AC No.

5623, December 11, 2003

LUTHGARDA FERNANDEZ, complainant
Vs.
ATTY. FIDEL M. CABRERA II, respondent

Facts of the case:

In June 2001, Luthgarda Fernandez engaged the services of Atty. Cabrera to

handle the various cases of her associates in Baguio City. After paying him his
acceptance fee and appearance fee. But after receipt of the pertaining fees and
records of the case, Atty. Cabrera disappeared and his whereabouts cannot be
determined.

Thus, Fernandez filed a disbarment case against Atty. Cabrera before the
Office of the Bar Confidant. The notices of hearing were mailed to Atty. Cabrera’s
address however, the said notices were returned to the IBP unserved with notation
“MOVED” .

The IBP considered the said notices served under substituted service under
Section 8 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The IBP thereafter decided
that the respondent should be suspended from practice of law for one year for
committing gross misconduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Cabrera should be suspended form practice of law for
violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that acceptance of money establishes an attorney-

client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. A lawyer
is bound to protect the interest of a client at the best of his ability and utmost
diligence thus he shall serve his clients with competence and diligence, shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and keep his clients informed of the status of
his case. These as proved under Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR

Atty. Cabrera clearly violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04. He failed
to render service, absconded with the records of the case which was entrusted and
he kept the money the complainant paid to him.

Therefore, the court held that Atty. Fidel M. Cabrera II is suspended form practice of
law for one year.
AC No. 5831, January 13, 2003
CESAR A. ESPIRITU, complainant
Vs.
ATTY. JUAN CABREDO IV, respondent

Facts of the case:

Cesar Espiritu engaged the services of Atty. Juan Cabredo IV, a former judge,
for two civil cases which involves the foreclosure of two chattel mortgages executed
by the complainant and Esphar and John Doe. Despite the payment of P51, 161.00 ,
Atty. Cabredo IV failed to appear before the court. He also did not reimburse the
pertinent fees received as he alleges that he has no knowledge of the receipt of
money because his secretary failed to inform him about it.

Thus, a disbarment case was filed against the respondent. The Commission on Bar
Discipline found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 16 and Rules 16. 01- 16.05
and thus suspend from practice of law for three months and reimburse the
complainant the amount of P51,161.00.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Cabredo IV should be suspended from practice of law?

Held:

Yes, Atty. Cabredo IV should be suspended from practice of law for violating Canon
16 and Rules 16.01 to 16.03 as well as his .

Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provided that a lawyer shall

hold in trust all moneys and properties of the client that may come into his
possession. In addition, a lawyer shall keep an account of all money or property
collected or received for or from the client, he shall keep it separate and apart from
his and those of other funds and he shall deliver the funds upon due and demand as
provided under Rules 16.01 to 16.03.

The Supreme Court held that the relationship between a lawyer and client is highly
fiduciary which requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. Money or other
trust property of the client coming into possession of the lawyer should be reported
by the latter and accounted for promptly and should not, under any circumstances,
be comingled with his own or be used by him.

In this case, the alibi that the secretary did not inform him is untenable. The
respondent violated also his oath.

Thus, Atty. Cabredo IV is suspended for one year.

AC NO. 5041, November 23, 2004
SALVADOR G. VILLANUEVA, complainant
Vs.
ATTY. RAMON F. ISHIWATA, respondent

Facts of the case:

Salvador Villanueva engaged the services of Atty. Ramon Ishiwata pertaining to his
labor case filed against J.T. transport. The case was closed and terminated because
the parties agreed on amicable settlement.

J.T. Transport delivered four checks in the amount of P225,000.00 to Atty. Ishiwata
for the complainant. Despite numerous demands by the complainant from the
respondent for the delivery of the remaining balance after giving the complainant
P45,000.00.

Thus, a disbarment case was filed against Atty. Ishiwata. The IBP Board of
Governors suspended the respondent for one year.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Ishiwata shoud be disbarred or suspended from practice of

law?

Held:

Yes, Atty. Ishiwata should be suspended from practice of law for violating Canon 16
and Rules 16.01 to 16.03 as well as his .

Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provided that a lawyer shall

hold in trust all moneys and properties of the client that may come into his
possession. In addition, a lawyer shall keep an account of all money or property
collected or received for or from the client, he shall keep it separate and apart from
his and those of other funds and he shall deliver the funds upon due and demand as
provided under Rules 16.01 to 16.03.

The Supreme Court held that the relationship between a lawyer and client is highly
fiduciary in nature. Under his oath , a lawyer pledges himself no to delay any man
for money and he is bound to conduct himself with good fidelity of his clients. A
lawyer should thus refrain from any action whereby for his personal gain he abuses
or take advantage of the confidence reposed upon him by the client. A lawyer must
at all times conduct himself with honesty and integrity, in a manner beyond
reproach.

Thus, Atty. Ishiwata failed to deliver the amount demanded by the client amounting
to P 236,000.00 thus, is suspended from practice of law for one year.
AC No. 6656, December 13, 2005
BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS, complainant
Vs.
ATTY. CARMENCITA BAUTISTA LOZADA, respondent

Facts of the case:

A contract of sale was entered into by Frias and a certain San Diego on the Alabang
property of Frias. Atty. Lozada, who has been the retained counsel and legal adviser
of Frias and the early part of 1990, acted as the broker for this sale. On the day of the
transaction, San Diego handed the respondent P2 million in cash and P1 million in
check. Atty. Lozada took her commission ,immediately, for P1 million without the
consent of the complainant and before the transaction between the complainant and
the buyer was completed. Eventually the sale did not prosper. The complainant
made a repetitive demand from the respondent for the amount of P1million as well
as the title to the property and other documents. However, the respondent started
avoiding the complainant.

Thus, a disbarment case was filed against the respondent. The IBP Investigating
Commissioner suspended the respondent from practice of law for six months.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Lozada should be suspended from practice of law?

Held:

Yes, Atty. Lozada violated Rule 15.03 and 16.04 of the code of professional
responsibility.

Under Rule 15.03 it is provided that a layer shall not represent conflicting interest
except when authorized by a written consent of the client after knowing the
consequences of the disclosure. As held by the Supreme Court, the test of the
conflict of interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of is duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in his performance.

In this case, Atty. Lozada represented and counseled for both the complainant and
San Diego. As a lawyer, she was duty bound to protect the best interest of her clients
and refrained from jumbling their affairs. Furthermore, Atty. Lozada collected her
full commission even before the sale was completed. This act placed a serious doubt
on her integrity when all her acts was motivated by the promised commission which
was called distasteful by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Rule 16.04 provided that “A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the clients interest are fully protected by the nature of the case and
by independent advice”.

The Supreme Court held that a lawyer asking loan, which is in this case, is very
unethical which comes from the precepts of abuse of clients’ confidence.

Thus, Atty. Lozada was suspended from practice of law for 2 years.