#58

PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION vs.

DE DIOS TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and DE DIOS MARIKINA TRANSIT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 147010, July 18, 2003

Nature of the Case: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals

S.C. Decision: Petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED. The RTC is directed to resolve on the merits of the Motion to Execute Against
Injunction Bond.

Legal Doctrine: It is well-established that substitution of counsel is not effective without the
conformity of client. Moreover, well-entrenched is the rule that pleadings which have the effect
of withdrawing the appeal should bear the conformity of the appellant.

Substitution of Counsel; Requisites. No substitution of counsel of record is allowed

unless the following essential requisites of a valid substitution of counsel concur: (1) there
must be a written request for substitution; (2) it must be filed with the written consent of the
client; (3) it must be with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted; and (4) in case
the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must be at least a proof
of notice that the motion for substitution was served on him in the manner prescribed by the
Rules of Court.

Special Power of Attorney; Absent a special power of attorney expressly authorizing

counsel to withdraw an appeal, or in lieu thereof, the written conformity of the client to the
withdrawal of his appeal, the notice of withdrawal of appeal by a new counsel is a mere scrap
of paper.

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari regarding the decision of Court of Appeals and
its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.
This case stemmed-up when De Dios Transportation Co.(DDTC) and De Dios Marikina
Transportation Corp. (DMTC) executed a Deed of Conditional sale covering 58 buses and its
franchise in favor of Coyukiat and Goldfinger with the price of P 12,000,000 and later on failed
to follow the contract which both parties agreed upon.

Coyukiat and Goldfinger through its counsel Padilla Reyes and De la Torre Law office
filed a complaint against DDTC and DMTC for rescission of contract with plea for temporary
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction and posted Bond No. 71336 issued by
Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. for P 11,000,000.00. DDTC and DMTC counterclaimed
for damages and attorney’s fee which is favored by the trial court.

Aggrieved, Coyukiat and Goldfinger filed their brief through counsel Atty. Ronaldo
Reyes with the Court of Appeals but before the adverse party can file their brief, Padilla Reyes
and De la Torre Law office filed its withdrawal of appearance as counsel and on the same day
Luis Q.U Uranza, Jr. and Associates filed its appearance as counsel for Coyukiat and
Goldfinger and filed a notice of withdrawal of appeal but did not bear the conformity of their
client and the adverse party were served copies via registered mail thru their counsel.
 DDTC and DMTC contend that the filing of withdrawal of appeal of Coyukiat and
Goldfinger through new counsel without the client’s conformity to the substitution and to such
withdrawal of appeal was not self-executory.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the withdrawal of appeal through the new counsel without the
client’s conformity to the substitution is valid.
2. Whether or not Luis Q.U. Uranza, Jr. & Associates violated Canon 15 and Rule
15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

1. No, the withdrawal of appeal through the new counsel without the client’s conformity
to the substitution is invalid, such withdrawal of appeal, was not self-executory. The appeal
was deemed withdrawn and dismissed only upon the submission by the appellants of their
written conformity to the substitution of their new counsel and to the withdrawal of their appeal,
and the CA’s approval of the same. Only then that the appeal was deemed withdrawn and
dismissed, and the decision of the trail court rendered final and executory.

It is well-established that substitution of counsel is not effective without the conformity

of client. Moreover, well-entrenched is the rule that pleadings which have the effect of
withdrawing the appeal should bear the conformity of the appellant.

According to Adarne vs. Aldaba, A.C. No. 801, June 27, 1978; Cortez, et al. vs. CA, et
al., L-32547, May 9, 1978; Ramos vs. Potenciano, 118 Phil. 1435; and U.S. vs. Borromeo, 20
Phil. 189, for a substitution of attorneys to be effectual, the procedure to be followed strictly is
as follows:

"In order that there may be substitution of attorneys in a given case, there must
be (1) a written application for substitution; (2) the written consent of the client; (3) the
written consent of the attorney substituted; and (4) in case such written consent cannot
be secured, there must be filed with the application proof of service of notice of such
motion upon the attorney to be substituted, in the manner prescribed by the rules.
Unless the foregoing formalities are complied with, substitution will not be permitted,
and the attorney who properly appeared last in the case, before such application for
substitution, will be regarded as the attorney of record and will be held responsible for
the proper conduct of the case."

In this case, even though the petitioners through Luis Q.U. Uranza, Jr. & Associates
filed a Withdrawal of Appeal one day before the respondents filed their Motion to Execute
Against Injunction Bond, the appeal was not effectively withdrawn and the Decision of the trial
court has not become final and executory. They have not disclosed that the withdrawal of the
appeal was not filed by the counsel of record for Coyukiat, which is Padilla Reyes & Dela Torre
Law Office, but by the new counsel whose appearance was only for the purpose of
withdrawing the appeal.

Therefore, it is clear that the Withdrawal of Appeal was not effectual because it did not
bear the conformity of Coyukiat. The new counsel cannot withdraw the appeal on her own.
This is specially so when even her substitution of the counsel or record does not bear the
conformity of the appellants. The appellants needed to execute a special power of attorney
specifically authorizing the withdrawal of the appeal, otherwise the notice of withdrawal of
appeal by the new counsel was a mere scrap of paper.
 2. Yes, Luis Q.U. Uranza, Jr. & Associates violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.07 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

According to Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, A LAWYER SHALL

OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and principles of fairness.

In this case, the filing of Withdrawal of Appeal by Luis Q.U. Uranza, Jr. & Associates
without a valid substitution of counsel and without conformity of the appellants is very
questionable. It can only be filed by the counsel of record, which in this case remains the
Padilla Reyes & Dela Torre Law Office, since the new counsel failed to comply with the
requirements for substitution of counsel. Thus, making the withdrawal of appeal without
bearing conformity of Coyukiat just a mere scrap of paper.

The Court enumerated the essential requisites of a valid substitution of counsel in the
case of Santana-Cruz v. Court of Appeals:

. . . No substitution of counsel of record is allowed unless the following essential

requisites of a valid substitution of counsel concur: (1) there must be a written request
for substitution; (2) it must be filed with the written consent of the client; (3) it must be
with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted; and (4) in case the consent
of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must be at least a proof of
notice that the motion for substitution was served on him in the manner prescribed by
the Rules of Court.

There was clearly no compliance to these essential requisites. It bears stressing that
the counsel of the appellants were a mere agent holding a special power of attorney to act for
and in behalf of the respecting the ordinary course of the appealed case. There was a need
for the appellants, as the principals, to execute a special power of attorney specifically
authorizing the withdrawal of a perfected appeal. Absent a special power of attorney expressly
authorizing their counsel to withdraw their appeal, or in lieu thereof, the written conformity of
the appellants to the withdrawal of their appeal, the notice of withdrawal of appeal by the new
counsel of the appellants was a mere scrap of paper.

Therefore, Luis Q.U. Uranza, Jr. & Associates violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.07 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing the Withdrawal of Appeal without a valid
substitution of counsel and without conformity from the appellants, and for failure to comply
with the requisites of a valid substitution of counsel. And the attempt to deprive the
respondents to file their Motion to Execute Against Injunction Bond by withdrawing the appeal,
so that the Decision of the Trial Court may become final and executory.
 ELMER CANOY vs. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ
A.C. No. 5485, MARCH 16, 2005

Nature of the Case: Administrative case in the Supreme Court. Misconduct and malpractice.

S.C. Decision: Suspended from the practice of law for one month.

Legal Doctrine: Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity
to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Facts:

Elmer Canoy, an indigent filed a complaint on April 2001 against Atty. Jose Max Ortiz
with the Office of the Bar Confidant, for misconduct and malpractice. It is alleged that Canoy
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. The complaint
was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board
VI in Bacolod City. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in that proceeding. Canoy
submitted all the documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper
order by the labor arbiter.

Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
process of the case. On April 2000, Canoy was shocked to learn that his complaint was
actually dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted
their position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to him about the
status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to submit the position paper.

Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent and low income
clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty. Ortiz admits that the period within
which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes his failure to timely file the
position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, “he was frankly
preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer.”

The investigating commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

concluded that Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise that degree of competence and diligence required
and recommended that he be reprimanded. The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the
recommendation with a warning that the same negligence shall be dealt with more severely.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of violating Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes. Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time, owing to his duty as
counsel of Canoy to attend to the legal matter entrusted to him. His failure to do so constitutes
a violation of the rules.

According to Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A lawyer owes

fidelity to the cause of his clients and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him”. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects his client;
he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community for the legal profession.

In this case, Atty. Ortiz failed to file the position paper for the case against Coca Cola
Bottlers Philippines as ordered by the labor arbiter of the NLRC which eventually became the
cause of the dismissal of the case, and even after the case was dismissed, he did not inform
Canoy about the status or the dismissal. If indeed Atty. Ortiz schedule, workload, or physical
condition was such that he would not be able to attend his legal matters pertaining to this case,
he should have informed his client of such fact. There is a need for the client to be adequately
informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode or
manner in which his/her interests are being defended.

As regards to his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, the additional duties does not
relieve him from his negligent behavior. City councilors are not prohibited to practice law or
engage in any profession except during session hours. The attorney-client of relationship of
Atty. Ortiz and Canoy is not terminated due to the election. However, he has the choice to
withdraw his services. And in case of termination, he is still bounded to follow procedures of a
valid substitution of attorney to be effectual.

Thus, it is clear that Atty. Ortiz, clearly violates Canon 17 of the CPR as his is not
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
 #74
IRENE SANTOS-TAN, Represented by her Attorney-in-fact MIRIAM S. ELGINCOLIN
vs. ATTY. ROMEO R. ROBISO
ADM. CASE. No. 6383, March 31, 2009

Nature of the Case: Administrative case in the Supreme Court.

S.C. Decision: Respondent Atty. Romeo R. Robiso is ORDERED SUSPENDED from the
pracrice of law for a period of one month effective upon receipt of this Decision.

Legal Doctrine: The act of a lawyer in issuing a check which is drawn against insufficient
funds constitutes deceitful conduct or conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. The Court
has held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn
against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed
on him.

Facts:

Complainant Santos-Tan charged respondent with malpractice for grossly neglecting

his duties and responsibilities as counsel for complainant and for issuing a bouncing check.

The complainant availed the services of respondent Atty. Robiso in her Special
Proceeding entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Eusebio G. Tan, a.k.a. Tan Chin
Bio G. The case is pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, but before the
respondent entered his appearance as counsel, a motion for reconsideration of the order
appointing Jude Chua Tan as administrator of complainant’s husband and a motion for early
resolution of a motion for reconsideration had already been filed by the complainant’s former
counsel. Atty. Robiso received P100,000.00 as an acceptance fee.

After several months, the complainant found out that the only pleading filed by the
respondent was his notice of appearance. Not happy with the status of the case, the
complainant together with her sister went to the respondent’s office and demanded the return
of the professional fees she paid. She alleges that there is no professional service being
rendered by Atty. Robiso. The respondent issued a check in the amount of P85,000.00.
However, the check was dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. Hence, the
complaint was filed.

The instant case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for evaluation,
report, and recommendation. The hearing officer, Caesar Dulay, recommended that he be
suspended for one month with strong warning that a commission of the same offence will be
dealt with more severity. He also ordered the respondent to reimburse complainant of
P70,000.00, P30,000 corresponds to his services on a quantum meruit. The respondent was
not found negligent in the performance of his duties as there was nothing more the respondent
Atty. Robiso could do in accelerating the resolution of the motions which were already
submitted for resolution. But he was found liable for issuing bouncing check.

The Board of Governors of the IBP, adopted and approved the recommendation with
modification as to the period of suspension which was increased to one year.

Issues:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Robiso should be discipline for issuing a bouncing
check.
Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Robiso should be discipline for issuing a bouncing check.

According to Canon 18, A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

In issuing a worthless check, respondent showed that he was unmindful of the

deleterious effects of his act to the public interest and public order. Respondent violated the
Attorney’s Oath that he will, among others, obey the laws. The Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically provides:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.

The issuance of bouncing check cannot be countenanced nor condoned under any
circumstances. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check which is drawn against insufficient funds
constitutes deceitful conduct or conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. The Court has
held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against
a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him.
It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of
public confidence.

Therefore, Atty. Robiso is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one month for issuing a bouncing check, with stern warning of commission of the same offense
will be dealt with more severity.
 #93
HONORIO MANALANG and FLORENCIO CIRILLO vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES
A.C. No. 1558, March 10, 2003

Nature of the Case: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Grave Misconduct.

S.C. Decision: Atty. Francisco F. Angeles is suspended from the practice of law for six
months.

Legal Doctrine: Malpractice; Where a member of the bar stands charged with malpractice,
the proceedings are not meant solely to rule on his culpability but also to determine if the
lawyer concerned is possessed of that good moral character, which is a condition precedent
to the privilege of practicing law and continuing in the practice thereof.

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

settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the workers concerned.

Facts:

Manalang and Cirillo filed a complaint against their employer, the Philippine Racing
Club Restaurant for overtime and separation pay before the National Labor Relations
Commission Region IV Office. Respondent Atty. Angeles was their counsel. Judgment was
rendered in their favor, in the amount of P6,500. After the decision became final, a writ of
execution issued. However, without authority from his clients, respondent compromised the
award and was able to collect P5,500 only.

The petitioners made several demands upon respondent to turn over to them the
amount collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of thirty percent (30%), but Atty.
Angeles refused and offered to give them only the sum of P2,650.

Respondent Atty. Angeles stated that he offered to give complainants their money, but
they insisted that he "deduct from this attorney's fees the amount of P2,000, representing the
amount discounted by the counsel of the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, together with
sheriff legal fees and other administrative expenses." Respondent claimed that to accept
complainants' proposition meant that he "would not be compensated for prosecuting and
handling, the case.”

The instant administrative complaint against Atty. Angeles was referred to the Office
of the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The complainants’
testimonies were received but after only three appearances of the respondent, the Solicitor
General ordered that his testimony be stricken from the record and the case deemed
submitted for resolution for his failure to appear despite due notice.

The case was transferred to Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Hearings were scheduled but neither party appeared. The IBP even subpoenaed
the respondent but the notices were returned unserved with indication that the respondent had
changed address. The IBP considered the case submitted for resolution based from the
existing evidence. The Committee recommended that Atty. Angeles be suspended from the
practice of law for two years. This was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of
the IBP.
Issue:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be suspended from the
practice of law because of grave misconduct related to his clients’ funds.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law.

According to Canon 19, “A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law”.

Where a member of the bar stands charged with malpractice, the proceedings are not
meant solely to rule on his culpability but also to determine if the lawyer concerned is
possessed of that good moral character, which is a condition precedent to the privilege of
practicing law and continuing in the practice thereof. For the bar must not only maintain a high
standard of legal proficiency, it must likewise be exacting in its standards for honesty, integrity,
and fair dealing.

In this case, Atty. Angeles’ act of holding on to the petitioners’ money is contrary to the
Attorney’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility. It is contrary to all ethical principles
that members of the bar are supposed to uphold. Money claims due to workers cannot, as a
rule, be the object of settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the
workers concerned. A client has every right to expect from his counsel that nothing will be
taken or withheld from him, save by the rules of law validly applied. By compromising the
judgment without the consent of his clients, respondent not only went against the stream of
judicial dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients as well
as want of zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights.

Thus, it is only necessary to impose the penalty of six months suspension to Atty.
Angeles. This was mitigated by the fact that this is his first case on record.