Claudio v. Subido G.R. No. L-30865 August 31, 1971 40 SCRA 481 AC!

S" The Municipal Board of Pasay City enacted an ordinance creating the position of the City Legal Officer, in accordance with the Decentralization Act of 1 !"# By $irtue thereof, petitioner Mastrili was, on %anuary !, 1 ! , duly appointed to such office &y petitioner %o$ito O# Claudio, the City Mayor# The $ery ne't day, he too( his oath of office and &egan discharging its duties# There is no )uestion as to his &eing )ualified for such a position, ha$ing &een a law practitioner for o$er twenty*fi$e years# +espondent Co,,issioner of Ci$il -er$ice disappro$ed such an appoint,ent# The &asis for such action was e'plained &y hi, in his fifth indorse,ent of %uly , 1 ! , relying on -ection . of +epu&lic Act /o# 0110 which, insofar as pertinent, reads thus2 34n cases of $acancies in the offices of heads and assistant heads of local offices, the go$ernor or ,ayor shall fill the, &y appoint,ent fro, a list of the fi$e ne't ran(ing eligi&le and )ualified persons as certified &y the Ci$il -er$ice Co,,issioner2 Pro$ided, That these fi$e persons shall ha$e stated &eforehand that they will assu,e the position, if appointed#3 . There was no )uestion either that petitioner Mastrili was appointed without such prior certification &y respondent Co,,issioner# #SS$%" 5O/ respondent Co,,issioner of Ci$il -er$ice could render nugatory the choice &y the Mayor of Pasay City of the principal petitioner, -egundo C# Mastrili, as the City Legal Officer, unless it could &e shown that such appoint,ent was fro, a list of fi$e ne't ran(ing eligi&le and )ualified persons as certified to &y respondent official#

&%L'" /o legal 6ustification e'ists for the o&stacle thus interposed &y respondent Co,,issioner# -ection . of +epu&lic Act /o# 0110 cannot, &e relied upon &y hi,# That pro$ision of law clearly does not call for application# The position in )uestion, that of City Legal Officer, is one that re)uires the ut,ost confidence on the part of the Mayor# The relationship e'isting &etween a lawyer and his client, whether a pri$ate indi$idual or a pu&lic officer, is one that depends on the highest degree of trust that the latter entertains for the counsel selected# The choice of who, to appoint then is his, and not that of the respondent# Once e'ercised, and there &eing no dispute a&out the )ualifications of the person appointed, the duty of respondent Co,,issioner is clear# *************************************************************************************

(A L$ v. S$GAR G.R. No. L-)3959. Nov*+b*, )9, 1971 4) SCRA 30) AC!S" On 7 March 1 !1, the Court of 4ndustrial +elations ordered the reinstate,ent with &ac(wages of co,plainants 8nri)ue 8ntila and 9ictorino Tenazas# Co,plainants 8ntila and Tenazas, on : Dece,&er 1 !:, filed a ,anifestation indicating their non*o&6ection to an award of attorney;s fees for 70< of their &ac(wages, and, on the sa,e day, =uintin Muning filed a 3Petition for Award of -er$ices +endered3 e)ui$alent to 7>< of the &ac(wages# Muning;s petition was opposed &y Cipriano Cid ? Associates on the ground that he is not a lawyer# #SS$%" 5O/ a non*lawyer can reco$er attorney;s fees for legal ser$ices rendered#

&%L'" -ince respondent Muning is not a lawyer, he cannot esta&lish an attorney*client relationship with 8nri)ue 8ntila and 9ictorino Tenezas or with PA@LA, and he cannot, therefore, reco$er attorney;s fees# Certainly pu&lic policy de,ands that legal wor( in representation of parties litigant should &e entrusted only to those possessing tested )ualifications and who are sworn to o&ser$e the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as &eing su&6ect to 6udicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients and the pu&lic# The ethics of the legal profession should not &e $iolatedB that acting as an attorney without authority constitutes conte,pt of court, which is punisha&le &y fine or i,prison,ent or &oth, and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or &enefit of an unlawful act or an act done in $iolation of lawB and that if fees were to &e allowed to non*lawyers, it would lea$e the pu&lic in hopeless confusion as to who, to consult in case of necessity and also lea$e the &ar in a chaotic condition, aside fro, the fact that non*lawyers are not a,ena&le to disciplinary ,easures# *************************************************************************************

his heirs E 8nri)ue /# +eyes, @elicisi,a +# /ati$idad, Donna Marie /# +eyes and +enne Marie /# +eyes E who are now the pri$ate respondents in this present petition# On 1 @e&ruary 1 "., petitioner, thru its then counsel of record, recei$ed notice to file Appellant;s Brief within .0 days fro, receipt thereof# 4t had, therefore, until 0 April 1 ". within which to co,ply# Counsel for petitioner failed to file the Brief resulting to the dis,issal of the appeal# #SS$%" 5O/ the Court of Appeals gra$ely a&used its discretion in denying petitioner;s ,otion to reinstate its appeal, pre$iously dis,issed for failure to file the Appellant;s Brief# &%L'" 4n the instant case, there was si,ple negligence on the part of petitioner;s counsel, which is neither e'cusa&le nor una$oida&le# Petitioner;s counsel was the law fir, of BA4FA-, ALB8+TO ? A--OC4AT8- and not ,erely Atty# Crispin Baizas# Gence, the death of the latter did not e'tinguish the lawyer*client relationship &etween said fir, and petitioner# The 3confusion3 in the office of the law fir, following the death of Atty# Crispin Baizas is not a $alid 6ustification for its failure to file the Brief# 5ith Baizas; death, the responsi&ility of Atty# Al&erto and his associates to the petitioner as counsel re,ained until withdrawal &y the for,er of their appearance in the ,anner pro$ided &y the +ules of Court# This is so &ecause it was the law fir, which handled the case for petitioner &efore &oth the trial and appellate courts# That Atty# 8spiritu, an associate who was designated to handle the case, later left the office after the death of Atty# Baizas is of no ,o,ent since others in the fir, could ha$e replaced hi,# Apon receipt of the notice to file Brief, the law fir, should ha$e re*assigned the case to another associate or, it could ha$e withdrawn as counsel in the ,anner

S%-AS!#AN v. CA G.R. No. L-4186). *b,ua,. 7, 199) )06 SCRA )8 AC!S" 8ulogio B# +eyes, now deceased, filed an action for da,ages with the then Court of @irst 4nstance Cnow regional Trial CourtD of +izal, Pasay City Branch, against the Director of Pu&lic 5or(s, the +epu&lic of the Philippines and petitioner herein, B#+# -e&astian 8nterprises, 4nc# During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff*appellee therein, 8ulogio B# +eyes, died# Apon prior lea$e of the respondent Court, he was su&stituted &y

pro$ided &y the +ules of Court so that the petitioner could contract the ser$ices of a new lawyer# ************************************************************************************* L%'%S/A v. CL#/AC0 G.R. No. L-)3815. 1u2* )8, 1974 57 SCRA 473 AC!S" On Octo&er 1:, 1 !., petitioner was appointed 8lection +egistrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Pro$ince of /egros Occidental# Then and there, he co,,enced to discharge its duties# As he was counsel de parte for one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent %udge, he filed a ,otion to withdraw as such# /ot only did respondent %udge deny such ,otion, &ut he also appointed hi, counsel de oficio for the two defendants# -u&se)uently, on /o$e,&er :, 1 !., petitioner filed an urgent ,otion to &e allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, pre,ised on the policy of the Co,,ission on 8lections to re)uire full ti,e ser$ice as well as on the $olu,e or pressure of wor( of petitioner, which could pre$ent hi, fro, handling ade)uately the defense# +espondent %udge, in the challenged order of /o$e,&er !, 1 !., denied said ,otion# A ,otion for reconsideration ha$ing pro$ed futile, he instituted this certiorari proceeding# #SS$%" 5O/ petitioner &e allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio# &%L'" Petitioner was less than duly ,indful of his o&ligation as counsel de oficio# Ge ought to ha$e (nown that ,e,&ership in the &ar is a pri$ilege &urdened with conditions# 4t could &e that for so,e lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, &eing appointed counsel de oficio is an ir(so,e chore# @or

those holding such &elief, it ,ay co,e as a surprise that counsel of repute and of e,inence welco,e such an opportunity# 4t ,a(es e$en ,ore ,anifest that law is indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of ser$ice and not a ,ere trade# 4t is understanda&le then why a high degree of fidelity to duty is re)uired of one so designated# Thus is ,ade ,anifest the indispensa&le role of a ,e,&er of the Bar in the defense of an accused# -uch a consideration could ha$e sufficed for petitioner not &eing allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio# @or he did &etray &y his ,o$es his lac( of enthusias, for the tas( entrusted to hi,, to put ,atters ,ildly# Ge did point though to his responsi&ility as an election registrar# Assu,ing his good faith, no such e'cuse could &e a$ailed now# There is not li(ely at present, and in the i,,ediate future, an e'or&itant de,and on his ti,e# 4t ,ay li(ewise &e assu,ed, considering what has &een set forth a&o$e, that petitioner would e'ert hi,self sufficiently to perfor, his tas( as defense counsel with co,petence, if not with zeal, if only to erase dou&ts as to his fitness to re,ain a ,e,&er of the profession in good standing# The ad,onition is e$er ti,ely for those enrolled in the ran(s of legal practitioners that there are ti,es, and this is one of the,, when duty to court and to client ta(es precedence o$er the pro,ptings of self*interest# ************************************************************************************* -%R%NG%R v. CARAN3A A.C. No. 716 . 1a2ua,. 30, 1969 )6 SCRA 673 AC!S" Atty# Pedro B# Carranza was filed a co,plaint against his acts of deception practiced in the Court of @irst 4nstance of -orsogon# The alleged deception was the introduction of an

Affida$it of Ad6udication and Transfer of Title su&scri&ed and sworn in Pasay City, which later turned out to &e a falsity# Atty# Carranza clai,ed that he too( no part in the said falsified docu,ent# 4t was contested that due to the said falsehood, whether or not a lawyer too( part fro,, ,ust still &e held lia&le for lac( of prudence and ,eticulous ta(e on the ,atter, and as it had caused unnecessary delays in the ad,inistration of 6ustice# #SS$%" 5O/ Atty# Carranza should &e held responsi&le of the said falsehood co,,itted in court# &%L'" +espondent was repri,anded# There was a finding that there was nothing willful in the conduct pursued &y the respondent in introducing the docu,ent that turned out to &e false# 8$ery ,e,&er of the &ar ,ust &e on his guard, lest through o$ersight or inad$ertence, the way he conducts his case or the e$idence he presents could concei$a&ly result in a failure of 6ustice# Ti,e and ti,e again, lawyers ha$e &een ad,onished to re,e,&er that they are officers of the court, and that while they owe their clients the duty of co,plete fidelity and the ut,ost diligence, they are li(ewise held to strict accounta&ility insofar as candor and honesty towards the court is concerned# 8$en if there &e no intent to decei$e, therefore, a lawyer whose conduct, as in this case, &etrays inattention or carelessness should not &e allowed to free hi,self fro, a charge thereafter instituted against hi, &y the ,ere plea that his conduct was not willful and that he has not consented to the doing of the falsity# A lawyer;s oath is one i,pressed with the ut,ost seriousnessB it ,ust not &e ta(en lightly# 8$ery lawyer ,ust do his &est to li$e up to it# There would &e a failure of 6ustice if courts cannot rely

on the su&,ission as well as the representations ,ade &y lawyers, insofar as the presentation of e$idence, whether oral or docu,entary, is concerned# 4f, as unfortunately happened in this case, e$en without any intent on the part of a ,e,&er of the &ar to ,islead the court, such deplora&le e$ent did occur, he ,ust not &e allowed to escape the responsi&ility that 6ustly attaches to a conduct far fro, i,pecca&le# ************************************************************************************* -ARRA/%'A v. CAS!#LL0 G.R. No. L-)7)11. 1ul. 6, 1977 78 SCRA 1 AC!S" 8use&ia Barra,eda sued 8ngracio Castillo in the ,unicipal court of Lopez, =uezon Pro$ince in Ci$il Case /o# 7! # A copy of the court;s decision, which was ad$erse to Barra,eda, was sent &y registered ,ail on %anuary 71, 1 !! to her lawyer at -an Pa&lo City# That ,ail was recei$ed in the city post office on the following day, %anuary 7 # On that day and on @e&ruary : and , 1 !! the city post,aster;s office supposedly sent to Barra,eda;s counsel three notices regarding the registered ,ail# Barra,eda;s lawyer did not clai, that ,ail# 4t was returned to the ,unicipal court and was recei$ed there on March :, 1 !! as unclai,ed ,ail# #SS$%" 5O/ the appeal was illegally dis,issed# &%L'" H8-# 4n ser$ice &y registered ,ail, the general rule is that ser$ice is co,plete upon actual receipt &y the addressee# The e'ception is that when the addressee does not clai, his ,ail within fi$e days fro, the date of the first notice of the post,aster, then the ser$ice ta(es effect at the e'piration of such ti,e# 4f the addressee ne$er gets the ,ail, ser$ice is also

dee,ed co,plete on Dece,&er !, as pro$ided in the e'ception to the general rule# 4f he recei$es his ,ail two ,onths after it is registered and there is no proof of the first notice, then ser$ice is co,plete on the date of actual receipt, following the general rule# 4n the instant case, there is no e$idence that the first notice was sent to Barra,eda;s lawyer and that it was deli$ered to hi, or should ha$e &een recei$ed &y hi,# The en$elope containing the unclai,ed ,ail was presented in court# The face of the en$elope contains the notation 3+eturned to sender# +eason2 Anclai,ed3# A&o$e the sta,p, on the &ac( of the en$elope, with the legend 3City of -an Pa&lo, Philippines, %an# 7 , 1 !!3, are written the dates, 37*:*!! and 7* *!!3# 5ritten also on the &ac( of the en$elope are the following2 3+ to -, notified :I:I!!3# +elying on those notations on the en$elope, the trial court literally and rigidly applied the presu,ption as to constructi$e ser$ice# 4t did not re)uire appellee Castillo to present the post,aster;s certification that a first notice was sent to Barra,eda;s lawyer and that the notice was recei$ed &y the latter# Ander those circu,stances, the trial court;s order dis,issing Barra,eda;s appeal is fraught with in6ustice# ************************************************************************************* /AL#(0L v. !AN G.R. No. L-)7730. 1a2ua,. )1, 1974 55 SCRA )0) AC!S" 4n the e$ening of @e&ruary !, 1 !0, Pantaleon Mali6an was hit &y a gasoline tan(er and was thrown to the ground# 5hile he was sprawling on the ground Mali6an was run o$er &y the tan(er;s right wheel that got detached fro, its a'le# Mali6an;s

co,panion, with the aid of the &arrio captain, &rought Mali6an to the -an Pa&lo City Gospital where he died that sa,e night# The gasoline tan(er was dri$en at the ti,e of the accident &y herein appellant 8rnesto La&san, was &eing used in connection with the gasoline &usiness of the owner, the herein appellant Lily Li, Tan# +epresentations and de,ands for pay,ent of da,ages ha$ing &een ignored &y appellants, appellees filed on May 11, 1 !! a co,plaint in the Court of @irst 4nstance of Batangas, praying that appellants &e conde,ned to pay, 6ointly and se$erally, the da,ages as specified in said co,plaint# Appellants were duly ser$ed with su,,ons on May 1 , 1 !!, &ut they failed to file their answer within the regle,entary period &ecause Atty# Cha$ez co,,itted suicide on %une 1", 1 !! and the case was passed on to Atty# De Castro# Apon appellees; ,otion of %une 1, 1 !!, the trial court, in an order dated %une 1>, 1 !!, declared the appellants in default, and appellees were per,itted to present their e$idence in the a&sence of the appellants# #SS$%" 5O/ appellant can clai, force ,a6eure as cause of the default# &%L'" The Court found that appellants ha$e not shown that they e'ercised such diligence as an ordinary prudent person would e'ercise, to ha$e the answer filed within the regle,entary period# -aid appellant should ha$e chec(ed &efore the e'piration of the period for filing the answer whether the co,plaint was really ta(en care of, or not# But this, appellant Lily Li, Tan failed to do, and this is another instance showing her lac( of concern o$er the co,plaint# There was, therefore, no showing of due diligence on the part of appellants which would e'cuse their failure to file their answer on ti,e# There is no showing either that the other appellant, 8rnesto La&san, had

ta(en any step to ha$e an answer filed in his &ehalf E e$idently he was relying on his e,ployer#

and that to the &est of his (nowledge, infor,ation and &elief, there is good ground to support itB and that it is not interposed for delay; and e'pressly ad,onishes that ;for a willful $iolation of this rule, an attorney ,ay &e su&6ected to disciplinary action#;3 *************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************* '0/#NG0 v. A4$#N0 G.R. No. L-)8078. A5,il )9, 1971 38 SCRA 47) AC!S" On August ", 1 !1, the Court of @irst 4nstance of Pangasinan rendered 6udg,ent appro$ing the ,oney clai, of respondent Pedro A# A)uino against the petitioner estate &y ordering the then special ad,inistratri', Asuncion Do,ingo -ta# Maria, 3to pay fro, the a$aila&le funds of the estate the su, of P7>,>>>#>> with 17< interest per annu, fro, %une 1>, 1 0. to Pedro A# A)uino#3 The estate;s counsel of record in the appellate court, Atty# %ose A# Anson, did not recei$e the notice and copy of the appellate court;s 6udg,ent sent to hi, &y registered ,ailB &ut the estate;s attorneys in the intestate proceedings pending in the lower court, Attys# Pri,icias, Del Castillo and Macaraeg, were $er&ally infor,ed &y respondent;s counsel of the 6udg,ent rendered on appeal &y the appellate court# &%L'" The petition is ordered dis,issed and petitioner;s counsel shall pay tre&le costs# Petitioner;s counsel are re,inded of this Court;s ad,onition in Pa6ares $s# A&ad -antos, ! and other cases cited therein, to wit, that 3the cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court doc(ets with un,eritorious cases ,ay &e a$oided# There ,ust &e ,ore faithful adherence to +ule ", section 0 of the +ules of Court which pro$ides that ;the signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate &y hi, that he has read the pleading

/ANAL0!0 v. R%6%S A.C. No. 503 . 07tob*, )9, 1965 15 SCRA 131 AC!S" -i'to L# +eyes, a ,e,&er of the Philippine Bar, was legal counsel for the Manaloto fa,ily# Ge also undertoo( to help said fa,ily to secure a loan fro, the De$elop,ent Ban( of the Philippines# @or his ser$ices, the Manaloto fa,ily allegedly paid hi, not less than P1,>>>#>> e'clusi$e of tra$elling e'penses# Ge, howe$er, ad,its ha$ing recei$ed only a total of P0 >#>> and two sac(s of rice as his fees in the a&o$e cases# On Octo&er 1:, 1 !1, Maria Cristina Manaloto instituted dis&ar,ent proceedings against -i'to L# +eyes for a&andon,ent of the a&o$e*,entioned cases and con$ersion of su,s of ,oney entrusted to hi, &y the petitioner and her sister, +osario# This case was referred to the -olicitor Jeneral for in$estigation# After hearing the parties, disciplinary action was reco,,ended &y hi, against respondent# #SS$%" 5O/ defendant is guilty of ,alpractice# &%L'" The Court ruled that respondent is not guilty of a&andon,ent in the cases of petitioner# Gowe$er, the Court found hi, guilty of ,alpractice when respondent, upon ,a(ing assurance that he will file an action to the court to stop the auction sale of petitionerKs property and filing a loan with DBP

for petitionerKs &ehalf, failed to do what he pro,ised and instead appropriated the sa,e for his own use to the pre6udice of, and in $iolation of the trust reposed in hi, &y, his client# +espondent was suspended fro, the practice of law for one year and return the ,oney to petitioner# ************************************************************************************* G$!#%RR%3 v. CA G.R. No. L-391)4. Nov*+b*, 15, 1974 61 SCRA 85 AC!S" Pri$ate respondent, through Atty# 9iola, filed an appeal in the CA &ut his lawyer failed to pay the doc(et fee on ti,e# The CA dis,issed the case &ut was later reopened due to the ,otion of reconsideration filed &y pri$ate respondent# Atty# 9iola said that he wasnKt the lawyer of pri$ate respondent at the ti,e the notice of appeal &y the CA was sent &ut it was Atty# Baizas# And the death of Attorney Baizas Cthe new lawyerD on %anuary 1!, 1 ". was the reason why the doc(et fee wasnKt paid on the regle,entary period# The CA ruled in fa$or of pri$ate respondent, hence this petition for re$iew# #SS$%" 5O/ CA ,ade an error in reopening the appeal after pri$ate respondentKs failure to pay the doc(et fee on ti,e# &%L'" The Court re$ersed the ruling of CA and reinstated the dis,issal of he appeal due to the failure to pay the doc(et and legal research fees within the regle,entary period# Attorney 9iola was negligent in not apprising Al$endia of the notice to pay the doc(et and legal research fees and to file forty copies of the printed record on appeal# Al$endia is &ound &y his lawyer;s negligence# The death of Attorney Baizas was not a $alid e'cuse on the part of his associates for not attending to

Al$endia;s appeal, supposing arguendo that his office was solely entrusted with the tas( of representing Al$endia in the Court of Appeals# Attorney 8spiritu Cnot Attorney BaizasD was the one actually colla&orating with 9iola in handling Al$endia;s case# Ge did not file a for,al appearance in the Court of Appeals# Ander the en$iron,ental circu,stances of this ele$en*year*old litigation, it was a gra$e a&use of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals to reinstate Al$endia;s appeal and to rela' the rule regarding dis,issal of an appeal for appellant;s failure to pay on ti,e the doc(et and legal research fees and to file forty copies of his record on appeal within the si'ty*day period ************************************************************************************* AR0 v. NAN6A8A G.R. No. L-)4163. A5,il )8, 1969 )7 SCRA 1090 AC!S" The ser$ices of petitioner, as practicing attorney, was engaged &y respondents Luis Magti&ay and Pa&lo Magti&ay for the prosecution of their clai,, as heirs, in the estate of their deceased uncle Lucio Magti&ay, which were in the possession of the other respondents# Atty#Aro tried to ,a(e an a,ica&le settle,ent with the other party when the court dis,issed the case# But Aro got surprised when he recei$ed another copy of a second ,otion to dis,iss when it ha$ing &een ,ade appear that Aro ,ade an e'tra6udicial partition &etween respondents Magti&ay and Martinez# This depri$ed hi, of his contingent fees, hence the petition for re$iew# #SS$%" 5O/ Atty# Aro was depri$ed of his contingent fees#

&%L'" The Court ruled in fa$or of petitioner# The client cannot, &y settling, co,pro,ising, or dis,issing his suit during its pendency, depri$e the attorney of his co,pensation for the agreed a,ount, unless the lawyer consents to such settle,ent, co,pro,ise or dis,issal, for the attorney is or 3shall &e entitled to ha$e and reco$er fro, his client a reasona&le co,pensation Cnot ,oreD for his ser$ices, with a $iew to the i,portance of the su&6ect ,atter of the contro$ersy, the e'tent of the ser$ices rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney,3 al&eit, under Canon 17 of the Canon of Professional 8thics, 3in fi'ing fees, it should not &e forgotten that the profession is a &ranch of the ad,inistration of 6ustice and not a ,ere ,oney*getting trade#3 4n the case at &ar, &y entering into the co,pro,ise agree,ent in )uestion and e$en inserting therein a prayer to the court to dis,iss the case filed &y petitioner, petitioner;s clients i,pliedly dis,issed hi,# -uch i,plied dis,issal appears to As to ha$e &een ,ade without 6ustifia&le cause, none is urged anywhere in the record, and so -ection 7!, +ule 1:1 applies here# Gence, petitioner is entitled to reco$er the full co,pensation# ************************************************************************************* RANC#SC0 v. /AR!#AS G.R. No. L-16349. 1a2ua,. 31, 1964 10 SCRA 89 AC!S" On %uly 1!, 1 07, said Aurea Matias engaged the ser$ices of Atty# 9icente @rancisco, who, with the assistance of Atty# Ag&unag and of Attorneys Al&erto %# @rancisco and %# Jonzales Orense, personally handled the case &efore three different 6udges E successi$ely# After the decision of this Court had &eco,e final, said attorney in the testate proceeding, ,otion to fi' his attorney;s fees on the &asis of )uantu, ,eruit#

Ge alleged, a,ong other things, that the -upre,e Court had appro$ed the pro&ate of the will of Ja&ina +a)uel, that he had agreed to recei$e a contingent fee of P10,>>>#>> under his erroneous &elief, due to ,isrepresentations of Aurea Matias, that Ja&ina +a)uel had left properties worth only P1!",>>>#>>B that he learned, after the decision of the -upre,e Court that the said properties actually a,ounted to ,uch ,ore than that su,B and that, conse)uently, he was not &ound &y his agree,ent to recei$e a contingent fee of P10,>>>#>> only# Atty# @rancisco prayed that his co,pensation &e fi'ed at :>< of the ,ar(et $alue of the estate# +esisting this ,otion, Aurea Matias a$erred that appellee was &ound &y the contract that they agreed as stipulated and should not &e ,ade to get ,ore other than stated# #SS$%" 5O/ plaintiff can as(ed the :>< co,pensation &ased on the actual $alue of the property, not the agreed a,ount as stated in the contract# &%L'" Considering the circu,stances and the pre$ious rulings of the Court on contingent lawyer;s fees, 17#0< of the ,ar(et $alue of the pro&ate estate is dee,ed reasona&le in the case at &ar# Although a written contract for attorney;s fees had &een ,ade, )uantu, ,eruit &eca,e the issue, &ecause the lawyer had &een ,isled as to the $alue of the estate, and the parties had practically agreed to de&ate the )uestion of reasona&le $alue of the lawyer;s ser$ices# And in fi'ing contingent attorney;s fees, the Court considered that had the will &een disallowed, appellant and the other legatees would ha$e recei$ed nothing# The appellate court, in 3re$ising3 the attorney;s fees set &y the lower court, wor(s under the restraint of the doctrinal in6unction to yield to its solution in so far as possi&le# *************************************************************************************

4$#L-AN v. R0-#N0L A.C. No. )144. A5,il 10, 1989 171 SCRA 768 AC!S" To prosecute the appeal &efore the Court of Appeals, the -a,ahan ,e,&ers hired as their counsel Atty# -antiago +# +o&inol for which the latter was paid P7,>>>#>> as attorney;s fees and was also to &e gi$en &y the ,e,&ers a part of the land, su&6ect ,atter of the case, e)ual to the portion that would pertain to each of the,# 5hat was initially a $er&al co,,it,ent on the land sharing was confir,ed in writing on 1> March 1 " # The -a,ahan ,e,&ers ga$e the ,oney to Atty# +o&inol to pay +i$era and Colegio de -an %ose 4nc# for the land &ut they disco$ered that no pay,ent had &een ,ade &y Atty# +o&inol# The ,e,&ers sent hi, a letter infor,ing the latter of their decision to ter,inate his ser$ices and de,anding the return of the P"0,>>>#>> deposited with hi,# Atty# +o&inol turned deaf ears to the de,and# #SS$%" 5O/ Atty#+o&inol should &e disciplined for refusal to deli$er the funds of the plaintiffs in his possession# &%L'" The Court ruled that Atty# +o&inol is here&y D4-BA++8D for ha$ing $iolated his lawyer;s oath to delay no ,an for ,oney, &ro(en the fiduciary relation &etween lawyer and client, and pro$en hi,self unworthy to continue in the practice of law# By reason of his unethical actuations, he is here&y declared to ha$e forfeited his rights to attorney;s fees and is ordered to return the a,ount of P"0,>>>#>> to the plaintiffs# the conclusion that Atty# +o&inol has rendered hi,self unfit to continue in the practice of law# Ge has not only $iolated his oath not to delay any ,an for ,oney and to conduct hi,self

with all good fidelity to his clients# Ge has also &rought the profession into disrepute with people who had reposed in it full faith and reliance for the fulfill,ent of a life*ti,e a,&ition to ac)uire a ho,elot they could call their own#

************************************************************************************* /A!$!% v. /A!$!% G.R. No. L-)783). /a. )8, 1970 33 SCRA 35 AC!S" +espondents Matute y Candelario, prayed that the for,er ad,inistrator, Matias -# Matute, &e ordered to surrender 1" titles to $arious properties of the 8state to the assistant cler( of court, fro, who, said Matias had recei$ed the, on 71 -epte,&er 1 !!# The ,otion was $igorously resisted &y the co* ad,inistrators Matias and Carlos Matute and se$eral other heirs Cthrough counsel Paterno CanlasD, who pleaded that the re,o$al of Matias as ad,inistrator and his replace,ent &y %ose -# Matute were still under appealB that the titles aforesaid had &een deli$ered to &oth Matias and Carlos MatuteB that the latter 3is at present and fro, ti,e to ti,e in possession of the said se$enteen C1"D titles3, and 3the co*ad,inistrator Matias -# Matute is no longer in possession of said titles3 C+ecord on Appeal, page !DB that Attorney Paterno Canlas had a pending clai, for P7!1,>>>#>>, on account of legal ser$ices rendered to the estate for the study, preparation, drafting, due e'ecution and pro&ate of the 1 !7 testa,ent of the deceasedB that the clai, was later co,pro,ised for P7,>>>,>>>#>># The pro&ate court granted the ,otion to surrender the docu,ents to the cler( of court for safe(eeping, 3in order to pre$ent any possi&le contro$ersy regarding any transaction

in$ol$ing the re,aining properties of the estate,3 and denied the Court ordered Attorney Paterno -# Canlas to surrender said docu,ents 3i,,ediately # # # upon receipt hereof#3 #SS$%" 5O/ Atty# Canlas has rights to his liens# &%L'" The e'plicit ter,s of +ule 1:1, -ection :" of the +ules of Court afford no other alternati$e &ut to uphold the clai, of appellant Paterno Canlas with respect to the se$enteen docu,ents of title to di$erse properties of the estate of the deceased which are in his possession# Gis right, as counsel for the deceased and his estate, 3to retain the sa,e until his lawful fees and dis&urse,ents ha$e &een paid3 is incontesta&le, and under the rule and section aforesaid, the attorney cannot &e co,pelled to surrender the ,onu,ents of title ,entioned without prior proof that his fees ha$e &een duly satisfied# The courts, in the e'ercise of their super$isory authority o$er attorneys as officers of the court, are &ound to respect and protect the attorneys; lien as a necessary ,eans to preser$e the decoru, and respecta&ility of the profession# 4f it &e entirely indispensa&le for the court to gain possession of the docu,ents that ha$e co,e to the attorney and are held &y hi, in the course of his e,ploy,ent as counsel, it can re)uire surrender thereof &y re)uiring the client or clai,ant to first file proper and ade)uate security for the lawyer;s co,pensation#

A/(#L v. AGRA9A G.R. No. L-)7394. 1ul. 31, 1970 34 SCRA 370 AC!S" Petitioner was the counsel for Angela Tuason de Perez in se$eral cases# On /o$e,&er, 1 !!, Angela, acting through a new attorney in*fact in the person of her daughter, Angela Perez y Tuason de -taley, ter,inated his ser$ices as counsel without 6ust and lawful cause and without paying hi, for his professional ser$ices, for which he presented his &ill in due course, as well as asserted his retaining lien o$er the three titles entrusted to hi, &y Angela in the course of his professional e,ploy,ent in his letter of @e&ruary 1!, 1 !" to respondents; counsel# O$erruling petitioner;s opposition as(ing the court to respect his right to retain the titles until the $alue of the professional ser$ices rendered &y hi, to Angela shall ha$e &een paid in full &y the latter, respondent court ordered under date of March 1, 1 !" petitioner to surrender the titles to respondents Perezes within fi$e days fro, notice, holding that 3CADs the Co,pro,ise Agree,ent has already &een appro$ed, it is &elie$ed that the Court can ha$e it enforced and, in connection therewith, can co,pel Atty# A,pil to deli$er the owners duplicates of T#C#T#;s /os# 7. 7", 7. 71 and :."! to the Perezes # # # Any attorney;s lien in fa$or of Mr# A,pil, as attorney of Tuason should &e enforced against his client# and not against the Perezes#3 #SS$%" 5O/ the court acted with gra$e a&use of discretion in ha$ing granted the ,otion to surrender the titles in his possession

*************************************************************************************

&%L'" The Court ruled that a counsel;s right to retain ,uni,ents of title in his possession until pay,ent of his lawful fees and dis&urse,ents is effected 3is incontesta&le, and under the rule and section aforesaid, the attorney can not &e co,pelled to surrender the ,uni,ents of title ,entioned without prior proof that his fees ha$e &een duly satisfied# The courts, in the e'ercise of their super$isory authority o$er attorneys as officers of the court, are &ound to respect and protect the attorneys; lien as a necessary ,eans to preser$e the decoru, and respecta&ility of the profession# The attorney;s retaining lien is a general lien for the &alance of the account &etween the attorney and his client, and applies to the docu,ents and funds of the client which ,ay co,e into the attorney;s possession in the course of his e,ploy,ent# The attorney;s retaining lien attaches to the client;s docu,ents and funds in the attorney;s possession regardless of the outco,e, fa$ora&le or ad$erse, of any cases he ,ay ha$e handled for his client# Called upon at all ti,es to e'ert ut,ost zeal with unstinted fidelity in upholding his client;s cause and su&6ect to appropriate disciplinary action if he should fail to li$e up to such e'acting standard, the attorney in return is gi$en the assurance through his liens E retaining and charging E that collection of his lawful fees and dis&urse,ents is not rendered difficult, if not altogether thwarted, &y an unappreciati$e client# Ge is there&y gi$en an effecti$e hold on his client to assure pay,ent of his ser$ices in (eeping with his dignity as an officer of the court#

AC!S" Petitioner was re)uired &y respondent %udge to e'plain within "7 hours why he should not &e re,o$ed or suspended fro, the practice of law for preparing, or causing to &e prepared, a petition in court containing factual a$er,ents which petitioner (new were false# /ot satisfied with petitioner;s answer, respondent %udge had his letter filed against petitioner for dis&ar,ent# #SS$%" 5O/ respondent %udge has 6urisdiction for dis&ar,ent proceeding# &%L'" The power to e'clude unfit and unworthy ,e,&ers of the legal profession ste,s fro, the inherent power of the -upre,e Court to regulate the practice of law and the ad,ission of persons to engage in that practice# 4t is a necessary incident to the proper ad,inistration of 6ustice# An attorney*at*law is an officer of the court in the ad,inistration of 6ustice and as such he is continually accounta&le to the Court for the ,anner in which he e'ercises the pri$ilege which has &een granted to hi,# Gis ad,ission to the practice of law is upon the i,plied condition that his continued en6oy,ent of the right conferred, is dependent upon his re,aining a fit and safe person to e'ercise it# 5hen it appears &y acts of ,isconduct that he has &eco,e unfit to continue with the trust reposed upon hi,, his right to continue in the en6oy,ent of that trust and for the en6oy,ent of the professional pri$ilege accorded to hi, ,ay and ought to &e forfeited# The law accords to the Court of Appeals and the Court of @irst 4nstance the power to in$estigate and suspend ,e,&ers of the &ar# *************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************* !A1AN v. C0S% G.R. No. L-)8899. /a. 30, 1974 57 SCRA 154

G0N3AL%S A$S!R#A v. A-A6A A./. No. R-705-R!1. August )3, 1989 178 SCRA 634 AC!S" Petitioners charged respondent %udge A&aya for 8stafa through falsification of pu&lic or official docu,ents, Jross dishonesty and corruption &y soliciting, de,anding, recei$ing &ri&ed ,oney in e'change for fa$ora&le resolutions and decisions fro, different litigants and illegal e'action of portion of the salaries of his su&ordinate 8dgardo -er$ando as part and condition of his continued e,ploy,ent# Based on the e$idence presented &y the parties, CA %ustice Gerrera finds the respondents guilty of the charges against the,# #SS$%" 5O/ the CA decision was co,,itted with gra$e a&use of discretion# &%L'" The office of a 6udge e'ists for one sole,n end E to pro,ote 6ustice &y ad,inistering it fairly and i,partially# The 6udge is the $isi&le representation of the law and of 6ustice# @ro, hi,, the people draw their will and awareness to o&ey the law# @or hi, then to transgress the highest ideals of 6ustice and pu&lic ser$ice for personal gain is indeed a de,oralizing e'a,ple constituting a $alid cause for disenchant,ent and loss of confidence in the 6udiciary as well as in the ci$il ser$ice syste,# By these acts, %udge A&aya has de,onstrated his unfitness and unworthiness of the honor and per)uisites attached to his office# As he had pre$iously resigned, we here&y order the forfeiture of his retire,ent &enefits, e'cept earned lea$e credits, as reco,,ended &y the in$estigating officer %ustice Gerrera#

Jenerally spea(ing, a lawyer who holds a go$ern,ent office ,ay not &e disciplined as a ,e,&er of the &ar for ,isconduct in the discharge of his duties as a go$ern,ent official# Gowe$er, if that ,isconduct as a go$ern,ent official is of such a character as to affect his )ualification as a lawyer or to show ,oral delin)uency, then he ,ay &e disciplined as a ,e,&er of the &ar on such ground# ************************************************************************************* C$AR%S/A v. AG$#LAR A.C. No. R!1-9)-845. S*5t*+b*, 3, 1993 ))6 SCRA 73 AC!S" Co,plainants, %oey and A&raha, Cuares,a, charged respondent 6udge with gra$e a&use of authority# They clai, that respondent 6udge has no right to order the release of Banite since the latter;s case was &eing tried in the sala of %udge Tarriela# They also a$er that the release of Banite has endangered their li$es# +espondent 6udge 6ustifies his action under -ection 1.CaD, +ule 11. of the +ules of Court# Ge also in$o(es good faith# #SS$%" 5O/ respondent 6udge acted with gra$e a&use of authority# &%L'" The -C ruled that respondent 6udge had no power to act on the re)uest to release on &ail accused Banite# The record does not show that at the ti,e respondent 6udge ordered Banite;s release, %udge Tarriela was a&sent or una$aila&le and could not ha$e acted on the re)uest# 4t was also irregular for respondent 6udge to entertain the re)uest considering that it did not appear that a for,al ,otion had &een filed &y the accused to that effect# 4ndeed, respondent 6udge did not e$en e'a,ine

the records of the case as he ,erely signed the Orders allegedly prepared &y Prosecutor Olarte# Gis indifference to duty pre$ented hi, fro, disco$ering that at the ti,e he ordered the release of accused Banite, the 4nfor,ation charging the latter with Murder with no reco,,endation for &ail had not &een properly a,ended# %udges should endea$or to ,aintain at all ti,es the confidence and high respect accorded to those who wield the ga$el of 6ustice# Circular /o# 1:, dated %uly 1, 1 1", en6oins 6udges 3to conduct the,sel$es strictly in accordance with the ,andate of e'isting laws and the Code of %udicial Conduct that they &e e'e,plars in their co,,unities and the li$ing personification of 6ustice and the +ule of Law#3 +espondent 6udge;s action shows such lac( of fa,iliarity with our laws, rules and regulations as to under,ine the pu&lic confidence in the integrity of our courts# ************************************************************************************* (ARAS 9. (ARAS A.C. No. 5333. 07tob*, 18, )000 343 SCRA 414 AC!S" A dis&ar,ent case was filed &y +osa H# Paras against her hus&and, Atty# %usto de %esus Paras, charging the latter for forging her signatures in the &an( in loan docu,ents and for i,,orality for siring a child with another wo,an# After the parties su&,itted their pleadings and other pieces of e$idence, the Co,,ission on Bar Discipline CCBDD of the 4BP found respondent guilty as charged and reco,,ended his suspension fro, the practice of law# #SS$%" 5O/ the CBD is correct in ruling the penalty against Atty# Paras#

&%L'" The -upre,e Court upheld the findings and reco,,endations of the CBD, finding the e$idence against the respondent o$erwhel,ing# Continued possession of good ,oral character is essential to re,ain in the practice of law# Dis&ar,ent, howe$er, should ne$er &e decreed where any lesser penalty, such as te,porary suspension, could acco,plish the desired end# 4t is a ti,e*honored rule that good ,oral character is not only a condition precedent to ad,ission to the practice of law# 4ts continued possession is also essential for re,aining in the practice of law# 4n the case at hand, respondent has fallen &elow the ,oral &ar when he forged his wife;s signature in the &an( loan docu,ents, and, sired a daughter with a wo,an other than his wife# Gowe$er, the power to dis&ar ,ust &e e'ercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of ,isconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a ,e,&er of the &ar# Dis&ar,ent should ne$er &e decreed where any lesser penalty, such as te,porary suspension, could acco,plish the end desired# ************************************************************************************* $L% v. C0R'%R0 A.C. No. )84 . 1ul. )9, 1977 78 SCRA 88 AC!S" +espondent, -olon @# Cordero, a ,e,&er of the Philippine Bar and Au'iliary %ustice of the Peace of -an Pa&lo City stands charged E &y his first cousins, na,ely, Attorneys Gector C# @ule and Conrado C# @ule C&rothersD, the latter &eing

the %ustice of the Peace of Ala,inos, Laguna E with $iolation of his attorney;s oath, allegedly &y &lac(,ailing the @ule &rothers# The alleged &lac(,ail consists in respondent;s threat to file cri,inal and ad,inistrati$e charges against Conrado C# @ule for alleged falsification of pu&lic docu,ents if Gector C# @ule would not desist fro, pursuing his application for the position of solicitor in the -olicitor Jeneral;s Office, Depart,ent of %ustice, &ecause respondent was hi,self interested in said position# Despite the threats ,ade &y respondent, howe$er, petitioner, Gector @ule, pursued his application for the position of solicitor in the -olicitor Jeneral;s Office, and was, in fact, appointed solicitor# 5hereupon, respondent ,ade good his threat and filed fi$e C0D separate ad,inistrati$e charges with the Depart,ent of %ustice and a cri,inal co,plaint on fi$e C0D counts with the Office of the Pro$incial @iscal of Laguna, against Conrado C# @ule# A series of charges and countercharges were thereafter filed &y respondent against petitioners and $ice*$ersa, ranging fro, cri,inal cases to ad,inistrati$e charges, coupled with an e'change of unsa$ory $ilifications# The ad,inistrati$e charges resulted in ad,onition to Municipal %udge Conrado C# @ule# #SS$%" 5O/ the instant petition should &e dis,issed due to the death of respondent Cordero# &%L'" 4n $iew of the death of respondent, -olon @# Cordero, on %anuary , 1 "" Cas reported &y Cordero;s counselD the instant petition should &e dis,issed as ,oot and acade,ic#

(R09#NC#AL -AN: v. GR%C#A A.C. No. )756. '*7*+b*, 18, 1990 19) SCRA 381 AC!S" +espondent Ben6a,in Jrecia was ordered dis&arred last /o$e,&er 17, 1 1" &y the -C# Ge filed a petition for reinstate,ent to the Bar# On 1" Octo&er 1 >, the =uezon City Chapter of the 4ntegrated Bar, su&,itted to the Bar Confidant for the Court;s consideration, reasoning a,ong others, that he has &een 3sufficiently punished,3 has refor,ed and reha&ilitated hi,self, and can again &e entrusted with the e'ercise of the no&le profession of law# 4n a letter, dated 71 /o$e,&er 1 >, addressed to the Chief %ustice and Associate %ustices of the Court, respondent Jrecia pleaded anew that once the Court restores hi, to the practice of law, he 3unreser$edly &indCsD3 hi,self 3henceforth to act and &eha$e carefully as a worthy ,e,&er of the Philippine Bar#3 #SS$%" 5O/ respondent Jrecia should &e reinstated &%L'" The Court ruled that cognizant, therefore, 3that the power to discipline, especially if a,ounting to dis&ar,ent, should &e e'ercised on the preser$ati$e and not on the $indicti$e principle,3 we heed respondent;s plea for reinstate,ent# Gis e'piation su&se)uent to his dis&ar,entB his realization of his ,ista(e and the gra$ity of his offenseB the testi,onials fro, e'e,plary ,e,&ers of the Bar as to his fitness to resu,e the practice of lawB and his sole,n pledge to the Court, that if his dis&ar,ent is lifted, he will always closely and faithfully a&ide &y the ideals, canons and ethics of the legal profession, call for this affir,ati$e response#

*************************************************************************************