Fabroa v.

Paguinto (AC#6273, 3/15/2010)

Facts:
Complainant filed for the disbarment due to the allegations that respondent: promoted or sued
a groundless, false or unlawful suit, and gave aid and consent to the same; disobeyed laws of
the land, promoted disrespect for law and the legal profession; did not conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleague and engaged in harassing tactics
against opposing counsel; violated Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within
the bounds of the law; and ruined and damaged not only the Gen. Mariano Alvarez Services
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO, INC.) but the entire water-consuming community as well.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred from the violations of Canons 1, 8, 10, 19,
and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
IBP found that respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10,
and Rule 12.03 of the Code. The Court also noted that respondent previously been suspended
from the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code. It appears, however, that
respondent has not reformed his ways, calling for a more severe penalty this time.
Foronda v Atty. Guerrero (A.C. No. 5469. August 10, 2004)

Facts:
The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz,
filed Civil Case for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City. The case involved a parcel of land which were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while
the case was pending, Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag,
and with the respondent as their lawyer, intervened in the case. In their intervention, Spouses
Mabanag questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the Philippines.

The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs Alcarazes. Mabanag, through the
assistance of respondent Guerrero as her counsel appealed the decision to the CA. The CA
affirmed the decision. Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Mabanag and respondent as
counsel appeal the decision to the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the court a qou.
However, the persistence of Mabang and respondent as counsel did not end there, since the
filed multifarious suits and motions based on the ground that Spouses Alcazares, being
foreigners have no eligibility to own lands in the Philippines. The ground which these various
petitions and motions is based is already decided by the Court with finality when it decided the
civil case concerning the sale of the property..

Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his action of questioning the eligibility
of the Spouses Alcazares is necessary in the validity of the decision and the determination of
the validity of the sale. If the Spouses Alcazares are ineligible to own lands in the Philippines
then the sale is void.

Issue:
Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes forum shopping, thus warrant sanction.

Held:
Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly established that in filing such numerous
petitions in behalf of his client, the respondent thereby engaged in forum shopping. The
essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded
on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important
factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and
the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.

Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense
of truth and the administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is
enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court
processes. Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court’s processes and
improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and
will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who files such multiple or
repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment)
subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for
willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to
maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.
We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal
in the defense of their client’s right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost,
officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter, the
respondent violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a
lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. He also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a
lawyer’s mandate “to delay no man for money or malice.”

Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law.

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent
(A.C. No. 7054, 12/4/2009)

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.
DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE, vs. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR.
(AC#8198, 7/15/2014)

FACTS:
The complainants in Administrative Case (A.C.) No. 8108 are Dante La Jimenez and Lauro G.
Vizconde, while complainant in Adm. Case No. 10299 is Atty. Oliver O. Lozano.
At the time of the filing of the complaints, respondent Atty. Verano was representing his clients
Richard S. Brodett and Joseph R. Tecson. Brodett and Tecson (identified in media reports
attached to the Complaint as the “Alabang Boys”) were the accused in cases filed by PDEA for
the illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs.
In a Joint Inquest Resolution, the charges were dropped for lack of probable cause. Because of
the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of
the case, several media outlets reported on incidents of bribery and “cover-up” allegedly
prevalent in investigations of the drug trade. This prompted the House Committee on Illegal
Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings.
It was revealed during one such hearing that respondent had prepared the release order for his
three clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the stationery of then
Secretary Raul Gonzales. Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers
Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S.
Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby
committed a highly irregular and unethical act. He had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead
and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on respondent’s alleged violation of Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for legal processes. Atty. Lozano
contended that respondent showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the
said order and sending it to a high-ranking public official, even though the latter was not a
government prosecutor. Atty. Lozano withdrew his Complaint on the ground that a similar
action had been filed by Dante Jimenez.

DEFENSE: Sheer faith in the innocence of his clients and fidelity to their cause prompted him
to prepare and draft the release order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was overzealous;
yet, âif the Secretary of Justice approves it, then everything may be expedited. In any case,
respondent continues, the drafted release order was not signed by the Secretary and therefore
remained “a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all.” The Investigating Commissioner noted
that both complaints remained unsubstantiated, while the letter-complaint of Jimenez and
Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore, no evidence was adduced to prove the charges.
However, by his own admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Comment, respondent drafted
the release order specifically for the signature of the DOJ Secretary. This act of “feeding” the
draft order to the latter was found to be highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public
official. Hence, Commissioner Abelita found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a warning not to repeat the
same or any similar action.

ISSUE: Whether or not Verano should be suspended for violating CPR.

HELD:
Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. is found guilty of violating Rules 1.02 and 15.07, in relation to
Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months. The Court may conduct its own investigation into charges
against members of the bar, irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it.
Thus, a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who
brought the matter to the attention of the Court.

By now, it is basic that there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. The affidavit
of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way,
exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of
interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the
facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly
proven xxx. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the
attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.

Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred
despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. Canon 13 states that a
lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit
acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the
justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of
the bar. During the mandatory hearing, the following statements were established as
respondent’s admission that:
1) he personally approached the DOJ Secretary despite the fact that the case was still pending
before the latter; and
2) respondent caused the preparation of the draft release order on official DOJ stationery
despite being unauthorized to do so, with the end in view of expediting the case.
The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and
consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought
to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. The primary duty of lawyers is not to their
clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients’ success is wholly
subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted
to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and
unethical. Zeal and persistence in advancing a clientâs cause must always be within the bounds
of the law.

Rule 1.02 states: A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at lessening confidence in the legal system. Further, according to Rule 15.06, a lawyer shall
not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
The succeeding rule, Rule 15.07, mandates a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with
the laws and the principles of fairness.
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR.
(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009)

FACTS:

Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture of

canned goods of ―CDO‖ filed an administrative complaint against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for
violation of the code of professional responsibility. The case at hand involved a certain Alberto
Cordero who purportedly found a colony of worms inside the can of liver spread by CDO and
Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The Cordero family sued the company for
P150,000 for damages, but the companies did not agree to the demands. The Cordero’s
thereafter threatened to resort to the media, if their demands are not met. Consequently,
Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the Cordero’s, was involved in various media productions such as
being a writer/columnist of tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and
HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of
a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty. Mauricio, in many cases
utilized these media outlets to place the said company in a bad light by declaring to the masses
the liver spread of worms; even after his receipt of the Order addressed to him to desist from
―further publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the
instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its
products‖. Even after the parties have performed an agreement, signed by the Cordero’s and
Atty.Mauricio himself – resulting in the dismissal of the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still
inexplicably launched a media offensive to the companies.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional responsibility. His recourse to the
Media, even after being told to desist from such was a clear violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon
13, ―A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending
to arouse public opinion for or against a party‖. His action has put not only the company
Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light, but has also degraded the dignity and authority of the legal
system. Besides the above, he has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in deceitful conduct
taking advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his own interests, and Canon 8, when
he used abusive and offensive language in his dealings.
JOSE FRANCISCO T. BAENS, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10378 June 9, 2014

REYES, J.:

Before this Court is an administrative case, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Jonathan T.
Sempio (respondent), for violation of Canons 15,1 17,2 183 and Rule 18.034 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code), commenced thru a complaint-affidavit5 filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Jose Francisco
T. Baens (complainant).

This legal battle stemmed when the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to
represent him and file a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes
V. Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint-affidavit dated March 15, 2010, the complainant
alleged, among others, that the respondent: (1) despite receiving the sum of 250,000.00
to cover for the expenses in the said case,6 failed to file the corresponding petition, and it
was the complainant’s wife who successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08,7 for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on December 8, 2008; (2) even with the complainant
furnishing him a copy of the Summons dated December 15, 2008,8 belatedly filed an Answer9
and was able to file it only on March 13, 2009 which was after the 15-day period stated in the
Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the ground of improper venue as
neither the complainant nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite; (4) never
bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the hearings
set for the case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2463-08 was decided10 on October 27, 2009
without the complainant being able to present his evidence.

In his Answer,11 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and explained that:
(1) after a meeting with the complainant, he drafted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage and asked the complainant to go over said draft after which he proceeded to file the
same with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City; (2) the complainant was aware that
said petition will be filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the verification and
certification of the petition; (3) the case became pending and was later on withdrawn because
of the complainant’s refusal to testify; (4) what contributed to the delay in filing the Answer
was the fact that he still had to let the complainant go over the same and sign the verification
thereof; (5) he was not able to attend the hearings for the case because he did not receive any
notice from the trial court; and (6) it was only on December 2, 2009 when he found out that
the trial court has already rendered its decision and that the complainant had changed counsels.

In the mandatory conference held before the IBP-CBD on October 29, 2010, only the
complainant appeared; thus, the respondent was declared as having waived his right to further
participate in the IBP proceedings. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, both parties were
required to submit their respective position papers.12

The Investigating Commissioner submitted his Report and Recommendation13 dated

October 22, 2011, finding the respondent guilty of violation of the Code and recommended
that the respondent be suspended for six (6) months from the practice of law. Specifically,
the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to the case
and was grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering the fact that he has
already been fully compensated. The Investigating Commissioner said that the respondent
should have manifested or made known to the trial court that he was not receiving any notice
at all since it behoves upon him to make a follow-up on the developments of the cases he is
handling.

As to the respondent’s argument that he indeed filed a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage for the complainant, the Investigating Commissioner held that it cannot betaken at
face value absent the presentation of the pleading itself which by a perusal of the records of
the case was not submitted to the IBP-CBD. Moreso, the veracity of the Certification attached
to the respondent’s answer was highly questionable because it failed to state when the said
petition was filed. Lastly, the Investigating Commissioner faulted the respondent for not
sufficiently explaining to the complainant the consequences of the petition being filed in the
RTC of Malabon City since it was the respondent’s duty and responsibility to explain the
complexities of the same to his client for he is the one tasked with the technical know-how in
the field of law.

On June 22, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Investigating
Commissioner’s report but deemed it proper to increase the recommended period of suspension
from six (6) months to one (1) year.14 On February 14, 2014, the IBP-CBD transmitted the notice
of the resolution and the case records to the Court for final action pursuant to Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court.15

The Court finds it fitting to sustain the IBP’s findings and the recommended sanction of
suspension from the practice of law since the attendant facts of the case show substantial
evidence to support the respondent’s delinquency.

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their
cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For
his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency,
and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.16 Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession
in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.17

It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to handle his
case. The records, however, definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss
and negligent in handling the complainant’s case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of
₱250,000.00 for the total expenses to be incurred in the said case.

The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the
trial court is highly intolerable.1âwphi1 In the first place, securing a copy of such notices,
orders and case records was within the respondent’s control and is a task that a lawyer
undertakes. Moreso, the preparation and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure that
fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of the respondent. It was incumbent
upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of
his client’s cause of action.

Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the progress of his
client’s case with the trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that
might have protected his client’s interest. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what
legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense
within the authority of law to support his client’s interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a
client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s
rights.18

Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and
loyalty to his client as embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.19

In this case, the respondent’s reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due
process and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients’ interests. A lawyer’s duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or
giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court
or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination
even without prodding from the client or the court.20

Clearly, it cannot be doubted that the respondent violated Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon
18 of the Code which states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." It further mandates that "a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence," and that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."21

It must be emphasized that after the respondent agreed to handle the complainant’s case, he
became duty-bound to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to champion his
cause with whole-hearted fidelity. By failing to afford his client every remedy and defense that
is authorized by law, the respondent fell short of what is expected of him as an officer of the
Court.22

Thus, for the respondent’s negligence and inadequacies in handling his client’s case, the
recommendation of the IBP to suspend the respondent from the practice of law is well-
taken. While the IBP Board of Governors increased the period of suspension to one year,
the Court finds the period of six months as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner
commensurate to the facts of the case.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Resolution dated June 22, 2013 of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 10-2673. The Court
hereby SUSPENDS Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS
effective immediately upon receipt of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records of Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio as a
member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.

SO ORDERED.
Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v Atty. Richard Funk
A.C. No. 9094 (August 15, 2012)

FACTS: Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. It alleged
that respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer,
and trustee of the foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its counsel in several
criminal and civil cases.

Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against
Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the
foundation.

As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro
Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the
attorney-client relationship was always between Santos and him. He was more of Santos’
personal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.

Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the
latter would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to
the Hocorma Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma
and follow up with it Santos’ sale or donation of a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat
Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma
Foundation out of funds that Santos provided. It was Santos’ intention since 1950 to give the
land to Mabalacat Institute free of rent and expenses.

The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funk’s fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma.
Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of
the respondent.

After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon
15, Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct
consisting of four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The
CBD recommended Atty. Funk’s suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent
moved for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in
violation of the CPR when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.

HELD: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation.
Years after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on
behalf of another client without the foundation’s written consent.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of
their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing
conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer
acquires knowledge of his former client’s doings, whether documented or not, that he would
ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on
him in the light of their relationship.
Respondent collected attorney’s fees from the foundation. Thus, he had an obligation not to
use any knowledge he acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property
under litigation existed at all, when he sued the foundation.
Seares Jr. vs. Atty: Gonzales – Alzate
A.C no. 9058 Nov. 14, 2012

FACTS:
Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel when he ran for the position
of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote
margin to Albert Z. Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra; that the petition was dismissed for being "fatally
defective;" that several months later, she insisted on filing a “Petition of Protest” in the RTC,
but the petition was also dismissed on the ground that it was already time-barred, and on the
further ground of forum shopping because the certification against forum shopping was false;
that the RTC declared her as “professionally negligent; “that he again ran for Municipal Mayor
of Dolores, Abra in the May 2010 elections, and won; that he later learned that his political
opponents retained her as their counsel; that with him barely two months in office, one Carlito
Turqueza charged him with abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Abra; that she represented Turqueza as counsel; and that she
intentionally made false and hurtful statements in the memorandum she prepared in that
administrative case in order to attack him.

Seares, Jr. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon 15, Canon 17 and Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for negligently handling his election protest, for
prosecuting him, her former client, and for uttering false and hurtful allegations against him.
Hence, he prays that she should be disbarred.
In her comment, Atty. Gonzales-Alzate denies all the charges against her which are professional
negligence and incompetence, and of representing conflicting interests.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was guilty of professional negligence and incompetence
in her handling of Seares, Jr.’s electoral protest in the RTC?
Whether or not Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against representing conflicting
interests when she assisted Turqueza in his administrative case against Seares, Jr., her former
client?

HELD:
1st Issue:
The complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate is unfounded and devoid of substance.
For administrative liability under Canon to attach, the negligent act of the attorney should be
gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to the client’s interest.
Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for
unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal,
especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file the
pleading and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance. The Court has found the attendance
of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy, or belatedly files an
appeal, or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court
hearings. Gross misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of
the case, the nature of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the
act.
The RTC cogently held that “(t)he primary objective of this petition is to pray for the issuance
of a Preliminary Precaution Order xxx (but) a prayer for the issuance of the protection of ballot
boxes, Books and Lists of Voters and other election paraphernalia in the recently concluded
elections is well within the power of the Commission on Elections. ”We see no trace of
professional negligence or incompetence on the part of Atty. Gonzales-Alzate in her handling
of Seares, Jr.’s protest.
2nd issue:
Seares, Jr. next charges Gonzales-Alzate with violating Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for supposedly representing conflicting interests when she took on the
administrative complaint that Turqueza brought against Seares, Jr. The charge of Seares, Jr. is
bereft of merit. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits an attorney from
representing a party in a controversy that is either directly or indirectly related to the subject
matter of a previous litigation involving another client.
Relevantly, Rule 15.01, Rule15.02 and Rule15.03 provide:
Rule 15.01—A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest,
and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.02—A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03—A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Atty. Gonzales-Alzate’s legal representation of Turqueza neither resulted in her betrayal of the
fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, Jr. as his former attorney, nor invited the suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing while she was performing her duties as an attorney.
Representing conflicting interests would occur only where the attorney’s new engagement
would require her to use against a former client any confidential information gained from the
previous professional relation. The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subject
matter of the present engagement was totally unrelated to the previous engagement of the
attorney. To constitute the violation, the attorney should be shown to intentionally use against
the former client the confidential information acquired by her during the previous employment.
But a mere allegation of professional misconduct would not suffice to establish the charge,
because accusation was not synonymous with guilt.

As it turned out, the charge of representing conflicting interests leveled against Atty. Gonzales-
Alzate was imaginary. The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because
it was clear from the start that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her previous
engagement by Seares, Jr. in her legal representation of Turqueza in the latter’s administrative
charge against Seares, Jr. There was no indication whatsoever of her having gained any
confidential information during her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. that could be used
against Seares, Jr. Her engagement by Seares, Jr. related only to the election protest in 2007,
but Turqueza’s complaint involved Seares, Jr.’s supposedly unlawful interference in ousting
Turqueza as the president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores, Abra in 2010. There is no
question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another.
Castro v. Galing (A.C. No. 6174 November 16, 2011)

FACTS:
In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rodolfo
Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms.
Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa
demanding payment of the checks.Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the
period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint. complainant filed a criminal
complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation
that was filed for the respondent on behalf of the opposing party. Complainant submits that by
representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it
was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a professional
engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the
services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to
retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement,
engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.respondent stated that the movants in these cases
are mother and daughter while complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these
cases arose out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants will be adducing
the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship
existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the
services he rendered. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against
Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code
of Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes,the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent
guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy
of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure
of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with
conflicting interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest
is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. A lawyer-client relationship can exist
notwithstanding the close friendship between complainant and respondent. The relationship
was established the moment complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the
dishonored checks. By drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such
relationship. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed
and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal
cases is of no moment. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the
facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The
nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but
also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao
who was eventually engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause of action
by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party.
It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the
attorney-client relationship.Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment
sought in the complaint is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors
of the IBP,respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
ROMEO SIBULO vs. ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA
(AC# 4218, 7/20/2000)

In the case of Sucaldito vs Marcelo, defendant Marcelo retained the services of the respondent
as his lawyer. However, the respondent also entered his appearance as counsel for Sucaldito in
the same case, without withdrawing his appearance as counsel for Marcelo. In view of such
dev’t Atty. Reyes Geromo, former counsel of Sucaldito filed a motion to disqualify the
respondent on the ground of unethical conduct. Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor,
brought the present admin. Complaint against respondent for the latter’s removal from or
suspension in the practice of law on the ground of unethical practice/ conduct.

HELD:
Atty. Cabrera admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated that he ‘’merely
accepted the case from plaintiff and at the same time was the counsel as intervenor of one of
the defendants.” Such revelation is a categorical interests, which representations or
appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. Respondent was bound to
faithfully represent his client in all aspects of the subject civil case. The relation of atty and
client is based on trust, so that double dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery, should
be avoided. Thus, respondent is found guilty of unethical conduct for representing two
conflicting interests and hereby fined in the amount of P10,000.
Clarita J. Samala vs. Atty. Luciano D. Valencia
A.C. No. 5439; January 22, 2007
Austria-Martinez, J.

Facts:

Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent)
for Disbarment on the following grounds:
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation.
After a series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was
deemed submitted for resolution.
The Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of
Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held:
This Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality
and as to the recommended penalty.
(a) On serving as counsel for contending parties.
Respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants
Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the
RTC.
The Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of
record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake
to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This
stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the
relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not
only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery
and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
(b) On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment,
respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that
a new TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995.
During the hearing before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was
filed in the said case, that was the time that he came to know that the title was already in the
name of Alba; so that when the court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore.
Respondent further avers that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to
him only when the case for rescission was filed in 2002.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor
shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial
court was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as
shown by its decision dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is
decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No.
273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500,
was already issued in the name of Alba.
(c) On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases: (a) Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK
at the RTC, Branch 272; (b) Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC, Branch 75; and (c) I.S. Nos. 00-
4439 and 01-036162 both entitled "Valencia v. Samala" for estafa and grave coercion,
respectively, before the Marikina City Prosecutor. Complainant claims that the two criminal
cases were filed in retaliation for the cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S. No. 00-
4306 for estafa and I.S. No. 00-4318 against Alvin Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to
dwelling.
As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As
payment for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same
as his office pursuant to their retainer agreement.
The Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the
aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the
other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that
the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client
and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend
and prosecute the right of his client.
(d) On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
The Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who
are all over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has
eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife
died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying
in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his
affair with Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. He
reasoned that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa
and another in Marikina.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree
of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a
lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and
violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein
Resolution.
Buted v Atty. Hernando
(203 SCRA 1)
TOPIC: Legal Ethics, Conflict of Interests

FACTS:
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a partition case of the
late Teofilo Buted’s lot. He successfully defended the case. When Luciana died, Hernando
withdrew appearance. Luciana once sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the
TCT was issued to the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance, Bolisay got Atty. Hernando
to represent him (free of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple. Atty. Hernando claims
to have terminated relationship with Bolisay. In February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition,
in behalf of Luciana’s heirs without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot.
The couple filed disapproval. The case was dismissed for prescription. In August of 1974, Bolisay
couple filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Hernando for having abused personal
secrets obtained by him as their counsel

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest. In the action for
specific performance, Atty Hernando defended the Bolisay couple’s right to ownership but
assailed the very same right in the cadastral proceeding in favor of Luciana’s heirs. The Canons
of Professional Ethics prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers. “It is unprofessional to
represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting
interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires him to oppose. The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and
not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or
employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect
to which confidence has been reposed.”And despite Atty Hernando’s claim that he had never
seen nor taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or that he divulged any confidential
information belonging to the Bolisay couple, that the mere fact that respondent had acted as
counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should have precluded him
from appearing as counsel for the other side in in the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate
of Title of the spouses. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential
information to an attorney in the course of his employment by his first client in order that he
may be precluded from accepting employment by the second or subsequent client where there
are conflicting interests between the first and the subsequent clients. The prohibition on
conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional
practice. Although the relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment
is in a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client any knowledge or
information gained through their former connection.

SUSPENDED for 5 months.