ADARNE vs ALDBABA

FACTS:

Spouses Cumpio filed an action for forcible entry against herein complaint Cesario Adarne,
Aning Arante, and Miguel Inokando with the Justice of the Peace of Alang-alang Leyte.

Atty. Isauro Marmita represented the defendants who raised the issue of ownership of the
land in question.

Justice of the Peace dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

plaintiffs again appealed to the Court of First Instance of Leyte

Attys. Arturo Mirales and Generoso Casimpan filed the answer for the defendants.

At the hearing of the case on August 7, 1961, Cesario Adarne, noting that his attorneys
had not yet arrived, prevailed upon the respondent Atty. Damian Aldaba, who was present
in court to attend the trial of an electoral case, to appear as counsel for them.

The respondent, who is a third degree cousin of the complainant, agreed, and entered a
special appearance. Upon noticing that the plaintiffs and their counsel were not also
present in court, the respondent, instead of asking for a postponement, moved for the
dismissal of the case. This motion was granted and the case was again dismissed.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order, to which the
respondent filed an opposition in behalf of the defendants, and the motion was denied.
CA remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

on October 23, 1964 the respondent was again prevailed upon by the complainant to
appear in his behalf. The respondent entered a "special appearance" for the
complainant and argued that the interest of justice would best be served of the defendants
were allowed to file an action for quieting of title and the case heard jointly with the pending
action for forcible entry. Finding merit in the argument, the court ordered the defendant
Cesario Adarne to file an action for quieting of title within one (1) week and the plaintiffs to
answer the same within the reglementary period, after which both cases would be tried
jointly. The hearing was deferred until after the filing of the action for quieting of title.

On June 17, 1965, the court declared the defendants in default for their failure to
appeal at the hearing set for that day .

Because of this, Adarne against the respondent Atty. Damian V. Aldaba an Administrative
action against the respondent attorney for gross negligence and misconduct, for failure
to give his entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the .
maintenance and defense of his rights, and exertion of his utmost learning and
ability in the prosecution and defense of his client, and for not taking steps to
protect the interests of his client in the face of an adverse decision.
ISSUE: WON resp atty. ALDABA is gulity for such misconduct?
HELD:
The judgment by default rendered against the complainant cannot be attributed to the
respondent attorney. The blame lies with the complainant for having engaged the services
of several lawyers to handle his case without formally withdrawing the authority he had
given to them to appear in his behalf as to place the responsibility upon the respondent.
The rule followed on matters of substitution of attorneys as laid down by this Court is that no
substitution of attorneys will be allowed unless there be filed: (1) a written application for such
substitution; (2) the written consent of the client; (3) the written consent of the attorney
substituted; and (4) in case such written consent can not be secured, there must be filed with the
application proof of service of notice of such motion upon the attorney to be substituted, in the
manner prescribed by the rules.
It was neither gross negligence nor omission to have entertained such belief. An attorney
is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care
and skill.
CASE DISMISSED.

niece, Julieta P. Alegonza; that both women refused to abide with the Decision of Judge Nabong of
the RTC ordering the partition of the properties left by complainants brother Damaso B. Reyes; and
that respondent, after receiving the amount of P17,000.00, did not take any action on
complainants case.
The complaint was referred to the IBP. IBP Commissioner Navarro issued several orders to
respondent directing him to file his answer to the complaint, but he failed to do so. He only sent his
secretary to represent him during the proceedings.
IBP Commissioner Navarro submitted to the IBP Board of Governors her Report and
Recommendation quoted as follows:

that respondent ignored all the Orders issued by this Commission and neither did he
comply with any of those Orders.

Respondent even failed to submit the responsive pleadings he himself requested in his
motion and only sent his assistant secretary to represent him in the scheduled hearings of
this case.

no pleadings was submitted despite respondents allegations that he was collating

evidence to prove his side of the case.

It was complainant who submitted the letters of the respondent Estelita Reyes and Juliet Alegonza but
there were no proofs when they sent and when the same were received by the addressee.
the complaint submitted by the complainant was only a format in the sense that it was not
signed by the respondent; the RTC Branch No. was left blank; there was no Civil Case No. and
there was no proof that said pleading was filed which amounts only to a mere scrap of paper
and not a pleading or authenticated document in the legal parlance.
As it is, nothing had been done by the respondent for the complainant as his client for the legal
fees he collected which was paid by the complainant as reflected in the receipts issued by the
respondent in handwritten forms and signed by him.
ISSUE: WON Resp Atty Vitan is liable for Vilation of Canon 18 of the CPR?
HELD:
When respondent accepted the amount of P17,000.00 from complainant, it was understood
that he agreed to take up the latters case and that an attorney-client relationship between
them was established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve his client, herein complainant,
with competence and attend to his cause with fidelity, care and devotion.
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainants case and
subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the CPR which
provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule
18.03 states:
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
PENALTY:

REYES vs VITAN
FACTS:
in June 2001, complainant Carlos Reyes hired the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan for the
purpose of filing the appropriate complaint against his sister-in-law, Estelita Reyes, and the latters

Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby declared guilty of violation of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months effective upon notice of this Decision. He is ordered to return to complainant within five (5)
days from notice the sum of P17,000.00 with interest of 12% per annum.

SANTIAGO vs FOJAS

MA. ELENA NEBREJA vs ATTY REONAL

FACTS:

FACTS:

complainant filed a Complaint before the CBP of the IBP against respondent. Complainant
alleged that sometime in March 2004, she engaged respondent's services to file her
petition for annulment. She paid in cash and in checks,2 the various fees he asked from
her on several occasions which totalled P55,000.00.

After paying respondent, however, complainant did not receive any word from him with
regard to the status of her petition for annulment other than his claim that they needed to
wait for her appointment with the psychologist evaluation.

On April 4, 2005, respondent told complainant that her petition for annulment was
dismissed for lack of evidence. He then again asked for sums of money, on separate
occasions, totalling P25,900.00, to pay for the psychological test, the sheriffs fee, the refiling fee, and the publication.

Atty. Fojas admitted his mistake in failing to file an answer for the expulsion case, but he alleges
that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration. However, such motion for
reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his negligence with the reason that the case was a
losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was about to appeal the said decision to this
Court, but his services as counsel for the complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally
terminated by complainant. Complainants then filed for a disbarment case.

Complainant again, despite respondents receipt of sums of money, failed to receive any
update from respondent. When complainant asked for the schedule of her psychological
test, respondent merely told her that the psychologist was unavailable. When she tried to
ask for the number of her case and to obtain copies of the records, respondent just told her
that the records were kept in a cabinet, the key to which was in the possession of his law
partner who was out of town at that time.

ISSUE:

On March 14, 2006, complainant met with respondent to secure copies of her annulment
case file. Respondent, merely handed to her photocopies of her marriage contract and her
childrens birth certificates. When she asked for copies of her case files, he just told her
that his law office could not let her use the pleadings of the case. She then asked for his
office address to appeal to his law partners, but respondent refused to give it.

Complainant also found out that resp used fictitious address.

complainant suspect that he did not file any petition for annulment at all.

An expulsion case was faced by the complainants contending that they have illegally removed from
the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino Salvador.
The lower court resolved in favor of Salvador and ordered the complainants to pay, jointly and
severally, Mr. Salvador.
The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals. The complainants lost in their petition at the
Court of Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious neglect of their
counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the civil complaint on an expulsion case.
Atty. Fojas assured them that everything was in order and he had already answered the complaint.
However, the appellants soon discovered that he never answered it after all because, according to
him, he was a very busy man.

Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in
failing to file for the complainants an answer
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld :
Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent explained his
non-filing of the required answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume
and pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and
excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court.

In his answer , respondent denied having been engaged to handle her petition for annulment and
having been paid therefor.
ISSUE: WON Resp lawyer violated Canon 18 of the CPR for negligence in his duties?
HELD: Yes.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients,
the complainants herein, with diligence and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which
provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

In this case, respondent clearly received his acceptance fee, among others, and then completely
neglected his clients cause. Moreover, he failed to inform complainant of the true status of the
petition. His act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the
complainant's case and, subsequently, failing to render the services, was a clear violation of Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his
client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the clients case,
neither overstating nor understanding the prospects of the case.

PENALTY:

PENALTY:
REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his
clients.

Atty. Benjamin Reonal be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. The order to return
the amounts received from complainant is hereby DELETED.
GONZALES vs ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN
FACTS:
Sometime in October 1994, complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of CDO City that
the duplicate of title covering their lands were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who

in turn entrusted the same to respondent

Respondent admitted and confirmed to the complainants that their titles are in his custody and has
even shown the same (to) the complainant Salud B. Pantanosas but when demanded (sic) to deliver
the said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, respondent refused without any
justification to give their titles (and) when confronted, respondent challenged the complainants to file
any case in any court even in the SC.
Respondent's cheallenge to them is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of his
legal profession over the simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the complainants.
Due to his challenge the complainants sent a letter to the SC for enlightenment for which the
Supreme Court required 19 legible copies of a verified complaint.
In spite of repeated demands, respondent still failed and refused without justification to surrender the
said titles to the rightful owners, which act is tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal
and moral obligations emanating from his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to
uphold law and justice, to the prejudice and damage of the complainants
On March 1995, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint. But he denied on those
allegations.
From the foregoing proceedings taken on this matter, the Court finds that respondent admitted
having taken possession of the certificates of title of complainants but refused to surrender
the same despite demands made by the latter. It follows, therefore, that it was incumbent upon him
to show that he was legally justified in doing so. Instead, all he did was to inform this Court that "his
obligation to deliver the certificates to Mr. Samto Uy excludes the delivery of said certificates to
anyone else."

PENA VS APARICIO
FACTS:
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counselfor Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case
before NLRC against complainant Fernando Martin Pena. Hufana is praying for claim for separation
pay, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless.
Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. Through his
letter, he threatened complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they propose as
settlement,he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as
multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business
license to operate due toviolations of laws.
Issue:
WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of theCPR, enjoining every lawyer to represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the law?
HELD:
YES
Rule 19.01.

Respondent submitted xerox copies of certain certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept
the certificates of title of complainants, for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an
examination of the same does not show any connection thereof to respondent's claim. In fact, the two
sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different from each other.

"A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain animproper advantage in any case or proceeding."

As a lawyer, respondent should know that there are lawful remedies provided by law to protect
the interests of his client. The records do not show that he or his client have availed of said
remedies.

Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case
or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel the adversaries
to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.

The Court finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith and diligence required of
lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients.

In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they
alsoamount to blackmail

ISSUE: WON Resp Lawyer is liable for violation of Canon 19 of the CPR?

Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition
in the public prints,obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an
accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice."

Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present
unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.
PENALTY:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to this Court that the disputed
certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by complainants,
or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his
client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar or any other
administrative misconduct will be punished more severely.

The letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file
retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation
pay. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the CPR.
PENALTY:
REPRIMANDED, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt
with more severely.