Establishment and

Termination of
Attorney-Client
Relationship
Establishment of Attorney-Client
Relationship
In Burbe v.Magulta (AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002), the Supreme Court
summarized the governing principles of establishing an attorney-client
relationship:

• It is established from the very first moment the client asked the attorney for
legal advice regarding the former’s business. To constitute professional
employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion.

• It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; nor is it

material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the case for
which his service had been sought.

• If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults

an attorney with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and
the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then
the professional employments is established.

• Likewise, an attorney-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close

personal relationship between the attorney and the client or the non-
payment of the former’s fees.
• A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of
an attorney - To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter
pertinent to his profession.

• Even if the lawyer felt inadequately compensated in the case he

undertook to defend, his obligations towards his clients embodied in
the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility remain.
His zeal in handling the case should neither diminish nor cease for
this reason alone.

• With respect to his alleged formal withdrawal as counsel, the SC

held that the lawyer should have filed the Notice of Withdrawal
himself, being more adept with court procedures and practice. His
failure to do so rendered him negligent in handling his clients’ case
(Francisco v. Portugal, A.C. No. 6155, 14 March 2006)
MA. LUISA HADJULA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROCELES F.
MADIANDA, Respondent. A.C. No. 6711, July 3, 2007

FACTS:

Ma. Luisa Hadjula alleged that she and Atty. Roceles

Madianda used to be friends as they both worked at the BFP
(Bureau of Fire Protection). Hadjula claimed that she approached
Atty. Madianda for some legal advice and in the course of their
conversation, she disclosed personal secrets and produced
copies of marriage certificate, baptismal certificate etc. However,
Atty. Madianda refused to have her as client and instead directed
her to a lawyer friend. It was malicious, so Hadjula states, of Atty.
Madianda to have refused handling her case only after she had
already heard her secrets. Hadjula filed criminal and disciplinary
actions against Atty. Madianda.
A Counter-complaint was filed by Atty. Madianda based on
the information she received from Hadjula when the latter tried to
seek legal services from her. (Anti-graft and corruption,Immoral
conduct)
ISSUE:

Whether or not an attorney-client

relationship was established between Ma.
Luisa Hadjula and Atty. Roceles Madianda.
HELD:

YES. The moment Hadjula approached the then

receptive Atty. Madianda to seek legal advice, a veritable
lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such
relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions
circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the
burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the
lawyer, Atty. Madianda in this instance, to keep inviolate
confidential information acquired or revealed during
legal consultations. The fact that one is, at the end of the
day, not inclined to handle the client’s case is hardly of
consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that no
formal professional engagement follows the consultation.
Norwill it make any difference that no contract
whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize
the relationship.
MICHAEL RUBY, Complainant, v. ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO AND
ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT, Respondents. A.C. No. 10558,
February 23, 2015

FACTS:
Michael Ruby and his mother, Felicitas Ruby Bihla, engaged the services of the
Atty. Erlinda B. Espejo and Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot in connection with a case for
cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation. Pursuant to the retainer
agreement, the Michael Ruby and Felicitas would pay Atty. Espejo the amount of
P100,000.00 as acceptance fee. Michael Ruby and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay
the amount of P5,000.00 as appearance fee for every hearing, which was apparently
later reduced to P4,000.00.
Atty. Espejo allegedly asked the Michael Ruby to give Atty. Bayot the portion of
the acceptance fee agreed upon – notwithstanding that the prayer for the issuance of
a TRO has yet to be heard. The complainant asserted that the same was not yet
due, but Atty. Espejo told him that Atty. Bayot was in dire need of money. The
complainant gave Atty. Bayot the amount of P8,000.00 supposedly as partial payment
for the balance of the acceptance fee and an additional P4,000.00 as appearance
fee. Atty. Bayot allegedly did not appear in court and instead met with Michael Ruby
telling him that he already talked to the clerk of court who assured him that the court
would grant their motion.
Thereafter, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to
the status of his complaint. He further claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied
that he was their counsel. Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone who was
the counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating counsel. He
averred that Atty. Espejo, with the complainant’s consent, sought his help for the sole
purpose of drafting a complaint. He pointed out that it was Atty. Espejo who signed
and filed the complaint in the RTC.
ISSUE:

Whether or not an attorney-client relationship was

established between Michael Ruby and Rudolph Dilla
Bayot.
HELD:

YES. Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that was
filed with the RTC. He was likewise the one who prepared the motion to
serve summons through publication. He likewise appeared as counsel for
the complainant in the hearings of the case before the RTC. He likewise
advised the complainant on the status of the case.

More importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted that he received P8,000.00,

which is part of the acceptance fee indicated in the retainer agreement, from
the complainant. It is true that it was Atty. Espejo who asked the
complainant to give Atty. Bayot the said amount. However, Atty. Bayot
admitted that he accepted from the complainant the said P8,000.00 without
even explaining what the said amount was for.

The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client

relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and the complainant.
“Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of
an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the
relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is
sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession.” Further,
acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship. Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, the
complainant had two counsels – Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.
 FACTS:
Mark Jimenez filed a complaint for estafa against his then common-law partner, Caroline
CAROLINE CASTANEDA JIMENEZ, Complainant, v.ATTY. EDGAR
Castañeda Jimenez and others. Jimenez’s complaint for estafa was based on Caroline Castañeda
Jimenez’s alleged participation in the fraudulent means in selling the Forbes property which was
B. FRANCISCO, Respondent. A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014
acquired by Clarion with Jimenez’s money. Caroline Castañeda Jimenezwas duty bound to remit
all the proceeds of the sale to Mark Jimenez as the true and beneficial owner. Caroline and her
co-respondents, however, misappropriated and converted the fundsfor their personal use and
benefit.
Caroline Castañeda Jimenez was shocked upon reading the allegations in the complaint
for estafa filed by Mark Jimenez against her. She felt even more betrayed when she read the
affidavit of Atty. Francisco, on whom she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarion’s corporate
counsel and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her to file a disciplinary case against Atty.
Francisco for representing conflicting interests. According to her, she usually conferred with Atty.
Francisco regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s transactions. More significantly, the
principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarion’s property were all prepared and
drafted by Atty. Francisco or the members of his law office.7 Atty. Francisco was the one who
actively participated in the transactions involving the sale of the Forbes property. Without admitting
the truth of the allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its execution clearly betrayed
the trust and confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. For this reason, complainant prayed for
the disbarment of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE:

Whether or not an attorney-client relationship was

established between Caroline Castañeda Jimenez and
Atty. Edgar Francisco.
HELD:

NO. First, complainant’s claim of being Atty. Francisco’s client

remains unsubstantiated, considering its detailed refutation. All that the
complaint alleged was that Atty. Francisco was Clarion’s legal counsel and
that complainant sought advice and requested documentation of several
transfers of shares and the sale of the Forbes property. This was only
successful in showing that Atty. Francisco, indeed, drafted the documents
pertaining to the transaction and that he was retained as legal counsel of
Clarion. There was no detailed explanation as to how she supposedly
engaged the services of Atty. Francisco as her personal counsel and as to
what and how she communicated with the latter anent the dealings she had
entered into. With the complaint lacking in this regard, the unrebutted
answer made by Atty. Francisco, accompanied with a detailed narrative of
his engagement as counsel of Mark Jimenez and Clarion, would have to
prevail.
Second, there is a stark disparity inthe amount of narrative details
presented by the parties. Atty. Francisco’s claim thathe was the counsel of
Clarion and Jimenez, and not of Caroline Castañeda Jimenez, was clearly
established in a sworn statement executed by Mark Jimenez himself.
Caroline Castañeda Jimenez’ evidence pales in comparison with her claims
of being the client of Atty. Francisco couched in general terms that lacked
particularity of circumstances.
 Third, noteworthy is the fact that complainant opted not to file a reply to Atty.
Francisco’s answer. This could have given her opportunity to present evidence
showing their professional relationship. She also failed to appear during the
mandatory conference with the IBP-CBD without even updating her residential
address on record. Her participation in the investigation of the case apparently ended
at its filing.
The evidence on record fails to demonstrate the claims of Caroline Castañeda
Jimenez. As discussed, the complainant failed to establish the professional
relationship between her and Atty. Francisco. The records are further bereft of any
indication that the "advice" regarding the sale of the Forbes property was given to
Atty. Francisco in confidence. Neither was there a demonstration of what she had
communicated to Atty. Francisco nor a recital of circumstances under which the
confidential communication was relayed. All that complaint alleged in her complainant
was that "she sought legal advice from respondent in various occasions.” Considering
that complainant failed to attend the hearings at the IBP, there was no testimony as to
the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by Atty. Francisco without her
consent. It is, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to determine if there was any
violation of the rule on privileged communication. As held in Mercado, such
confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on
privileged communication between attorney and client. It is not enough to merely
assert the attorney-client privilege. It cannot be gainsaid then that complainant, who
has the burden of proving that the privilege applies, failed in this regard.
Termination of Attorney-Client
Relationship
The right of a client to terminate a lawyer is absolute. Such
termination may be with or without cause.

The duty of a lawyer to preserve his client’s secrets and confidence

outlasts the termination of the attorney-client relationship, and continues
even after the client’s death (Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, May 26,
2005)

The lawyer owes loyalty to his client even after the relation of
attorney and client has terminated. It is not good practice to permit him
afterwards to defend in another case other persons against his former
client under the pretext that the case is distinct from and independent of
the former case.
Rule 22.01 – A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a. When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of
conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;

b. When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative
of these canons and rules;

c. When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;

d. When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it

difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;

e. When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;

f. When the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office, and

g. Other similar cases

 In withdrawal as counsel for a client, an attorney may only
retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by
permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which
event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new
attorney is recorded in the case.

An attorney who could not get the written consent of his client
must make an application to the court, for the relation does not
terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record. Counsel
has no right to presume that the court would grand his withdrawal
and therefore must still appear on the date of hearing.
REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MERCEDES
BUHAYANG-MARGALLO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10537 February 3, 2015
FACTS:
Complainant Reynaldo Ramirez alleged that he engaged Atty. Margallo’s services as legal
counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title entitled "Spouses Roque v. Ramirez."
According to Ramirez, Atty. Margallo contacted him, as per a referral from a friend of
Ramirez’s sister. He alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered her legal services on the condition that
she be given 30% of the land subject of the controversy instead of attorney’s fees. It was also
agreed upon that Ramirez would pay Atty. Margallo P1,000.00 per court appearance.
On October 19, 2006, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision adverse to
Ramirez. Atty. Margallo advised him to appeal the judgment. She committed to file the Appeal
before the Court of Appeals.
On several occasions, Ramirez followed up on the status of the brief, but he was told that
there was still no word from the Court of Appeals.
On August 26, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his Appeal had been
denied. She told him that the Court of Appeals’ denial was due to Ramirez’s failure to establish his
filiation with his alleged father, which was the basis of his claim.
Ramirez went to the Court of Appeals. There, he discovered that the Appellant’s Brief was
filed on April 13, 2009 with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apologies for filing beyond the
reglementary period.
Ramirez filed a complaint against Atty. Margallo .
ISSUE:

Whether a lawyer-client relationship was established

between Atty. Margallo and Ramirez
HELD:

Yes. The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost
trust and confidence. In this light, 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. Verily, a 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.

Case law further illumines that a lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes
not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s 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
without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.

Respondent Atty. Margallo was unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal counsel to
Ramirez.
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ISIDRO L.
CARACOL,
FACTS: Respondent. A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015
Villahermosa is respondent in two land cases involving Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. 433. Counsel on record for plaintiff was Atty. Fidel Aquino. OCT No. 433 was a
homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who had two sons, Fernando and Efren. As
legal heirs of Micael, Fernando received 53,298 square meters while Efren received 33,296
square meters. Subsequently, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in their
respective names.

Emancipation patents and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot,
beneficiaries of the program, who in turn sold the parcels of land to complainant’s spouse,
Raymunda Villahermosa.
On September 25, 2002, Atty. Caracol, as “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant,” filed a
motion for execution with the DARAB. Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second
Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition which he signed as “Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren
Babela”7.
Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file
the motions since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record.
Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have authorized Atty. Caracol to file the second
motion because Efren had already been dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty.
Caracol’s real client was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same
parcel of land.

They state that the signature in the waiver was different from his usual signature.
Villahermosa averred that Atty. Caracol committed deceit and gross misconduct.
ISSUE:
Whether the lawyer-client relationship between Atty.
Caracol and Efren Babela was terminated
HELD:
Yes. We must also take into consideration that even if a lawyer is
retained by a client, an attorney-client relationship terminates upon death of
either client or the lawyer.

Here, Atty. Caracol was presumed to have authority when he

appeared in the proceedings before the DARAB. The records are unclear
at what point his authority to appear for Efren was questioned. Neither is
there any indication that Villahermosa in fact questioned his authority during
the course of the proceedings.

However, Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at
the time he filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution
and Demolition. As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should
have informed the Court of his client’s passing and presented authority that
he was retained by the client’s successors-in-interest and thus the parties
may have been substituted.
 FACTS:

Complainants contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Case No. 981
ELISA V. VENTEREZ,
entitled, GENARO
"Sps. Daniel DEOviedo,
and Lolita VERA,etINOCENCIA V. RAMIREZ,
al. v. Eliza de Vera, et al.,"PACITA V.
for Declaration
MILLS, ANTONINA
of Ownership withV.Damages
PALMA and
filed RAMON
before theDE VERA, Complainants,
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) vs.ofATTY.
Calasiao,
Pangasinan. Respondent represented the complainants, who were defendants in said
RODRIGO R. COSME,Respondent. A. C. No. 7421 October 10, 2007
case, until a Decision thereon was rendered by the MTC on 25 February 2004. The
MTC ruled against the complainants. Respondent received a copy of the said
Decision on 3 March 2004.

Complainants alleged that they directed the respondent to either file a Motion
for Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do so.
The 15-day period within which to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration of the
MTC Decision expired on 18 March 2004. Complainant Elisa V. Venterez was
constrained to contract another lawyer to prepare the Motion for Reconsideration
which was filed on 19 March 2004. It must be stressed that the said motion was
signed by complainant Elisa V. Venterez herself as the said lawyer did not enter his
appearance.
 On 23 March 2004, the said Motion for
Reconsideration was denied by the MTC. Respondent
was not furnished a copy of the denial of the motion per
a Certification issued by Clerk of Court II Zenaida C. de
Vera. On 31 March 2004, a Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution was filed by the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 981
but respondent never bothered to file an opposition to or
any comment on the said motion despite receipt thereof.
The motion was eventually granted by the MTC on 23
April 2004. On 28 April 2004, a Writ of Execution was
issued and on 26 April 2004, an Entry of Judgment was
made in the said case.
Two months after respondent received a copy of the
Decision, the respondent filed his Notice of Retirement of
Counsel with the MTC on 3 May 2004.
Feeling aggrieved by respondent’s actuations,
complainants filed the instant administrative complaint
against him.
ISSUE:

Whether the attorney-client relationship was

terminated between Atty. Cosme and the complainants
HELD:

No. Respondent’s defense that he had already withdrawn from the case two days after his
receipt of the MTC Decision and that he had allegedly communicated this withdrawal to Salvador
Ramirez, son of one of the herein complainants, Inocencia Ramirez. It is an apparent attempt on
the part of respondent to wash his hands of any liability for failing to pursue any of the available
remedies to complainants from the adverse MTC Decision.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-
client relation at any time with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate
the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action
impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without
reasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only
from the client's written consent or from a good cause.
Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent
remains counsel of record for the complainants in Civil Case No. 981; and whether he has a valid
cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot immediately do so and leave his clients without
representation. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client
or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event, the attorney should see
to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. Respondent did not comply with
these obligations. Therefore, he remains the counsel of record for the complainants in Civil Case
No. 981 with the duty to protect complainants’ interest.