FERNANDO W. CHU vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., A.C. No.

10573,
January 13, 2015, Per Curiam
Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client upon demand. It is settled that the unjustified
withholding of money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action.
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to
raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor
case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his
violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum
from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts
constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical
commitments under the Lawyers Oath not to delay any man for money or malice;
and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant
conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in
the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.
Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JOSE S.
GUICO, JR. GUILTY of the violation of the Lawyers Oath, and Rules 1.01 and
1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him from
membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. His name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. vs. ATTY. ISIDRO L.

CARACOL, A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
Atty. Caracol knew that Efren, his client, had already passed away at the time he
filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition.
As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the
Court of his clients passing and presented authority that he was retained by the
clients successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have been substituted.
The Court would like to highlight the important role of an attorney in our judicial
system. Because of the particular nature of an attorneys function it is essential that
they should act with fairness, honesty and candor towards the courts and his
clients. Under Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Here, Atty. Caracol, as observed by the IBP CBD, has been less than candid about
his representation. The Court also observes that he has used underhanded means to
attain his purpose. Atty. Caracols blatant disregard of his duties as a lawyer cannot
be countenanced. In view of his actions of contravening his lawyers oath and in
violation of Canons 8 and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility the Court deems it proper to suspend him from the practice of law
for a period of one year.
Here, Atty. Caracol, as observed by the IBP CBD, has been less than candid about
his representation. We also observe that he has used underhanded means to attain
his purpose. Atty. Caracol's blatant disregard of his duties as a lawyer cannot be
countenanced. In view of his actions of contravening his lawyer's oath and in
violation of Canons 8 and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility we deem it proper to suspend him from the practice of law for a
period of one year.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Isidro L. Caracol GUILTY. Accordingly,
we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Isidro L. Caracol from the practice of law for ONE
YEAR effective upon finality of this Resolution, with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

JOSELITO F. TEJANO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, A.C. No. 8235,

January 27, 2015, J. Carpio
When a lawyer agrees to take up a clients cause, he makes a commitment to
exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Once a lawyers services are
engaged, he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his
clients cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him. A lawyers acceptance to take up a case
impliedly stipulates that he will carry it to its termination, that is, until the case
becomes final and executory. Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty when
he allowed the proceedings to run its counsel without any effort to safeguard his
clients welfare in the meantime. His failure to file the required pleadings on his
clients behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and renders him subject to disciplinary action. The Court notes that
in 2001, Atty. Baterina was also suspended for two years after being found guilty
of gross misconduct.35 In that case, Araceli Sipin-Nabor filed a complaint against
Atty. Baterina for failing to file her Answer with Counterclaim in a case for
quieting of title and recovery of possession where she and her siblings were
defendants. Because of such failure, Sipin-Nabor was declared by the trial court to
be in default and unable to present her evidence, and which, in turn, resulted in a
decision adverse to her. Atty. Baterina was also found to have convert[ed] the
money of his client to his own personal use without her consent and deceiv[ed]
the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used
for filing an answer with counterclaim, which he never did.
The Court likewise noted in that case Atty. Baterinas repeated failure to comply
with the resolutions of the Court requiring him to comment on the complaint
[which] indicates a high degree of irresponsibility tantamount to willful
disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.36 These two disciplinary
cases against Atty. Baterina show a pattern of neglecting his duty to his clients, as
well as a propensity for disrespecting the authority of the courts. Such incorrigible
behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated among the members of the Bar.
For this reason, the Court deems it proper to impose on Atty. Baterina a longer
suspension period of five (5) years.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is found GUILTY of gross
negligence. He is SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for five (5) years. He is
also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.

ARCATOMY S. GUARIN vs. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN, A.C. No.

10576, January 1, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr
In 2004, Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso G. de los Angeles as Chief Operating
Officer and thereafter as President of OneCard Company, Inc., a member of the
Legacy Group of Companies. He resigned from his post effective August 11, 2008
and transferred to St. Luke's Medical Center as the Vice President for Finance.
On November 27, 2008, Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card,
Inc. (LCI), another corporation under the Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a GIS
for LCI for "updating purposes". The GIS4 identified Guarin as Chairman of the
Board of Directors (BOD) and President.
Mired with allegations of anomalous business transactions and practices, on
December 18, 2008, LCI applied for voluntary dissolution with the SEC.
On July 22, 2009, Guarin filed this complaint with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) claiming that Atty. Limpin
violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by knowingly listing him as a
stockholder, Chairman of the Board and President of LCI when she knew that he
had already resigned and had never held any share nor was he elected as
chairperson of the BOD or been President of LCI. He also never received any
notice of meeting or agenda where his appointment as Chairman would be taken
up. He has never accepted any appointment as Chairman and President of LCI.
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Arcatomy S. Guari against Atty. Christine
Antenor-Cruz Limpin for allegedly filing a false General Information Sheet (GIS)
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to
comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. A
lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the
law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin GUILTY of
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Christine A.C.
Limpin from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon finality of
this Decision, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.