TOPIC

Reported by: GROUP NO.1

Group Members:
Xx
Xx
Xx
Xx
Xx
Xx

In partial fulfillment of the course requirements in

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
2nd SEM, SY 2019 -2020
Atty. Nancy Hadap – Villanueva, Professor
 CENIZA v. RUBIA
(A.C. No. 6166, October 2, 2009)

FACTS:

Complainant sought the legal services of the respondent in regard to the share of her mother-in-
law in the estate of her husband Carlos Ceniza. Respondent made the complainant to sign a promissory
note for P32 ,000. 00 which was lent by Domingo Natavio and was later paid by the latter’s mother-in-
law. Then, respondent furnished them a copy of the complaint for partition and recovery of
ownership/possession representing legitime but with no docket number on it. It was only after three
months that respondent informed them of the filing of the complaint and gave them a copy of the
complaint with "Civil Case No. 4198" and a rubber stamped "RECEIVED" thereon. But upon verification
with the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, she was informed that no case with
said title and docket number was filed.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
Complainant charged respondent with grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and falsification of
public documents. Upon the IBP investigation, it recommended that respondent be found guilty of
falsification of public document and be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
period of three years. The other allegations in the complaint about ignorance of the law are found to be
without factual basis. In a resolution by the Board of Governors, it recommended that the disbarment of
the respondent be reduced to five (5) years of suspension from the practice of law.

A perusal of the records shows that complainant’s evidence does not suffice to warrant the
imposition of administrative sanction against the respondent. However, the Court finds that respondent
committed some acts for which she should be disciplined or administratively sanctioned. She suggested
that complainant borrow money from Domingo Natavio for the payment thereof. Furthermore, she
severed the lawyer-client relationship due to overwhelming workload demanded by her new employer
Nakayama Group of Companies, which constrained her to return the money received as well as the
records of the case, thereby leaving her client with no representation.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
 ISSUE:

1. Whether or not respondent’s heavy workload constitutes a good cause for the
withdrawal of his services as counsel of the complainant.

Whether or not he violated Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
HELD:

Respondent violated Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances. Heavy workload is not sufficient reason for the withdrawal of her services. When she
accepted to handle the complainant’s case, she undertook to do her duties with utmost attention, skill
and competence, despite other workloads to do with other client. The client has the right to expect that
a lawyer will discharge his duties diligently and exert his best efforts to defend or prosecute his client’s
cause. Failure of such duties will render him administratively liable. In the instant case, respondent is
found guilty and suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
 CANOY VS. ATTY. ORTIZ
[A.C. No. 5485, March 16, 2005]

FACTS:

Atty. Ortiz’s services were engaged by Canoy, who was illegally dismissed by his former
employer. Canoy filed the complaint against his former employer with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board VI of Bacolod City.

The labor arbiter holding the said case ordered Canoy and the Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines to
submit their respective position papers. Canoy thereafter submitted pertinent documents to Atty.Ortiz
for the preparation of the said position paper. Canoy made several trips to respondent’s law office to
follow-up the status of the position paper required by the labor arbiter. After many visits Canoy failed to
meet Atty. Ortiz, so he decided to go to NLRC to follow-up the case himself. He found out that the
complaint was already dismissed couple of years ago because of failure to prosecute and that no
position papers were submitted.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
Thereafter, Canoy filed a complaint with the Bar Confidant accusing Atty. Ortiz of misconduct and
malpractice.

In his defense, Atty. Ortiz said that he already prepared the position paper of Canoy but failed to submit
it until the labor arbiter issued an order to dismiss the case. Atty. Ortiz said that he was not able to
comply with the requirement of the labor arbiter because he was too busy being a newly elected
Councilor of Bacolod City while practicing law at the same time.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by abandoning the
cause of his client.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
HELD:

The IBP, in their investigation, found out that Atty. Ortiz clearly showed that he failed to
exercise that degree of competence and diligence required of him.

He should have filed the position paper on time owing his duty as Canoy’s counsel. Or he
should have resorted to other means like asking for an extension to comply with the said requirement if
his busy schedule would not allow him to file the pertinent document on time. Lastly, he should have
informed his client that he would not be able to make a timely filing to give his client more time to look
for remedies.

**Atty. Ortiz was suspended for 1 month and is warned.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
 MONTANO VS. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
A.C. No. 4215 May 21, 2001

FACTS:

On November 14, 1992, the complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel
in collaboration with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 37467 wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant. The parties agreed upon
attorney’s fees in the amount of P15,000.00, fifty percent (50%) of which was payable upon acceptance
of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case. The complainant paid
respondent the amount of P7,500.00 representing 50% of the attorney’s fee and paid the additional
amount of P4,000.00 even before the respondent counsel had prepared the appellant’s brief. The
respondent counsel also demanded payment of the remaining balance of 3,500.00 prior to the filing of
the brief. The respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance as complainant’s counsel without his prior
knowledge and/or conformity and returned the case folder to the complainant due to complainant’s
failure to pay the amount of P3,500.00.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
The complainant file a case to the Court on the ground that the conduct by respondent counsel
exceeded the ethical standards of the law profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt with
administratively. Complainant later on filed motions praying for the imposition of the maximum penalty
of disbarment. The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent counsel
guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommended that he be “severely reprimanded.” However, IBP
Board of Governors resolved that the penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner meted
to respondent be amended to “three (3) months suspension from the practice of law for having been
found guilty of misconduct, which eroded the public confidence regarding his duty as a lawyer.”
Respondent counsel sought reconsideration alleging that IBP misapprehended the facts and that, in any
case, he did not deserve the penalty imposed. Respondent counsel further averred that complainant’s
refusal to pay the agreed lawyer’s fees was deliberate and in bad faith; hence, his withdrawal as counsel
was “just, ethical and proper.” In its Resolution No. XIII-97-129 dated October 25, 1997, the IBP denied
Atty. Dealca’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari was filed in the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Is Atty. Juan S. Dealca’s conduct just and proper?

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Topic
HELD:

The Court found Atty. Dealca’s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under
Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good
cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services when
the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present case,
Atty. Dealca’s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the
attorney’s fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondent’s
contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a member of the bar considering that the amount owing
to him was only P3,500.00. The Court, however, does not agree with complainant’s contention that the
maximum penalty of disbarment should be imposed on respondent lawyer. The power to disbar must
be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be
imposed as a penalty. It should never be decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension,
would accomplish the end desired. In the present case, reprimand is deemed sufficient.

Natural Resources and Environmental Law

L.Sanchez Manila
Law College
Natural Resources and Environmental Law
L.Sanchez Manila
Law College
Natural Resources and Environmental Law
L.Sanchez Manila
Law College
Natural Resources and Environmental Law
L.Sanchez Manila
Law College
Rule 22.02 – a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately
turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his
successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter.

Natural Resources and Environmental Law

L.Sanchez Manila
Law College