1. VILLANUEVA VS GONZALES CANON 16 THE CASE This is a complaint Vivian Villanueva (complainant) filed against Atty. Cornelius M.

Gonzales (respondent) for failure to render legal services and failure to return the money, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), and other documents he received from complainant. FACTS Complainant engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of transferring the title over a piece of property. Complainant, as mortgagee, wanted to transfer the title to her name because the mortgagor failed to redeem the property within the redemption period and the sheriff had already issued a sheriffs definite deed of sale in complainants favor. Complainant gave respondent P8,000 as acceptance fee, the propertys TCT, and other pertinent documents. After receiving the money, TCT, and other documents, respondent began to avoid complainant. Whenever complainant went to respondents office, respondents secretary would tell her that respondent could not be disturbed because he was either sleeping or doing something important. RULING Respondent violated Canons 16, 17, and 18, and Rules 16.01, 16.03, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent Refused to Account for and Return His Clients Money Canon 16 states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.01 of the Code states that a lawyer shall account for all money received from the client. Rule 16.03 of the Code states that a lawyer shall deliver the funds of his client when due or upon demand. Respondents failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumption that he converted the money to his own use and constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Respondent Refuses to Return His Clients TCT and Other Documents Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.03 of the Code states that a lawyer shall deliver the property of his client when due or upon demand. The TCT and other documents are the properties of complainant. Since respondent did not render any legal service to complainant, he should have returned complainants properties to her. However, he refuses without any explanation to return them. Respondent has kept the TCT and other documents in his possession since 2000. The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the amount of P8,000 as x x x partial service fee, respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his clients cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of the case that had been entrusted to him. To top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him. 2. BARCENAS VS ALVERO CANON 16 FACTS

Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo San Antonio (San Antonio), entrusted to Atty. Alvero the amount of P300,000.00, which the latter was supposed to give to a certain Amanda Gasta to redeem the rights of his deceased father as tenant of a ricefield. The receipt of the money was evidenced by an acknowledgment receiptc In the said receipt, Atty. Alvero said that he would deposit the money in court because Amanda Gasta refused to accept the same. Later, Barcenas found out that Atty. Alvero was losing a lot of money in cockfights. To check if the money they gave Atty. Alvero was still intact, Barcenas pretended to borrow P80,000.00 from the

P300,000.00 and promised to return the amount when needed or as soon as the case was set for hearing. However, Atty. Alvero allegedly replied, "Akala nyo ba ay madali kunin ang pera pag nasa korte na?" Subsequently, Barcenas discovered that Atty. Alvero did not deposit the money in court, but instead converted and used the same for his personal needs. However, as of the filing of the instant complaint, despite repeated demands, Atty. Alvero failed to return the same. Thus, Barcenas prayed that Atty. Alvero be disbarred for being a disgrace to the legal profession. RULING CANON 16. A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his unlawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. In the instant case, Atty. Alvero admitted to having received the amount of P300,000.00 from San Antonio, specifically for the purpose of depositing it in court. However, as found by the IBP-CBD, Atty. Alvero presented no evidence that he had indeed deposited the amount in or consigned it to the court. Neither was there any evidence that he had returned the amount to Barcenas or San Antonio. From the records of the case, there is likewise a clear breach of lawyer-client relations. When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.These, Atty. Alvero failed to do. Jurisprudence dictates that a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of his client in the course of his professional employment shall deliver the same to his client (a) when they become due, or (b) upon demand. In the instant case, respondent failed to account for and return the P300,000.00 despite complainant's repeated demands. Atty. Alvero cannot take refuge in his claim that there existed no attorney-client relationship between him and Barcenas. 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. Atty. Alvero's failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumption that he converted the money for his own use, and this act constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 3. VELEZ VS DE VERA CANON 16 FACTS Atty. de Vera did not deny complainant's allegation in the latter's memorandum that he (de Vera) received US$12,000.00 intended for his client and that he deposited said amount in his personal account and not in a separate trust account and that, finally, he spent the amount for personal purposes. RULING Atty. de Vera vehemently insists that the foregoing facts do not prove that he misappropriated his client's funds as the latter's father (the elder Willis) gave him authority to use the same and that, unfortunately, the hearing officer did not consider this explanation notwithstanding the fact that the elder Willis testified under oath that he "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days." By insisting that he was authorized by his client's father and attorney-in-fact to use the funds, Atty. de Vera

has impliedly admitted the use of the Willis funds for his own personal use. Beyond doubt, the unauthorized use by a lawyer of his client's funds is highly unethical. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic about this, thus: CANON 16. A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME TO HIS POSSESSION. Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. In herein case, as it is admitted by Atty. de Vera himself that he used his client's money for personal use, he has unwittingly sealed his own fate since this admission constitutes more than substantial evidence of malpractice. Consequently, Atty. de Vera now has the burden of rebutting the evidence which he himself supplied. In his defense, Atty. de Vera claims that he was duly authorized by the elder Willis to use the funds intended for the latter's son. Atty. de Vera also points out that he had restituted the full amount of US$12,000.00 even before the filing of the administrative case against him in the State Bar of California. Atty. de Vera cannot rely on the statement made by the hearing officer that the elder Willis had indeed testified that he "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days." As Atty. de Vera had vigorously objected to the admissibility of the document containing this statement, he is now estopped from relying thereon. Besides, that the elder Willis "expected de Vera might use the money for a few days" was not so much an acknowledgment of consent to the use by Atty. de Vera of his client's funds as it was an acceptance of the probability that Atty. de Vera might, indeed, use his client's funds, which by itself did not speak well of the character of Atty. de Vera or the way such character was perceived. In the instant case, the act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his client's money without the latter's acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and confidence.48 Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client. SUSPENSION FOR TWO YEARS. 4. HERNADEZ VS GO CANON 16 FACTS

Sometime in 1961, complainants husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S. Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husbands numerous creditors demanded payments of his loans. Fearful that the various mortgage contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and aware of impending suits for sums of money against her, complainant engaged the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent. Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to give him her land titles covering Lots 848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City so he could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He then persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable consideration. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors. Complainant also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and 1141-A, likewise located in Zamboanga City, which were mortgaged to her creditors. When the mortgages fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result,

respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to complainant. Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that respondent did not sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her real properties worth millions. RULING Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the principal source of ethical rules for lawyers in this jurisdiction, provides: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of acquiring for himself complainants lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated this Courts mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. 5. AMAYA VS TECSON CANON 17

The complainant alleged that he retained the services of the respondent to handle the said appeal when his former counsel suffered a stroke due to acute hypertension. The respondent demanded P20,000.00 for the filing of the notice of appeal, which the complainant immediately paid. The respondent assured him that the appeal was going to be filed on time, and demanded an additional sum of P20,000.00 for the preparation and filing of the appellants brief. The complainant narrated that he was no longer able to personally talk to the respondent after this, and that the latter was always out of town, attending to several court hearings in different cities and municipalities and could not even be reached through his cellular phone.

On May 10, 2002, the complainant learned of the denial of the motion for reconsideration through a friend. He tried contacting the respondent, to no avail, and was constrained to hire another lawyer, Atty. Arsenio C. Tan. Atty. Tan then filed a Notice of Appearance and Second Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated October 16, 2002. ISSUE When does the duty of fidelity and zeal to the clients case as mandated under Canon 17 begin? RULING It is settled that acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the similar duty of fidelity to the clients cause. [W]hile a lawyer may decline a person to become a client for valid reasons, once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. As a lawyer, he must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with whole-hearted fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied. His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. Indeed, Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence.[11] Thus, it is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the interest of his client.[12] It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter; he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work. [13] The Court rules that in failing to zealously attend to a legal matter entrusted to him, the respondent failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal profession. It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power

to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.[14] Considering that the respondent in this case returned the money for litigation expenses to the complainant after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Court sees fit to reprimand the respondent for his actuations. 6. ABIERO VS JUANINO CANON 17 FACTS

Complainant engaged the services of respondent of the law firm P.C. Nolasco and Associates as counsel de parte in NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 00-12-00904-95. On January 29, 1998, Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio ruled in favor of complainant by ordering the respondents to pay complainant his unpaid wages and unpaid vacation leave pay, to refund his plane fare and to pay moral damages and attorneys fees. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the arbiters decision and dismissed the case for lack of basis. For several times, complainant, either personally or through his designated agents, tried to follow up the status of the case. Each time, respondent would advise him to call on a later date at which time he may have some news of any development with the case. Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review and paid the corresponding docket fee. When complainant verified with the Court of Appeals the status of the case, he found out that respondent never filed a Petition for Review of his labor case. Consequently, the NLRC decision became final and executory. Thus, complainant filed this administrative complaint against respondent.

RULING The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case. By his own admission, respondent entertained the idea of filing a motion for execution. As a lawyer, respondent should know that he is not required to seek prior approval from the labor arbiter before he could file a motion for execution. Notwithstanding, he presented himself, not once, but thrice, before the office of the arbiter to discuss his plan to file a motion for execution, only to discover that such recourse was not feasible. Worse, while respondent was waiting for the arbiters opinion, the period to file the petition before the Court of Appeals continued to run, as in fact, it eventually expired. Failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals despite instructions by the client to do so constitutes inexcusable negligence on the part of counsel. Once a lawyer consents to defend the cause of his client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must at all times be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He is bound to protect his clients interest to the best of his ability and perform his duties to his client with utmost diligence. Nothing less can be expected from a member of the Philippine Bar. For having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client, respondent did not serve his client with diligence and competence. His inexcusable negligence on such matter renders him liable for violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 7. ANDERSON VS CARDENO FACTS Complainant Rasmus G. Anderson, Jr., an American citizen from Kodiak, Alaska, USA, filed an action before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig), to recover title and possession of a parcel of land against the spouses Juanito Maybituin and Rosario Cerrado, and Fernando Ramos. The case was dismissed by the trial court, which declared the defendants the true and lawful owners of their respective portions of the land in question. On February 16, 1985, Anderson, Jr., through his counsel Atty. Cesar S. de Guzman, filed an Amended Complaint before the Regional Trial Court . It was at this stage of the proceedings when Atty. Cesar S. CANON 18

de Guzman died. Anderson, Jr. was now without a counsel to represent him. Upon referral by a friend, Anderson, Jr. engaged the services of herein respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeo. On July 19, 1990, Rasmus G. Anderson, Jr., filed an administrative complaint before this Court wherein he alleged that respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeo caused the loss or the adverse ruling against him in the aforementioned case before the RTC, Civil Case No. 0110-B. Specifically, complainant alleged the following: 1.) That when the respondents in the civil case filed a Demurrer to Evidence, Atty. Cardeo did not file an opposition thereto and did not appear at the formal hearing set for the purpose of considering the merits of the demurrer. Thus, in addition to finding merit in the demurrer, the trial court, noting the non-appearance of Atty. Cardeo, assumed that even he, the plaintiffs counsel, appeared convinced that there was merit, validity and reasonableness in the demurrer filed; 2.) That after the trial court issued an Order finding the respondents demurrer to evidence meritorious, Atty. Cardeo did not even file a Motion for Reconsideration thereof, which in turn caused the same order to become final and executory; 3.) That even prior to the above events and in view of what the complainant perceived to be respondent lawyers loss of interest in the case, complainant verbally told Atty. Cardeo to withdraw as his counsel. However, Atty. Cardeo allegedly insisted on continuing to represent the complainant as the case was already in its closing stage. Complainant concludes that Atty. Cardeo abused his clients trust and confidence and violated his oath as a lawyer in failing to defend his clients cause to the very end. Complainant prays that Atty. Cardeo be disbarred. RULING Clearly, the respondent was guilty of neglect of duty and this is a violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence; particularly, Rule 18.03 thereof which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. He likewise breached his duty to the Honorable Supreme Court to report corrupt judges for appropriate disciplinary action with the aim of improving the quality of justice and in helping restore the peoples faith in our judicial system. It is undisputed that Atty. Cardeo was engaged by the complainant as counsel. By accepting the case, respondent should have known the attendant responsibilities that came with the lawyer-client relationship. 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. Thus, respondents defenses that the complainant was uncooperative as a client, that the voluminous records turned over to him were in disarray, and that the complainant did not disclose to him certain particulars of the case, are all unavailing. First, it was incumbent upon Atty. Cardeo to insist on his clients participation in the proceedings in the case. While the complainant shares the responsibility for the lack of communication between lawyer and client, Atty. Cardeo should not have depended entirely on the information his client gave or the time his client wished to give them. As a lawyer representing the cause of his client, he should have taken more control over the handling of the case. Knowing that his client was based in the United States should, with more reason, have moved him to secure all the legal means available to him either to continue representing his client effectively or to make the necessary manifestation in court, with the clients conformity, that he was withdrawing as counsel of record. That his client did not agree to terminate his services is a mere allegation that has not been substantiated. Thus, in view of the fact that he remained counsel of record for the complainant, it was highly irregular for him to entrust the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration to other people who did not lawfully appear

interested in the subject litigation. The Court therein declared that a lawyers failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code. It added that the said rule is clear in its mandate that a lawyer should not undertake a legal service that he is not qualified to render, nor should a lawyer handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. A lawyer has the duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed and he should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, for his negligence shall render him liable. From the records it is evident that Atty. Cardeo has fallen short of the professional standards this Court has set for members of the Bar. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to disciplinary action. Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. This Court has been exacting in its expectations for the members of the Bar always to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public. 8. REYES VS VITAN CANON 18 FACTS The complaint alleges that sometime in June 2001, complainant Carlos Reyes hired the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan for the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint or charge against his sister-in-law, Estelita Reyes, and the latters niece, Julieta P. Alegonza; that both women refused to abide with the Decision of Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, in Civil Case No. 99-92657 ordering the partition of the properties left by complainants brother Damaso B. Reyes; and that respondent, after receiving the amount of P17,000.00, did not take any action on complainants case. RULING Respondent not only violated Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and did not inform complainant the status of his case but also disregarded the orders of the Commission without reasons which amounted to utter disrespect of authority and unethical conduct in the practice of his profession, thus, should be sanctioned. Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the respondent be suspended from the practice of his profession for a period of two (2) years from receipt hereof; and refund to the complainant the amount of P17,000.00 paid to him for not having extended his legal services to the complainant on a lawyer-client relationship within six (6) months from receipt hereof. When respondent accepted the amount of P17,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latters case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve his client, herein complainant, with competence and attend to his cause with fidelity, care and devotion. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainants case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states: Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights.[4] An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his clients cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. Significantly, respondent also violated his oath as a lawyer, which declares in part, that he will not delay any man for money or malice and will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and

discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his client. 9. ANGALAN VS DELANTE CANON 16 & 17 FACTS Complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal (Angalan) and Sanaan Samal (Sanaan). Complainants allege that they are illiterate and belong to the Samal Tribe. Angalan, Sanaan, and complainants owned a 9.102-hectare parcel of land in Barrio San Jose, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte. The property was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-11499. Angalan and complainants borrowed P15,000 from Navarro R. Eustaquio and Arabella P. Eustaquio (Spouses Eustaquio). To secure the loan, Angalan and complainants mortgaged 8.102 hectares of the 9.102-hectare property and surrendered OCT No. P-11499 to the Spouses Eustaquio. When complainants tried to pay the loan and recover OCT No. P-11499 from the Spouses Eustaquio, the Spouses Eustaquio refused. Complainants learned that the document which the Spouses Eustaquio prepared, and which complainants signed, was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. They also learned that Navarro R. Eustaquio (Navarro) had transferred the title over the 8.102-property to his name OCT No. P-11499 was canceled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-9926 in the name of Navarro was issued. Complainants engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property. Respondent filed a complaint. Complainants and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement. In the amicable settlement, the parties stated that: x x x [T]he plaintiffs have offered to the defendant[s] the sum of P30,000.00 as repurchase price which the defendant[s accept]; Complainants did not have the P30,000 repurchase price for the property. Respondent advanced the P30,000 and, in return, complainants allowed respondent to possess the property and gather its produce until he is paid.

When complainants tried to repay the P30,000 repurchase price and recover the property from
respondent, respondent refused. Complainants learned that respondent transferred the title of the property to his name TCT No. T-9926 was canceled and TCT No. T-57932 in the name of respondent was issued. RULING Respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 16 states that lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession. Respondent should have held in trust TCT No. T-9926 and returned the property to complainants upon demand. Instead of holding in trust the property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to his name, (2) refused to return the property to complainants, and (3) referred to complainants charges as malicious and untruthful. Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them. Complainants engaged the services of respondent in the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of the property to his name. A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of telling the truth is unfit to be a lawyer. 10. LIJAUCO VS TERRADO According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending

before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610. RULING Respondents disregard for his clients interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already expired thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims against it.As found by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his clients interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his clients 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. Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his clients interests. 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. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his clients cause. 11. SOLIDON VS MACALALAD CANON 18 FACTS Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban City. Although he is in public service, the DENR Secretary has given him the authority to engage in the practice of law.

While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October 2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to Atty.
Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-Borata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). 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. For a consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to be completed within a period of eight (8) months. Atty. Macalalad received Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the certificate of title to the property. Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over the property sought to be titled up to the present time. RULING As respondent has failed to duly present any reasonable excuse for the non-filing of the application despite the lapse of about a year from the time his services were engaged, it is plain that his negligence in filing the application remains uncontroverted. And such negligence is contrary to the mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. In fact, Rule 18.03 even provides that his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. The records in this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as he committed when he failed to file the required petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. At any rate, we reject Atty. Macalalads defense that it was his clients who failed to

contact him. Although no previous communication transpired between Atty. Macalalad and his clients, the records nevertheless show that Atty. Solidon, who contracted Atty. Macalalads services in behalf of his relatives, tried his best to reach him prior to the filing of the present disbarment case. Atty. Solidon even enlisted the aid of Ms. Cabo-Borata to follow-up on the status of the registration application with Atty. Macalalad. 12. PENA VS APARICIO FACTS Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio (respondent) appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Sometime in August 2005, complainant Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF Company, Inc. (Subic), received a notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the NLRC for a mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference, respondent, in behalf of his client, submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant rejected the claim as being baseless. Complainant thereafter sent notices to Hufana for the latter to explain her absences and to return to work. In reply to this return to work notice, respondent wrote a letter to complainant reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. The letter also contained the following threat to the company: BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be constrained to file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of cases and laws. In addition to other multiple charges like: 1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the government. 2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion 3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents 4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws. These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts as settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards, complainant filed an administrative complaint with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader (Motion to Dismiss and Counterclaims) claiming that Atty. Emmanuel A. Jocson, complainant's legal counsel, also played an important part in imputing the malicious, defamatory, and fabricated charges against him. RULING Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law," reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that 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." Under this Rule, 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. In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter 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. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail. CANON 19

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." In common parlance and in general acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim 13. ADECER VS AKUT Before the Court is a petition for disbarment filed by Spouses William and Teresita Adecer (complainants) against Attorney Emmanuel A. Akut (respondent). The instant petition is an offshoot of Criminal Case No. 72790 entitled "People of the Philippines v. William Adecer and Teresita Adecer" in which complainants were charged with committing a crime punishable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (Other Deceits). Respondent was their legal counsel in the criminal case. On 25 March 1997, respondent received a copy of the MTCCs Decision dated 12 March 1997 convicting complainants of Other Deceits and sentencing them to the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than P30,000.00. Complainants were also ordered to pay civil liability in the form of damages and attorneys fees totaling P66,000.00 to the private respondents in the criminal case. On 26 March 1997, the Decision was promulgated in the absence of the complainants, who were accorded due notice. Complainants received a copy of the Decision via registered mail on 4 April 1997. Respondent received an additional copy of the Decision on even date. Respondent had fifteen (15) days from 25 March 1997, or until 9 April 1997, to file either an appeal or a petition for probation in behalf of the complainants. However, it was only on 16 May 1997 over a month after the Decision had become final and executory that respondent filed a Petition for Probation. The MTCC issued a Writ of Execution On 19 May 1997. The next day, a warrant of arrest was served on complainants and they were incarcerated. RULING We note the IBP Investigating Commissioners observation that complainants themselves did not show much interest in their own case. Indeed, complainants did not attend hearings of their case; the decision was promulgated in their absence; during trial, complainants were thrice ordered arrested for their failure to attend hearings; thrice, too, respondent had to file a motion for reconsideration of the orders of arrest. It is true that the client must, with regard to his case, exercise that standard of case which an ordinary prudent man bestows upon his important business. However, complainants lackadaisical attitude is relevant only with regard to the binding effect upon them of the lapse of the fifteen (15)-day period and their loss of the fight to file the petition for probation. The instant administrative proceeding concerns respondents omission, not those of his clients. The lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and he should provide a quality of services at least equal to that which lawyers generally would expect of a competent lawyer in the like situation. By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the clients interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor, and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently. Respondent has failed to measure up to his oath. 14. DALISAY VS MAURICIO FACTS CANON 19

On October 13, 2001, Valeriana U. Dalisay, complainant, engaged respondents services as counsel in
Civil Case No. 00-044, entitled "Lucio De Guzman, etc., complainants, v. Dalisay U. Valeriana, respondent," pending before the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorneys fees in the total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant, respondent never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client

relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents, but respondent refused.

On January 13, 2004, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, found that "for the amount of P56,000.00 paid by the complainant x x x, no action had been taken nor any pleadings prepared by the respondent except his alleged conferences and opinions rendered when complainant frequented his law office." She recommended that respondent be required to refund the amount of P56,000.00 to the complainant, and surprisingly, that the complaint be dismissed. RULING Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No. 00044, will it be sufficient to exonerate respondent? We believe not. First, Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. Consistent with its mandate 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: Rule 19.02 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 ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her. Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. This is because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No.00-044. This brings us to the second reason why we cannot sustain his fourth argument. The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a matter of fact, he admitted that he verified the authenticity of complainants title only after the "news of his suspension spread in the legal community." To our mind, there is absurdity in invoking subsequent knowledge of a fact as justification for an act or omission that is fait accompli. Obviously, in filing falsification charges against complainant, respondent was motivated by vindictiveness. In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his or her retainer.12 It gives rise to a relationship between an attorney and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith.13 If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. 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.14 Indeed, law is an exacting goddess demanding of her votaries not only intellectual but also moral discipline.