CANONS 14-17

BURBE v. MAGULTA
FACTS:
After agreeing to take up the cause of a
client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause
and client, even if he never paid any fee
for the atty-client relationship. Lawyering
is NOT a business.
A case brought to the SC is a complaint for
disbarment
or
suspension/disciplinary
action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta.
Filed by Dominador P. Burbe w/ the IBP.
The petitioner was introduced to Atty
Magulta to represent him in a money claim
and possible civil case against parties for
breach of contract re Regwll complaint.
After which, Atty. Magulta prepared a
demand letter and some legal papers for
which the petitioner accordingly paid.
However, the latter failed a settlement for
a dispute, said counsel suggested to file
necessary complaint w/ a filing fee of
P25K.
Petitioner then deposited the said amount
to Atty. Magulta upon instruction. A week
later, he was informed by Atty. Magulta
that the complaint was already filed and
that Burbe will receive notice of progress.
He waited for MONTHS but there
seemed to be NO PROGRESS in his
case so he frequented Magultas office
and there he was told repeatedly to wait.
Grown impatient, he was brought to the
Hall of Justice at Ecoland, Davao City
where he was left at the City Prosecutor
Office ffof Magulta will follow up the
processes w/the Clerk of Court. Sensing
that Burbe was being given runaround by Magulta, he decided to go to
the office of the Clerk and then and there
was told that there was NO RECORD AT
ALL of a case allegedly filed by Atty.
Magulta.
And only when shown the certification did
counsel admit that he has not at all filed
BECAUSE HE HAD SPENT MONEY FOR
FILING FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE. To

appease him, he was given postdated

checks of P12K and P8K.
HELD:
Agreed
w/
IBPs
Recommendation
(suspend counsel for 1year)
Lawyers mist exert their best efforts and
ability in the prosecution of the defense of
the clients cause. They who perform that
duty with diligence and candor NOT only
protect the interests of the client but also
serve ends of justice. Members of the bar
must do NOTHING THAT MAY TEND TO
LESSEN CONFIDENCE of the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
profession.
NOTE: contention that there was no
lawyer-client relationship is untenable.
This relation was established form the
very first moment complainnat asked the
respondent for legal advice re fomers
business.
If a person in respect to business affairs or
troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer w/
a view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and atty voluntarily permits
or acquiesces w/ the consultation,
professional
employment
is
ESTABLISHED.
Also,
close
personal
relationship
bet.lawyer and client is no reason to
est.said relationship. Hence, despite the
fact that complainant was kumpadre of a
law partner of respondent,
and that
respondent dispensed legal advice to
complainant as a personal favor to the
kumpadre, lawyer was DUTY-BOUND to file
the complaint agreed to prepare in order
to PROTECT clients interest. RULE 18.03
provides
that
lawyers
shouldnt
neglect legal matters entrusted to
them.
NOTE: The Court constantly held that
once lawyers agree to take up the cause
of a client, they owe fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in them. They
owe entire devotion to the interest of
the client.

PRACTICE OF LAW-A PROFESSIO, NOT A

BUSINESS. Lawyering is NOT primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and
law advocacy is NOT a capital that
necessarily yield profits. DUTY TO
PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMIN OF
JUSTICE should be the primary
consideration of lawyers who must
subordinate their personal interests.
The practice of law is a noble calling
in which emolument is a by-product,
and the highest imminence may be
attained w/o making much money.
RULE 16.01 states that lawyers shall
hold in trust all moneys of their
clients and ppties that may come into
their possession. If much is demanded
to an atty., it is because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries w/ it
correlative duties not only to the client but
also to the court, to the bar, and to the
public. Respondent fell short of this
standard when he converted into his legal
fees the filing fee entrusted to him by his
client and thus failed to file complaint
promptly,.
RULING: SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR.
(DISBARMENT: Only in a case of clear
misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer)

UY v. GONZALES
FACTS:
WiLLIAM S. Uy filed an admin case against
Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the
confidentiality
of
their
lawyer-client
relationship.
That sometime in Apr 1999, he engaged
the services of said lawyer to prepare and
file a petition for the issuance of a new
certificate of title. After confiding w/
respondent the circumstances surrounding
the lost title and discussing the fees and
costs, respondent prepared, finalized and
submitted to him a petition to be filed
before the RTC of Tayug, Pangasinan. After
which,
respondent
went
to
the
complainants
office
and
demanded

additional amount from him other than

their agreement.
Expecting that said petition would be filed,
he was shocked to find out later that
instead of filing the petition for the
issuance
of
a
new
cert.of
title,
respondent filed a letter-complaint
against him for Falsification of Pub
Docs.
From the portions of the letter-complaint,
it can be gleaned that William S. Uy
conspired w/ the counsel and helped one
anotherin procuring th falsified docs w/c
they used as supporting papers so that
they can secure form the Office of the RD
of Pangasinan in favor of his children.
With the execution of such letter,
respondent violated his oath as a lawyer
and grossly disregarded his duty to
preserve the secrets of his client.
Respondent
unceremoniously
turned
against the client for having such
additional compensation denied.
(The land in question was owned by the
Fermin C. Gonzales Jr., respondents son)
NOTE: Accdg to the version of the
defendant, the redemption of the land
previously owned by his late son was
acquired by the complainant. To redeem
said land, counsel paid P340k and
demanded delivery of TCT. The reason of
frequently
visiting
the
office
of
complainant was due to the said demand.
Complainant just gave him photocopies of
the TCTs and former explained that he had
already transferred the title of the
property to his children, Michael and
Cristina Uy.
The same title was admittedly misplaced
and cannot be located. Thus, counsel
offered assistance pro bono so that they
can prepare petition for lost title provided
all necessary expenses (est. P20k) will be
shouldered by complainant.
After which, he submitted the draft to the
complainant for such lost title and waited
for the latter for 2 hours. However, he
found out that complainant left the office
w/o him knowing. Such conduct infuriated

him w/c led him to write (handwritten) a

letter that he is w/drawing petition and he
better get another lawyer to file such
petition.
CONTENTION OF COUNSEL: Lawyer-client
rel. was terminated when he gave the
letter and there was no longer professional
relationship bet.the 2. Commissioner
Villanueva-Maala received a letter from
one complainants counsel that they lost
interest pursuing the complaint. Accdg to
her, there was violation of CANON 21 (that
a lawyer shall preserve confidence and
secrets of client even after atty-client rel.
is terminated)
NOTE: The duty to maintain inviolate
the
clients
confidence
is
NOT
temporary but PERMANENT. And such
desistance cannot interrupt proceedings.
(Rule 139-B).
DESISTANCE CANNOT INTERRUPT A
DISBARMENT/SUSPENSION CASE. This
is
because
disciplinary
proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
public welfare. They are undertaken for
the purpose of preserving courts of justice
from the official ministration of persons
unfit to practice in them. NOTE:
Complainant is in no sense party, he has
generally no interest in the outcome
except as a good citizen in the proper
admin of justice.
HELD:

IS PERTINENT
PROFESSION.

TO

MATTERS

OF

HIS

Accdg to the SC, respondents IMMEDIATE

OBJECTIVE wa to secure the title of the
ppty that complainant had earlier bought
from his son. Clearly, there was no
atty-client
relationship.
The
preparation and filing was only
INCIDENTAL
to
their
personal
transaction.
CANON 21 RULE 21.01
Whatever acts against the complainant
were obtained in his prof capacity but as a
redemptioner when respondent filed the
complaint of estafa. The act of filing canot
be equated to a misconduct. WHY? To hold
otherwise would be precluding any lawyer
from instituting case against anyone to
PROTECT his personal or proprietary
interests.
RULING: DISMISSED.

MERCADO v. VITRIOLO
FACTS:
Rosa F. Mercado filed an admin complaint
against
Atty
Julito Vitriolo seeking
disbarment.
Complaint
alleged
that
respondent
maliciously
instituted
a
criminal case for falsification of public
document against her, former client,
based confidential info gained from their
atty-client relationship.

Complainant
failed
to
prove
any
circumstances enumerated above that
would warrant the disbarment
or
suspension of respondent. NOTE: their
relationship stemmed froma PERSONAL
TRANSACTION OR DEALINGS rather than a
practice of law.

Complainant is a a Sr. Educ Program

Specialist of the Standards Devt Div. while
respondent is a Deputy Executive Dir. IV of
the CHED. Complainants husband filed an
annulment case of their marriage w RTC of
Pasig, but was later dismissed by the SC.

NOTE:
As
a
rule,
an
atty-client
relationship s said to exist when a lawyer
VOLUNTARILY PERMITS OR ACQUIESCES w/
the consultation of a person, who in
respect to a business or trouble of any
kind, consults a lawyer w/ a view of
obtaining profl advice or assistance
regardless of any retainer AS LONG AS IT

It also appeared that respondent filed a

criminal action against the complainant for
violation of Arts. 171 and 172 of the RPC.
Respondent alleged that complainant
made FALSE ENTRIES in the Certificates of
Live Birth of her children. Complainant
allegedly indicated in those certificates
that she is married to a certain Ferdinand
Fernandez, when in truth, she is legally

married to a Ruben G. Mercado. But such

allegations were denied by Rosa.

DEAN WIGMORE FACTORS ESSENTIAL TO

ESTABLISH PRIVILEGE:

Complainant Mercado alleged that the

criminal complaint for falsification of
pub.docs are confidential facts and info
when Atty Vitriolo was the then counsel of
complainant. As such,. She alleged that
respondent is guilty of breaching their
privileged and confidential lawyer-client
relationship and should be disbarred.

1. Where legal advice of any kind is

sought
2. From a professional legal adviser in
his capacaity as such
3. The
comms.relating
to
that
purpose
4. Made in confidence
5. By the client
6. Are at his instance permanently
protected
7. From disclosure by himself or by
the legal advisor
8. Except the protection be waived.

IBP Board of Governors approved the

report of an investigating commissioner
finding Atty. VItriolo guilty of violating the
rule of privileged communication between
atty and client, and recommending his
suspension for 1 year.
However, upon receiving a copy of the IBP
recomm., complainant wrote CJ Hilario
letter of desistance. She stated that she
has found forgiveness for those who
wronged her.
The Court emphasized that it is NOT
bound by any w/drawal of the complaint or
desstance by such. It is inconsequential in
disbarment proceedings.
ISSUE: WN respondent violated the rule on
privileged communication bet. Atty and
client when he filed a criminal case for
falsification of public doc against his
former client
HELD:
ATTY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. Relationship is
STRICTLY personal and highly confidential
and fiduciary. The relation is of such
delicate, exacting and confidential nature
that is required by necessity and public
interest.
NOTE: The hypothesis is that abstinence
from seeking legal advice in a good cause
is a evil which is fatal to the admin of
justice.
ATTY.-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: An atty. Is to
keep inviolate his clients secrets or
confidence and not to abuse them. Thus
such duty OUTLASTS the termination
of the atty-client rel. and continues
even after clients death.

In fine the factors are as follows:

1.There
exists
an
atty-client
relationship, or a prospective attyclient rel., and it is by reason of this
rel. that the client made the comm.
Matters disclosed by a prospective client
to a lawyer are PROTECTED by the rule on
privileged comm..even if such client
dismiss the counsel or the latter declines
the employment. WHY? To make the
prospective client free to discuss whatever
he wishes w the lawyer WITHOUT fear that
what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or
used against him, and for the lawyer to be
equally free to obtain info from the
prospective client.
But note: a comm. from a prospective
client other than on account of the attyclient
relation
is
NOT
privileged.
Instructive is the case of Pfeider v. Palanca
(re lease agreement on the list of
creditors;
not
because
of
their
professional relation)
2. The client made the comm. in
confidence.
The mere relation of atty and client does
NOT raise a presumption of confidentiality.
The
client
must
intend
the
communication to be confidential.
CONFIDENTIAL
COMM.
It
is
info
transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure
between atty and client in confidence and
by means which, so far as the client is

aware, discloses info to no third person

other than one reasonably necessary for
the transmission of the info or the
accomplishment of the purpose for w/c it
was given.
Thus
the
following
are
NOT
PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION:
(a)
Compromise agreement prepared by a
lawyer pursuant to the instruction of
client; (b) an offer and couter-offer for
settlement; (c) doc given by a client to
counsel not in professional capacity
3. The legal advice must be sought
from the atty in his professional
capacity.
Comm made to atty must NOT be for mere
info but for the purpose of seeking legal
advice from his atty as to his rights or
obligations. It must be for the PURPOSE OF
SEEKING ADVICE NO OTHER.
Applying all these rules, evidence on
record fails to substantiate allegations. All
her claims were couched in general terms
and lacked specificity. The Court cannot be
involved in a guessing ga,e as to the
existence of facts.
The burden of proving that the
privilege applies is placed upon the
party asserting the privilege.
RULING: DISMISSED.

ALCALA v. RIVERA
FACTS:
Jose Alcala (deceased) and his wife,
Avelina Imperial, filed this present petition
for disbarment against Atty. Honesto de
Vera, practicing atty in Albay who was
retained by them in a civil case entitled
Ray Semenchilk v. Jose Alcala.
Complainants charged Atty. De Vera w/
gross negligence and malpractice for
having deliberately omitted to notify them
of a decision in a civil case resulting in
deprivation of their right to appeal from
adverse judgment rendered against them
and respondents indifference, disloyalty

and lack of interest in petitioners cause

resulting to t heir damage and prejudice.
The civil case was an action for annulment
of 2 parcels of land filed by the vendee,
Ray Semenchuk against Alcala, the
vendors, on the ground that lot 1880 could
not be located or did not exist, and for
recovery of damages.
The trial court rendered judgment
rescinding the contract of sale on the
ground that the vendee was not able to
take material possession if said lot.
That respondent counsel received a copy
of the decision but he FAILED TO INFORM
his clients. Totally caught by surprise, a
sheriff came to complainants house to
serve a writ of execution.
Less than 5 months, he instituted a civil
case for damages against Atty. Honesto de
Vera for having failed to inform them of
the decision as a result of w/c they lost
right to appeal.
HELD:
Not content w/ the civil case complainants
instituted a disbarment case as regards:
1. Indifference, loyalty, lack of interest.
-Accdg to the ASC, there is no merit to this
charge. If the complaint for rescission
prospered it was because complainant
Alcalas failure to comply w/ his obligation
of transferring the amterial possession of
said lot. Nobody to blame about.
2. Gross negligence and malpractice
committed by respondent for failure to
inform his clients of the decision.
ISSUE: W/N respondent notified his client
the complainants herein , evidence?
HELD:
Atty. Ernesto Alcala wrote to respondent
inquiring as steps were taken but
respondent chose not to answer the letter.
Respondents failure to notify his clients,
the decision made it sufficient that
question in negative. Courts also held that

petitioner did not sustain damages a

which dismissal answered by friend.
PLAINTIFFS CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES.
No evid.has been presented that they
sustained such. Atty De Veras is implied
acceptance. ATTY IS NOT BOUND
TO
EXERCISE Extraordinary diligence but
ONLY a REASONABLE DEGREE OF CARE .
True that petitioner did not appear to have
suffered any material or pecuniary
damage by the..
SC: Above-quoted provisions are no
finding, negligence and carelessness.
NOTE: DISBARMENT OF ATTY is not
intedned as punishment.
Although such respondents negligence
does not warrant or suspension under the
circumstances of the case, nonetheless it
cannot escape a rebuke from usas we
hereby protect his clients of the decision.
RULING:
GUILTY
OF
ONLY
SIMPLE
NEGLIGENCE AND SEVERELYH DITIES AS A
LAWYER; Erika as well. DECLARED
SEVERELY CENSURE

LIM v. VILLAROSA
Humberto C. Lim filed a disbarment
complaint against Atty. NIcanor Villarosa
based on the ff cause of action.
That Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman and
Pres. of PRC (Penta Resorts Corp) was sued
before the RTC. It was said that the latter
engaged in the legal services of
respondent who formally entered as his
counsel in an atty-client rel.represented
Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The counsel was
provided w/ all necessary info relative to
the ppty in question and problems
involving Hotel Alhambra. However, w/o
due notice prior to scheduled hearing,
SURPRISINGLY filed a Motion to Withdraw
as counsel, one day before itse scheduled
hearing. On that Motion will conclusively
show that no copy thereof was furnished
to Lumot Jalandoni, et al. nor does it bear
her conformity.

Such notorious act created irreparable

deamage and injury to Lumot Jalandoni, et
al. since the decision of the RTC proved
adverse tot them. A highly meritorious
case in favor of his client suddenly
suffered unexpected defeat.
GROUNDS FOR W/DRAWAL. That he was a
retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena
and the latter recommended him to be the
counsel of Lumot Jaladoni, et al. It worthy
to note that Dennis is the son-in-law of
Jalandoni. This retainership agreement
consists of
Dennis and another
representation in a criminal complaint of
Carmen Jalbuena and one Vicente Delfin.
That 21 days prior to filing of Jalandonis
Motion to Withdraw he expressly stated
and appeared as counsel for both Dennis
and Carmen Jalbuena and Delfin for Estafa
case filed by PRC.
Thus, he was concurrently representing 2
opposing clients at the same time. The
corporation (PRC) field a complaint for
estafa (P3.183+M) for the spouses and
Delfin (UCPB mgr). A palpable and
despicable act against his oath.
Respondent had had a payment issued by
PRC thru check duly received by his office
despite the deliberate withholding of
entire case for more than 3 months which
eventually withdraw the case.
During the pre-trial hearing of a certain
case, respondent brazenly positioned
himself beside Atty. Pamplona, counsel of
plaintiff, in a suit against his client,
coaching on matters as counsel of said
client (he was privy to).
Lim also pointed to certain acts of
respondent w/c allegedly violated RC
perpetration of falsehood and abuse of his
influence as former public prosecutor.
PLEADING verified by an affidavit that
the affiant has read the pleading and the
allegations therein are ture and correct.
UNSIGNED PLEADING a pleading reqd to
be verified based on knowledge, info, and
belief or lacks a proper verification, shall
be treated as unsigned pleading.

(Lim is the husband of Cristina Jaladoni,

daughter of complainant)
VERSION OF DEFENSE: Repsondent
discredited
Lims
claim
that
he
deliberately w/held the records of the
cited civil case.
IBP: It is evedent that complainant had a
lawyer-client rel. w. the respondent
BEFORE the latter was retained as counsel
by the Spouses Jalbuena. 6 mos.
Suspension. But was reversed by the IBP
Board of Governors.
ISSUES:
1. W/N there existed a conflict of
interest in the cases represented
and handled by respondent, and
2. W/N respondent properly w/drew
his services as counsel for Lim
HELD:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In Lim v. Vicente
Delfin, Sps. Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena,
respondent was counsel for Sps. Jalbuena.
Plaintiff Cristina Lim sued the spouses on
the basis of 2 checks issued by PRC for
construction of Hotel Alhambra. It alleged
that the contractor was already paid in full
yet the latter still filed a case for PRC for
the unpaid balance (falsification by
Carmen Jalbuena)
CANON 15 of the CPR highlights the need
for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the
dealings of lawyers w/ the clients. RULE
15.03 provides such instruction. (no rep of
conflicting interests)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: If the acceptance
of the new retainer will require the atty to
do anything w/c will injuriously affect his
first client in any matter in w/c he
represents. It happens in confidential and
non-confidential ones.
ANOTHER TEST:
1. If it will prevent an atty from the
full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness, etc. Ex. Rep in the

SAME case or in a totally

unrelated ones.
2. Whether he will be called upon in
his new relation to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired
in previous employment.
Ex.
Adverse party against whom
the atty appears is his former
client in a matter
w/c is
related, directly or indirectly, ti
the present controversy.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from rep.new
clients whose interests oppose those
former ones in any manner whether or not
they are parties in the same action or in
totally unrelated cases. IN THE CASE AT
BAR: There was a direct or indirect
involvement of the parties connection to
PRC.
REPRESENTATION of a lawyer of conflicting
interests
WITHOUT
THE
WRITTEN
CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED
professional misconduct
WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL. NOTE: The
termination of atty-client relations can be
made
by
client,
lawyer
(WRITTEN
CONSENT), or by the court (AFTER NOTICE
AND HEARING), or reasons beyond control
of client or lawyer. CANON 22: Terminate
services for GOOD CAUSE.
RETIREMENT FROM CASE: He must serve a
copy of his petition upon his client and the
adverse party 3 days before the date set
for hearing otherwise mere scrap of
paper. Respondent made NO SUCH MOVE.
In the case, respondent stopped appearing
as Mrs. Jalandonis counsel on the very
first day of hearing. NO ORDER from the
COURT was granted for such.
IMPROPER COLLECTION OF P5k. There was
no eveidence that docs were deliberately
withheld and there was provision of
professional srvs fees. CANON 22, RULE
22.02
RULING: GUILTY OF CANONS 15 AND 22
AND THUS SUSPENDED FOR 1 YR

PORMENTO, SR. v. PONTEVEDRA

FACTS:
Elesio C. Pormento, Sr. charged Atty, Elias
Potevedra w/ malpractice and misconduct
based on the alleged info.
Complainant alleged that respondent was
their family lawyer. Relationship even
extends
beyond
mere
lawyer-client
relations as they gave respondent moral,
spiritual, physical, and financial support in
his endeavours.
Complainant claims that respondent, who
was his lawyer in said case, DELIBERATELY
failed to inform him of the dismissal by the
trial court,a s a result thereof, complainant
was deprived of his right to appeal said
order. Complainant knew the fact when
adverse party extrajudicially foreclosed
the mortgage executed over the parcel of
land w/c is subject of suit. He was
constrained to hire new lawyer.
Complainant also claims that he was
forced to initiate a criminal case for
qualified theft against relatives of alleged
new owner of said land BUT respondent
was the counsel of the accused ins said
case. Complainant claims that respondent
utilized pieces of confidential info he
obtained from complainant while the latter
is still his client.
CONTENTION: Took up the cause of the
accused in a criminal cases filed by
complainant
for
humanitarian
considerations since accused are poor and
needy.
HELD:
The court emphasized that it cannot
countenanced the act of IBP Board of
Governors I merely stating that it is
annulling the Commissioners recomm and
dismissing the complaint outright w/o
stating the facts and the reasons thereof.
RULE 15.03, CANON 15 (Conflict of
interest) and corollary to this is Canon 21
w/c enjoins lawyer to preserve confidences
and secrets of his clients even after attyclient rel.) PLUS CANON 6 of Canons of

professional ethics : That it is the duty of

lawyer at the time of retainer to disclose
to the client all the circumstances of his
relation to the parties and any interst in or
connection w/ the controversy.
The reason of such prohibition re conflict
of interest is found in the relation of atty
and client which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
In the present case, the Court finds no
conflict of interest when respondent
rep.herein complanaints nephew and
other mems of family in an ejectment case
and in a criminal case filed by
complainant. It was only the respondent
who NOTARIZED the DOAS of said land It
does not follow that respondent obtained
info
from
complainant
and
UNOCORROBORATED by evidence.
However, there WAS conflict of inerst in
counsels representation in a civil case and
criminal case re theft for allegedly cutting
and stealing coconut trees w/in the
premises of said lot. Thus, it CANNOT be
denied that respondent became a privy to
the doc and the info that complainant
possessed w/ r.t said parcel of land.
Repsondent
should
have
declined
employment in criminal case to avoid
suspicion that he used in the criminal
action any info he may have acquired in a
Civil case guilty of misconduct
There was no substantial evidence proving
contention of complainant re absence of
info for his counterclaim.
RULING: Guilty of representing conflict of
interests and FINED P10k

GARCIA v. MANUEL
FACTS:
A disbarment complaint filed by Maritess
Garcia against respondent Atty Iluminado
M. Manuel for gorss misconduct for
ineffectively handling her case and failing
to returnto he rmoney she gave him.

Maritess Garcia divorced from husband

and approached respondent for legal
advice concerning child support and her
condo unit w/c husband refused to vacate.
A retainer agreement then was entered by
complainant w/ respondent.
Complainant gave respondent P10k for the
filing fees in the ejectment case. She,
however, asked respondent as to why the
fees cost so much. Respondent replied
that it is based on the percentage of the
price of ppty and support for the child
prayed for.
Several
follow-ups
were
made
by
complainant but later found out that case
has not been filed. An altercation bet.them
took place. After serious exchange of
words,
respondent
RETURNED
to
complainant ALL DOCS. No amount of
money was returned by respondent
despite the latters demand for its return.

Disbarment case against Atty Cesar

Tajanlangit by Avito Yu for violation of Rule
18.03 and 16.01 of CPR.
Alleged that he engaged legal svs of
respondent as defense counsel in a
criminal case that resulted in a conviction
against him. After the MR was denied, he
erroneously filed a petition for certiorari
instead of filing an appeal.
Due to such error, the period to appeal
lapsed and complainant was made to
suffer imprisonment resulting from his
conviction.
Respondent then allegedly
violated Rule 18.3 and RULE 16.01 FOR
FAILURE OF THE RETURN OF BAIL BOND
TO HIM FOR P195K after w/drawal of case.
CONTENTION: He was instructed to
withdraw the bail and apply the amount as
pymt for legal fees and reimbursement for
expenses such as telephone exp.

HELD:

HELD:

RULE 1.01

AS TO RULE 18.03. Complainant failed to

state material dates when his first lawyer,
Atty. Lacsamana received the decision vis-vis the filing of MR and arrival of second
lawyer. It was evident that compalainant
singled out respondent and blamed him
solely for his conviction. The respondent
explained legal basis for the filing of
petition for certiotari that a new trial is
warranted in re-opening of evidence.
RESPONDENT NOT NEGLIGENT.

Counsel
committed
dishonesty
and
abused the confidence reposed in him by
the complainant. He even asked the
complainant to raise the filing fee. After
receiving the registry return card, he still
did not file the ejectment case.
RULE 18.04 (lawyer shall keep client
informed)
The lawyer-client relationship being one of
confidence, there is ever present the need
for the client to be adequately and fully
informed of the devts of the case.
CANON 16, RULE 16.01 The highly
fiduciary and confidential nature of such
relations requires that the lawyer should
properly account for all the funds
received. It shall be returned to client
when became due or upon demand.
RULING: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS.

YU v. TAJANLANGIT
FACTS:

AS
TO
RULE
16.01.
As
to
IBP
COmmisisoner, respondent was directed
to render accounting of the money he had
received and to itemize the nature of the
legal svs he had rendered incompliance of
Rule 16.101 and pay amount of tel bill.
SC: It is improper to apply cash bond s to
the pymt for his svs and reimbursement of
expenses he had incurred.
RULING: IBP RECOMM AFFRIMED.