Canon 4

23. Sanchez v. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016

Facts:
The case of Sanchez v. Aguilos involves an administrative complaint against Atty.
Romeo G. Aguilos for misconduct and refusal to return attorney's fees. Complainant
Nenita D. Sanchez sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in the
annulment of her marriage. The respondent accepted the engagement and fixed his fee
at P150,000.00, with an initial payment of P90,000.00. However, the respondent only
filed a petition for legal separation instead of an annulment, and demanded a higher
acceptance fee for the annulment. The complainant withdrew the case and requested a
refund, but the respondent refused. The complainant filed an administrative complaint
against the respondent, alleging misconduct and failure to perform the contemplated
professional services.

Investigation and Findings by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

 The IBP conducted an investigation and found Aguilos guilty of misconduct.
 The IBP recommended that Aguilos be ordered to return P30,000.00 to Sanchez
and be suspended from the practice of law for six months.
 The IBP also found that Aguilos used offensive and improper language in his
pleadings, violating professional conduct rules.
Decision of the IBP Board of Governors
 The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of the IBP but modified the
recommended penalty.
 They ordered Aguilos to return the P30,000.00 to Sanchez within 30 days.
 The IBP Board of Governors issued a warning to Aguilos for his offensive
language.
Motion for Reconsideration and Supreme Court Decision
 Aguilos filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors.
 The case was brought to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the findings of the
IBP but modified the penalty.
 The Supreme Court fined Aguilos P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his
professional competence.
 Aguilos was reprimanded for his offensive language.
  Aguilos was ordered to return the full amount of P70,000.00 to Sanchez, plus
legal interest.
______________________________________________________________________
Issue:
The main issues in this case are whether the respondent should be held
administratively liable for misconduct and whether he should be ordered to return the
attorney's fees paid.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the complainant, finding the respondent liable for misconduct
and ordering him to return the entire amount received from the client.
Ratio:
The court found that the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and
skill to the complainant. He did not know the distinction between the grounds for legal
separation and for annulment of marriage, which was basic knowledge expected of him
as a lawyer. The court concluded that the respondent failed to live up to the standards
imposed on him as an attorney and transgressed the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Regarding the attorney's fees, the court determined that the respondent should not have
accepted the engagement as it was beyond his ability and competence to handle the
case for annulment of marriage. Therefore, he had no basis to accept any amount as
attorney's fees. The court ordered the respondent to return the entire amount of
P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest.
Additionally, the court found that the respondent did not conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness, and candor towards his professional colleague. His use of offensive and
improper language in his pleadings violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As
a penalty, the court reprimanded the respondent and warned him that a repetition of the
offense would be severely punished.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors, with modifications to the recommended penalty. The respondent
was fined P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his professional competence and
reprimanded for his use of offensive and improper language. He was ordered to return
the entire amount of P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest.
OLD CPR
Rules 18.01 A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service
if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
NEW CPRA
CANON IV
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability,
observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary
nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or
issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono.
Section 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious service. — A lawyer shall
provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and conscientious. A lawyer shall be
thorough in research, preparation, and application of the legal knowledge and skills
necessary for an engagement.
24. Llunar v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 6484, June 16, 2015
Facts:
The case involves Atty. Romulo Ricafort, a lawyer who was found guilty of grave
misconduct, neglecting a legal matter, and violating ethical rules. The complainant,
Adelita B. Llunar, hired the respondent in September 2000 to file a case against Ricardo
and Ard Cervantes for the recovery of a parcel of land. The respondent received various
amounts from the complainant for the redemption price of the property, filing fees, and
attorney's fees. However, three years later, the complainant discovered that no case
was ever filed by the respondent. The complainant demanded the return of the amount
she paid, but the respondent refused to return the whole amount, claiming that another
lawyer filed the complaint for annulment of title. The complainant also discovered that
the respondent had been suspended from the practice of law since 2002. The case was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, and the IBP
found the respondent guilty of gross negligence and serious misconduct.

Investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

 The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation.
 The IBP found Ricafort guilty of gross negligence, abuse of trust, and violation of
ethical rules.
 The IBP recommended his indefinite suspension.
Modification of Penalty by the IBP Board of Governors
  The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty recommended by the IBP.
 They ordered Ricafort's disbarment and instructed him to return the funds to
Llunar.
Motion for Reconsideration and Denial
 Ricafort filed a motion for reconsideration against the decision of the IBP Board
of Governors.
 The motion for reconsideration was denied.
Supreme Court Decision
 The Supreme Court found Ricafort guilty of grave misconduct.
 Ricafort was disbarred by the Supreme Court.
 The Supreme Court ordered Ricafort to return the funds to Llunar.
 The Court noted that Ricafort had previously been found liable for grave
misconduct in another case.
_____________________________________________________________
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Atty. Romulo Ricafort should be held liable for
grave misconduct, neglecting a legal matter, and violating ethical rules.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Romulo Ricafort guilty of grave misconduct and
disbarred him from the practice of law. The Court also ordered him to return the amount
he received from the complainant.
Ratio:
The Court based its decision on several grounds. Firstly, the Court emphasized that
Atty. Romulo Ricafort failed to handle the complainant's case diligently. Despite
receiving various amounts from the complainant for the redemption price of the
property, filing fees, and attorney's fees, the respondent did not file the case as
promised. This failure to fulfill his duty as a lawyer constitutes grave misconduct.
Secondly, the Court noted that Atty. Romulo Ricafort did not return the funds entrusted
to him by the complainant. When the complainant discovered that no case was filed,
she demanded the return of the amount she paid. However, the respondent refused to
return the whole amount, claiming that another lawyer filed the complaint for annulment
of title. This refusal to return the funds entrusted to him is a clear violation of ethical
rules.
Thirdly, the Court found that Atty. Romulo Ricafort did not disclose his suspension from
the practice of law to the complainant. The complainant only discovered the
respondent's suspension after three years. This failure to inform the client about his
suspension is a breach of the lawyer's duty to be honest and transparent with the client.
Lastly, the Court highlighted that Atty. Romulo Ricafort continued to engage in the
practice of law despite his suspension. The hiring of another lawyer would not have
been necessary if the respondent had been honest and diligent in handling the case.
This shows a blatant disregard for the rules and regulations governing the legal
profession.
Based on these grounds, the Court found Atty. Romulo Ricafort guilty of grave
misconduct, disbarred him, and ordered him to return the amount to the complainant.
This decision serves as a reminder to lawyers to uphold their duties and responsibilities
to their clients and the legal profession.
OLD CPR
Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates every lawyer to "hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession" and to "account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the client."
Canon 15 of the CPR states that "a lawyer shall observe candor,fairness and loyalty in
all his dealings and transactions with his clients."
NEW CPR
Canon IV, Section 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious service. — A lawyer
shall provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and conscientious. A
lawyer shall be thorough in research, preparation, and application of the legal
knowledge and skills necessary for an engagement.
Canon II, Section 2. Dignified conduct. — A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts,
tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes,
and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar.
25. Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457, June 10, 1992

Facts:
The case of Legarda v. Court of Appeals involves Victoria Legarda, a woman who
sought to annul a judgment and reclaim her property after her lawyer's gross negligence
and failure to inform her of the adverse judgment resulted in her being declared in
default and losing the case. The case was decided on March 18, 1991, by the First
Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, with Justice Gancayco as the ponente.
On January 11, 1985, New Cathay House, Inc. filed a complaint against Victoria
Legarda for specific performance with preliminary injunction and damages in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Quezon City. The complaint alleged that Legarda
entered into a lease agreement with New Cathay House, Inc. for a property in Quezon
City, but she failed to execute and sign the lease contract despite demands. The trial
court granted the motion to declare Legarda in default, and a judgment was rendered in
favor of New Cathay House, Inc. Legarda's lawyer failed to file an answer or take any
action to defend her in the case. The judgment became final and executory, and
Legarda's property was sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment.
Legarda's lawyer filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals,
alleging fraud and unjust enrichment on the part of New Cathay House, Inc. However,
the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding that Legarda's lawyer was negligent
but his acts still bound Legarda. Legarda's lawyer did not inform her of the adverse
judgment or take any steps to appeal or seek relief from the judgment. Legarda only
learned of the judgment after persistent inquiries.

Negligence of Legarda's Lawyer

 Legarda engaged the services of a lawyer to handle her case.
 However, the lawyer failed to file the answer within the extended period, resulting
in Legarda being declared in default.
 The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the respondent, ordering Legarda
to execute the lease contract and pay damages.
 The judgment became final and executory, and Legarda's property was sold at
public auction to satisfy the judgment.
 Legarda's lawyer received a copy of the judgment but took no action to set it
aside or appeal.
 Legarda only learned of the adverse decision when her secretary made inquiries.
 She then sought the services of another lawyer who filed a petition for annulment
of judgment in the Court of Appeals.
 However, Legarda's lawyer did not inform her of the adverse judgment and did
not take any steps to save the situation.
Supreme Court's Intervention
 The Court of Appeals found the negligence of Legarda's lawyer but held that his
acts still bound Legarda.
 However, the Supreme Court disagreed and found the lawyer's negligence to be
gross and inexcusable.
  The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes complete devotion to the interest of
his client and should present every remedy or defense authorized by law.
 The Court ruled that Legarda was effectively deprived of her day in court and
ordered the nullification of the judgment and the reconveyance of the property to
Legarda.
Lack of Devotion to Duty
 The Court also highlighted the lawyer's lack of devotion to duty.
 It emphasized that a lawyer should accept only as many cases as he can handle
and undertake each case with dedication and care.
 The Court required Legarda's lawyer to show cause why he should not be held
administratively liable for his acts and omissions in the case.
___________________________________________________________________

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the gross negligence and failure of Legarda's
lawyer to inform her of the adverse judgment and take any action to defend her in the
case warrants the annulment of the judgment and the reconveyance of her property.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Victoria Legarda. The Court declared the judgment,
the sheriff's certificate of sale, and the subsequent final deed of sale null and void. New
Cathay House, Inc. was ordered to reconvey the property to Legarda, and the Register
of Deeds was ordered to cancel the registration of the property in New Cathay House,
Inc.'s name and issue a new one in Legarda's name.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that Legarda's lawyer's negligence was gross and
inexcusable. The Court emphasized that a lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of
his client and should present every remedy or defense authorized by law to support the
client's cause. In this case, Legarda's lawyer failed to file an answer or take any action
to defend her in the case, resulting in her being declared in default and losing the case.
The Court found that Legarda was effectively deprived of her day in court due to her
lawyer's negligence.
The Court further emphasized that a lawyer's negligence should not be allowed to
prejudice the client's rights. Legarda's lawyer's failure to inform her of the adverse
judgment and take any steps to appeal or seek relief from the judgment deprived her of
the opportunity to defend her interests. This constituted a violation of her right to due
process of law.
Based on these considerations, the Court annulled the judgment and ordered the
reconveyance of the property to Legarda. The Court also required Legarda's lawyer to
show cause why he should not be held administratively liable for his acts and omissions
in the case. This decision serves as a reminder to lawyers of their duty to diligently and
faithfully represent their clients and to protect their clients' rights and interests.
Violated
CANON IV
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability,
observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary
nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or
issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono.

26. PAO- Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967, September 3, 2003

Facts:
The case involves a complaint filed by Artemio Endaya against Atty. Wilfredo Oca for
violation of the lawyer's oath and professional delinquency. The complaint arose from a
case for unlawful detainer filed against Endaya and his spouse by Apolonia H. Hornilla
and others. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and Oca
was assigned to handle the case. However, Oca failed to submit the required affidavits
and position paper, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint by the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC). The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), where Oca also failed to file the required memorandum. As a result, the RTC
reversed the MCTC decision and ordered Endaya and his spouse to vacate the property
and pay rentals. Endaya filed the administrative complaint against Oca for his failure to
file the required pleadings, which ultimately led to their loss in the case.
___________________________________________________________________
Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility
 The Supreme Court found that the respondent violated the lawyer's oath and
several Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The evidence showed that the respondent did not demonstrate the required
diligence in handling the case.
 A lawyer has a duty to protect and safeguard the interest of his client and to
serve his client with competence and diligence.
  Every case a lawyer accepts deserves full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its importance or whether the lawyer accepts it for a
fee or for free.
Negligence and Malpractice
 The respondent was directed by the court to file the required pleadings, but he
did not comply with the court orders.
 This constitutes negligence and malpractice, as a lawyer should not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him.
 The respondent's failure to file the required pleadings resulted in the loss of the
case for the complainant and his wife.
Failure to Represent Clients with Zeal
 The respondent failed to represent his clients with zeal within the bounds of the
law.
 He did not exert all efforts to avail of the remedies allowed under the law and did
not put up a fight for his clients.
 This conduct fell short of what is required by the Code of Professional
Responsibility and breached the trust reposed in him by his clients.
Violation of Canon 12
 The respondent violated Canon 12, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.
 He failed to inform the court of his intent not to file the required pleadings,
resulting in unnecessary delay in the disposition of the case.
Lack of Candor and Betrayal of Trust
 The respondent was untruthful to the complainant when he denied knowledge of
the adverse decision despite receiving a copy of it.
 This showed a lack of candor and a betrayal of the trust placed in him by his
client.
Suspension and Emphasis on Lawyer's Duties
 Considering the respondent's repeated violations of his duties as a lawyer, the
Supreme Court ordered his suspension from the practice of law for two months.
 The Court emphasized that lawyers have a duty not only to their clients but also
to the court, the bar, and the public.
  The diligence and dedication of lawyers contribute to the proper and speedy
administration of justice and maintain respect for the legal profession.
_____________________________________________________________

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Oca violated his duties as a lawyer to his client
by failing to file the required pleadings and neglecting his duty to protect and safeguard
their interests in the unlawful detainer case.
Ruling:
The court ruled that Oca indeed violated his duties as a lawyer. The court found that
Oca's failure to file the required pleadings, both at the MCTC and RTC levels,
constituted negligence and malpractice. Oca's failure to file the pleadings deprived
Endaya and his spouse of the opportunity to present their case effectively and resulted
in their loss in the case. The court emphasized that a lawyer has a duty to protect and
safeguard the interests of his client and should exert every effort to advance their cause
within the bounds of the law. Oca's failure to do so constituted a breach of his duties as
a lawyer.
Ratio:
The court also found that Oca's conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for the authority
of the courts and a disregard for his duties as a lawyer. Oca's failure to inform the courts
of his intention not to file the required pleadings further delayed the proceedings and
showed his indifference to his clients' cause. Moreover, Oca's denial of knowledge of
the adverse decision when confronted by Endaya demonstrated his untruthfulness and
betrayal of the trust placed in him by his clients.
Considering the gravity of Oca's misconduct, the court imposed a two-month
suspension from the practice of law as the appropriate penalty. The court emphasized
that lawyers have a duty not only to their clients but also to the court, the bar, and the
public. Oca's conduct fell short of the standards set by the lawyer's oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action. The court warned Oca that
a similar misconduct in the future would be dealt with more severely.
OLD CPR
The respondent violated Canon 12, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
NEW CPRA
Canon III - Section 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. — A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal
processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of
the legal profession.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Violation of Canon IV - Section 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious
service. — A lawyer shall provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and
conscientious. A lawyer shall be thorough in research, preparation, and application of
the legal knowledge and skills necessary for an engagement.
27. Tejano v. Baterina, A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015
Facts:
The case of Tejano v. Baterina involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed
against Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina. The complainant, Joselito F. Tejano, accused Judge
Dominador LL. Arquelada and Atty. Baterina of conspiring to take possession of
Tejano's property, which was the subject of litigation in Judge Arquelada's court. Tejano
further alleged that Atty. Baterina failed to properly represent him in the case and
neglected his legal duties. Atty. Baterina, in his defense, explained that his non-
appearance in court was due to his suspension from the practice of law for two years.
However, he failed to inform the court and his clients about his suspension.

Allegations against Atty. Baterina

 Tejano accused Atty. Baterina of failing to object to the termination of their right
to present evidence.
 Tejano also claimed that Atty. Baterina failed to comply with the court's order to
submit formal exhibits.
Atty. Baterina's Explanation
 Atty. Baterina explained that his non-appearance in court was due to his two-year
suspension from the practice of law.
 However, he failed to properly inform the court and his clients of his suspension.
Recommendation and Modification of Penalty
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a two-year suspension
for Atty. Baterina.
 However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to a five-year suspension.
Reasoning for the Suspension
  The Court emphasized that lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with
competence and diligence.
 Atty. Baterina's actions constituted gross negligence and a disregard for court
orders.
Importance of Lawyers Fulfilling their Duty
 This case highlights the importance of lawyers fulfilling their duty to their clients.
 Failing to do so can result in severe consequences, such as suspension from the
practice of law.
____________________________________________________________
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina should be held
liable for gross negligence and disrespect for court orders, as well as for failing to inform
the court and his clients about his suspension from the practice of law.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) and found Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina guilty of gross negligence and
disrespect for court orders. The Court modified the penalty recommended by the IBP
and imposed a five-year suspension on Atty. Baterina.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence
and diligence. Atty. Baterina's failure to properly represent his client and neglect of his
legal duties constituted gross negligence. Moreover, his failure to inform the court and
his clients about his suspension from the practice of law showed a lack of respect for
the authority of the courts. The Court considered Atty. Baterina's previous disciplinary
case, which revealed a pattern of neglecting his duty to his clients and disrespecting the
authority of the courts. Therefore, the Court deemed it necessary to impose a five-year
suspension on Atty. Baterina as a disciplinary measure.

28. Paredes-Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 120654, September 11, 1996

Facts:
The case involves a prosecutor named Maria Lourdes Paredes-Garcia who challenges
a contempt order and unreasonable fine imposed by Judge Escolastico M. Cruz, Jr. of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Makati City. The petitioner was cited for
contempt and ordered to pay a fine of P100.00 for being late to court. The petitioner
explained that she arrived ten minutes late due to attending to some matters in her
office prior to the hearing. However, the respondent Judge found her explanation to be
a "downright lie" and cited other grounds for contempt, including a verbal clash with the
branch clerk of court, improper attempts to enter the judge's chambers, and improper
conduct in asking court staff to perform personal tasks. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied.
______________________________________________________________________
Power to Punish for Contempt
 The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.
 However, it must be used sparingly and with caution.
Judge Cruz's Actions
 The Supreme Court finds that Judge Cruz acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
 He held Paredes-Garcia guilty of contempt without complying with the
requirements of due process.
 Judge Cruz failed to issue a show-cause order or citation directing an
explanation for Paredes-Garcia's tardiness.
 Instead, he cited her for contempt based on other grounds, such as a verbal
clash with the branch clerk of court and improper conduct.
Unreasonable Fine Imposed
 The Supreme Court finds that the penalty of a P100.00 fine imposed on Paredes-
Garcia is unreasonable.
 Her tardiness was only ten minutes and there was no evidence of prior tardiness
or any order admonishing her for it.
 The court emphasizes that while Paredes-Garcia should be held accountable for
her tardiness, it should be done in accordance with established procedure.
Personal Attacks and Soured Relationship
 Both Paredes-Garcia and Judge Cruz engaged in personal attacks against each
other.
 The court finds this behavior unbecoming of officers of the court.
 The court expresses concern that their soured relationship may affect the
administration of justice.
Reassignment of Paredes-Garcia
 The Supreme Court orders Paredes-Garcia to be reassigned to a different court.
  This is done to address the soured relationship and potential impact on the
administration of justice.
Conclusion and Ruling
 The Supreme Court grants Paredes-Garcia's petition.
 The decision of the Court of Appeals and the orders of Judge Cruz are set aside.
 The Department of Justice and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal
are requested to recall Paredes-Garcia's designation to Judge Cruz's court.
 Paredes-Garcia is to be reassigned to other courts.
___________________________________________________________
Issue:
The main issue raised in this case is whether the respondent Judge acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in holding the petitioner guilty of
contempt without complying with the requirements of due process.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the respondent Judge
failed to observe the rule of conduct in the exercise of the power to punish for contempt.
The Court held that the respondent Judge did not comply with the requirements of due
process in contempt proceedings and acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion. The Court also found that the penalty of P100.00 imposed on
the petitioner for her tardiness was unreasonable.
Ratio:
The Court explained that the grounds enumerated by the respondent Judge could
constitute grounds for indirect contempt under the Rules of Court. However, the
respondent Judge must comply with the due process requirements, such as filing a
charge in writing and giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. The Court
emphasized that contempt proceedings should be treated as criminal in nature, and the
penalty can only be imposed after the alleged contemner has been heard.
The Court further noted that the petitioner and the respondent Judge had resorted to
personal attacks against each other, which is not expected of them as officers of the
court. The Court concluded that if the petitioner remained assigned to the branch of the
RTC presided over by the respondent Judge, the soured relationship may affect the
administration of justice. Therefore, the petitioner must be reassigned somewhere else.

29. Ramiscal v. Orro, A.C. No. 10945, February 23, 2016

Facts:
The case of Ramiscal v. Orro involves a complaint against lawyer Atty. Edgar S. Orro
for mishandling a case, failing to inform his clients of an adverse decision, and
neglecting to file a motion for reconsideration, resulting in the loss of their property
worth P3,391,600.00. The complainants, Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame,
engaged the legal services of Atty. Orro to handle a case seeking the nullity of title to a
parcel of land in Isabela. They paid him an acceptance fee of P10,000.00 and an
additional amount of P30,000.00 for the preparation and submission of their appellees'
brief in the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA reversed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in their favor, and Atty. Orro failed to inform them of the
adverse decision. They later discovered that he did not file a motion for reconsideration,
resulting in the loss of their property.
___________________________________________________________________
Failure to Inform Clients of Adverse Decision
 The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and Atty. Orro requested an
additional P30,000.00 from the complainants for the preparation and submission
of their appellees' brief in the CA.
 The CA ultimately reversed the decision of the RTC, but Atty. Orro did not inform
the complainants of the adverse decision.
 The complainants only found out about the adverse decision from their neighbors
and when they reached out to Atty. Orro, he asked for an additional P7,000.00 to
file a motion for reconsideration, even though he told them it would already be
belated.
 The complainants paid the amount requested, but later discovered that Atty. Orro
did not file the motion, resulting in the decision becoming final and the loss of
their property.
Administrative Complaint and IBP Evaluation
 The complainants filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Orro.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) evaluated the complaint.
 Both parties did not appear during the scheduled conferences and did not submit
evidence.
Violation of Code of Professional Responsibility
 The IBP Commissioner found that Atty. Orro violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03,
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's report but increased
the recommended penalty from one year to two years of suspension from the
practice of law.
Supreme Court's Agreement with IBP Findings
 The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's findings, stating that Atty. Orro did not
competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of the
complainants.
 The Court emphasized that lawyers have a fiduciary duty towards their clients
and must serve them with competence and diligence.
 Atty. Orro's failure to file the motion for reconsideration and his neglect in
updating the complainants on the status of the case violated the rules and
breached the trust and confidence reposed in him.
 The Court also noted that Atty. Orro showed disrespect towards the IBP by
disregarding their orders to comment and appear in the administrative
investigation, revealing his irresponsibility and lack of professionalism.
Imposition of Suspension and Warning
 Based on the circumstances of the case, the Court imposed a two-year
suspension from the practice of law on Atty. Orro.
 The Court warned him that any similar infraction in the future would be dealt with
more severely.
 Copies of the decision were to be furnished to relevant offices for record-keeping
and guidance.
_________________________________________________________________
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether Atty. Edgar S. Orro should be held liable
for mishandling the case, failing to inform his clients of an adverse decision, and
neglecting to file a motion for reconsideration, resulting in the loss of their property.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) and suspended Atty. Edgar S. Orro from the practice of law for two years.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyers have a fiduciary duty towards their clients
and must serve them with competence and diligence. Atty. Orro's failure to fulfill his
obligations and his disrespect for the IBP's proceedings warranted his suspension. The
Court warned that any similar infraction in the future would be dealt with more severely.
In this case, Atty. Orro was found to have mishandled the case by failing to inform his
clients of an adverse decision and neglecting to file a motion for reconsideration. These
actions resulted in the loss of the complainants' property. As a lawyer, Atty. Orro had a
duty to keep his clients informed of the progress of their case and to take necessary
actions to protect their interests. By failing to do so, he breached his fiduciary duty
towards his clients.
Furthermore, Atty. Orro's disrespect for the IBP's proceedings was also taken into
consideration. The IBP recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one
year, but the IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation and increased the
period of suspension to two years. The Supreme Court agreed with this modification,
highlighting the seriousness of Atty. Orro's misconduct.
The Court's decision to suspend Atty. Orro for two years serves as a reminder to all
lawyers of their duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence. It also serves
as a warning that any similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The suspension is meant to protect the interests of clients and maintain the integrity of
the legal profession.
OLD CPR
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.
NEW CPRA
CANON IV
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability,
observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary
nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or
issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono.
Section 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious service. — A lawyer shall
provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and conscientious. A lawyer shall be
thorough in research, preparation, and application of the legal knowledge and skills
necessary for an engagement.
30. Katipunan, Jr. v. Carrera, A.C. No. 12661, February 19, 2020
Facts:
The case of Katipunan, Jr. v. Carrera involves a complaint filed by Benjamin M.
Katipunan, Jr. against Atty. Rebene C. Carrera for violations of various legal provisions,
including the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Canons of Professional Ethics,
the Lawyer's Oath, and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The
complainant, Katipunan, worked as a seafarer and filed a case for disability benefits
after being denied by his employer. He engaged the services of Carrera as his counsel
from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) proceedings up to the Supreme
Court. However, Carrera failed to inform Katipunan that his petition for review on
certiorari was denied and did not file a motion for reconsideration. Katipunan only
discovered the denial when he borrowed the case folder from Carrera and found a copy
of the Court's resolution. Carrera justified his failure to file a motion for reconsideration
by claiming that there was no new evidence or argument to present.
__________________________________________________________________
Complainant's Discovery and Demand for Damages
 Complainant discovered the denial of their petition when borrowing the case
folder from the respondent
 Respondent allegedly did not inform the complainant about the resolution and
lied about the status of the case when asked
 Complainant sent demand letters seeking damages for negligence and deceitful
conduct
Respondent's Defense
 Respondent claimed a close relationship with the complainant and diligent
handling of the case
 Argued that no new issues or evidence warranted filing a motion for
reconsideration
 Claimed the complainant had not paid for services
Recommendation and Decision
 Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended censure with a warning
 IBP Board of Governors affirmed the recommendation
 Supreme Court modified the penalty and suspended the respondent from
practicing law for one month
Violations and Rationale for Suspension
 Court found respondent violated lawyer's oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility
 Violations: neglecting the complainant's case and failing to inform him of the
denial of their petition
 Emphasized lawyer's duty to serve clients with competence, diligence, and
keeping them informed of case status
 Noted that a lawyer should not unilaterally decide to forego a client's last
available remedy
Penalty and Importance of Communication
 Based on previous cases with similar circumstances, the Court imposed a one-
month suspension on the respondent
 Emphasized the importance of never leaving a client uninformed
 Timely and adequate communication with clients crucial in maintaining their
confidence in the legal profession
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Atty. Rebene C. Carrera should be held liable for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, the
Lawyer's Oath, and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court by failing to
inform his client, Benjamin M. Katipunan, Jr., about the denial of his petition for review
on certiorari and by not filing a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Rebene C. Carrera guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath,
Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
and Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. As a result, Carrera was
suspended from the practice of law for one month with a stern warning. The Court
emphasized that lawyers have a duty to inform their clients about the status of their
cases and should not unilaterally decide on the merits of the case without consulting the
client. The decision takes effect immediately, and Carrera is required to submit
certifications of his suspension and cessation of practice after completing the
suspension period.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court based its decision on the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 18, Rules 18.03
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and Canon 15 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics. The Court emphasized that lawyers have a duty to keep
their clients informed about the status of their cases. This duty includes informing the
client about the denial of a petition for review on certiorari and discussing the available
options, such as filing a motion for reconsideration. Lawyers should not unilaterally
decide on the merits of a case without consulting the client. In this case, Atty. Rebene
C. Carrera failed to fulfill his duty to inform his client, Benjamin M. Katipunan, Jr., about
the denial of his petition and did not file a motion for reconsideration. The Court found
Carrera's justification for not filing a motion for reconsideration, based on the absence of
new evidence or argument, insufficient. As a result, Carrera was suspended from the
practice of law for one month as a disciplinary measure.
______________________________________________________________________
Respondent violated the lawyer's oath
when he neglected complainant's case
after filing the petition for review.
Old CPR
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.02 A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
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 client's request for information.
NEW CPR
CANON IV
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability,
observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary
nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or
issues involved, and whether for a fee or pro bono.
Section 1. Competent, efficient and conscientious service. — A lawyer shall
provide legal service that is competent, efficient, and conscientious. A lawyer shall be
thorough in research, preparation, and application of the legal knowledge and skills
necessary for an engagement.
Section 6. Duty to update the client. — A lawyer shall regularly inform the client of
the status and the result of the matter undertaken, and any action in connection thereto,
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.