CASE NO.
45
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON V. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD
AC NO. 8158, February 24,2010
Brion, J.
FACTS:
Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of the DENR, Regional
Office in Tacloban city. He was allowed to practice law concurrently despite
his engagement in public service. In his official visit to Eastern Samar, he was
introduced to Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance. Atty. Solidon asked
Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land located in
Borogonan. Atty. Macalalad accepted the task for 80,000 pesos within a
period of 8 months. Atty. Macalalad initially received 50,000 pesos and the
remaining balance of 30,000 pesos was to be paid when Atty. Solidon receives
the certificate of the title of the property.
However, Atty. Macalalad HAS NOT FILED any petition for
registration over the property sought to be titled up to the present time. As
a result, Atty. Solidon filed a complaint which showed that Atty. Solidon tried
to contact Atty. Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case 6 months
after he paid the initial fees. He did this through phone calls and text
messages however he did not receive any communication from Atty.
Macalalad.
Atty. Macalalad answered in a position paper and affidavits of
witnesses that the delay in filing the petition was caused by his clients failure
to communicate with him. He also explained that he had no intention of
reneging on his obligation as he had already prepared the draft of the petition.
The case was brought to the IBP which found that Atty. Macalalad
indeed failed to duly present any reasonable excuse for non-filing and that hi
is negligent. He violated Canon 18 and rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macalalad was negligent with the non-filing of the
petition
HELD: YES, he was. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and
is sternly warned. He is also ordered to return 50,000 pesos with a 12%
interest per annum.
The quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which
the complainant has the burden to discharge. The SC continuously held that
the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is
considered per se a violation.
Villafuerte v. Cortez a lawyer is negligent if he failed to do anything to
protect his clients interest after receiving his acceptance fee.
In Re: Atty. Briones the failure of the counsel to submit the required brief
within the reglementary period is an offense that warrants disciplinary action
Garcia v. Atty. Manuel- a lawyer for failing to inform the client of the status of
a case is punishable
Reyes v. Vitan- the act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services
in handling a case and failing to render such services is a clear violation of
Canon 18.
Canoy v. Ortiz- a lawyers failure to file a position paper was per se a violation
of Rule 18.03
Even if the client has been equally at fault for the lack of
communication, the main responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire
and know the best means to acquire the required information. A lawyer bears
the responsibility of protecting his clients interest with utmost diligence. It is
his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence and exert his best
efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her
client.
Atty. Macalalad failed to act as he committed when he failed to file
the required petition. He cannot shift the blame to his clients since it was his
duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. If atty. Macalalad truly wanted
to file the petition, he could have cquired the necessary information from
Atty. Solidon to enable him to file the petition even pending the IBP-CBD.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 1
CASE NO. 46
SPS. VIRGILIO & ANGELINA ARANDA V. ATTY. EMANUEL F. ELAYDA
AC No. 7907, December 15, 2010
Leonard-De Castro, J.
FACTS:
During the case of Guballa v. Aranda , the case was submitted for
decision and it was only sent to Atty. Elayda. No notice was sent to the
spouses that is they were unaware of the said hearing and Atty. Elayda never
informed them of the setting. The spouses made follow-ups but Atty. Elayda
never informed them about it. He did not lift any single finger to have the
order reconsidered and/or set aside. The court naturally rendered a judgment
adverse to the spouses. Atty. Elayda did not even bother to file a notice of
appeal hence the judgment became final and executor and a writ of execution
was issued. The Sheriff implemented the writ of execution and it was only at
that time that the spouses became aware of the judgment of the Court.
The spouses were in utter shock, dismay, and disbelief. Hence, the
Sheriff forcibly took possession and custody of their Pajero and they were
deprived of their right to present their evidence and their right to appeal due
to the gross negligence of Atty. Elayda.
On the other hand, Atty. Elayda answered that the spouses did not
even bother to contact him to prepare for the case nor did they bother to
follow up their case in court to verify. He also said that the spouses failed to
appear in court. He contends that he was not able to file the necessary
pleadings because the Spouses did not get in touch with him. He admitted
that he went to the RTC during the scheduled hearing but was in another
Branch for another case.
The case was brought to the IBP which found Atty. Elayda guilty of
gross negligence and recommended his suspension from the practice of law
for a period of 6 months.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda is guilty of gross negligence and gross
misconduct in handling the case.
HELD: YES, he is. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for 6
months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty.
Elayda was negligent and unmindful of his sworn duties to his clients.
Abay v. Montesion- The legal profession is invested with public trust. Its goal is
to render public service and secure justice for those who seek aid.
He violated Canons 17,18,19 and Rules 18.02, 18.03, and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Elayda is dutybound to uphold and
safeguard the interests of his clients. He should be conscientious, competent,
and diligent in handling the cases. He should give adequate attention, care,
and time to all the cases he is handling. He is expected to monitor the
progress of said spouses case and is obligated to exert all efforts to present
every remedy or defense.
Atty. Elayda failed and even admitted that the spouses never knew of
the scheduled hearings because the spouses never came to him and that he
did not know the spouses whereabouts. It is the counsels primary duty to
inform his clients of the status of their case and the orders which have been
issued by the Court. It is elementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients to
exchange contact details at the initial stages in order to have a constant
communication with each other. His excuse THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE
SPOUSE ARANDAS CONTACT NUMBER AND DID NOT KNOW THE ADDRESS IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
He proved himself to be unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his
helpless clients.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 2
CASE NO. 47 with the Order of Judge Tipon to deliver the residue of the State. The order
ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES V. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ directs Atty. Briones to deliver the residue to the Heirs in proportion to their
AC No. 6691, April 27,2007 shares. Atty. Jimenez should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC
Austra-Martinez, J. for execution of the order instead of immediately resorting to the filing of
criminal complaint against him . The RTC would have to determind and define
FACTS: the residue referred to in the subject order.
Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Atty. Jimenez claimed that he acted in good faith. However, the SC is
Henson. Atty. Jimenez is the counsel for the Heirs of the late Luz J. Henson. not convinced. Fair play demands that Atty. Jimenez should have filed the
Atty. Jimenez filed a notice of appeal from an order questioning the payment proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the
of commission to Atty. Briones. Atty. Jimenez then filed with the CA, a petition estate.
for mandamus, alleging that respondent Judge unlawfully refused to comply Although the respondent failed to live up to his duties towards his
with his ministerial duty to approve their appeal which was perfected on time. client, there is no evidence that he acted with malice and bad faith. That is
Atty. Briones contends that the heirs of late Luz Henson, represented why the SC ruled that he be reprimanded only for his act of unfair dealing with
by Atty. Jimenez, are guilty of forum shopping, for which reason the petition complainant. The power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution
should be dismissed. The CA granted the petition and ordered the Judge to for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct
give due course to the appeal taken by Atty. Jimenez. affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer.
Atty. Briones thereafter filed his Memorandum with administrative
complaint for disbarment against atty. Jimenez for violation of Rules 19,01
and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Briones claims that
Atty. Jimenez engaged in forum-shopping when he filed a criminal complaint
and executed an affidavit against Atty. Briones for resisting and seriously
disobeying the RTC Order, punishable under Art. 151of the RPC. He claimed
that by filing the unfounded criminal complaint against him to obtain an
improper advantage in the special proceeding before the RTC, and coerce
Atty. Briones to deliver to the Heirs the residue of the estate without any writ
of execution or any pronouncement from the RTC.
Atty. Jimenez claims that he was merely fulfilling his legal duty to take
necessary steps to protect the interests of t his clients; that it cannot serve as
basis for filing an administrative case against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Jimenez violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility

HELD: Yes, he did. He is reprimanded

(The Heirs are not guilty of forum-shopping.)
The SC found that there is sufficient ground to find him guilty of such
violation. Records reveal thet before Atty. Jimenez assisted the Heirs in filing
the criminal complaint, he sent demand letters to Atty. Briones to comply
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 3
CASE NO. 48 It is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and legal
RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC (RBCI) BOHOL V. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or
FLORIDO lessening the confidence in the legal system. Canon 19 of the CPR provides
AC No. 5736, June 18, 2010 that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Carpio, J. Rule 15.07 of the CPR requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance
with the law and principles of fairness. Lawyers are indispensable insturments
FACTS: of justice and peace. They become guardians of truth and the rule of the law.
RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment agains Atty. Florido for allegedly A lawyers duty is NOT TO HIS CLIENT BUT TO THE ADMINISTRATION
violating his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Florido, Dr. OF JUSTICE. His clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to
Nazareno, Dr. R. Relampagos, Dr. M Relampagos, and Felix Rengel, through and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.
force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcible took over the
management and the premises of RBCI. They forcibly evicted Cirilio A. Garay,
the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to
run the bank.
Atty. Florido denied all the allegations. He explained that he acted in
accordance with the authority granted upon him by his clients, the lawfully
and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. He was merely effecting a
lawful and valid change of management. He alleged that there was a
termination notice sent to Garay but he refused to comply. Garay reacted
violently and grappled with the security guards long firearm. He added that
the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against by the RBCI was
dismissed; and the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended
because of a prejudicial question. He said that the disbarment complaint was
filed against him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against
RBCIs counsel.
IBP found Atty. Florido failing to live up to the exacting standards
expected of him as vanguard of law and justice. A penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for 6 months to a year is imposed. Atty. Florido knew or
ought to have known that his clients could not just forcibly take over the
management and premises of RBCI without a valid court order. He had no
legal basis to implement the take over of RBCI and that it was a naked power
grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever. The IBP board of
governors affirmed the findings

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florido failed to uphold the standards expected of
him as a lawyer

HELD: YES, he did. He is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 4
CASE NO. 49
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA V. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO
AC No. 6281, September 26, 2011
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land in Las
PInas. He initiated a Land Registration Commission Case for the registration of
the aforesaid property. During the course proceedings, Miranda engaged the
services of Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when his original counsel,
Atty. Marquez, figured in a vehicular accident.
They agreed for payment of 20,000 pesos as acceptance fee and 2000
pesos as appearance fee. Miranda paid Atty. Carpio the amounts due him,
evidenced by the receipts duly signed by the latter. During the last hearing of
the case, Atty. Carpio demanded an additional amount of 10,000 pesos for the
preparation of memorandum plus 20% of the total area of the subject
property as additional fees for his services. However, Miranda did not accede
to the demand for it was contrary to their agreement. Moreover, Miranda co-
owned the subject property with his siblings, and he could not have agreed to
the amount being demanded without the knowledge and approval of his co-
heirs.
A decision was then rendered in the LRC case that granted the petition
for registration, final and executor. The LRA then transmitted the decree of
registration and original and owners duplicate of the title of the propertyto
Miranda. However, He was surprised to discover that the ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE TITLE had already been claimed by Atty. Carpio. Miranda talked
to respondent on the phone and asked him to turn it over. Atty. Carpio
insisted that Miranda pays him first of the additional 10,000 pesos and 20%
share in the property but still, Miranda refused to do so, for not having agreed
upon.
Atty. Carpio then registered an adverse claim on the subject OCT
wherein he claimed that the agreement on the payment of his legal services
was 20% of the property and/or actual market value. Miranda sought for the
disbarment of Atty. Carpio. Miranda invoked Canon 20, Canon 16, and Rule
16.03 of the CPR.
Atty. Carpio, on the other hand, contends that he has a retaining lien
over the owners duplicate of OCT. He admitted that he did not turn over the
OCT because of Mirandas refusal to complete the payment. He alleged that
the agreement was not reduced into writing because the parties believed each
other based on mutual trust.
He further invoked the principle of quantum meruit.
The IBP CBD recommended that Atty. Carpio be suspended from the
practice of law for 6 months for unjustly withholding from Miranda the
owners duplicate of OCT. It was approved and adopted by the IBP board of
governors
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Carpio is guilty of unjustly withholding the OCT
HELD: YES. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. He is
ordered to return to Miranda the owners duplicate of OCT. He is warned that
a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Carpios claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally
give him the right to retain the property of his client until he receives what is
allegedly due him is INVALID. Section 37, Rule 138 elucidates on Attorneys
Retaining Lien. The elements are:
Lawyer-client relationship
Lawful possession of the clients funds, documents and papers
Unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees
The attorneys retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the
account between the attorney and his client, and applies to documents and
funds of the client which may come into the attorneys possession.
In this case, THERE IS NO PROOF of any agreement between the Miranda
and Atty. Carpio that the latter is entitled to an additional professional fee
20% of the land. Hence, there is no unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees.
Atty. Carpios unjustified act of holding on to the OCT is an alarming abuse
of the exercise of the attorneys retaining lien, which by no means is an
absolute right and cannot at all justify inordinate delay in the delivery of
money and property to his client when due or upon demand.
Atty. Carpio FAILED to live up to his duties as a lawyer. Furthermore, he
violated CANON 20 OF CPR by collecting exorbitant fees. It is highly improper
for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees which were never
mentioned. IT IS ESSENTIAL that a lawyer shall inform his client of all the fees
and possible fees so that he may determine his financial capacity to pay a
lawyer.
Quantum meruit- as much as he deserved used as a basis for
determining the lawyers professional fees IN THE ABSENCE of a contract. This
does not apply in this case since he was already compensated by agreement.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 5
CASE NO. 50 practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from her. In Sebastian v.
TERESITA D. SANTECO V. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE Bajar, the SC held that the failure to comply with Court directives constitutes
AC No. 5834, February 22, 2011 gross misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyers
Per Curiam suspension or even disbarment.
This is also one of the grounds under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
FACTS: Court. In repeatedly disobeying the SCs orders, Avance proved herself to be
In an En Banc Decision, the SC found Atty. Avance guilty of gross unworthy of membership in the Philippine bar. Worse, she remains indifferent
misconduct for, among others, abandoning her clients cause in bad faith and to the need to reform herself.
persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without any
explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended from the practice of law
for 5 years, and was likewise directed to return to the complainant 3900 pesos
which she paid her for the filing of a petition for certiorari with CA, which she
never filed. Avance asked for MR but was denied.
However, during the 5-year suspension from the practice of law, Judge
Consuelo Amog-Bocar sent a letter-report to the Court Admin informing that
Atty. Avance had appeared and actively participated in 3 cases wherein she
misrepresented herself as Atty. Liezl Tanglao. Her opposing counsels
confronted her and she admitted and conceded that she is Atty Luna B.
Avance but QUALIFIED that she was only suspended for 3 years and that her
suspension has already been lifted. Judge Amog-Bocar further stated that she
nonetheless withdrew her appereance from all the cases.
As a result, the SC required that Atty. Avance to comment. The SC
reiterated the directive but she did not comment. Thus, the SC found Atty.
Avance guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT. She was asked to pay a fine of 30,000
pesos which she failed to do so. There was NO RECORD OF PAYMENT AT ALL.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Avances misconduct is tantamount to her

disbarment

HELD: YES. Atty. Luna B. Avance is disbarred for gross misconduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ordered
stricken off rom the Roll of Attorneys.
The SC finds Avance unfit to continue as a member f the Bar. It is a
lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court. Avances
conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her.She willfully disobeyed
this Court when she continued her law practice despite the five-year
suspension order against her and even misrepresented herself to be another
person. When she was twice ordered to comment on her continued law
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 6
CASE NO. 51 recommended that Atty. Aurelio be suspended for 6 months. The IBP board of
BUN SIONG YAO V. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO Governors adopted and approved the recommendation.
AC No. 7023, March 30, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aurelio should be suspended for the violation of
CPR
FACTS:
Petitioner alleged that he retained Atty. Aurelio as his personal HELD: YES. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.
lawyer. Atty. Aurelio is a stockholder and the retained counsel of Solar Farms The SC found that the professional relationhip between them is more
& Livelihood Corp and Solar Textile Finishing Corp., both where Siong Yao is a extansive than his protestations that he only handled isolated labor cases. It
majority stockholder. Siong Yao purchased several parcels of land using his appears that even before the inception of the companies, Atty. Aurelio was
personal funds but were registered under the name of the corporation upon already providing legal services to Siong Yao. He happens to be the brother-in-
the advice of Atty. Aurelio. Atty. Aurelio happens to be the brother-in-law of law of the wife of Siong Yao and he had made prior negotiations before the
Siong Yaos wife. They had a disagreement and so Atty. Aurelio demanded the incorporation of the company.
return of his investment in the corporations. When Siong Yao refused to pay, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
Atty. Aurelio filed 8 charges of estafa and falsification of commercial lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the turst
documents against Siong Yao, his wife, and other officers of the corporation and confidence reposed on him. An attorney is NOT permitted to discolose
with the Office of City Prosec in Mandaluyong and also in the Office of the City communications made to him in his professional character by a clien, unless
Prosec in Bulacan. the latter consents. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does
Siong Yao contended that the series of suits filed against them is a not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the partys
form of harassment and constitutes an abuse of confidential information ceasing to employ the attorney or retaining another.
which Atty. Aurelio acquired by virtue of his employment as counsel. He Furthermore, he is guilty of forum-shopping. He took advantage of his
argued that Atty. Aurelio is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant.
filed several suits not only against them but also against the two corporations
of which he is both a stockholder and a retained counsel.
On the other hand, Atty. Aurelio sustains that he handled several
labor cases in behalf of Solar Textile. He said that the funds were not personal
but that of the companys. He denied using confidential information in
pursuing criminal cases he filed but only used those information which he
obtained due to his being a stockholder. He alleged that his requests for the
copies of the financial statements were ignored by Siong Yao so he was urged
to file criminal complaints for estafa thru concealment of documents; when he
was furnished copies of the financial statements, he discovered that several
parcels of land were not included in the balance sheet.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Aurelio had een
indeed the personal lawyer and incorporator of solar Farms. In 1999, Siong
Yao discontinued availing of his services because his son was admitted to the
bar. The commissioner also found that he is guilty of forum shopping. He

JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 7

CASE NO. 52
MA. GINA FRANCISCO, et al. V. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL
AC NO. 6155, March 14,2006
Tinga, J.
FACTS:
SPO1 Francisco, SPO1 Tan, and PO3 Joaquin were involved in a
shooting incident which resulted in the death of two individuals and the
serious injury of another. Informations were filed against them before the
Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder. They pleaded not guilty.
The Sandiganbyan found the accused guilty of two counts of homicide and one
count of attempted homicide. They engaged in the services of Atty. Portugal.
Atty Portugal filed an MR with the Sandiganbayan but ws denied. He then filed
an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second MR. He then filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam).
Afterwards, petitioners NEVER HEARD FROM ATTY.PORTUGAL
despite the several telephone calls they made to his office. The petitioners
went to his last known address but then they found out that they had moved
out. The petitioners had to personally verify the status of the ad cautelam
petition. They were shocked to find out that the Court had already issued a
Resolution DENYING THE PETITION FOR LATE FILING AND NON-PAYMENT OF
DOCKET FEES. They learned that the resolution was final and warrants of
arrest had already been issued against them because respondent, whose
whereabouts were unkown, did nothing to prevent the reglementary period
for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
On the other hand, Atty. Portugal contends that he was not the
original counsel of the accused. He said he was merely requested by the
original counsel to be on hand. There was no formal engagement undertaken
by the parties. He also made informal but urgent and personal representation
with the members of the Division of Sandiganbayan who promulgated the
decision of the conviction. Moreover, Atty. Portugal contends that he filed the
ad cautelam petition on time. Eventually, he decided to formally withdraw as
counsel for the accused. He asked the accused that he be discharged from the
case and file with the court but PO3 Joaquin did not do so as they know it
would be difficult to find a new counsel.
The case was forwarded to the IBP-CBD which found Atty. Portugal
guilty of violation of CPR and may be reprimanded or suspended for 6
months.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Portugal committed gross negligence or
misconduct in handling the case which eventually led to the dismissal with
finality of the ad cautelam petition
HELD: YES. He is suspended from the practice of law for 3 months.
The SC held that in a criminal case, Atty. Portugal has a higher duty to
be circumspect in defending the accused because it is their right to life and
liberty that is at stake. Furthermore, the SC found that the ad cautelam
petition was indeed filed out of time. Atty. Portugal should have known that a
second MR is a prohibited pleading and it rests on the sound discretion of the
Sandiganbayan to admit it or not. The motion did not toll the reglementary
period to appeal.
In dealing with the accused, he definitely fell short of the high
standard of assiduousness that a counsel must perform to safeguard the rights
of his clients. He had not been quite candid in his dealings with the accused.
He did not return their calls. He did not inform them the change of his
address. With respect to the withdrawal, it should have been Atty. Portgual
who undertook the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his
presentation. He should not have relied on his client to do it for him.
Canon 22 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for a good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. A
client has absolute right to terminate the atty-client relationship at anytime
with or without cause. The right of an attorney is considerably restricted. HE
IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO ABANDON IT WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE. A
lawyers right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only
from the clients written consent or from a good cause.
The dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primiraliy due to the
gross negligence of Atty. Portugal.
The SC rejects the claim that there was no formal engagement
between the parties. A written contract is not essential for employment of an
attorney. After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity
to both the cause and the client. (Burbe v. Magulta)
Moreover, Rule 14.01 of CPR clearly directs lawyers not to
discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. Atty. Portugal
labeled them as Salvaged victims.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 8
CASE NO. 53
FLORENCE TEVES MACARUBBO V. ATTY. EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO
Adm. Case No. 6148, January 22, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS:
On Feb. 27, 2004, the SC disbarred Atty. Macarubbo from the practice
of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant Florence
Teves and a third marriage with Josephine Constantino, whil his first marriage
to Helen Esparza was still subsisting. He filed a MR and Appeal for Compassion
& Mercy but it was denied with finality. He then filed an instant petition
seeking for judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. The
SC denied it for lack of merit. Then it was endorsed to the SC by the Office of
the VP for re-evaluation, prompting the court to look into the substantive
merits of the case
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. MAcarubbo should be given judicial clemency
HELD: YES.
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, the following are guidelines in
resolveing requests for judicial clemency:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. This may include
mat not limited to certification/testimonies of IBP officers, judges
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to
ensure a period of reform
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that he can be put to good use by
giving him a chance to redeem himself
4. There must be showing of promise as well as potential for public
service
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may
justify clemency
To be reinstated, a person must be of good moral character.
In this case:
1. Atty. Macarubbo has sufficiently shown his remorse and
acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his
personal life.
a. He asked for forgviness from his children and maintained a
cordial relationship with them.
b. After his disbarment, he returned to his hometown Enrile,
Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and taing
care of his ailing mother until her death.
c. He was appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile,
assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations Officer
which he continues to serve up to this date
d. He is also a part-time instructor at the University of Cagayan
Valley and FL Vargas College.
e. He took an active part in socio-civic activities by helping his
neighbors and friends who are in dire need
f. There have been SEVERAL testimonies affirming that Atty.
Macarubbo has reformed.
g. The Office of Municipal Treasurer also certified that Atty.
Macarubbo HAS NO monetary accountabilities in relation to
his office
h. No admin case from office of the human resource
management
i. NBI cleared him saying that he has no record of any crime
j. The IBP Cagayan Chapter supported his plea for reinstatement
k. The Parish Priest certified that he is faithful to and puts to
actual practice the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
l. He sends regular support to his children
2. The SC noted that 8 long years had elapsed from the time that
respondent was disbarred and recognizes his achievement as the first
lawyer product of Lemu National HS and his 14 years of dedicated
government service. SC finds that respondent has atoned for his
transgressions
3. Atty. Macubbo is 58 years old. He still has productive years ahead of
him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law
profession and the betterment of society. While the Court is ever
mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers,
concomitant to its duty to show compassion to those who have
reformed their ways.
He is reinstated but reminded that such privilege is burdened with
conditions of rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict
compliance with the rules and the law are continuing requirements.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 9