Salomon Jr. vs. FrialAC no.

7820, September 12, 2008

Facts:Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon Jr. charged respondent Atty. JoselitoC . F r i a l w i t h v i o l a t i n g h i s L a w y e r ’ s

O a t h a n d g r o s s m i s c o n d u c t arising from his actuations with respect to two attached
vehicles.C o m p l a i n a n t , o w n e r o f t h e v e h i c l e s i n q u e s t i o n a s k e d t h a t respondent be
disbarred. In the case of Lucy Lo vs. Ricardo Salomon et al, in which awrit of preliminary attachment
was issued in favor of Lucy Lo, ther e s p o n d e n t ’ s c l i e n t . T h e w r i t w a s u s e d t o a t t a c h t w o
c a r s o f complainant.According to Atty. Salomon, instead of depositing the attachedcars in court premises, it was
turned over to Atty. FrialLo’s counsel.Petitioner further alleged, when in misuse of the car was
reported,p a v i n g f o r L i q u i g a n ’ s a p p r e h e n s i o n , A t t y . F r i a l , i n a
l e t t e r a c k n o w l e d g e d h a v i n g a u t h o r i z e d L i q u i g a n t o b r i n g t h e c a r i n custodial legis to a
mechanic.In his response, respondent Atty. Frial admitted taking custodyo f t h e c a r s t h r u h i s o w n
u n d e r t a k i n g , w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y a n d knowledge of the court. He then denied personally using or
allowingothers the use of cars.

Issues: Whether or not Atty. Frial used the cars for his personalbenefit?Whether or not Atty. Frial was
guilty of infidelity in the custodyof the attached properties?

H e l d : O n t h e b a s i s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g p r e m i s e s , t h e C o m m i s s i o n concluded that Atty. Frial

committed acts clearly bearing on hisintegrity as a lawyer, adding that he failed to observe the
diligencerequired of him as custodians of the cars. The Commission thusrecommended that Atty.
Frial be suspended from the practice of lawfor 1 year.A writ of attachment issues to prevent the defendant
from disposing of the attached property, thus securing the satisfaction ofany judgment that may be recovered
by the plaintiff or any properparty. A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such,he is expected
to respect the courts order and processes. Atty. Frialmiserably fell short of his duties as such officer

Almendarez v. Langit
A.C. No. 7057 (July 25, 2006)

Facts: On 5 May 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. filed this complaint-affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit for acts unbecoming a lawyer. , David L.
Almendarez, Jr. as attorney-in-fact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de Almendarez, was the plaintiff in an ejectment
case before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City to which Atty. Langit was the counsel. While the case was
pending, Roger Bumanlag, the defendant in the ejectment case, deposited monthly rentals for the property in dispute
to the Clerk of Court. MTC rendered a decision in the ejectment case based on a compromise agreement executed
by the parties and issued an alias writ of execution for its satisfaction. Atty. Langit acting as the counsel of
Almendarez filed a motion for withdrawal of the deposited rentals amounting to Php 255,000. The court granted the
same. However, Almendarez learned that Atty. Langit was able to withdraw the rentals deposited as confirmed by
Felicidad Daroy, the Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court and the latter did not informed the former of the withdrawal.
Atty. Langit appropriated the amount to himself because Almendarez owe him his attorney’s fees. Almendarez,
through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D.Larida, sent respondent on a final demand letter for the accounting and return
of the Php 255,000. Atty. Langit failed to reply. During trial, Atty. Langit refused to heed the orders of the IBP
requiring him to file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory conference.
Although Atty. Langit did not appear at the conference, the IBP gave him another chance to defend himself through
position paper. Still, he ignored this directive, exhibiting a blatant disrespect for authority.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Langit may unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by the mere fact that the
client owes him attorney’s fees.
Held: No, Atty. Langit committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he received the sum of money representing the
monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its rightful owner. He
received the money in his capacity as counsel for complainant. Therefore, respondent held the money in trust for
complainant. Rule 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16 were clearly violated. Atty. Langit should have immediately notified
complainant of the trial court's approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals. Upon release of the funds to
him, respondent could have collected any lien which he had over them in connection with his legal services, provided
he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself
by the mere fact that the client owes him attorney's fees. In this case, respondent did not even seek to prove the
existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain the money. Atty. Langit's failure to turn over the money
to complainant despite the latter's demands gives rise to the presumption that he had converted the money for his
personal use and benefit. This is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing
public confidence in the legal profession. More specifically, it renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code
but also for contempt, as stated in Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Minervo
T. Langit GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 11, 16, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We SUSPEND
respondent from the practice of law for two years effective upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to
RESTITUTE, within 30 days from finality of this Decision, complainant's P255,000, with interest at 12% per annum
from 30 June 2003 until fully paid.

Chua vs. Mesina; Gross misconduct

7/25/20130 Comments

A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004

Facts:

Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia administratively charged respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina,
Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice.

Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother. Respondent's mother defaulted in paying a loan
that she obtained in a bank, thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother if paying the said obligation,
to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed among that that in consideration for the act of complainants, the
property which they are leasing will be transferred to their name. The complainants complied with the terms of the
agreement. A deed of sale concerning such property was executed.

However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax, respondent instructed complainants to execute another deed
of sale which will be antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax was not yet in effective.

Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale, respondents instructed his clients [complainants] to execute a
simulated deed of sale which will reflect that the property was re-conveyed to his mother.

The cunning acts of respondent did not end there. Respondent went to the house of complainants and got the
owners certificate of title of the said property which is still under the name of her mother. he promised to the
complainants that he will process the transfer of the property to their name. Years passed, but respondent never
returned the said title to the complainants.

Meanwhile, another lessee file a criminal case against the complainants and respondents for falsification. He claims
that was also given the promise that the property will be offered to him before it will be sold to another, but
respondents sold it to complainants without offering to him. Because of the foregoing circumstances, complainants
filed an administrative case against respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held:

Yes, said the Court- "This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of
capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government
is aggravating.

Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale
wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed
dishonesty.

Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the
owner’s copy of his mother’s title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale
executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.

That the signature of “Felicisima M. Melencio” in the 1985 document and that in the 1979 document are markedly
different is in fact is a badge of falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.

A propos is this Court’s following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez

As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with
utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings
with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at “arms
length.” Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the
law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability of
wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor.

Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the reconveyance of the Melencio property to complainants,
consideration of whether he should be ordered to honor such promise should be taken up in the civil case filed for the
purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while that in the case at bar is moral fitness.

Respondent ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby DISBARRED.

Torben Overgaard vs Godwin Valdez

A.C. no. 7902 March 31, 2009

Facts:

Overgaard engaged the services of Atty. Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed
against him.

Torben Overgaard filed a disbarment case against Atty. Valdez for despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees
ofP900,000.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement, Valdez refused to perform any of his obligations under their
and, ignored the Overgaard’s request for report of the status of the cases entrusted, and rejected the complainants
demands for the return of the money paid to him.

For his part, Atty. Valdez failed to neither answer the complaint against him nor attend the hearing even with due
notice.

On September 30, 2008 the Court found Valdez to be guilty of violations of the canons of Code of Professional
Responsibility his name was ordered to be stricken the roll of attorneys.

October 21, 2008 filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He argued that he have no knowledge of the disbarment case
filed against him. In September 2006 he abandoned his Makati office and Cavite residence and moved his office in
Bukidnon where he also resided due to a threat on his person, and he was not able to receive the demands of
Overgaard or orders and notices pertaining to the disbarment case.

He also argued that he gave the Overgaard legal advice, and that he searched for and interviewed witnesses in
relation to the cases he was handling for the latter. As for the 900, 000.00 pesos, he claimed that he gave 300,000.00
to two intelligence operatives to locate witnesses. He offered to return 250,000.00 but Overgaard’s partner refused to
accept. But he was not able to present receipt made by the intelligence operatives nor other certification or receipts
on how the money was spent to provide sufficient accounting.

Held:
In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without making sure that the cases he was
handling for his client were properly attended to during his absence, and without making arrangements whereby he
would receive important mail, the Valdez is clearly guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and
abandon his clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that
there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to desert his client and leave the cases
entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary care and diligence by
taking steps to ensure that the cases he was handling were attended to and that his clients interest was safeguarded.
If it was not possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he should have informed the complainant of
his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the services
of another counsel who could properly present him.

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This Courts en banc decision in Administrative Case No. 7902 dated
September 30, 2008, entitled Torben B. Overgaard v. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, is AFFIRMED

A.C. No. 1526 January 31, 2005 NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S.
HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent

TL; DR: The respondent convinced the complainant to execute deeds of sale to him for her properties because he
would sell the properties and use the money to pay off the complainant’s loans. He abused her trust and kept the lots
for himself and instead, paid the creditors with his own money. The respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.

FACTS:

The complainant Nazaria Hernandez was currently facing suits for money against her because of the unpaid loans
that her husband had left when he had abandoned his family.

Hernandez availed of the legal aid of respondent Luciano Go. The latter advised the former to sell all her lots to him
without any monetary consideration for each of the lots. The respondent promised to sell the lands to third parties
and the funds collected from the sales would be used to pay Hernandez’s creditors.

In 1974, it turned out that the respondent did not in fact sell the lots in question. What he did was to pay off the loans
using his own money. Up to the point of this complaint, the respondent still owns the lots in question.

The respondent denies all the allegations and claims that he did not breach the trust between him and his client.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the respondent should be disciplined for his actions

RULE:

YES. Respondent Atty. Jose Go is found to be unfit to practice the law profession and is duly DISBARRED from the
brotherhood of lawyers.

RATIO:

The respondent clearly abused his client’s trust in him in having convinced her to sell the lots in question in his favor
without so much as a cent going to Hernandez. He not only deceived Hernandez but he had taken advantedg of the
latter during a financial plight.
The IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline found the respondent to be guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17 and
improperly rendered a resolution to penalize him with 6 months of suspension. The IBP Board of Governors found
this penalty to be too light and sentenced him to 3 years of suspension.

The Supreme Court, however, relied on Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which states that a
lawyer may be disbarred from the practice if he is found to have done a gross misconduct in his office. The court
found that the respondent truly did perform misconduct and the punishment that is due him should be disbarment.

CANONS:

Canon 16. "A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession."

Canon 17. "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him."

A.C. No. 8253 March 15, 2011

(Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1067)

ERLINDA R. TAROG, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT, Respondent.

Facts:The Tarogs engaged the services of Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on account regarding their bank-foreclosed
property located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000 as filling flee, which they gave
to him. He explained the importance of depositing P65,000 in court to counter the P60,000 deposited by Antonio Tee,
the buyer of the foreclosed property. After some tome, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the
consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but in his own account. He
promised to return the money with interest. Despite the inquiries about the amount that would be returned, the
Tarogs received assurance from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in good hands. The Tarogs furthered
delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort for making a memorandum, but he did not file the memorandum. When it
became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning the P65,000.00,
plus interest, Arnulfo Tarog (husband) demanded by his letter dated December 3,2002 that Atty. Ricafort return
the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the P15,000.00 paid for the filing of the memorandum. Yet, they did not receive
any reply from Atty. Ricafort. In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited
in court, insisting that the amount was payment for his legal services under a "package deal.”

Findings of the IBPCommissioner:

It is respectfully recommended that respondent, Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort be DISBARRED and be ordered to return
the amount of P65,000 and P15,000 which he got from his client.

Commissioner Reyes concluded that Atty. Ricafort violated Canon15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of the vulnerability of his clients and by being
dishonest in his dealings with them by refusing to return the amount of P65,000.00 to them.

Issue:
WON Atty. Ricafort may be disbarred

Held:
SC affirmed the findings of the Commissioner Reyes, because they were supported by substantial evidence.
However, SC imposed the penalty of disbarment instead of the recommended penalty of indefinite suspension
considering that Atty. Ricafort committed a very serious offense that was aggravated by his having been previously
administratively sanctioned for a similar offense on the occasion of which he was warned against committing a similar
offense.

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.

Atty. Ricafort explained that he had no copies of the receipts for the P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 issued to the Tarogs
because "the practice of lawyers in most instances is that receipt is issued without duplicate as it behooves upon the
client to demand for a receipt."21 But such explanation does not persuade us. Ethical and practical considerations
made it both natural and imperative for him to issue receipts, even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the
receipts for his own records. He was all too aware that he was accountable for the moneys entrusted to him by the
clients, and that his only means of ensuring accountability was by issuing and keeping receipts. Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility expressly enjoins such accountability.

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF
THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM

BUSIÑOS vs ATTY RICAFORTA.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997

Facts:Initial case of estafa was filed and subsequently dropped upon payment of the respondent of theamount
allegedly owed to the complainant. However, the administrative case was pursued by thecomplainant claiming gross
misconduct on the part of the respondent as to the delayed payment of debteven with repeated request in addition to
the asking of P 2000 as bond in a case handled by him, whichwas not even required.

Issue:WON Atty. Francisco Ricafort be disbarred or suspended in his practice of law.Ruling:The Supreme Court
found the recommendation of the IBP to suspend the respondent insufficient,therefore, ruled to DISBAR Atty.
Francisco Ricafort in relation to his palpable disregard of Sec 25 of Rule138 of the Rules of Court,ule 1.01 of Canon
1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility, aggravated by a violation
of Canon 11.[A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997]LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO
RICAFORT, respondent.Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by
misappropriating thesum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the
bankaccount of complainant’s husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demandedfrom
complainant supposedly for a bond in a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondentdid not appear in
the administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay theamount, complainant withdrew the
estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case.

Held: DISBARREDThere is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without
theirconsent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trustand must
be immediately turned over to them. Respondent, by converting the money of his clients tohis own personal use
without their consent, and by deceiving the complainant into giving him theamount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be
used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guiltyof deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so
doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him byhis clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful
lawyer he has besmirched the fairname of an honorable profession.

“When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may

be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but

proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.”

Quilban vs. Robinol
171 SCRA 768
Facts:
On 15 April 1980 the Samahan officers filed this Administrative complaint before
this Court requesting the invention of Atty. Robinol for refusal to return the P75000 and
praying that the court exercise its power to discipline over members of the bar unworthy
to practice law. In his defense, Atty. Robinol maintains that he was hired by complainants to appeal their
case to the CA after they had lost in the lower court. The agreement as to the attorneys’ fees was on a
contingent basis if he obtains a
reversal of the decision of the lower Courts decision, they will give him a portion of the property subject matter of
the litigation. There was confusion as to payment and they want the lawyers to be disciplined for the said
actions of the lawyers engaged
in their complaint. It is equally true that the Court cannot pass judgment on complainants pleas that the
amount deposited by respondent be returned to them as this prayer should be ventilated in an ordinary
action that he does not have the slightest intention to appropriate the money in his possession for himself but
he is holding it until the fees are satisfied there being no guarantee for its satisfaction because of the complainants
refusal to pay him.

Issue: WON Atty. Robinol is unworthy to practice law.

Held: Atty. Robinol has, in fact been guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct that make him
unworthy to continue in the practice of his profession. After the CA had rendered a decision favorable to his
clients and he had received the latter’s funds, suddenly he had change of mind and decided to convert a portion
of the land equivalent to that of each plaintiffs to P50000 which he alleges to be the monetary value of that
area. Certainly, Atty. Robinol had no right to unilaterally appropriate
his client’s money not only because he is bound by a written agreement but also because under the
circumstances it was highly unjust for him to do so. His clients were mere squatters who could barely eke out an
existence. They had painstakingly raised the
ir respective quotas per family with which after having seen the color of money, heartlessly took advantage of
them.The principle of quantum merit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his
services in which case he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has
earned. In this case however, there was an express contract and a stipulated mode of compensation. The
implied assumpsit on quantum merit therefore is inapplicable.

[A.M. No. 5925. March 11, 2003]

RUBY MAE BARNACHEA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO, respondent. Complainant engaged the
legal services of respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a property previously
owned by her sister. Complainant was able to pay respondent for legal fees. Respondent failed. Complainant
demanded that respondent refund to her the legal fees and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him.
However, respondent failed to comply with said demands.

Held: SUSPENDED for 1 year; repetition of violation will be dealt severely. PAY the complainant.
Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may be
removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession but also for gross
misconduct not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges
which his license and the law confer upon him.

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. The conversion
by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession.
“The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential
character. A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients. The profession, therefore, demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage
conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. In this case, respondent miserably failed to
measure up to the exacting standard expected of him.”

RUBIAS VS. BATILLER G.R. No. L-35702 (May 29, 1973)

FACTS:
On August 31, 1964, Domingo Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to recover the ownership and
possession of certain portions of a lot located in Barrio General Luna, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, which he bought from his
father-in-law, Francisco Militante in 1956. The lot was occupied by Isaias Batiller, who illegally entered said portions
of the lot on two occasions—in 1945 and 1959. Rubias also prayed for damages and attorney’s fee. Meanwhile, in
his answer, Batiller claims that he and his predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual, open, and continuous
possession since time immemorial under claim and ownership of the portions of the lot in question. Batiller claims
that due to the allegations, he has suffered moral damages in the amount of P2,000 and a sum of P500 for attorney’s
fees.

ISSUE:
What is the status of the sale?

RULING:
The stipulated facts and exhibits of record indisputably established plaintiff’ s lack of cause of action and justified the
outright dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff’s claim of ownership to the land in question was predicated on the sale
thereof for P2,000.00 made in 1956 by his father-in-law, Francisco Militante, in his favor, at a time when Militante’s
application for registration thereofhad already been dismissed by the Iloilo land registration court and was pending
appeal in the Court of Appeals. Hence, there was no right or title to the land that could be transferred or sold by
Militante’s purported sale in 1956 in favor of plaintiff. Manifestly, then plaintiff’s complaint against defendant, to be
declared absolute owner of the land and to be restored to possession thereof with damages was bereft of any factual
or legal basis. Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six
paragraphs certain persons, by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from
acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial
auction," as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) administrators; (4)public officers and employees; judicial
officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6) others especially disqualified by law.

Foronda v. Alvarez A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014

Facts: The complainant institute a case for the nullification of her marriage. The respondent was referred to her and
the complainant agreed to engage his services for a fee of ₱195,000.00. The complainant averred that the
respondent promised to file the petition after he received the full payment of his attorney’s fee. The complainant
inquired about the status of her case and was allegedly told by the respondent that her petition was pending in court;
and in another time, she was told that a decision by the court was already forthcoming. However, when she came
back to the country in May 2009, the respondent told her that her petition was still pending in court and apologized for
the delay. Eventually, the complainant was able to get a copy of her petition and found out that it was filed a year
later. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the week after she signed the contract of service with the
respondent, the latter requested for a meeting. Thinking that they were going to discuss her case, she agreed. But
during the meeting, the respondent invited her to be an investor in the lending business allegedly ran by the
respondent’s sister-in-law which he said can earn five percent (5%) interest per month. According to the complainant,
upon presentment of these checks, the drawee-bank honored the first two (2) checks, but the rest were dishonored
for being drawn against a closed account. When she brought the matter to the respondent, he promised to pay her in
cash. He actually paid her certain amounts as interest through her representative. Nevertheless, the respondent
failed to pay the entire obligation as promised.
Issue: Whether the delay of filing of the petition and issuance of worthless check constitute disbarment to the
Respondent?

Held: No, the Court finds that the penalty of six months suspension only from the practice of law is commensurate,
with a stem warning that a repetition of any of the infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall
merit a heavier penalty. The Court very well takes note of the fact that the criminal charges filed against the
respondent have been dismissed upon an affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant. The Court also
acknowledges that he dutifully participated in the proceedings before the IBP-CBD and that he completely settled his
obligation to the complainant, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment Receipt signed by the complainant’s counsel.
Therein, it was acknowledged that the respondent paid the amount of ₱650,000.00 in payment for the checks he
issued in favor of the complainant; for the attorney’s fees he received for the annulment case; and cost and expenses
that the complainant incurred in relation to the cases the latter filed against the respondent including the instant
complaint with the IBP. The respondent was able to file, albeit belatedly, the complainant’s petition. In addition, he
returned in full the money he received as attorney’s fee in spite of having gone through all the trouble of preparing the
required petition and in filing the same – not to mention the cost he incurred for the purpose.

Junio v Grupo

Facts:

Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property in Bohol. For no
reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited. Because of this, Junio wanted
the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested that he use the money to help defray his
children’s educational expenses. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the
family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junio’s sisters served as Grupo’s household helpers for many
years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a
friend” with “consideration involved.” He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between them.

The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Profesisonal
Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors
recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

Held:

Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional capacity and the
attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.

Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took advantage of
his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the standard conduct of an
attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer
whose conduct serves as an example.

*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with interest at the
legal rate.
* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan
Cantiller v Potenciano

January 31, 2016Fahima Abobakar

Facts: Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. He
is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts
unbecoming of an officer of the court.

An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued a decision against the latter. A notice
to vacate was then issued against Cantiller.

Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she
described as a “[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment”.

The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Respondent demanded from the complainant P
l,000.00 as attorney’s fee. However the judge of the said court asked the respondent to withdraw as counsel by
reason of their friendship.

Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to
another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locating the judge.

Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter. The amount was allegedly to be
deposited with the Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and P 1,000.00 to cover the
expenses of the suit needed in order for the complainant to retain the possession of the property. But later on
Cantiller found out that the amounts were not necessary to be paid. A demand was made against Potenciano but the
latter did not answer and the amounts were not returned.

Contrary to Potenciano’s promise that he would secure a restraining order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel
for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was
eventually enforced and executed.

Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

Held: When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until
its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
elementary principles of professional ethics.

The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interests. Respondent had
knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw his appearance as counsel by
reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he
inform complainant of this fact.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The
profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

. Alisbo vs. Jalandoon

Facts:

 Jalandoon was former counsel for Alisbo spouses

o to recover his share of the estate of the deceased spouses Catalina Sales and Restituto Gozuma
which had been adjudicated to him
 o complaint was dismissed but it was discovered that Jalandoon was former legal counsel of Carlito
Sales, adversary in the probate proceedings

Decision: suspension for 2 years

 betrayed his client Ramon Alisbo's trust and did not champion his cause with that wholehearted fidelity, care
and devotion that a lawyer is obligated to give to every case that he accepts from a client

1. He did not verify the real status of Ramon Alisbo before filing the case. Otherwise, his lack of capacity to sue
would not have been at issue.

2. He postponed the motion to revive judgment and gave way instead to a motion to resolve pending incidents in Civil
Case 4963. In doing so, he frittered away precious time.

3. He dropped Ramon Alisbo's co-plaintiffs and impleaded them as defendants. Otherwise, the complaint would have
been defective only in part.

 used his position as Alisbo's counsel precisely to favor his other client, Carlito Sales, by delaying Alisbo's
action to revive the judgment in his favor and thereby deprive him of the fruits of his judgment which
Attorney Jalandoon, as Sales' counsel, had vigorously opposed
 did not immediately take action regarding Ramon’s insanity

Ngayan vs. Tugarde

Facts:

 violation of sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines.

e. when the affidavit he prepared for complainants but subsequently crossed-out was submitted as evidence
against complainants in the motion for reinvestigation

f. when he sent a letter to the fiscal saying that his name was being adversely affected by the false affidavits of
complainants and for that reason, respondent was contemplating to file a criminal and civil action for damages
against them.

 asked respondent to prepare an affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint to be filed against Mrs.
Rowena Soriano and Robert Leonido as a consequence of the latter's unauthorized entry into complainants'
dwelling *Robert’s name was not included in first document)

Decision: suspended for a year

 furnished the adverse parties in a certain criminal case with a copy of their discarded affidavit, thus enabling
them to use it as evidence against complainants
 was partial to the adverse parties as he even tried to dissuade complainants from filing charges against
Robert Leonido (lawyer is counsel for Roberto’s brother; also classmate of adverse party’s lawyer)

In re: Maquera, B.M. No. 793, July 30, 2004


 Facts:
 In a Letter, this Court was informed by the District Court of Guam that Atty. Leon Maquera was suspended
from the practice of law in Guam for 2 years pursuant to a decision rendered by the SC of Guam in a
disciplinary case against him.

 In a Memo, then Bar Confidant Atty. Versoza received copies of the record of Maquera’s case pursuant to
its request, since the document transmitted by the Guam District Court do not contain the factual and legal
bases for Maquera’s suspension and are thus insufficient to enable her to determine whether Maquera’s
acts of omissions which resulted in his suspension in Guam are likewise violative of his oath as a member of
the Philippine Bar.

 The Case of Maquera in Guam:
 Maquera was the counsel of Castro, a debtor of certain Benavente. Castro’s property subject of the
case was to be sold at public auction (with right of redemption) in satisfaction of his obligation to
Benavente. At the auction, Benavente purchased the property for $500. In consideration of Maquera’s legal
service in the civil case of Castro, the two entered into an oral agreement that Castro shall assign his “right
of redemption” to Maquera. Atty. Maquera redeemed the property for $525 and obtained a title in his name
and subsequently was able to sell it at $320,000.

 The Guam Bar Ethics Committee claimed that Maquera obtained an He was suspended for misconduct, as
he acwuired his client’s property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence
obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client’s case. Furthermore, it alleged that the latter
himself admitted his failure to comply with the requirement in in the Rule1.8(a) of the Model Rules that a
lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest
adverse to a client unless the transaction and the terms governing the lawyer’s acquisition of such interest
are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in
writing.

 IBP’s Conclusion:
 Although the SC of Guam found Maquera liable for misconduct. “there is no evidence to establish
that the latter committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines. However, the IBP still suspended him
indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of IBP since 1997.


 Issue: May a member of the Philippine Bar who has been disbarred or suspended from the practice of law
in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the same sanction as a
member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction?

 Ruling:

 Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in
Guam are “mere grounds” for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the
foreign court’s action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.

 The Court must therefore determine first whether Maquera;s acts violate Philippine Law or the standards of
ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar and thus constitute grounds for his suspension or
disbarment in this jurisdiction.

  More fundamentally, due process demands that he be given opportunity to defend himself and to present
testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted in accordance with
Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce
evidence on his behalf regarding the charges of unethical behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain
that he did receive the Notice of Hearing earlier sent by the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline.

PARINAS vs PAGUINTO

FACTS:

Complainant hired the services of the respondent to annul her marriage to Danilo Soriano. Complainant
gave the respondent a diskette containing a narration of what happened between her and her estranged husband.
Complainant also gave respondent money as part of the acceptance fee and the filing fee for the case.

Inquiring on the status of her case, respondent told the complainant that their first hearing was postponed to a later
date. Unconvinced complainant went to RTC Branch 64 to inquire on the status of her case. Much to her surprise,
there was no such case filed in court. Respondent promised to return what the complainant gave. However, the
amount was only given after complainant filed for a disbarment case with the IBP

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of Canon 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibilty?

RULING:

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (“the Code”) provides that a lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected for or from the client. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific
purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client on
demand. Paguinto returned the money only after Pariñas filed this administrative case for disbarment.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a
lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients’ interests will suffer. It is
not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention
to his legal work.
The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in handling his cases. A license to practice
law is a guarantee by the courts to the public that the licensee possesses sufficient skill, knowledge and diligence to
manage their cases. The legal profession demands from a lawyer the vigilance and attention expected of a good
father of a family.
Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service that he is not qualified to render. Rule
18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. He has the
duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. Rule 18.03 of the Code also provides that a lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence shall render him liable.
Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto is GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the court
penalizes Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto with SUSPENSION for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.

Nonato v Fudolin (2015) A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015

Fact: The complainant alleged that his father, the late Restituto Nonato (Restituto), was the duly registered owner of
a property that became the subject of ejectment proceedings filed by Restituto against Anselmo Tubongbanua (
Anselmo), before the MTC. The complainant alleged that although his father Restituto paid the respondent his
acceptance fees, no formal retainer agreement was executed. The respondent also did not issue any receipts for the
acceptance fees paid. The complainant asserted that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings before the
MTC, the respondent failed to fully inform his father Restituto of the status and developments in the case. Restituto
could not contact the respondent despite his continued efforts. The respondent also failed to furnish Restituto copies
of the pleadings, motions and other documents filed with the court. Thus, Restituto and the complainant were
completely left in the dark regarding the status of their case. After an exchange of initial pleadings in the ejectment
proceedings, the MTC ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers. Since neither party complied
with the court’s directive, the MTC dismissed the complaint. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration from
the order of dismissal. He justified his failure to file the position paper by arguing that he misplaced the case records,
adding that he was also burdened with numerous other cases. The MTC denied the motion. Because of the patent
negligence, the complainant informed the respondent that his failure to file the position paper could be a ground for
his disbarment. Furthermore, the complainant, without the respondent’s intervention, entered into an oral extrajudicial
compromise with the daughter of defendant Anselmo. In 2007, the respondent wrote the complainant and apologized
for his repeated failure to communicate with him. He reasoned out that he failed to file the position paper due to his
poor health. He also claimed that he had suffered a stroke and had become partially blind, which caused the delay in
the preparation of the pleadings in the ejectment case. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the
respondent’s suspension for one (1) month from the practice of law.

REPORT THIS AD

Issue: Whether the respondent failure to execute his duty due to his health condition is an inexcusable violation of
his Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes, A lawyer is bound to protect his client’s interests to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. He
should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient manner; and provide the quality of service at least
equal to that which he, himself, would expect from a competent lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to be his
client’s counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of
care and skill demanded by his profession, and his client may reasonably expect him to perform his obligations
diligently. The failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. In this case, the record
clearly shows that the respondent has been remiss in the performance of his duties as Restituto’s counsel. His
inaction on the matters entrusted to his care is plainly obvious. He failed to file his position paper despite notice from
the MTC requiring him to do so. His omission greatly prejudiced his client as the Court in fact dismissed the
ejectment suit. Because a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence, there is a need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never be left groping in the dark; to
allow this situation is to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the retained lawyer and in the legal
profession in general. The court find the respondent’s excuse – that he had an undetected stroke and was suffering
from other illnesses – unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Even assuming that he was then suffering from
numerous health problems (as evidenced by the medical certificates he attached), his medical condition cannot serve
as a valid reason to excuse the omission to file the necessary court pleadings. The respondent could have requested
an extension of time to file the required position paper, or at the very least, informed his client of his medical
condition; all these, the respondent failed to do. with all the premises considered, the court suspends the respondent
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

EMMA V. DE JUAN vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III

FACTS:

Petitioner was terminated without notice or explanation so she fled a complaint be ore the
NLRC against the company or illegal dismissal. In search o a lawyer she as!ed the assistance o
""C which assigned respondent to handle her labor case. #n $ecember %& '&&& the Labor (rbiter rendered a
decision in a)or o complainant. *he Company appealed to the NLRC. In a decision promulgated on +eptember %,
%--' the NLRC re)ersed the Labor (rbiter and declared there was no illegal dismissal.

Complainant blamed respondent or the re)ersal. +he said that she came to !now o the re)ersal o the Labor (rbiter s
decision when she called respondent in #ctober %--'. /hen she as!ed the respondent what they should do
respondent answered 0Paano iyan iha1eh1hindi a!o marunong gumawa ng 2otion or Reconsideration.3

ISSUE:
/hether the respondent committed culpable negligence as would warrant disciplinary action in ailing to fle or the
complainant a motion or reconsideration rom the decision o the NLRC.

RULING:
Respondent is 4IN5$ with /(RNIN6 that a repetition o the same will be dealt with se)erely.

No lawyer is obliged to ad)ocate or e)ery person who may wish to become his client but once he agrees to ta!e up
the cause o a client the lawyer owes fdelity to such cause and must be mind ul o the trust and confdence reposed
in him. 4urther among the undamental rules o ethics is the principle that an attorney who underta!es an action
impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination that is until the case becomes fnal and executory. ( lawyer is not at
liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his ser)ices without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in
the circumstances. (ny dereliction o duty by a counsel a7ects the client. *his means that his client is entitled to the
beneft o any and e)ery remedy and de ense that is authori8ed by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert
e)ery such remedy or de ense.

*he records re)eal that indeed the respondent did not fle a motion or reconsideration o the NLRC such
that the said decision e)entually had become fnal and executory. Respondent does not re ute this. 9is excuse that he
did not !now how to fle a motion or reconsideration is lame and unacceptable. ( ter complainant had expressed an
interest to fle a motion or reconsideration it was incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his boo!s and re
amiliari8e himsel with the procedural rules or a motion or reconsideration. 4iling a motion or reconsideration is not
a complicated legal tas!.

(n attorney may only retire rom the case either by a written consent o his client or by permission o the court a ter
due notice and hearing in which e)ent the attorney should see to it that the name o the new attorney is recorded in
the case. Respondent did not comply with these obligations.

0Negligence o lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them or handling shall render them liable.3

Consorcia Rollon vs. Atty. Camilo Naraval

425 SCRA 675

FACTS:

In October 2000, petitioner Rollon went to seek Atty. Naraval’s assistance in a case filed against him before the
Municipal Trial Court for collection of sum of money with prayer for attachment. Atty. Naraval agreed to be Rollon’s
lawyer and accepted P8,000 as filing and partial service fee. A week after, Rollon’s son went to follow up with the
case, only to find out that Naraval was not able to act on the case as he was so busy. In November 2001, since there
was still no action on his case, Rollon decided to withdraw the amount paid to Naraval and to retrieve his documents
pertaining to the case. Since Rollon did not obtain any response from Naraval, he referred the matter to the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Respondent did not file any answer, so the CBD proceeded with the
investigation ex parte.

The investigating commissioner of the CBD recommended that Naraval be suspended from the practice of law for 1
year for violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The report indicated that Naraval
caused dishonor to the bar when he accepted service fee and filing fee payment from Rollon but failed to act on his
case. He also failed to appraise Rollon of the status of his case, which was later found by the latter to have been
decided with finality against him. The IBP upheld the CBD’s report and recommended for Naraval’s suspension for 2
years and restitution of the P8,000.00 received from complainant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Naraval’s acts warrant his suspension from the practice of law.

HELD:

The Supreme Court agreed to the IBP’s resolution on the following grounds:

1. Respondent violated Rule 15.05 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a
candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case.” Respondent demanded
payment of filing fee and service fee from complainant, giving the latter hope that her case would be acted upon.
But such hope later turned out to be false when respondent did nothing to act on the case. A lawyer is ordinarily
not obliged to act as adviser of any person. He may decline employment if he is not in a position to handle the
case competently. But once he agrees to handle a case, as exhibited from respondent’s acceptance of money
from the complainant, attorney-client relationship is established and the attorney is abound to undertake the task
with utmost devotion until its termination.
2. Respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.” Despite repeated demands, respondent failed to
return the files of the case to complainant for no justifiable reason and even kept the latter’s money instead of
returning it, thereby reflecting his moral unsoundness. As he did not act on the case, respondent’s failure to
return complainant’s money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had converted it to his own use,
betraying the trust reposed in him.
3. Respondent violated Canon 17 of the CPR, which provides that “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him” and Canon 18 of the CPR, which provides
that “A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.” Naraval exhibited incompetence and
neglect of duty when after receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, he failed to render any
legal service to the complainant. It was respondent’s duty as a lawyer to appraise complainant on the status of
his case. It turned out that complainant’s case had long been decided with finality against him. Instead of
advancing the complainant’s cause by informing him of the status of his case, respondent withheld such vital
information to the detriment of complainant.

The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Naraval from the practice of law for 2 years and ordered him to restitute,
within 30 days from notice, complainant’s P8,000, plus interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum until
fully paid.
RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.Mendoza, J:
Facts:
Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment case against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patentand gross neglect in the
handling of their civil case against the Bacolod City Water District.The complainant imputed that the respondent did not attend the
scheduled hearing nor seek apostponement, for which reason the trial court considered respondent to have waived further presentation of
hisevidence and directed him to formally offer his exhibits. However, respondent failed to formally offer his exhibits,prompting the trial court to
order the dismissal of the case. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of theorder of dismissal however he did not file his motion
within the reglementary period. He even tried to shift the blameon complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his sister
from Manila as their last witness. The truthwas that complainant¶s sister had already testified.The respondent submitted his Answer and
averred that the complaint filed against him was baseless, purelymalicious and speculative considering the fact that it was not made under
oath. He contended that complainantengaged his legal services after the first counsel had withdrawn and he had no knowledge of what had
happened inthe case before he handled it because complainant did not furnish him with the records and stenographic notes of theprevious
proceedings despite his repeated requests. He alleged that he failed to formally offer the exhibits becausecomplainant tried to take over the
handling of the case by insisting on presenting more witnesses who failed toappear during trial.The Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a
report finding respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension.The Integrated
Bar of the Philippines also submitted a report and recommendation for the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross neglect in the handling of the civil case?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, evenmalfeasance or nonfeasance
would be binding on his client. A lawyer owes to the client the exercise of utmostprudence and capability in that representation.The
respondent¶s attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant due to the latter¶sfailure to turn over to him records and
stenographic notes of the case only highlights his incompetence andinadequacy in handling the complainant¶s case.The respondent Atty.
Novero is found guilty of neglect of his client¶s case and is Suspended from thepractice of law for one (1) month with Warning that repetition
of the same negligent act will be dealt with even moreseverely

Barbuco vs. Beltran

7/25/2013

0 Comments

A.C. No. 5092. August 11, 2004

Facts:
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent Beltran for malpractice of law. Complainant, through her
son, Benito B. Sy, engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Court of Appeals
from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, which adverese to the complainants interest. On the same
day, complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the total sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket fees.

However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA for failure to file Appellant's brief. The brief was only filed by
respondent 43 days after the deadline of submission of the same.

When asked to comment, respondent tried to evade liability by alleging that he met a vehicular accident, which
incapacitated him for several days, thus he cannot finish the appellants brief. Moreover, he sustained injuries in the
head, which as a result respondent lost track of schedules of hearings and deadlines for submitting briefs.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent's failure to file appellant's brief warrants sanctions.

Held:
Yes. the SC enunciated that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers states:A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. An
attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to file brief
within the reglementary period certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE
(43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot
serve to excuse him from filing his pleadings on time considering that he was a member of a law firm composed of
not just one lawyer. This is shown by the receipt he issued to complainant and the pleadings which he signed for and
on behalf of the Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law Office. As such, respondent could have asked any of his partners
in the law office to file the Appellant’s Brief for him or, at least, to file a Motion for Extension of Time to file the said
pleading.

Moreover, every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that every case that a lawyer accepts deserves his
full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
free. A lawyer’s fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be
expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within the bounds of the
law. The Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence and he should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

ENDAYA V. OCA

Facts:

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr.
Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya
sought the services of the Public Attorney’s Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of
the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion was denied. The judge then ordered all
parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last
paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case. Oca failed to submit any
affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed
the case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again.
RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Upon checking with the
clerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative complaint.

Issue:

 W/N Oca committed professional misconduct

Held:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.

In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a
repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his complaint. SC ordered Oca to
file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder
because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary. In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to
submit anything.

Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. The facts show that Oca
failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing to
submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a fair
fight for his client. Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record
until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated. Oca’s story shows his appalling indifference to his clients’ cause,
deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.

However Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared
by a lawyer. He also assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never gave anything to
Oca to support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Given these circumstances the professional
conduct of Oca does not warrant disbarment.

DALISAY v MAURICIO
Facts:
This is the case against “Batas” Mauricio, the TV host.

Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorney’s fees but did not take any action on
ValerinaDalisay’s case.Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee.In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee
(though the case was already filed) the balance might be acombination of the ff:

Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay incash.

P3,000.00 as appearance fee notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service. She
terminated their attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. Mauicio
refused.The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.
Issue:
W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed.
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
Held:
No. He should be suspended for 6 months.When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from complainant, it was
understood that he agreed to take up thelatter’s case and that an attorney-client relationship between them
was established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve complainant with competence and attend to her case
with fidelity, care and devotion.

But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record. He did not even follow-up
the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services. Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as
docket fees for other cases): “there was no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that respondent
filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case.” when a
lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.

Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. However, he should charge
only a reasonable amount of fees.

Uy v Tansinsin*

FACTS:
To defend her rights, complainant engaged the services of respondent who timely filed an Answer to the complaint
for ejectment. Required to file a Position Paper, respondent, however, failed to file one for and on behalf of the
complainant. Eventually, a decision was rendered by the MeTC against the complainant. Complainant, through
respondent, elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) by filing a Notice of Appeal. In an Order dated May
25, 2004, the RTC dismissed the appeal solely because of the failure of respondent to file a memorandum on appeal.
The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having been filed out of time.

ISSUE:
Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel, complainant initiated the disbarment case
against respondent, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD).
Complainant averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to respondent, but the latter failed miserably in his
duty as a lawyer and advocate.

RULING:
Respondent indeed violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent
intellectually, academically and morally.
Respondent ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
THREE (3) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more
severely.

Ruiz vs Santos

Facts:

Ruiz were the original owners of seven parcels of land. Cirila delos Santos (respondent) is a duly licensed
real estate broker. Sometime in 1995, Olimpio Ruiz verbally authorized her to sell the same. Thereafter, respondent
referred in writing the subject property to Odessa Antiporda (Antiporda), a realtor, who had earlier informed
respondent that she had a prospective buyer interested to buy a land. Antiporda in turn referred the subject property
to one Alfred Tantiansu (Tantiansu). In the authority to sell, it was specified that Santos would still be paid her
commission even after the said authority expired. Santos later learned that the property was already bought by
Tantiansu, she then demanded the payment of her broker's commission, but was unheeded.

Respondent filed a case in the RTC. A decision was later on rendered in favor of the respondent. Petitioners
filed their notice of appeal. The RTC denied petitioners' appeal and considered the appeal barred for failure of
petitioners to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period. It ruled that the decision had already become final
and executory, and there was nothing more to be appealed to the CA.

Act Committed:
With the denial of their appeal, petitioners filed a petition for relief alleging that they were prevented from awaiting
themselves of an appeal due to mistake and excusable negligence of their counsel on record, and that they had a
good and substantial defense.

Contention of Counsel:

He stated that he communicated with the RTC Clerk of Court the fact that a notice of appeal was already filed and
the fees would be paid as soon as he got the confirmation of petitioners' desire to appeal, to which the clerk of court
gave her assurance on the acceptance of the late payment of docket fees. Atty. Ang admitted that it was through his
negligence that the appeal was belatedly filed.

Held:

The failure of petitioners' counsel to perfect the appeal binds petitioners. It is settled that clients are bound by the
mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel. While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure
of counsel, the factual circumstances in the present case do not give us sufficient reason to suspend the rules of the
most mandatory character. Petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely faultless.

Atty. Ang, petitioners' counsel, claims that as soon as he received the decision, he sent copies to petitioners.
Records show that at that time, Dominga and Tomasa were still living in Cavite. Cornelia who lives abroad was able
to receive a copy of the decision. However, neither Dominga nor Tomasa took steps to call Atty. Ang at the earliest
possible time to protect their interest. No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his lawyer. It is
the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case. Thus, we find that
there was participatory negligence on the part of petitioners, which would not relieve them of the consequence of the
negligence of their counsel.

Somosot v Lara

De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client

OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA

A.C. No. 7024, 577 SCRA 93, January 30, 2009

BRION, J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment.

Facts:

The complainant alleged that she retained the services of the respondent as her counsel in case filed against her and
her co-defendants for the collection of a sum of money amounting to P1.3 Million. Her defense was that it was the
plaintiff who actually owed her P800, 000.00. She claimed that she had the evidence to prove this defense at the trial
and that respondent agreed to handle the case and duly entered his appearance as counsel after securing his
acceptance fee. However, after filing the Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully inform her of further
developments in the case. She only heard about the case when there was already a decision against her and her co-
defendants. She even belatedly learned that the respondent had sought his discharge as counsel without her
knowledge and consent. After the court denied the respondent's motion to withdraw from the case, the complainant
claimed that the respondent represented her interests in a half-hearted manner, resulting in the grant of the plaintiff's
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Allegedly, the respondent failed to properly oppose the motion and she was
thereafter deprived of the chance to present her evidence. Execution of the court's decision followed, resulting in the
sale of her house and lot at public auction despite her efforts to reverse the judgment with the help of another lawyer.
Thereafter, a third party to whom her property had been mortgaged sued her.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that “"a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." First, the respondent failed to
contact his client about the developments of the case. Second, assuming the non-payment of his legal services to be
true, such failure should not be a reason not to inform the client of an important development, or worse, to withhold
vital information from her. Third, the respondent failed to provide details on the developments that led to the adverse
rulings on the interrogatories/admissions and the judgment on the pleadings. However, the Supreme Court cannot
also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in light of the complainant's own contributory faults. The
complainant's failing in this regard is her failure to inform her counsel of her change of business address, a serious
lapse but one that a resourceful counsel could have easily handled.

JOSELITO F. TEJANO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015

Facts

Joselito F. Tejano filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court
against his counsel, Atty. Baterina “miserably failed to advance [his] cause”, and Judge Dominador Arquelada of
acting in conspiracy to take possession of his property, which was the subject matter of litigation in the judge’s court.

The Court required Atty. Baterina to file a Comment on the complaint to which he explained that he had been
recuperating from a kidney transplant when he received a copy of the complaint.

The Court, found Atty. Baterina’s explanation “not satisfactory” and admonished him “to be more heedful of the
Court’s directives” and referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation, which found
sufficient ground for disciplinary action against Atty. Baterina.

Issue: w/n Atty Baterina liable for gross negligence in his duty as counsel to his client

RULING:

The Court adopts the IBP’s report and recommendation, with modification as to the penalty.
The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of lawyers states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.

RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client’s request for information.

When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the
latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s services are engaged, “he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to
attend to his client’s 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.”25 A lawyer’s
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.”

PENA vs. ATTY. APARICIO

Facts: Atty. Aparacio appeared as legal cousel for Grace Hufana in an illegal case dismissal before NLRC. The
complainant Fernando Martin Pena received a notice for a mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference the
respondent in behalf of his client submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal.
Complainant sent notices to Hufana to explain her absences but instead the lawyer wrote a letter reiterating claim for
separation pay and a letter containing a threat to the company. That they will file and claim bigger amount including
damages, tax evasion by millions of income not reported, criminal charges for tax evasion, and for falsification of
docs, cancellation of business license.

Held: Yes, canon 19.01,a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases
against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw
their own cases against the lawyer¶s client. The threats are not only unethical for violating canon 19 but they also
amount to blackmail which is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusations or exposure or
opposition in the public prints., it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money for the
performance of a duty.. A lawyer may be tasked to enforce his clients claim and contains more than just simple
demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with
his clients claim for separation pay. Lawyer is found liable and meted out of penalty of Reprimand with Stern warning.

Case Digest: Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent | A.C. No. 7054, 11
November 2014

December 19, 2017

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent

A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014

Facts:
Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent
successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a petition
for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower
court’s decision against his client.

Issue:
 Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).

Held:
Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution
of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant
that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the
previous counsel of the respondent’s clients. The respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond legitimate means
allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his clients. The respondent violated his duty as an
attorney “never to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

Due to the respondent’s multiple violations on the CPR, and is found liable for professional misconduct for
violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 10;
Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR); and
Sections 20 (d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent from the
practice of law.

SECOND DIVISION, A.C. No. 7250 [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1448], April 20, 2015, ATTY. RICARDO M.
ESPINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JESUS G. CHAVEZ, RESPONDENT.

The Facts:
Atty. Ricardo filed a complaint for ejectment against Remedios Engiuo before the MTC of Carmen, Agusan
del Norte, who was represented by Atty. Jesus G. Chavez, then employed by the Public Attorneys Office. In
the course of the trial, Ricardo wrote the Department of Justice complaining about Jesus’ conduct during the
pendency of the case, such as his writing a transmittal letter to the Provincial Prosecutor recommending the
filing of a case for falsification of private document and use of falsified document against Ricardo, his wife
and his parents. The case was eventually dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor. The DOJ on the other
hand transmitted Ricardo’s letter to the Chief of PAO, who required Jesus to submit his Comment and for
Ricardo to submit his rebuttal. In his rebuttal, Ricardo wrote “Baka kulangpo ng indoctrination itong si Atty.
Chavez sa concept ng Torrens system, i-suspend nyo po muna siya not for the purpose of penalizing him
but for him to be given time to take continuing legal education on Torrens system. “. The Chief PAO
dismissed his complaint. Ricardo hence filed his Complaint for Disbarment against Jesus. The IBP
Commissioner ruled that Jesus’ act of transmitting the complaint for falsification against Ricardo and his
parents in connection with the ejectment case was not an unfair and dishonest means employed by Atty.
Chavez., since the complaint contained conflicting averments thus she concluded that Atty. Chavez was
honestly mistaken when he construed the contradictory allegations in the complaint for ejectment as
criminal falsification under the Revised Penal Code. He noted that lawyers are not liable for honest mistakes.
He dismissed the complaint given the dearth of competent evidence on record to substantiate Atty. Espina’s
allegation that the transmission of the complaint for falsification was intended to gain an advantage in the
civil complaint for ejectment. The IBP Board affirmed the findings and recommendation of the IBP
Investigating Commissioner.
The Issue:
1. Whether or not Atty. Chavez should be held administratively liable for endorsing the falsification
complaint.
2. Whether or not Atty. Chavez intended to obtain improper advantage in a case or proceeding.
The Ruling:
We affirm the IBP Report and Recommendation.
The complaint is anchored on the alleged violation by Atty. Chavez of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, viz:
Canon 1: A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.
Rule 19.01: A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.(Underscoring supplied.)
Atty. Espina contends that Atty. Chavez violated the above-quoted provisions when he indispensably
participated in the filing of the falsification complaint against him, his wife and his parents. The falsification
case was filed, according to Atty. Espina, solely for the purpose of gaining an improper advantage and
leverage in the ejectment case.⁠1 Atty. Espina further argues that Atty. Chavez participated in the filing of the
baseless criminal complaint by (i) goading Enguio to file the criminal complaint and (ii) ensuring that the
criminal complaint was acted upon by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor by sending the transmittal
letter to the said office under Atty. Chavez’s signature.⁠2
We find Atty. Espina’s position unmeritorious and without basis.

FERNANDO MARTIN PENA vs.

ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO

A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007

Facts:
• Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against complainant Fernando Martin Pena. Hufana is praying for
claim for separation pay, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless.

• Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. Through his letter, he
threatened complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would file and claim
bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of
documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.

Issue:

• WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR, enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law? YES

NB: Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding."

• WON it is proper to disbar Aparicio? NO, reprimand only

Held:

• Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or
cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or
withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.

• In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to
blackmail. Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in
the public prints,…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." The letter in this case contains more than just
a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing
to do with his client's claim for separation pay. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

• It was not respondent's intention to point out complainant's violations of the law as he so gallantly claims.
Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise to "keep silent" about the said violations if payment of the
claim is made on the date indicated.

• DECISION: While the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that disbarment is too
severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his overzealousness to
protect his client's interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.

• On the sui generis character of disbarment proceedings, the Court ratiocinated in In re Almacen:

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a
trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being
intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real
question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such.
Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have
proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.

Cabugao, Kristina DR.

CANON 19
Case: VALERIANA U. DALISAY, complainant, vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., respondent. (A.C. No. 5655.
January 23, 2006)

FACTS:
Valeriana U. Dalisay engaged respondent’s services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044. Notwithstanding
his receipt of documents and attorneys fees, respondent never rendered legal services. As a result, she terminated
the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money, but respondent refused. The Supreme Court
in its Decision, found respondent guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of
law for a period of six months.
Upon learning of the Court’s decision, respondent verified the status of Civil Case No. 00-044. He learned of
the trial court’s Decision holding that the tax declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official records.
Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant alleging that complainant offered
tampered evidence. The respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration for the Supreme Court Decision and
argued that complainant did not engage his services as counsel, and that complainant offered tampered evidence in
Civil Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file falsification cases against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted.
HELD:
The respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court explained that once a lawyer accepts
money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is established. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified
documentary evidence, it will not be sufficient to exonerate the respondent. Consistent with the mandate of Canon 19
that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, Rule 19.02 of the same Canon
specifically provides that a lawyer who has received information that his clients has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same,
and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted
complainant and asked her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate
his relationship with her.

Atty. Solidon vs. Atty. Macalalad

Facts:

Atty. Solidon asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land located in Borongan, Eastern
Samar and owned by Atty. Solidons relatives. Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to be completed within a period of
eight (8) months, however Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over the property sought to be
titled up to the present time.
In the complaint, Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty. Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case
six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees. He did this through phone calls and text messages to their known
acquaintances and relatives, and through a letter sent by courier to Atty. Macalalad, however, he did not receive any
communication from Atty. Macalalad.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Macalalad’s failure to file the petition for registration is subject to a disciplinary action.

Held:

Yes. The failure of the counsel to submit the required brief within the reglementary period is an offense that warrants
disciplinary action. 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. We held that as
between the client and his lawyer, the latter (lawyer) has more control in handling the case. Thus, a lawyer so
engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. The
lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within
the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client.

SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION from the practice of law