DIMATULAC vs. VILLON G.R.No.

127107 FACTS: On November 3, 1995, under the leadership of Mayor Santiago Docsay Yabut, Danny and Koyang went to Masantol, Pampanga, looking for PO3 Virgilio Dimatulac. First, they went to the Municipal Hall of Masantol Pampanga. Then they went to the house of Mayor Lacap for the purpose of inquiring about the location of the house of Virgilio Dimatulac. Finally, they reach the house of Virgilio Dimatulac. Billy Yabut, Kati Yabut and Francisco Yambao went inside the house and were even offered coffee. Servillano and Martin Yabut told Virigilio to come down from his house and apologize to the Mayor, but hardly had Virigilio descended, a gunshot was heard. One of the men of Docsay Yabut shot Virgilio and as a consequence he died. Before dying, he pointed to the group of Mayor Docsay Yabut as the one responsible. A complaint then was filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Macabebe-Masantol, Pampanga by SPO1 Renato Layug of the Masantol Police Station. On December 1, 1995, Judge David issued a Resolution finding reasonable ground to believe that the crime of murder had been committed and that the accused were probably guilty thereof. Only accused Francisco Boy Yambao filed his counter-affidavit and all the others waived the filing of the same. The entire records were then forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga for further action, together with the bodies of accused Francisco Yambao and Juan Magat. Thereafter, Pampanga Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Sylvia Alfonso-Flores conducted a reinvestigation. However, it is not clear from the record whether she conducted the same motu propio or upon motion of private respondents Santiago Yabut, Servillano Yabut and Martin Yabut. Prosecutor Alfonso-Flores downgraded the nature of the crime committed to homicide. Appeal was filed with the Secretary of Justice and also petitioner filed a motion to inhibit Judge Roura, presiding judge of Branch 55, from hearing the case. The Sec. of Justice gave a resolution directing the amendment of the information charge, however, the Sec. of Justice set aside his order considering that the appeal was rendered moot and academic by the arraignment of the accused for homicide and their having entered their pleas of not guilty. Hence, the petitioners filed the instant petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus. ISSUE: Whether or not public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the proceedings replete with procedural irregularities. RULING: Yes. Up to the level of then of Judge Villon, two pillars of the criminal justice system failed in this case to function in a manner consistent with the principle of accountability inherent in the public trust character of a public office. Judges Roura and Villon and prosecutors Alfonso-Flores and Datu need be reminded that it is in the public interest thate every crime should be punished and judges and prosecutors play a crucial role in this regard for theirs is the delicate duty to see justice done, i.e., not to allow the guilty escape nor the innocent to suffer. Prosecutors must never forget that, in the language of Suarez v Platon, they are the representatives not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win every case but that justice be done. As such, they are in a peculiar and every definite sense the servants of the law, whose two-fold aim is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. Prosecutors are charged with the defense of the community aggrieved by a crime, and are expected to prosecute the public action with such zeal and vigor as if they were the ones personally aggrieved, but at all times cautious that they refrain from improper methods designed to secure a wrongful conviction. 73 With them lies the duty to lay before the court the pertinent facts at the judge's disposal with strict attention to punctilios, thereby clarifying contradictions and sealing all gaps in the evidence, with a view to erasing all doubt from the court's mind as to the accused's innocence or guilt. The judge, on the other hand, "should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice. In this case, the abuse of discretion on the part of the public prosecution and Judges Roura and Villon was gross, grave and palpable, denying, the State and the offended parties their day in court, or in a constitutional sense,due process. As to said judges, such amounted to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or that their court was ousted of the jurisdiction in respect thereto, thereby nullifying as having been done without jurisdiction, the denial of the motion to defer further hearings, the denial of the motion to reconsider such denial, the arraignment of the YABUTs and their plea of not guilty. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga is DIRECTED to comply with the order (letter) of the Secretary of Justice of 7 June 1996 by forthwith filing with the trial court the amended information for murder. Thereafter the trial court shall proceed in said case with all reasonable dispatch. DINSAY V CIOCO A.C. No. 2995

FACTS: Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACO) mortgaged to Traders Royal Bank certain properties as security for the payment of its loan. PLAMACO defaulted in the payment of the loan for which reason the Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. On March 8, 1994, the mortgaged properties were sold to the bank, being the sole bidder. Thereafter, a Certificate of Sheriffs Sale was executed by respondent Atty. Leopoldo D. Cioco, then Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, which documents was notarized by Judge Vivencio T. Ibrado, Sr., on the same day. On April of 1984, records disclose that Page 4 of the said Certificate was surreptitiously substituted. The new page lowered the bid price from the original amount of P3,263,182.67 to only P730,000. Due to such anomaly, respondent and Deputy Sheriff Renato Belleza were administratively charged. In the first Dinsay case, a per curiam resolution promulgated on December 12, 1986, the court declared their dismissal for grave misconduct highly prejudicial to the service. Based on such complaint, respondent Atty. Leopoldo Cioco is now sought to be disbarred on the basis of said incident that triggered his untimely dismissal. Respondent interposed re judicata as this was deemed adjudicated in the first Dinsay case. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Leopoldo Cioco should be disbarred. RULING: No. The Court agreed with the findings of the Office of the bar Confidant (OBC) that the participation of the respondent in the changing of the bid price in the Certificate of Sheriffs Sale affects his fitness as a member of the bar. As a lawyer, respondent knows that it is patently illegal to change the content of the said certificate after its notarization, it being already a public document. Respondent cannot seek refuge behind his averment that it was purely ministerial on his part to sign the new Page 4 of the Certificate. The court struck down this argument in the first Dinsay case and it will not adopt a different view in the instant case. At any rate, the respondent cannot disclaim knowledge of the legal consequence of his illegal act. The court find the recommendation of the OBC that respondent be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of 1 year is proper. REYES V CHIONG A.C. No. 5148

2 |Page
FACTS: This is a case filed by Atty. Ramon Reyes with the Office of the Bar Confidant, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano Chiong for violation of his lawyers oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were engaged by one Zonggi Xu, a Chinese Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry. Xu invested P300,000 on a Cebu based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in zamboanga City. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked his money back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for the former to seek legal assistance. Xu then filed a complaint for estafa against Pan, who was represented by Atty. Victoriano Chiong. Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro Salanga issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation but Pan neither appeared nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga filed for estafa against Pan then later on issued a Warrant of Arrest. Thereafter, Atty. Chiong filed with the RTC of Zamboanga City a Civil Complaint for the collection of sum of money and damages as well as for the dissolution of a business venture against Atty. Reyes, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga. Atty. Chiong explained that it was Pan who had decided to institute the civil action against Atty. Reyes. He claimed that he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if Atty. Reyes would move for the dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to reach a settlement. According to Atty. Chiong, Atty. Reyes was impleaded because he allegedly connived with his client Xu in filing the estafa case, which Atty. Reyes knew fully well to be baseless. The court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation where Commissioner Milagros San Juan held that respondent had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and Atty. Reyes. Due to that, Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Responsibility. ISSU: Whether or not Atty. Chiong should be disbarred. RULING: No but respondent is found guilty as charged and is suspended for 2 years from the practice of law. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence.[15] Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Moreover, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that [a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction subject of the collection suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears that respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other, they must treat one another with trust and respect. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession,[19] but also constitute highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action. Furthermore, the Lawyers Oath exhorts law practitioners not to wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give neither aid nor consent to the same. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.Their rendition of improper service invites stern and just condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest principles of moral law.

LIKONG V ATTY. LIM A.C. No. 3149

FACTS: Cerina Likong obtained a loan of P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Likong executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which she regularly receives from the United States government as a widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the loan is fully paid. Likong likewise executed a special power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran City. The above documents were apparently prepared and notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel. Three months after the execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney, complainant informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she was revoking the special power of attorney. As a result, Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages against Likong. Respondent Alexander Lim appeared as counsel for Yap while Atty. Roland Inting and Erico Aumentado appeared for Likong (as defendant). On August 2, 1985, Likong and Yap entered into a compromise agreement without the participation of Likongs counsel. Such compromise agreement was approved by the trial court. On November 24, 1987, Likong filed this complaint for disbarment on the ground that Atty. Lim prevented her from seeking assistance, advice and signature of any of her 2 lawyers, that respondent even advised that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers, that she had been prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some other form of mendacity and finally, Atty. Lim fraudulently and without authority assumed to represent Likong and connived in her defeat. DEFENSES OF ATTY. LIM: Atty. Inting had abandoned his client, Atty. Aumentado did not actively participate in the case. It was upon the request of Likong and another debtor of Yap, Cristina Acuna that he made the compromise agreement.

3 |Page
He states that he first instructed Likong to notify her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer abandoned her since he could not pay his atty.s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Lim should be disbarred. RULING: No. Respondent Atty. Lim is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year. Respondents conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states: 9. Negotiations with opposite party. A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to the law. The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such acts of Atty. Lim of malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevented justice from being attained. YOUNG V BATUEGAS A.C. No. 5379 FACTS: Atty. Walter Young is the prosecutor in a Criminal Case for Murder pending before the RTC of Manila. Respondents Batuegas and Llantino were the counsel for accused. On December 13, 2000, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. Upon personal verification with the NBI where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, Atty. Young learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty. Rogelio Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management Division of the NBI. Respondent Susa, the branch clerk, calendared the motion on December 15, 2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal defects, namely the lack of notice of hearing to the private complainant, violation of the 3-day notice rule and failure to attach the Certificate of Detention which was referred to in the Motion as Annex 1. DEFENSE OF RESPONDENTS: They immediately fetch the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI 2am the next day ( December 14) There was neither unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleadings as their clients has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at the NBI Atty. Young as private prosecutor is not entitled to any notice As to respondent Susa, he was no longer in the court when his co-respondents filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail. The inclusion of the Motion in the courts calendar on December 15 was authorized by the presiding judge and thus, was done by respondent Susa in faithful performance of his ministerial duty. ISSUE: Whether or not Batuegas and Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood. RULING: Yes. Respondents are found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. They are suspended from the practice of law for a period of 6 months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall 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 clients.He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend his clients rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. Evidently, respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the court strongly condemns. They violated their oath when they resorted to deception.

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V FLORES A.C. No. 4058 FACTS: On February 25, 1993, Labor Arbiter Irenarco Rimando of the NLRC issued a writ of execution to enforce the decision rendered by the SC. The Writ of Execution was issued on motion of Benguet Electronic Corp (BENECO) to collect the amount P344,000 which it paid to Peter Cosalan during the pendency of the case before the SC, on the basis of the decision ordering the respondent board members to reimburse petitioner BENECO any amount that it may compelled to pay to respondent Cosalan by virtue of the decision of Labor Arbiter Amado Adquilen. After issuance of the writ, Atty. Ernesto Flores as new counsel for the losing litigant-members of the BENECO Board of Directors, filed a Motion for Clarification. After that Atty. Ernesto Flores filed a suit seeking to enjoin the defendants Clerk of Court, et.al.from levying on their properties in satisfaction of said writ of execution. While Atty. Ernesto Flores never essentially intended to assail the issuance by the NLRC of the Writ of Execution nor sought to undo it, he however filed the following:

4 |Page

1.

2. 3.

Complaint in Civil Case No. 2738-R which he filed prays for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction for defendants Clerk of Court and Ex-officio City Sheriff to cease and desist from enforcing the execution and levy of the writ of execution (a display of gross ignorance of the law) Two separate cases for Judicial Declaration of Family Home Constituted Urgent Motion Ex-Parte praying for temporary restraining order in the said 2 cases BENECO alleges that Atty. Floress claims against the defendant Sheriff is improper and and unprocedural maneuver which is a violation of Atty. Floress oath not to sue on groundless suit since the said Sheriff was merely enforcing a writ of execution as part of his job.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Flores is guilty of falsehood and fails to comply with SC Circular 28-91 on forum shopping RULING: Yes. Respondent Ernesto Flores is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year and for violating his oath and the Canon of Professional Responsibility to do no falsehood, he is suspended for another 1 year. The court reminds the respondent that, under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he had a duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The Code also enjoins him from unduly delaying a case by impeding the execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. The investigating commissioner also held respondent liable for committing a falsehood because, in the administrative case, he stated in his comment that he had not perfected an appeal on the dismissal of his petition for injunction; were in fact an appeal was perfected. A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. He shall neither do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any. He also has a duty not to mislead or allow the courts to be misled by any artifice. MILLARE V MONTERO A.C. No. 3283 FACTS: Pacifica Millare, the mother of Rodolfo Millare, the complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered Elsa Dy Co to vacate the premises subject of the ejectment case, through Atty. Eustaquio Montero, respondent, as counsel appealed the decision to the RTC. A manifestation and motion was filed by Atty. Montero, arguing that the decision of the MTC and the RTC were null and void for being contrary to law, justice and equity for allowing the lessor to increase by 300% the rentals for an old house .Respondents, admitting his mistake in filing an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review, prayed that he be allowed to file an action for annulment. On February 23, 1987, the CA gave due course to respondent's Manifestation and Motion and let the records remain with it. However, on November 10, 1987, the said court ordered the records in respondents Manifestation and Motion to be remanded to the court a quo. After such, several appeals, complaints and petitions were filed by Atty. Montero. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Montero is guilty of malpractice. RULING: Yes. The respondent is suspended for 1 year. Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law." The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire. Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to use any arguable construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his client. But the lawyer is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law. He cannot prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless actions (Annotated Code of Professional Responsibility 310 [1979]). Professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications. Under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Implementing said Canon are the following rules: Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes. It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment. Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the execution of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping. By having wilfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse in his efforts to get a favorable judgment, which efforts were all rebuffed, respondent violated the duty of a member of the Bar to institute actions only which are just and put up such defenses as he perceives to be truly contestable under the laws. As correctly noted by the Committee on Bar Discipline "in filing a number of pleadings, actions and petitioner, respondent 'has made a mockery of the judicial processes' and disregarded canons of professional ethics in intentionally frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a judgment in the case was rendered, thus, 'abused procedural rules to defeat ends of substantial justice.'

BERBANO V BARCELONA A.C. No. 6048 FACTS: Felicitas Berbano is one of the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo They appointed Mr. Porfirio Daen as their attorney-in-fact giving him him authority to prosecute the case for and in their behalf. On January 26, 1999, Mr. Porfirio Daen was arrested by a Muntinlupa police on the strength of an expired warrant of arrest-it was issued on February 1990-and subsequently detained at the Muntinlupa City Jail, Tunasan, Muntinlupa City, until his release on February 18, 1999. Since Mr. Daen needed the assistance of a lawyer for his release from incarceration, the complainant tried to look for one. Bernanos told their friend Naty Sibuya, about the predicament of Mr. Daen, who recommended Atty. Wenceslao Barcelona, his wife being Natys cousin/relative. However, Atty. Barcelona misrepresented to the complainant that he could secure the release of Mr. Daen. Atty. Barcelona asked and received money from the complainant and Mr. Gil Daen, nephew of Mr. Daen.

5 |Page
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Wenceslao Barcelona is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct. RULING: the Court finds no compelling reason to overturn the Investigating Commissioners judgment. Respondent is guilty of culpable violations of several Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit: CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times upholds the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar. CANON 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. 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. The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the courts but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, respondent callously demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of having connections with a Member of this Court. Respondent has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting to clients that he has the proper connections to secure the relief they seek, and thereafter, ask for money, which will allegedly be given to such connections. In this case, respondent misrepresented to complainant that he could get the release of Mr. Porfirio Daen through his connection with a Supreme Court Justice. Not only that, respondent even had the audacity to tell complainant that the Justices of the Supreme Court do not accept checks. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well . . . That is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members.

SANTOS V BELTRAN A.C. No. 5858

FACTS: Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas Rodriguez had ten children. After the death of Filomeno, Benita donated their two residential lots, including the ancestral house situated thereon, in favor of the nine children, except complainant. Respondent lawyer notarized the Deed of Donation. Benita Rodriguez died. Complainant and his brother, Alberto, were appointed administrators in the intestate proceeding for the settlement of the spouses estate. On November 9, 1999, complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), alleging that when respondent notarized the subject Deed of Donation, his siblings did not personally appear before him.Complainant submitted the affidavit executed by Benito and Renato attesting to the fact that they signed the Deed of Donation not in the law office of the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision. The Deed also showed that his siblings secured their Community Tax Certificates twenty-two days after the execution of the Deed of Donation, or on September 9, 1994. Complainant contended that respondent notarized the Deed of Donation in disregard of Article 904 of the Civil Code. Moreover, he argued that his siblings were American citizens who were thus disqualified from owning real properties in the Philippines. Complainant further alleged that respondent appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 73560 for falsification of public document, which he filed against Renato and Benito, without being engaged by him or authorized by the court; that respondent represented conflicting interest when he entered his appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client, Erlinda R. SantosCrawford, was the plaintiff; and that respondent, through insidious machination acquired the titles of two residential lots at Villa Benita Subdivision owned by SpousesFilomeno and Benita Santos. DEFENSES OF ATTY. BELTRAN: He confirmed the due execution of the Deed of Donation and submitted in support thereof the affidavit executed by Mely Lachica, the secretary of his law office. In her Affidavit, Lachica categorically stated that she caused all parties to sign the Deed. She, nevertheless admitted that she forgot to change the date of the execution of the Deed fromAugust 18, 1994 to September 9, 1994 when all the parties had secured their CTCs. Respondent argued that complainants siblings may still acquire properties in the Philippines through hereditary succession even though they were already American citizens. The certifications issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation were not conclusive proof of the arrival and departure of his siblings considering that there were many ports of entry in the country. Respondent also declared that complainant humiliated his mother when, in his presence and that of his siblings, complainant uttered the unsavory Tagalog words, Putang ina momatanda ka, walanghiya ka, walang pinagkatandaan dapat mamatay ka na. Respondent denied having represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73560 on December 15, 1999 when he appeared as private prosecutor. He explained that complainant filed a complaint for falsification of public document against him and his nine siblings. Respondent appeared at one of the hearings of the said case to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato. Respondent emphasized that he did not ask for any compensation from complainant for that isolated appearance. Respondent denied having acquired any property under litigation. On February 16, 1999, he bought two parcels of land inside Villa Benita Subdivision,from a corporation owned by the Santoses, Faberns Inc., and not from Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, as claimed by complainant. He was surprised when sometime in August 2002, complainant caused the annotation on the said titles of an adverse claim that the properties belonged to the estate of Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos.

6 |Page
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Beltran should be disbarred for representing conflicting interest RULING: Yes. Respondent Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.Corollary thereto, gross misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.

DANIEL LEMOINE, complainant, vs. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR., respondent Complainant Daniel Lemoine, a French national, filed a verified complaint1 against respondent Atty. Amadeo E. Balon, Jr., for estafa and misconduct before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. complainant filed a car insurance claim with the Metropolitan Insurance Company (Metropolitan Insurance), the insurer of his vehicle which was lost. As complainant encountered problems in pursuing his claim which was initially rejected,2 his friend, a certain Jesus "Jess" Garcia (Garcia), arranged for the engagement of respondents services.
Metropolitan Insurance finally offered to settle complainants claim, respondent confirmed his acceptance of its offer to settle the claim of complainant 75% of his policy coverage which is therefore 525k. few days before December 23, 1998 when complainant left for France,5 he, on the advice of respondent, signed an already prepared undated Special Power of Attorney 6 authorizing respondent and/or Garcia to bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of complainants claim as well as to "negotiate, sign, compromise[,] encash and receive payment" from it. Upon the complainants return he was advised that the case is still pending and subject to negotiations in which the the ins company offered to settle it for 350k. The respondent advised the complainant to accept the settlement. The complainant found out after a year that the case has been settled for 525k over a year already. A few demands has been made for the respondent to turn over the proceeds of the claim but the latter failed to do so.

Respondent contention: -Asserted that his continued retention of the proceeds of complainants claim is in lawful exercise of his lien for unpaid attorneys fees. He expressed readiness, however, to account for and turn them over once he got paid fifty percent (50%) thereof, he citing the so called contingent fee billing method of "no cure, no pay" adopted by practicing lawyers in the insurance industry as the basis of the amount of his attorneys fees, 19 which to him was justified in the absence of an attorney-client contract between him and complainant, the latter having rejected respondents letter-proposal of October 21, 1998. -Respondent also highlighted the value of the time and efforts he extended in pursuing complainants claim and the expenses he incurred in connection therewith. He went on to assert that his inability to contact complainant whose whereabouts he did not know prompted him to encash the check and keep the proceeds thereof in conformity with the Special Power of Attorney executed in his favor HELD Specifically with respect to above-quoted provision of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Filipino lawyers principal source of ethical rules, which Canon 16 bears on the principal complaint of complainant, a lawyer must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that he may come to possess. This commandment entails certain specific acts to be done by a lawyer such as rendering an accounting of all money or property received for or from the client36 as well as delivery of the funds or property to the client when due or upon demand.37 Respondent breached this Canon when after he received the proceeds of complainants insurance claim, he did not report it to complainant, who had a given address in Makati, or to his co-attorney-in-fact Garcia who was his contact with respect to complainant. respondent Atty. Amadeo E. Balon, Jr., is found GUILTY of malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct in the practice of his profession as a lawyer and he is hereby DISBARRED. The Office of the Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys and to inform all courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines of this Decision.

KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIO, petitioner, Vs ATTY. ARTURO DE LOS REYES, respondent.

This is a petition for review of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP) Resolution No. XIV-2000-460, dated July 29, 2000, dismissing the complaint for inexcusable negligence filed Katrina Cario against respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes. Complainant alleged that on March 3, 1998, she contracted the services of respondent, a former Quezon City prosecutor, to file complaints for slander by deed, threats, and physical injuries against her relatives Faye Lorenz, Godofreditas Lorenz, and Rosario Joaquin, who themselves subsequently filed charges against complainant and her father for maltreatment, physical injuries, and threats with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. As agreed,

7 |Page
complainant paid respondent the amount of P10,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, despite demands by complainant, respondent never filed the complaint-affidavits with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation. On the other hand, with respect to the complaints filed by the Lorenzes and Joaquin, Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Francisco Soller recommended the filing of informations for maltreatment, threats, and slight physical injuries against complainant and her father. The cases were subsequently filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 41, Quezon City. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to protect their interest, for which reason they were forced to hire the services of another counsel, Atty. Ricardo J.M. Rivera, who promptly filed a motion for reinvestigation, which, however, was denied by the prosecutor's office. Respondent denied that he had agreed to represent petitioner in filing criminal complaints against petitioner's aforementioned relatives. He stated that his services were hired in connection with the filing of a case for partition of the lot occupied by petitioner and her father, on one hand, and their relatives in question, on the other hand. It was alleged that petitioner promised to furnish him the certification of the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa for the filing of the case in court as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title of the lot to be partitioned but, as petitioner failed to do so, respondent withdrew from the case and returned the acceptance fee of P10,000.00 paid by petitioner. Respondent added that he is a member of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP investigating complaints against member of the bar, and he is mindful of the duties of members of the bar toward their clients.

HELD: Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides -

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent's conduct in this case, exacerbated by his attempt to evade responsibility, falls short of what the law requires. The fact that, as claimed by him, he is a member of the IBP commission investigating complaints against members of the bar all the more should have impressed on him his duty of fidelity to his client's cause. That he returned the money paid to him does not diminish his responsibility but only mitigates the penalty. On the other hand, there is no merit in petitioner's claim that, as a result of respondent's failure to file the complaint for threats, prescription set in. Pursuant to Art. 90, in relation to Art. 283 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period for filing a complaint for threats is five years. In any event, the interests of petitioner and that of her father are not altogether without legal protection as they can controvert the charges against them in the proceedings before the trial court. WHEREFORE, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Resolution No. XIV-2000-460, dated July 29, 2000, is SET ASIDE and respondent Atty. Arturo de los Reyes is REPRIMANDED with warning to be henceforth more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.

REONTOY vs. IBADLIT 283 scra 88 Facts: On January 28, 1998 the SC found Ibadlit administratively liable and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year for failing to appeal within the reglementary period the decision rendered against his client. His reason was, an appeal would only be futile. SC declared that it was highly improper for him to have adopted such opinion. SC said that a lawyer was without authority to waive his clients right to appeal and that his failure to appeal within the reglementary period constituted negligence and malpractice, proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides (a) lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. This is a motion for reconsideration. Held: Suspension lowered to 2 months his arguments are partly persuasive, he believed in good faith that his clients case was weak and that she accepted his explanation that the adverse decision was not worth appealing anymore. Besides, it was only several years later that she complained when no more relief was available to her. Also, complainant had reasonable opportunity to hire another counsel for a second opinion whether to appeal from the judgment or file a petition for relief, that he did not commit to handle his clients case on appeal and that the testimonies of complainant and her brother were unpersuasive. This is also his first offense.

EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V DIONEDA A.C. No. 5162

FACTS: On 29 September 1997 ECTHA and respondent Dioneda entered into a Retainers Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed to handle the case of the complainant against LVF Realty, Mr. Tinsay and BPI Family Savings Bank by way of filing a Complaint-in-Intervention in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. ECTHA alleged that Atty. Dioneda, after receiving the amount of P20,000.00, did nothing for the development of the case and to update the complaint on the status of ECTHAs intended Complaint-in-Intervention. Due to the insistence of the members of the Association, Mr. Fernando Garcia, ECTHA President, was compelled to check the records of the case in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 75, and secured a certification from the Branch Clerk of Court dated 5 July 1999 that there was no motion for intervention filed in the case. On behalf of ECTHA Mr. Garcia repeatedly made oral demands for respondent to return the amount of P20,000.00 because he did not do anything to protect the rights and interests of the Association. Respondent Dioneda only made oral promises to pay, and in August 1999 he could no longer be contacted and the personnel in his office simply made excuses to Mr. Garcia. DEFENSES OF ATTY. DIONEDA:

the Agreement did not cover only the Complaint-in-Intervention as adverted to by the complainant. It also included the case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) that the complainant filed against the developer of Emiliano Court Townhouses who refused to release to the members of the ECTHA their respective Deeds of Sale. At the time his legal services were engaged, he alleged that there was already a decision in favor of the complainant.

8 |Page
Respondent further averred that Mr. Garcia would call him at his residence and "spew invectives" at him. There would be no day that Mr. Garcia would not call respondent and hurl expletives at him and his parents. Respondent denied the allegation that ECTHA had made several demands on him and that he promised to pay sometime August 1999. After receiving the demand letter of ECTHA respondent immediately called up the residence of Mr. Garcia and informed him that he could get the money and the records of the case at his office. However, respondent informed ECTHA that a portion of the amount to be returned would be deducted as a reasonable fee for the efforts exerted by him. According to respondent, no representative of the complainant showed up at his law office He asserted that there was no intention on his part to defraud them.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Dioneda violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. RULING: Yes. Respondent Atty. Michael Dioneda is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Complaint-in-Intervention was never filed and despite the pronouncement of respondent that he would return the attorneys fees to complainant, he never did. The issuance of the Writ of Execution in the HLURB should never have been a requirement imposed by respondent before a Complaint-in-Intervention could be filed. It is reasonable to conclude that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, respondent committed an infringement of ethical standards. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the case of complainant ECTHA against LVF Realty, Mr. Tinsay and BPI Family Bank and subsequently failing to render such service is a clear violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Not only that. The acts of inexcusable negligence in legal matters entrusted to him and disloyalty to his client constitute major breaches of respondents oath as a lawyer.These acts that are inimical to his clients interests render respondent 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 and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. Public interest demands that an attorney 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. A lawyers inability to properly discharge his duty to his client may also mean a violation of his correlative obligations to the court, to his profession and to the general public. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his clients interests commences from his retainer until his effective discharge from the case or the final disposition of the entire 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. Indeed, respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file theComplaint-in-Intervention he undertook to handle, thus making him liable under Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.

TAROG V RICAFORT A.C. No. 8253 FACTS: In 1992, the Tarogs sought the advice of Atty. Jaime L. Miralles regarding their bank-foreclosed property located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Miralles advised them to engage a Bicol-based attorney for that purpose. Thus, they went to see Atty. Ricafort accompanied by Vidal Miralles, their friend who was a brother of Atty. Miralles.[1]They ultimately engaged Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on account of his being well-known in the community, and being also the Dean of the College of Law of Aquinas University where their son was then studying.Having willingly accepted the engagement, Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filing fee, which they gave to him. He explained the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property. After they informed him that they had only P60,000.00, he required them to add some more amount (dagdagan niyo ng konti).To raise the P65,000.00 for the Tarogs, therefore, Vidal solicited a loan from one Sia with the guarantee of his brother Atty. Miralles. Sia issued a check in that amount in the name of Arnulfo. The Tarogs and Vidal return to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver the P65,000.00. When Arnulfo said that he had first to encash the check at the bank, Atty. Ricafort persuaded him to entrust the check to him instead so that he (Atty. Ricafort) would be the one to encash it and then deposit the amount in court. On that representation, Arnulfo handed the check to Atty. Ricafort. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but in his own account. He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries about when the amount would be returned, however, the Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in good hands.The Tarogs further claimed that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, in Sorsogon (RTC), where their complaint for annulment of sale was being heard, had required the parties to file their memoranda. Accordingly, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort for that purpose, but he did not file the memorandum.When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arnulfo demanded by his letter dated December 3, 2002 that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the P15,000.00 paid for the filing of the memorandum] Yet, they did not receive any reply from Atty. Ricafort. DEFENSES OF RICAFORT: Insisted that the 65,000 was payment for his legal services under a package deal the fees were agreed upon after considering the value of the property, his skill and experience as a lawyer, the labor, time, and trouble involved, and his professional character and social standing Arnulfo, being a retired school principal, was a learned person who would not have easily fallen for any scheme like the one they depicted against him complainant in this case testified that the total amount to redeem his property is P240,000.00 and when asked whether he consigned the money to the court to redeem the property he answered in the negative (main defense)

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of the vulnerability of his clients and by being dishonest in his dealings with them by refusing to return the amount of P65,000.00 to them.

9 |Page
RULING: Yes. The court find and declare Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort guilty of a violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and disbar him. The court affirm the findings of the Commissioner Reyes, because they were supported by substantial evidence. However, it impose the penalty of disbarment instead of the recommended penalty of indefinite suspension, considering that Atty. Ricafort committed a very serious offense that was aggravated by his having been previously administratively sanctioned for a similar offense on the occasion of which he was warned against committing a similar offense. The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship.[25] In particular, Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilitystates: Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his clients that came into his possession,and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed in him.Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his professional employment, he had the obligation to deliver such funds to his clients (a) when they became due, or (b) upon demand. Furthermore, Rule 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, imposes on an attorney the positive obligation to keep all funds of his client separate and apart from his own and from those of others kept by him, to wit: 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. The acts of respondent constitute serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He reneged on his duty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he had spent the amounts for the particular purposes intended.He was thereby presumed to have misappropriated the moneys for his own use to the prejudice of his clients and in violation of the clients' trust reposed in him.He could not escape liability, for upon failing to use the moneys for the purposes intended, he should have immediately returned the moneys to his clients. His acts and actuations constituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics that impaired public confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.