43. RBCI BOHOL v.

FLORIDO
(A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010) FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against Atty. James Benedict Florido, herein respondent. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel, through force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. However, In his comment, respondent denied RBCIs allegation and explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply and to ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down. However, Garay reacted violently and grappled with the security guards long firearm. Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry into the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction with the bank and also, through the orders of the Nazareno-Relampagos group, also changed the locks of the banks vault. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. James Floridos act is a ground for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, a lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. Thus, their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice and that, any means,

not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical. WHEREFORE, court finds respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of the Decision.

44. PENA v. APARICIO

(A.C. No. 7298, June 25, 2007) FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility against herein respondent, Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio. Resondent appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case. This complaint rooted out when herein complainant, Fernando Martin O. Pena, 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, in which the letter also contained threats to the company. Moreover, believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical standards, complainant filed this administrative complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents acts constitutes a violation of the Code of professional Responsibility. HELD: Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law," Furthermore, 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." 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. Notwithstanding, respondent does not find anything wrong with what he wrote, dismissing the same as merely an act of pointing out massive violations of the law by the other party, and, with boldness, asserting that "a lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth, to report to the government commission of offenses punishable by the State." He further asserts that the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition and that our laws allow and encourage the settlement of disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has with his client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his client's claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a specified period. However, the letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay. The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is granted. The 26 May 2006 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio is hereby found liable for violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

45. ROSARIO JUNIO vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GRUPO

Junio engaged the services of Atty. Grupo for the redemption of a parcelof land. She entrusted to him the amount of P25,000.00 to be used inthe redemption of the aforesaid property.However, Grupo did not redeem the property; as a result of which theright of redemption was lost and the property was eventually forfeited.Because of his failure to redeem the property, Junio demanded thereturn of the money. Despite repeated demands, Grupo continuouslyrefused to refund the money entrusted to him.In his Answer, he admitted receiving the amount in question but allegedthat:The subject land could really not be redeemed anymore. Whentransaction failed, Grupo requested that he be allowed, in themeantime, to avail of the money because he had an urgent need forsome money himself to help defray his children's educational expenses.Thus, he executed a promissory note for the amount.Also the family of the complainant and that of the respondent were veryclose and intimate with each other. That is why, when Junio requestedassistance regarding the mortgaged property, Grupo had no second-thoughts in extending fee and hisservices were purely gratuitous; it was simply an act of a friend for afriend. It was just lamentably unfortunate that his efforts failed.Junio however denied that Grupo informed her of his failure to redeemthe property and that he just requested her to instead lend the moneyto him. 3 The case was thereafter referred to the Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesRespondent takes further refuge in the intimate and close relationshipexisting between himself and the complainant's family on the basis of which his legal services were purely gratuitous or "simply an act of afriend for a friend" with "no consideration involved." Thus, heconcluded that there was, strictly speaking, no attorney-clientrelationship existing between them. Rather, right from the start. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client'sinterests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice(Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility). This rule is intended to preventthe lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the client. It would indeed appear from the records of the case that respondentwas allowed to borrow the money previously entrusted to him bycomplainant for the purpose of securing the redemption of theproperty. Respondent, however, did not give adequate security for theloan and subsequently failed to settle his obligation. As explained in Hilado v. David: To constitute professional employmentit is not essential that the client should have employed the attorneyprofessionally on any previous occasion . . . It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid. promised, or charged for

; neither is itmaterial that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake thecase about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to hisbusiness affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in suchconsultation, then the professional employment must be regarded asestablished ... WHEREFORE , the Court finds petitioner guilty of violation of Rule 16.04of the Code of Professional Responsibility and orders him suspendedfrom the practice of law for a period of one (1) month and to pay torespondent, within 30 days from notice, the amount of P25,000.00 withinterest at the legal rate, computed from December 12, 1996

46. ???

47. CUETO v. JIMENEZ, JR.

(A.C. No. 5798, January 20, 2005) FACTS: Engr. Alex B. Cueto filed a complaint for disciplinary action against Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline. Cueto engaged the services of Jimenez as notary public and after notarizing the Construction Agreement, Cueto paid the agreed P50,000 as notarial fee. He paid P30,000 in cash and issued a check for the balance in the amount of P20,000. Cueto informed Jimenez that he ran short of funds especially since Jimenezs son Jose III failed to pay his own obligation to Cueto. As a result, the check that Cueto issued was dishonored for insufficient funds, so Atty. Jimenez filed a complaint against Cueto for violation of BP 22. Hence, this administrative complaint was filed by Cueto against Jimenez, alleging that Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed the criminal case against Cueto so he could collect the balance of his notarial fee. In its report, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr. be reprimanded. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Jimenez, Jr. is guilty of violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in this case to justify the legal action taken by respondent. As borne out by the records, complainant Cueto had already paid more than half of respondents fee. To resort to a suit to recover the balance reveals a certain kind of shameful conduct and inconsiderate behavior. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, the bar, the courts and his clients. The legal profession is imbued with public service and remuneration is a mere incident. Although every lawyer must be paid what is due to him, he must never resort to judicial action to recover his fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession.

Therefore, the Supreme Court severely reprimanded Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. for violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 21

49. MERCADO v. DE VERA

(A.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010) FACTS: Rosario P. Mercado, complainant hires the respondent Atty. Eduardo De Vera as her legal counsel. The respondent garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the balance was his, as attorneys fees. The refusal to return the money prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for disbarment against the respondent. On March 23, 1993, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution holding the respondent guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of clients funds and recommending to the Court his one-year suspension from the practice of law. As a result, the respondent filed a total of 12 cases against the people involved for his suspension from the practice of law including his former client. In addition to the 12 cases filed, the respondent also re-filed cases which had previously been dismissed. Complainants allege that the respondent committed barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate language when he filed several frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits against the complainants and their family members, their lawyers, and the family corporation. They maintain that the primary purpose of the cases is to harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension from the practice of law meted out by the IBP against the respondent. In his defense the respondent basically offers a denial of the charges against him. ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the respondent in filing numerous cases against his former client constitute a violation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Yes, the Court ruled that act of filing a barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and hate driven by anger and frustration against his former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for infidelity in the custody of a clients funds. Further, the respondent not only filed frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that violated his duties as an officer of the court in aiding in the proper administration of justice, but he did so against a former client to whom he owes loyalty and fidelity. It is a clear violation of Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated and A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the

course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto respectively. The cases filed by the respondent against his former client involved matters and information acquired by the respondent during the time when he was still Rosarios counsel. Information as to the structure and operations of the family corporation, private documents, and other pertinent facts and figures used as basis or in support of the cases filed by the respondent in pursuit of his malicious motives were all acquired through the attorney-client relationship with herein complainants. Such act is in direct violation of the Canons and will not be tolerated by the Court. Thus, the respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.

50.???

51. MERCADO VS VITRIOLO

Facts: Rosa Mercado is seeking for the disbarment of Atty. Julito Vitriolo as he allegedly maliciously filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against her thereby violating the attoyrney client privilege. It appears that Vitriolo filed a case against complainant as she apparently made false entries in the certificate of live birth of her children. More specifically she allegedly indicated that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez when in fact her real husband is Ruben Mercado. Mercado claims that by filing the complaint the attorney client privilege has been violated. Mercado filed a case for Vitriolos disbarment. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney-client when he filed the criminal case for falsification Held: No. The evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication disclosed by the respondents. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. Indeed the complaint failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony from the complainant as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by respondent without her consent, it would be difficult if not impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such 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. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.

CANON 21

52.

PALM, v. ATTY. ILEDAN, JR. (A.C. No. 8242, October 2, 2009)

FACTS: The case is a disbarment proceeding filed for revealing information obtained in the course of an attorney-client relationship and for representing an interest which conflicted with that of his former client, Comtech Worldwide Solutions Philippines, Inc. On 26 January 2005, complainant filed a Complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent alleged that there was no conflict of interest when he represented Soledad in the case for Estafa filed by Comtech. He alleged that Soledad was already a client before he became a consultant for Comtech. He alleged that the criminal case was not related to or connected with the limited procedural queries he handled with Comtech. In a Report and Recommendation dated 28 March 2006, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found respondent guilty of violation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of representing interest in conflict with that of Comtech as his former client. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and the case was forwarded to the SC. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of confidentiality of Lawyer-Client Relationship. HELD: Complaint against respondent was dismissed. What transpired on 10 January 2004 was not a board meeting but a stockholders meeting. Respondent attended the meeting as proxy for Harrison. The physical presence of a stockholder is not necessary in a stockholders meeting because a member may vote by proxy unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or by-laws. The amendment, repeal or adoption of new by-laws may be effected by "the board of directors or trustees, by a majority vote thereof, and the owners of at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock, or at least a majority of members of a nonstock corporation." It means the stockholders are aware of the proposed amendments to the by-laws. The documents are public records and could not be considered confidential.1avvphi1 It is settled that the mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential. Since the proposed amendments must be approved by at least a majority of the stockholders, and copies of the amended by-laws must be filed with the SEC, the information could not have been intended to be confidential. Thus, the disclosure made by respondent during the stockholders meeting could not be considered a violation of his clients secrets and confidence within the contemplation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 22

53. ORCINO v. GASPAR

(A.C. No. 3773, September 24, 1997) FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of respondent to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against several suspects in the slaying of her husband and bound herself to pay the later legal fees of P20,000.00. Complainant paid respondent his fees as stipulated. Forthwith, respondent entered his duties and performed them religiously from the preliminary investigation with the office of the prosecutor until the case was thereafter filed with the RTC of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.Respondent however failed to attend the bail hearing scheduled in August 1991. During this hearing, the court granted bail to all the accused over the complainants objections. This angered the complainant and accused the respondent of jeopardizing the case. Respondent explained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing but the complainant continued accusing him belligerently. The latter asked for the records of the case saying that she could refer them to another lawyer and stung by her words, the respondent complied with. Subsequently, the respondent filed before the trial court a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel without the complainants consent. The court directed her to secure complainants consent and to continue appearing as private prosecutor until he has secured the same. Complainant refused to sign her conformity to respondent's withdrawal. Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case continued and respondent did not appear at the hearings nor did he contact complainant. Complainant was thus compelled to engage the services of another lawyer. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is a reasonable ground to withdraw as counsel. 2. Whether or not the complainants act violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: There is no just cause on the part of the counsel to withdraw from the case.Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client only in the following instances: (a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that thelawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyersand the lawyers

could not get along to the detriment of the case; (d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case effectively; (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon; (f) when thelawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar cases.Respondent's withdrawal was made on the ground that "there no longer exist[ed] the . . . confidence" between them and that there had been "serious differences between them relating to the manner of private prosecution." This circumstance is neither one of the foregoing instances nor can it be said that it is analogous thereof. Furthermore, the refusal of the complainant to give his consent to the withdrawal does not excuse the respondent from performing his duties. In such case, the court, on notice to the client and adverse party, shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire. In the instant case, respondent did not file an application with the court for it to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw. Based on the foregoing, respondent is found guilty of the violation of Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is admonished to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in dealing with his clients and ordered to return to complainant within fifteen (15) days from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) representing a portion of his legal fees received from the latter, failure of which would warrant an imposition of a stiffer disciplinary action.

54. VILLANUEVA V. DELORIA

Resolution:

26 January 2007

T h i s t r e a t s o f t h e C o m p l a i n t f o r Di sba rm en t d at e d F eb r ua r y 1 7, 199 9 fi l ed b yRogelio H. Villanueva (Villanueva) against Atty. Amado B. Deloria in connection with HLRB CaseN o . R E M - 0 8 0 5 9 2 - 5 1 6 6 , entitled " Spouses Conrado De Gracia v. Estate of Jaime Gonzales, et al. " Atty. Deloria, a former full-time Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board(HLURB), appeared as counsel for the spouses DeGracia. I n a R e s o l u t i o n d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , w e re f e rr e d t h e c as e t o t h e In t e gr at e d B a r o f t h eP hi l i p pi n es ( IB P ) f or i n ve st i ga t i o n, r ep ort and recommendation. Investigating Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan submitted a Report dated September 29, 2005,finding merit in the Complaint and recommending that Atty. Deloria be suspended from the practice o f l a w fo r t w o (2 ) ye a rs and / o r be fi n e d i n t he amount of P20,000.00. This recommendation wasannulled and set aside by the IBP in its ResolutionNo. XVII-2006-279 dated May 26, 2006. The casewas instead dismissed for lack of merit. T h e r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e Investigating Commissioner appears to be basedsolely on the Rollo of the case which the Courtsent to the IBP pursuant to the Resolution datedF e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e I n v e s t i g a t i n g C om m i s si o n er di d n ot co nd uc t an y h e a ri n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v e r a c i t y o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n Villanuevas Complaint and the truthfulness of Atty. Delorias answers thereto.A f o r m a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s a m a n d a t o r y requirement which may not be dispensed withe x c e p t f o r v a l i d a n d c o m p e l l i n g reasons. I n Baldomar v. Paras the Court held: Complaints against lawyers for misconduct aren o r m a l l y a d d r e s s e d t o t h e C o u r t . I f , a t t h e outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearlyw a n t i n g i n m e ri t , i t o ut ri ght l y di sm i ss es t h e case. If, however, the Court deems it necessarythat further inquiry should be made, such asw h e n t h e m a t t e r c o u l d n o t b e r e s o l v e d b y merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, ar e f e r r a l i s m a d e t o t h e I B P f o r a f o r m a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the case during which theparties are accorded an

o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e heard. An ex-parte investigation may only be co ndu ct e d wh en re s pon de nt f ai l s t o ap p e ar despite reasonable notice. R ul e 1 39 - B o f t he R ul e s of C o ur t p r ovi d es t h e p ro c edu r e f or i nv es t i gat i on i n di s ba rm en t an d disciplinary proceedings against attorneys beforethe IBP.D u e o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e f o r e g o i n g r u l e s i s necessary for the proper resolution of this case. The instant administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further pr o ce e d in g s. T h e I B P is a lso d ir e ct e d t o a ct o n this referral with deliberate dispatch.

CANON 22

55. 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 Natavioand was later paid by the latters 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. 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 respondentbe reduced to five (5) years of suspension from the practice of law. A perusal of the records shows that complainants 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. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not respondents heavy workload constitutes a good cause for the withdrawal of his services as counsel of the complainant. 2. Whether or not he violated Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

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 complainants 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 clients 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.

56.MONTANO VS IBP, and ATTY. DEALCA

FACTS: Atty. Dealca, counsel for Felicisimo Montano withdrew his services for his client upon the latter's failure to comply with their retainer agreement. HELD: We find Atty Dealcas conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services when client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present case, Atty. Dealcas withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attys fees. Rule 20.4 of Canon 290, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant ( P 3,500.00), respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of the Code. But, 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 a s penalty.