DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA AC NO. 99-634.

JUNE 10, 2002

DOCTRINE To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the
attorney professionally on any previous occasion.

Facts:

Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of money against a
creditor. Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful and so the
former intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and
included also amounts for the filing of the case.

A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any feedback as to the status of his
case. Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyer’s office but to no avail. Petitioner personally went
to the office of the clerk of court to see for himself the status of his case. Petitioner found out that no
such case has been filed.

Issue:

Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.

Held:

To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion. Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the
close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the former’s
fees.

Despite the fact that complainant was kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and that respondent
dispensed legal advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, the lawyer was duty bound
to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare -- and had actually prepared -- at the soonest possible
time, in order to protect the client’s interest.

The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited by
complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused complainant
additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming a
member of the law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money
deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of
said funds.

WILLIAM S. UY vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES A.C. No. 5280 : March 30, 2004

FACTS:

Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of
a new certificate of title. When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainant’s
office demanding a certain amount other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent left his
office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out
later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a
letter-complaint against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public
Documents.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?

HELD:

No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents
filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with
complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the
land he has redeemed from complainant. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between
respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental
to their personal transaction.

Mercado v Vitriolo (A.C. No. 5108. May 26, 2005)

FACTS:

Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, seeking his
disbarment from the practice of law. The complainant alleged that respondent maliciously instituted a
criminal case for falsification of public document against her, a former client, based on confidential
information gained from their attorney-client relationship.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client
when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client.

HELD:

No. In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and
confidence. The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The
client must intend the communication to be confidential.

Applying all these rules to the case at bar, they hold that the evidence on record fails to substantiate
complainants allegations. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She
contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal
action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts
relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell out
these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. The case was dismissed against the
respondent was dismissed due to lack of merit.

Alcala V De Vera
DOCTRINE That in failing to inform his clients of the decision, respondent failed to exercise "such skill,
care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of
professional employment".

FACTS: Complainants charge Atty. Honesto De Vera with gross negligence and malpractice (1) for having
maliciously and deliberately omitted to notify them of the decision in Civil Case 2478 resulting in the
deprivation of their right to appeal; and (2) for respondent’s indifference, disloyalty and lack of interest
in petitioner’s cause resulting to their damage and prejudice.

ISSUE: WON respondent’s negligence a sufficient cause for disbarment.

RULING: No. Respondent's negligence does not warrant disbarment or suspension under the
circumstances of the case, nonetheless it cannot escape a rebuke from us. That in failing to inform his
clients, the petitioners, of the decision in said civil case, respondent failed to exercise "such skill, care,
and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of
professional employment". It manifests a lack of total dedication or devotion to their interest expected
of him under his lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Respondent's inaction merits a
severe censure from the Court.

Lim vs. Villarosa A.C. No. 5303 | June 15, 2006

There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents
him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection.

Facts:

The respondent represented Mrs. Jalandoni in a civil case and was provided with all the necessary
information relative to the property in question and likewise on legal matters affecting the corporation,
Penta Resorts Corporation, particularly involving problems which affect Hotel Alhambra.

The respondent handled the entire case, eventually respondent filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
for Mrs. Jalandoni without any approval or knowledge form the said client. A case was filed against the
respondent, due to conflict of interest to his clients and for not releasing the significant documents
which belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni or PRC and which was allegedly used for the benefit or advantage of
spouses Jalbuena in the case filed against by PRC.

Issue: WON there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by respondent

Held: Yes. There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client
any knowledge acquired through their connection.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the written consent of all
parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes professional misconduct which subjects
the lawyer to disciplinary action. Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy
among the family members was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still
required. A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.

Pormento, Sr. vs. Pontevedra

D: A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject
matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous
litigation in which he appeared for the former client.

F: Elesio C. Pormento, Sr. charged Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with malpractice. Complainant claims that
respondent, who was his lawyer in Civil Case No 1648, deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal
of his counterclaim. Complainant asserts that he only came to know of the existence of the order when
the adverse party foreclosed the mortgage executed over the land which is the subject matter of the
suit. Complainant also posited that in order to protect his rights, he was forced to file a case for qualified
theft against the relatives of the alleged new owner of the said land. Respondent is the counsel of the
accused in said case. Lastly, complainant maintained that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
interests when he acted as the counsel of complainant’s nephew in an ejectment case filed by him while
notarizing at the same time the Deed of Sale of the land which is the subject matter of the case.

Issues: (1)Whether or not respondent failed to inform complainant regarding the dismissal of the latter’s
counterclaim . (2)Whether or not respondent represented conflicting interests when he represented the
complainant’s nephew in an ejectment case while notarizing at the same time the Deed of Sale of the
land involved in the case. (3)Whether or not respondent represented conflicting interests when he
represented the accused in the case for qualified theft filed by the complainant.

Ruling: The SC ruled in negative for the first two issues. Complainant failed to present evidence to prove
that respondent did not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim. On the contrary, respondent
presented a certification where complainant’s daughter acknowledged receipt of the entire records of
the civil case. With respect to the second ground, the SC noted that the only established participation
respondent had with respect to the parcel of land purchased by complainant, is that he was the one
who notarized the deed of sale. On that basis alone, it does not necessarily follow that respondent
obtained any information from complainant that can be used to the detriment of the latter in the
ejectment case he filed.

However, the SC ruled in affirmative for the last issue. When respondent was the counsel of
complainant in Civil Case No. 1648, he became privy to the documents and information that
complainant possessed with respect to the said parcel of land. Hence, whatever may be said as to
whether or not respondent utilized against complainant any information given to him in a professional
capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as
counsel for the opposing side. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a
former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the
subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. The reason for this is
found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

Yu vs. Tajanlangit

D: The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees on the money in his hands collected for his
client does not relieve him from the obligation to make a prompt accounting.

Facts: An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant Avito Yu against respondent
Atty. Cesar R. Tajanlangit. Complainant had engaged the services of respondent as defense counsel in a
criminal case that resulted to his conviction. Complainant averred that respondent had violated Rule
16.01 of the CPR for failing to return the bailbond to him in the amount P195,000.00 after having
withdrawn the same. Respondent, however, contended that complainant had authorized and instructed
him to withdraw the cash bond in order to apply the amount as payment for legal fees and
reimbursement for expenses.

Issue: Whether or not respondent violated Rule 16.01 of the CPR.

Ruling: Yes. The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client requires that the lawyer
should promptly account for all the funds received from, or held by him for, the client. The fact that a
lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees on the money in his hands collected for his client does not
relieve him from the obligation to make a prompt accounting.

It was not at all improper for respondent to have withdrawn the cash bonds as there was evidence
showing that complainant and respondent had entered into a special fee arrangement. But, however
justified respondent was in applying the cash bonds to the payment of his services and reimbursement
of the expenses he had incurred, the Court agrees with the IBP that he is not excused from rendering an
accounting of the same.