CANON 1- 6
CASE DIGEST
Hernandez v. Padilla FACTS: Sps. Hernandez sought Atty. Padilla to represent them before
the CA after they received and unfavourable decision from the RTC
and the Deed of Sale was annulled in favour of Duigan. Duigan
motioned to dismiss the CA case, which the CA granted. No MR was
filed, and the decision became final and executors. Hernandez, now,
alleges that Atty. Padilla’s act of ignoring the CA Resolution is Atty.
Padilla acting with “deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice
of the law”, and therefore seeks his disbarment.
Atty. Padilla Contentions: He’s not the lawyer for Emilia Hernandez,
and only met her husband.
of lawyers is to OBEY the laws of the land and
IBP: Suspension
promote respect for the law and legal
ISSUE: WON Atty. Padilla violated Canon 5..
forefront in the observance and maintenance
HELD: YES. IT is a lawyer’s duty, regardless of the particular
pleading he’s client may have believed to be necessary, to know the
proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. He is
therefore SUSPENEDED for 6 months and sternly warned.
DOCTRINE
CANON 5. - A lawyer shall keep abreast of
legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to
achieve high standards in law schools as well
as in the practical training of law students and
assist in disseminating information regarding
the law and Jurisprudence.
“It must be emphasised that the primary duty
processes. They are expected to be in the
of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the
obligation to be well-oinfropmed fo existing
laws and to keep abreast with legal
developments, recent enactments and
Jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless
they faithfully Company with such duty, they
may not be able to discharge competently
and diligently their obligations as members of
the bar.”
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Sps. Bengco v. Atty. FACTS: Sps. Bengco alleges that Bernardoused false pretences and CANON 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit
Pablo S. Bernardo falsely misrepresented himself a lawyer for the prospective lot buyer, to be done any act designed primarily to
Mr. Gatchailian, and induced Bengcos to give him 496K in order to solicit legal business

expedite the titling of the lot. 495K was used by Bernanrdo for his
personal benefit, and refused to return the same amount to the 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use
Bengcos.
of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
IC of IBP: SUspended for 2 years.
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement
IBP BOG: SUspended for 1 year and Order of Restitution
or claim regarding his qualification or legal
services.

ISSUE: WON ATty. Bernardo acted with deceit, malpractice, conduct

unbecoming a member of the Bar and violated his duties as a lawyer..
Administrative cases against LAWYERS DO
HELD: YES. Atty. Bernardo, himself, admitted in his answer that his
legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat; and
that while he begs for the Coeurt’s indulgence, the fact that he used
his posioition as a lawyer in order to DECEIVE the Sps. Bengco into
NOT PRESCRIBE. The lapse of considerable
time from the commission of the offending act
to the institution of the administrative
complaint will not erase the administrative
culpability of a lawyer.

believeing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties is

undeniable. Therefore his is SUSPENDED for 1 year.
Disbarment proceedings is separate and
distinct from criminal action filed against a law
The practice of law is not a business. IT is a profession in which duty eater, despite having involved the same set of
to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. facts.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

PCGG v. FACTS:

Sandiganbayan
ISSUE: WON Atty. Mendoza violated Rule 6.03 of the CPR for
engaging and representing Lucio Tan in a matter he previously
intervened for in his time as SolGen.

HELD:
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
CANON 7 to 9

CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Violeta Flores Alitagtag v. FACTS: Atty. Garcia was alleged to have participation in the “A lawyer should not behave in a
ATty. Virgilio R. Garcia falsification of a Deed of Donation and to have allegedly harassed scandalous manner to the discredit of the
the occupants of the property subject of the same deed to vacate legal profession”
the premises by asking MERALCO to cut off their services and
posted security guards to intimidate them.
Application: Atty. Garcia’s acts of harassing
the occupants of the property subject of the
ISSUE: WON Atty. Garcia acted in clear contravention of Canon 7 donation (i.e. asking MERALCO to disconnect
and therefore should be disbarred.
its services and positing security guards to
intimidate them) are contrary to Canon 7. By
HELD: NO. Although he is found guilty of harassing the occupants engaging in acts that undermine recognition
of the property, which do not speck well of his standing as a of and respect for legal processes, hehas
member fo the Bar,t he issue of falsification stands corrected.
clearly committed conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
On the issue of falsification of the subject Deed of Donation, the SC legal profession.

finds no clear and convincing evidence to prove that Atty. GArcia is

the authors or the forged signature of the donor or that he actively Sanction:Suspension from the practice of law
participated or conspired with any party in forging the same. He and from his notarial commission for 3 years.
merely notarised it. Furthermore, Complainant failed to discharge
her burden of proving the liability of Atty. Garcia with respect to the
falsification case, suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough to
warrant the disbarment of Atty. Garcia.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and CASE: Malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/ CANNON 8. - “A lawyer shall conduct
Mrs. Natividad Celestine or violation of the lawyer’s oath.
himself with courtesy, fairness and cantor
v. Atty. Jose Concepcion toward his professional colleagues, and
Javierc FACTS: Atty. Javier made statements in his pleadings he filed in a shall avid harassing tactics against
petition for audit of all funds of UE- Facultyy Assoc., before the BLR opposing counsel.”
against Atty. Torres and his clients:

1. Violated the atty’s oath for DIRECTLY pointing at complainant’s Lawyers must keep the dignity of the legal
as intentionally committing the crime of robbery in the UEFA profession, a lawyer’s language must be
office;
dignified.
2. Using clearly abusive, offensive and improper language in their
Reply filed before the DOLE
A Lawyer’s arguments in his pleadings
3. Made demeaning statements to the integrity of the legal should be gracious to both the Court and
profession in the Notarial Practice.
Opposing Counsel.
IBP Investigating Commissioner found Javier guilty for using
inappropriate and offensive remarks in his pleadings, and Clients NOT LAWYERS, are the litigants so
recommended that Javier be reprimanded.
whatever may be the ill-feeling existing
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the same.
between clients should not be allowed to
influence counsel in their conduct toward
ISSUE: WON Atty. Javier’s inclusion of derogatory statements
each other or toward suitors in the case.

HELD: YES./ Atty. Javier should be suspended and sternly warned

for employing offensive and improper language in his pleadings. A
lawyer’s language must be dignified and choice of language is
important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his
client’s rights, a lawyer—even one gifted with superior intellect- is
enjoying to rein up his temper.

Cerina B. Likong v. Atty. FACTS: Likong gave a promissory note and deed of assignment (for
Alexander H. Lim pension checks front he US as a widow of a US pensioner) to Yap
in exchange for a loan of 92k.

ISSUE:WON Atty. Lim should be disbarred for malpractice and

grave misconduct.

HELD
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
CANON 16 - 22

CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Businos v. Atty. CASE: Complaint for Disbarment

CANON 16.

Ricafort FACTS: Businos charges Atty. Ricafort for the crime of estafa (thru
deceit) for misappropriating 32k (30k entrusted to be deposited in
Businos’ Husband’s bank, and 2k the amount Ricafort demanded
from Businos for a bond). The 32k was supposed to be rental fee
payment paid by Oas Standard High School to Businos, Ricafort
Lawyers are bound to promptly account for
money or property received by them on behalf
of their clients and failure to do So constitutes
professional misconduct.

merely acting as an agent to collect with an executed SPA. Ricafort

did not respond or comment, and the SC requires him to show cause Money collected by a lawyer in his pursuance
why he should not face displinary charges for contempt. Ricafort did of a judgment in factor of his clients is held IN
not respond. Despite repeated orders of the SC, Ricafort does not TRUST and must be immediately turned over
respond.
to them (clients).
OBC: guilty for having used the money of his clients without their
consent. Ricafort’s illegally used his client’s money, a violation of the
lawyer’s oath. SUSPENDED from practice for 1 year.

ISSUE: WON Ricafort’s transgressions manifested dishonesty and

amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical behaviour which
inexorably diminishes the legal profession.

HELD: YES. Ricafort’s chose to forget that by swearing the lawyer’s

oath, he became a guardian of rush and the rule of law and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of
justice. His belated payment of the amount he ILLEGALLY used and
fraudulently obtained does not relieve him from any liability if only to
impress upon him that the relation between attorney and his client is a
HIGHLY DIFUCIARY in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting and
confidential character, requiring high degree of fidelity and good faith.
CASE DIGEST
Bautista v. Atty. CASE: complaint for disbarment
CANON 17: a lawyer owes fidelity to the
Gonzales FACTS: Bautista alleges that Gonzales entered into an agreement
with the eh Fortunados to pay all expenses for litigation for a
contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation;
submitted falsified documents, in connection with a land development
case and estafa case; that he harassed the complaint by filing several
unmeritous cases. Gonzales answers specifically denying all
allegations.
SOLGEN: recommends suspension for. 6months. Affirming the
grounds alleged.
Code, the Court, considering the other
ISSUE:WON Atty. Gonzales committed acts of misconduct.
jurisprudence, holds that the purchase a by a
HELD:YES. Gonzales prepared a document entitled “transfer of
Rights” which was signed by the Fortunados, in which he assigned to
himself 1/2 of the properties of the Fortunados for and inc
onsideration of his legal services. Such acts violated the law expressly
prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his client’s property or interest
involved in any litigation which I he may take part by virtue of his
profession. The purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property or
interest in litigation is a BREACH of professional ethics and
constitutes malpractice. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS from the
practice
DOCTRINE
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him”
CANON 16: a lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession
Hence notwithstanding the absence of a
specific provision on the matter in the new
Canons. As well as the prevailing
lawyer of his client’s property in litigation
constitutes a breach of professional ethics for
hitch a disciplinary action may be brought
against him.
An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to
pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the
client’s rights is Champertous, against public
policy.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Junio v. Atty. Grupo CASE: Complaint for disbarment

PURPOSE OF RULE 16.04

FACTS: Junio entrusted 25k case to used for the redemption of a

parcel of land in litigation to Atty. Grupo. Grupo did not redeem the
property, and the right of redemption expired. Grupo contends that he
received the amount in question, but alleges that he and Junio
entered into a private personal agreement that allowed Grupo to
borrow money from Junio in exchange for a Promissory Note. Junio
denied the allegation.

IBP-IC: Liable for violation of Rule 16.04 CPR, which forbids lawyers
from borrowing money from thei clients unless the latter’s interests
are “protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice”.
Recommends SUSPENSION form practice for 30 days.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Grupo committed acts of malpractice and gross

misconduct.

HELD: YES. Atty. Grupo is liable for violation of Canon 16, for
borrowing money from their clients, and further aggravating the same
for refusal to pay the borrowed amount.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Manalang & Cirillo v. CASE: Complaint for disbarment

Where a member of the bar stands charaged
Atty. Angeles FACTS: Manalang and Cirillo employs the services of Atty. Anagles for
representation in a Labor case before the NLRC for the collection fo
separation pay and OT pay. The Labor case was ruled in their favour,
but Atty. Angeles, without their consent, entered into a. Compromise
Agreement for only the amount of 5.5k. Atty. Angeles refuses to give
them the amount.
and continuing in the practice thereof.
with malpractice, the proceedings are not
meant solely to rule on his culpability but also
to determine if the lawyer concerned is
possessed of that GMC, which is a condition
precedent to them privilege of practicing law

IBP-CBD: ( in which Atty. Angeles refused to appear or respond)

SUSPENSION for 2 years
Canon 17: by compromising the judgment
without the consent of his clients, respondent
ISSUE: WON Atty. Angeles whosuld be suspended from the practice not only went against the stream of judicial
of law because of grave misconduct related to his client’s funds.
dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of
devotion to the interest of his clients as wells
HELD: YES. Complainants were awarded 6.5k for OT and sep-pay, of as want of zeal int eh maintenance and
which 30% was agreed to be paid to Atty. Angeles as attorney’s fees. defense of their rights.

Money claims due to workers cannot, as a rule, be the object of

settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the consent of Canon 16: his act of holding on to his client’s
the workers concerned. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and money without their acquiescence is conduct
properties of his client athat may come into his possession. The indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.
records clearly and abundantly point to respondent’s receipt fo and
failure to deliver upon demand, the 4.55k intended to his clients. A
clear breach of Rule 16.03. SUSPENSION FOR 6 MONTHS.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Ramos v. Atty. Imbang CASE: Complaint for disbarment

RULE 18.01
FACTS: Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil and
criminal cases against Jovellanos. Ramos gave Imbang 8.5k as AF
but Imbang only noted 5k. Ramos sought to attend the hearings with
Jovellanos, but Imbang disallowed her to attend and asked her to
wait outside the court. Due to Ramos’ suspicions, she inquired with
the court herself, only to find out that Imbang never filed the cases
she asked for, and that Imbang was employed in the PAO. Imbang
contends that he denied to represent Ramos because he wasn’t an
indigent, and referred her to Atty. Ungson.

IBP: rejects Imbang’s claim that he issued the receipt to

accommodate Ramos as a friend, and finds him guilty of violating the
prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private cases and
reciting lawyer’s fees other than their salaries. Imbang is liable under
Rule 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01

ISSUE: WON Atty. Imbang committed acts of malpractice and

misconduct.

HELD: YES. Imbang’s receipt of 5k while he was still connected with

the PAO still establishes attyorney-client relationship. The admission
of acceptance is evidence of his clear violation of the prohibition on
private practice of profession.A government lawyer is a keeper of
public faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility,
higher than his brethren in private practice.

HOWEVER< it is insufficient basis to find him guilty of violating Rule

16.01 as he did not hold the money for the benefit o the complainant
but accepted it as his attorney’s fees. He neither held the amount in
trust for the complainant nor was it given to him for a specific
purpose. Nevertheless, he should return the same.

DISBARRED FROM PRACTICE.

CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Hernandez v. Atty. CASE: complaint for disbarment

Rule 18.02: a lawyer shall not handle any legal
Padilla FACTS: Hernandez files this complaint against atty. Padilla for his matter without adequate preparation.

alleged negligence in handling her ejectment case. Padilla had
IGNORED the resolution of the CA which granted the MTD-appeal of
Duigan, opposing party; thus, it is now this act that Hernandez alleges
to be ‘deceitful amount to malpractice of law’, because Hernandez
failed to file an appeal due to Padilla forgetting to inform them of the
—while trust that Atty. Angeles was not
Hernandez’s lawyer from the trial to the
appellate court, thesis fact did not excuse him
from his duty to diligently study a case he had
agreed to handle.

resolution. Hernandez further alleges that Padilla has repeatedly down

the same to the damage and prejudice of their cases. Padilla Rule 18.03: a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
contends, however, that he was not the counsel for Hernandez and matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
that he never heard from the husband of Hernandez again after he connection therewith shall render him liable.

picked up the Memorandon on Appeal for the case.

IBP-CBD: SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE for 3 to 6 months

— otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their
duty would render them liable for disciplinary
ISSUE: WON Atty. Angeles was negligent in handling the case.
action.

HELD: YES. There were several remedies that Atty. Angeles could
have availed, but his negligence made him sit and do nothing. He
cannot contend that he could no longer reach the clients to inform
them of the status of their case, He could have explained why he was
no longer the counsel and informed the court to appraise them of the
change. Lastly, his failure to properly file the proper pleading is also
negligent of his duties as a lawyer. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Zarate-Bustamante v. CASE: complaint for disbarment

Canon 18: a lawyer shall serve his client with
Atty. Libatique FACTS: Elena files disbarment proceedings against Atty. Libatique for competence and diligence.

gross negligence and irresponsible conduct in the performance of his

duties for neglecting to inform them of the status of a case for RULE 18.03

partition they had filed which resulted to a loss of their share. Atty.
Libatique contends that he lost track of the number of cases that 18.04
requires his attention.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Libatique is guilty of negligence in the performance

of his duties to his clients.

HELD: YES. Atty. Libatique’s negligence showed a glaring lack of

competence and diligence required of every lawyer, and his admission
of negligence does not mitigate his liability. He cannot shift the blame
to his clients for failing to inquire about the status of the case, since it
was HIS DUTY as a lawyer to inform his clients of the status of the
cases entrusted to him. His failure to do so is an infraction that the
Court will not countenance.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Pena v. Atty. Aparicio CASE: Complaint for Disbarment

Canon 19: a lawyer shall represent his client
FACTS: Aparicio appeared as counsel for an illegal dismissal case with zeal within the bounds of the law

before the NLRC for Hufana. Pena, as the employer of Hufana,
attended the conciliation conference with Aparicio; in which Pena
rejected the claims for separation pay and demanded that Hufana
explain her absences and returns o work. Aparicio, in behalf of
Hufana, wrote a reply to the ‘RTW-Order’ which involved threats of
—a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his
client’s success is wholly subordinate; and his
conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics.

filing criminal charges and tax evasion cases against Pena. Pena files
a complaint for administrative charges against Aparicio on ground **Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
that the letter deviated form accepted ethical standards before the sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
IBP-CBD. Aparicio files an Answer with Impleader, alleging that Atty. criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action
Jocson was the one who imputed the charades against him.
or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
IBP-CBD: No appearance of both, complaint dismissed for lack of Court into the conduct of one of its officers.

CNFS.
— if the complainant in a disbarment case fails
to attach a CNFS, the pendency of another
ISSUE: WON Atty. Aparicio is guilty of violating Canon 19.
disciplinary action against the same
respondent may still be ascertained with
HELD: YES. Atty. Aparicio did exactly what Canon 19 and Rule 19 ease...xxx... the rule requiring CNFS to
proscribes. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should accompany every initiatory pleading, “should
the latter fail tot pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he not be interpreted with such absolute
would file and claim bigger amounts. The threats are not only literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
unethical for violating C19, but they also amount to blackmail. legitimate objective”.
Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person buy threats of
accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints, xxx
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.” REPRIMANDED.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Heirs of Ballesteros, CASE: complaint for disbarment

Can. 18: lawyer shall serve his client with
Sr., v. Atty. Apiag FACTS: Ballesteros, as administrator of the Estate and President/ competence and diligence.

Manager of Rural Bank of Pagadian, Inc., alleges that Atty. Apiag - “a lawyer shall a not neglect a legal matter
violated the terms of their legal services retainership agreement for entrusted to him, and his negligence in
reneging on his obligations on several cases for: not informing him of connection therewith shall render him
the case’s dismissal, not attending pre-trial, failure to file appropriate liable”

pleadings, and for billing an amount that does not conform to the - “A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
terms of the Retianer.
the status of his case and shall respond
IBP: Atty.Apiag was negligent in legal matters and actions entrusted within a reasonable time to the client’s
to him by his client complainant.
request for information”

- “A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate

ISSUE: WON Atty. Apiag is liable for violation of Canon 18.
the procedure in handling the case.”

HELD: YES. Atty. Apiag failed to file position paper and did not inform
his clients of the dismissal of the ejectment cases, Apiag had
knowledge of the dismissal of the ejectment cases, SC finds the
lawyer in bad faith for failing to inform the clients of the status of the
case. SC has repeatedly stressed theta the lawyer-client relationship
is highly fiduciary. There is a need for the client to receive front eh
lawyer periodic and full updates on developments affecting the case.
The lawyer’s failure to file the position paper is per se a violation of
Canon 18, the SC ruled that the dereliction of duty to file the position
paper, compounded by the failure for nearly two years to inform eh
client of the dismissal of the case, shows the lawyer’s negligence. As
well as his failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable
negligence. SUSPENSION for 6 MONTHS.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Cortes v. CA CASE: complaint for specific performance filed by FSMDC against CANON 20: guidelines in fixing a reasonable
Sps. Cortes involving the sale of a parcel of land they owned
compensation fro services redndered by a
FACTS:Cortes retained Atty. Moyà, but did not agree on the amount lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit:

of compensation for the services to be rendered. In the same case,

the parties opted to settle, and FSMDC sent to Sps. Cortes 3 checks ATTORNEY’S FEES

amounting to 2.7M for the price of the land. Atty. Moyà filed a motion - must be REASONABLE and must be on the
to fix his atty’s fees to 35% of the amount received. Sps. Cortes basis of Quatum Meruitm, “as much as the
opposed, claiming the same was excessive. The Court interfered and lawyer deserves”

stated that Atty’s Fees would be 100k only. Sps. Cortes terminated
their retainer with Atty. Moyà. Atty. Moyà later filed a manifestation to
resolve his earlier motion on his fees. TC ordered Corteses to pay
100k. Corteses appealed the order to the CA. CA ordered Corteses to
pay 100k.
- where a lawyer is employed without
agreement as to the amount to be paid for
his services, the courts shall fix the amount
on quantum meriut basis.

ISSUE: WON 100k award in favour of Atty. Moyà by way of AF for the
handling of the case before his services were legally terminated is
excessive.

HELD: YES. The reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees

awarded to Counsels should be properly gauged on the basis of the
principle of QUANTUM MERUIT. It is unundisputed that they had
rendered services as counsels by preparing Pre-Trial briefs,
appearance at the PT Conference and the hearing. The demand o f
10K is highly disprop[ortionate to the services rendered..

Roxas v. De
Zuzuarregui, et.al
(2007)
CASE DIGEST
Roxas v. De CASE: consolidated petitions for review on certiorari which orignates
Zuzuarregui (2006) form an Expropriation proceeding filed by the NHA against the
Zuzuarreguis.
to stand as the law between them as the
FACTS: Zuzuarreguis engaged the services of Attys. Roxas and
Pastor. the counsels contends that the
UNCONSCIONABLE and UNREASONABLE
HELD: The Counsels have stipulated on continent fees for their
compensation which were unreasonable and unconscionable. They
received 44% of the just compensation paid by the NHA to
Zuzzuarreguis. Considering there was no full blown hearing in R67
cases, it is undeniably excessive under the circumstances.
Pineda v. Atty. De CASE: Petition for Review on an action for declaration of nullify of
Jesus marriage
filing the necessary petition as an incident of
FACTS: Respondent Counsels sought to bill Pineda for the case they
handle for the settlement in the case fo declaration of nullify an
extraordinary amount of 1.12M, and ADDITONAL 50M despite being
well-compensated. The Counsels filed with the RTC a motion for
payment of lawyer’s fees, which was granted. CA reduced the
amount.
and counsel governed by the principle of
ISSE: WON the respondents were entitled to additional legal fees.
as the lawyer deserves”. The recovery of
HELD: NO. The demand of 50M on TOP of the generous sums and
perks granted to counsels was an act of unconscionable greed which
is shocking to this Court. As lawyers, they should be reminded that
they are members of an honourable profession, the primary vision of
which is justice. NO ATTYS FEES GRANTED.
DOCTRINE
SC does not allow a ‘Contract for Professional
Services’ between the counsel and his client
stipulation for the lawyer’s compensation was
- It is Unconscionable, when they affront
one’s sense of justice, decency or
reasonableness. Therefore such matter
shall fall within the regiulatory prerogative of
the courts
-
A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by
the main action in which his services were
rendered or in an independent suit against his
client. (Avoid multiplicity of suits.
The professional endgame that between client
QUANTUM MERUIT which means “as much
attorney’s fees on this basis is permitted,
where there is no express agreement for
the payment of attorney’s fees. Basically, it
is a legal mechanism which prevents an
unscrupulous client from running away with
the fruits of the legal service of counsel
without paying for it. (Avoids unjust
enrichment on the lawyer, himself)
Rule 20.4: lawyers should avoid controversies
with clients cons earning their compensation
and to resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE

Suntay v. Suntay CASE: Complaint for disbarment

Rule 21.01 - a lawyer shall not reveal the
FACTS: Federico Suntay filed the case against Atty. Rafael Suntay on condolences or secrets of his client

ground that as legal counsel who was privy to all his legal, financial
and political affairs 1956 to 64, after their atty-client relationship Attorney-Client Relation

ended, Rafael continued to file cases and complaint against Federico - a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and
using the information he discovered due to the confidential secrets of his clients EVEN AFTER
relationship.
termination of the ACR.

OSG: GUILTY —> IBP: recommends suspension for 2 years for - Communications between atty-clients are a
immoral conduct.
complicated affair, consisting of entangled
IBP-IC: affirms.
relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-
known facts.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Rafael is guilty of immoral conduct.

HELD: YES. For violating the confidentiality of lawyer-client relations

and for unethical conduct, Rafeal acted as counsel for clients in cases
involving subject matter regarding which he had either been
previously consulted by complainant or which he had previously
helped complainant to administer as the latter’s counsel and
confidant.