15. SANTERO ET AL VS.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE

G.R. No. L-61700, September 14, 1987
153 SCRA 728, Paras

FACTS:

Pablo Santero, the only legitimate son of Pascual and Simona Santero, had three children with Felixberta Pacursa
namely, Princesita, Federico and Willie (herein petitioners). He also had four children with Anselma Diaz namely,
Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel (herein private respondents). These children are all natural children since
neither of their mothers was married to their father. In 1973, Pablo Santero died.

During the pendency of the administration proceedings with the CFI-Cavite involving the estate of the late Pablo
Santero, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court questioning the decision of CFI-Cavite
granting allowance (allegedly without hearing) in the amount of Php 2,000.00, to private respondents which includes
tuition fees, clothing materials and subsistence out of any available funds in the hands of the administrator. The
petitioners opposed said decision on the ground that private respondents were no longer studying, that they have
attained the age of majority, that all of them except for Miguel are gainfully employed, and the administrator did not
have sufficient funds to cover the said expenses.

Before the Supreme Court could act on saod petition, the private respondents filed another motion for allowance with
the CFI-Cavite which included Juanita, Estelita and Pedrito, all surnamed Santero, as children of the late Pablo Santero
with Anselma Diaz, praying that a sum of Php 6,000.00 be given to each of the seven children as their allowance from
the estate of their father. This was granted by the CFI-Cavite.

Later on, the CFI-Cavite issued an amended order directing Anselma Diaz, mother of private respondents, to submit
a clarification or explanation as to the additional three children included in the said motion. She said in her clarification
that in her previous motions, only the last four minor children were included for support and the three children were
then of age should have been included since all her children have the right to receive allowance as advance payment
of their shares in the inheritance of Pablo Santero. The CFI-Cavite issued an order directing the administrator to get
back the allowance of the three additional children based on the opposition of the petitioners.

ISSUE:

1. Are the private respondents entitled to allowance?

2. Was it proper for the court a quo to grant the motion for allowance without hearing?

RULING:

Yes, they are entitled. Being of age, gainfully employed, or married should not be regarded as the determining factor
to their right to allowance under Articles 290 and 188 of the New Civil Code.

Records show that a hearing was made. Moreover, what the said court did was just to follow the precedent of the court
which granted previous allowance and that the petitioners and private respondents only received Php 1,500.00 each
depending on the availability of funds.
16. MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN vs. ATTY. JAIME
JUANITO P. PORTUGAL
A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006

FACTS:
SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin (complainants) were
convicted of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder. They engaged the services of ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P.
PORTUGAL who filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan but, was denied. Still, Atty. Portugal
filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion for
Reconsideration and filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Thereafter, complainants never heard
from Atty. Portugal again despite their earnest efforts to reach him. Checking on the status of their petition,
complainants found out that the petition was denied due to late filing and non-payment of docket fees and said
resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had already been issued against them. Complainants filed before
the Supreme Court an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Portugal for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, gross misconduct,
and gross negligence for alleged mishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with finality. Atty
Portugal contends that he was not the original counsel of the complainants and that he has already expressed through
a form of a letter his intent to withdraw as counsel of the complainants but he never received any reply from them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Portugal committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling the case and petitions
of the complainants.
RULING:
YES, Atty. Portugal was guilty of gross negligence or misconduct. The court believes that the dismissal of
the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of Atty. Portugal. Atty. Portugal ought to know
that he was the one who should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not the complainants. It should have been Atty.
Portugal who undertook the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. He should not have
relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the caseAtty. Portugal is not at liberty to abandon the case without
reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client’s
written consent or from a good cause. Furthermore, after agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes
fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is
not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Atty. Portugal
was found guilty of the charge and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.