Spouses Aranda v. Atty. Elayda (A.C.

No 7907, DEC 15,2010)

FACTS: An administrative complaint filed by the spouses Aranda before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, charging
their former counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda (Atty. Elayda), with gross
misconduct in handling their case. The spouses Aranda were the defendants in
Civil Case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch
72.The spouses Aranda hired Atty Elayda to be their counsel for their civil case.
They filed a complaint against the respondent for his failure to follow elementary
norms and civil procedure and evidence. However, to their surprise in July 2006,
an adverse judgment was issued against them, thus they lost possession of their
car. Apparently, their counsel never appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda
failed to inform the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of
judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was interposed by the lawyer
as well. In his defense, Atty. Elayda said that it was the spouses who never went
to court; that the spouses neglected to check on their case in court; that one time
when their case was scheduled, he even notified the court stenographer to notify
him if the spouses are in court so that he could be there for them as he was in
another court branch for another case.An investigation was conducted and the
result finding Atty. Elayda guilty of gross negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss and negligent in
handling the Aranda case. Although it is true that the client and their counsel
must equally share the burden of communication, it is the primary duty of the
counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in court and the orders
which have been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait for his clients to
make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Close coordination
between counsel and client is necessary for them to adequately prepare for the
case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the case. His act is clearly a
violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As
stated on the Canon, a lawyer shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him and he shall serve his client with competence and diligence. His
excuse that he did not appear in court because the spouses failed to appear in
court is not tenable. His attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend
on the whether the spouses Aranda will come or not. ATTY. EMMANUEL F.
ELAYDA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will
be
dealt with more severely.

Rule 18. 02, Rule 18. 03, Rule 18.04 , Canon 19

BENJAMIN M. KATIPUNAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. REBENE C.
CARRERA, RESPONDENT. A.C. No. 12661, February 19, 202
FACTS: Complainant worked as a seafarer with the rank of Master Mariner for
Philippine Transmarine Company, Inc. (PTC). He got separated from employment due
to a heart ailment he contracted while in service. His employer denied his claim for
disability benefits, prompting him to file a case before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor and awarded him total
disability benefits ofUS$60,000.00.
Dissatisfied with the award, he appealed to the NLRC. He wanted an award of
US$90,000.00 instead of just US$60,000.00. He engaged respondent as his counsel
from the NLRC proceedings all the way to the Supreme Court. The NLRC reversed by
resolution. His motion for reconsideration was also denied per Resolution. But he
brought the case to the CA on certiorari which affirmed the NLRC dispositions and
likewise denied his motion for reconsideration.
By Resolution, the Court denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court
of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering the assailed dispositions.
Respondent received a copy of the resolution on February 25, 2010 but failed to inform
him about it. And even when he paid respondent a visit in the latter's office and inquired
regarding the case status, respondent replied that the case was still pending resolution.
Complainant inquired anew on the status of the case but respondent gave the same
response, the case was still pending with the Supreme Court. He then decided right
there to borrow the case folder from respondent to refresh himself on the details. He
came across a copy of this Court's Resolution denying his petition. He confronted
respondent about what happened but the latter merely shrugged it off saying that there
was no more remedy. As it was, respondent did not even file a motion for
reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from notice, thus, allowing the resolution to
lapse into finality.
Had respondent timely informed him of the decree of denial, he could have instructed
him to draft a motion for reconsideration, and if respondent was no longer willing to
represent him, he could have engaged the services of another lawyer.
Petitioner, thereafter, sent respondent a letter demanding that the latter answer for the
damages he suffered as a result of respondent's negligence and deceitful conduct and
He followed-up with a second demand letter.
On August 8, 2010, he received respondent's reply, accusing him of extortion. Petitioner
administratively charge respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Respondent miserably failed to perform the kind of competence and diligence required
of him under Canon 18 of the CPR insofar as handling his (complainant's) case was
concerned. In fact, the petition which respondent filed on his behalf did not even contain
the material dates, nor bear the requisite proof of identity vis-a-vis the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping.
Issue: Did respondent violate the CPR, Canons of Professional Ethics, the Lawyer's
Oath, and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court when he allegedly failed
to inform complainant that the latter's petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 183172
was already denied?
RULING: YES, Respondent violated the lawyer's oath when he neglected complainant's
case after filing the petition for review and he violated the CPR when he did not apprise
complainant of the case status. Respondent was not justified in deciding on his own
whether to pursue a motion for reconsideration before the Court.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rebene C. Carrera is GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath,
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) month with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

MARIA CRISTINA G. DAYOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GRACE C.

BURI, RESPONDENT- A.C. No. 13504. January 31, 2023

FACTS: This case stemmed from a complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Maria
Cristina G. Dayos (Dayos), as Corporate Secretary of GB Global Exprez, Inc. (GB
Global), against respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri (Atty. Buri).
According to Dayos, GB Global engaged the services of Atty. Buri to represent the
company in the case entitled Albert M Lugtu v. GB Global Exprez, Inc. and Benson
Chua. On January 3, 2018, Atty. Buri personally received from GB Global P135,501.00
to be posted as the company's appeal cash bond in the said case. Atty. Buri verbally
assured her that she was already preparing the pleadings and documents for the
appeal. Atty. Buri, however, ignored GB Global's demand for copies of the pleadings
and appeal document and receipt for the cash bond. Despite Atty. Buri's assurance, she
failed to file the appeal within the reglementary period, hence, the adverse decision of
the labor arbiter lapsed into finality, as evidenced by the Certificate of Finality1 dated
February 9, 2018, issued by Labor Arbiter Leandro M. Jose. Consequently, GB Global
had to engage the services of a new counsel in order to protect its interests.
Too, Atty. Buri had incurred advances from GB Global in the total amount of
P625,000.00 by way of retainer fee and appearance fees for a separate case, which
she failed to return to the company.

Issue: WON, Atty. Buri violated the CPRA and should be disbarred.
RULING: YES, ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri is found GUILTY of
violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 1.01, 16.01, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. She is DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name
is ORDERED stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. She is also
meted a FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 for her disobedience to the orders of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
ARSENIA T. BERGONIA, complainant, vs. Atty. ARSENIO A.
MERRERA, respondent. - A.C. No. 5024 (February 20, 2003)
FACTS: Complainant, together with her relatives, filed a case for the quieting of title
against her niece Josephine Bergonia, as well as Spouses Rodolfo and Remedios
Parayno and their minor daughter Gretchen. After due trial, (RTC) of Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, promulgated its Decision in favor of the Parayno spouses and their
daughter. On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court and the Decision
became final and executory.
Since the disputed land was still in the possession of complainant, the Paraynos
instituted to recover possession. After the Answer was filed, respondent became her
counsel of record. After due trial, the same RTC rendered its Decision ordering her to
vacate the premises and to surrender possession.
Thereafter, complainant appealed the RTC judgment to the CA. Respondent, as
counsel, received a Notice to File Brief. Acting on his Motion for extension to file the
appellant’s brief, the CA in its minute Resolution granted him until March 17, 1998 to do
so. Even before the first extension had lapsed, however, he again filed an Urgent
Second Motion for extension to file brief, praying that he be given until April 16, 1998 to
submit the required pleading. The CA again granted his Second Motion. Eventually, the
deadline, which had already been extended twice, lapsed without his filing the
appellant’s brief. Hence, the CA, upon motion of the appellees, dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE: WON, Atty. Arsenio Merrera violates CPRA by not filling the brief of
complainant and ask for further extension of time.
RULING: YES, WHEREFORE, Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera is hereby found guilty of
violating Canons 12 and 18 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from receipt of
this Decision. This Decision is immediately executory.

Rule 12.03
Rule 18.03
BUENAVISTA PROPERTIES VS. DELORIA (A.C. NO. 12160, AUGUST 14, 2018)

Facts: On May 7, 1992, BPI, a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine
laws, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with La Savoie Development
Corporation (LSDC), represented by Atty. Deloria, for the development of a parcel of
land into a mixed-use commercial and residential subdivision and for the sale of the
subdivided lots. BPI alleged that the plans, applications, and other documents of LSDC
relative thereto were submitted to, processed, and evaluated by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) at the time when Atty. Deloria was one of its
Commissioners.
LSDC then sold the subdivided lots, albeit at very low prices. Further, LSDC
misrepresented itself as the owner of the lots, prompting BPI to demand that LSDC
refrain from further selling them. However, LSDC disregarded BPI’s demands; hence,
the latter filed a complaint against the former for termination of contract, recovery of
property and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (civil case) before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City. With Atty. Deloria as counsel, LSDC filed an answer with
counterclaim and a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction[8] to direct BPI to execute the deeds of absolute sale and release the
corresponding titles to the lot buyers.
Issue: Whether or not respondent lawyer is liable for violations of the Canons of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING: YES, WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Amado B. Deloria is found GUILTY of
violating Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of Canon 15, Rule 12.02 of Canon 12, Canon 17, and
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The suspension from the practice of law shall take effect immediately upon receipt by
respondent of this Decision. Respondent is DIRECTED to immediately file a
Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and
quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.