entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap Gargoles. Respondent as a consequence of said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A.
Jalandoni et al in the entire proceedings of said case. Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said
counsel, hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the respondent.
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

wgaeggggggggggggggggggg