..CANON 16 CORAZON T. NEVADA,- versus - ATTY. RODOLFO D.

CASUGA,

SC Ruling on Canon 16.03 SUSPENDED for a period of four (4) years Casuga, with regard to the jewelry and watch entrusted to him, said that Nevada pawned them and thereafter instructed Casugas wife to redeem them with the wife's money. He added that Nevada then instructed his wife to sell what was pawned, then use the proceeds to reimburse herself [for the redemption price]. BUT THIS HAS NO EVIDENCE. Pawnshop receipts would have provided the best evidence under the circumstances. But they were not presented, too.

Casuga, sometime in 2006 and Neva not knowing, started to represent himself as the administrator of the Hotel. In fact, on March 1, 2006, he also entered into a contract of lease with a certain Jung Jong Chul (Chul) covering an office space in the Hotel. Casuga signed the lease contract over the printed name of one Edwin T. Nevada and notarized the document himself.

Moreover, Casugas admission that the valuables are indeed in his possession, without any adequate reason, supports Nevadas version of the story. Casugas failure to return such property or remit the proceeds of the sale is a blatant violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code).

Casuga was also able to acquire from her several pieces of jewelry: a K diamond solitaire ring, earrings with three diamonds each and a ring with three (3) diamonds, with an aggregate value of PhP 300,000, and a solid gold Rolex watch with diamond dials valued at USD 12,000. Casuga took possession of the valuables in order to sell them and give the proceeds to Nevada. However, despite repeated demands by Nevada for Casuga to return the valuables or otherwise remit the proceeds of the sale, no jewelry or money was ever returned.

Casuga has duty to return them upon Nevadas demand. His failure to do so renders him subject to disciplinary action. To be sure, he cannot use, as a defense, the lack of a lawyer-client relationship as an exonerating factor.

In compliance with a directive from the Court, Casuga submitted an Affidavit[4] dated December 5, 2007, as comment on the administrative complaint. In it, Casuga claims that Nevada informally instituted him as the administrator of the Hotel in a limited capacity but denied receiving the PhP 90,000 from Chul. With regard to the pieces of jewelry and the Rolex watch, Casuga stated that Nevada actually pawned them in a pawnshop and that she later asked his wife to redeem them using their own money. Thereafter, Nevada asked Casugas wife to sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the proceeds of the sale.

Facts:

Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada & Sons, Inc., a family corporation at Mt. Crest Hotel located at Legarda Road, Baguio City. She and Casuga are members of the One in Jesus Christ Church, a religious group which Casuga is one of the elders. She has allowed the use of one of the Hotels functions rooms for church services. And in time, Casuga was able to gain her trust and confidence.

CANON 17 CASES

AURORA D. CERDAN, GOMEZ,

- versus -ATTY. CARLO

SC Ruling on Canon 17 suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. Atty. Gomez failed to account for the money he received for Cerdan as a result of the compromise agreement. He remitted the amount of 290,000.00 only, an amount substantially less than the share of complainant. The complainants share from the FCB savings accounts amounted to 442,547.88 but only P290,000.00 was remitted by Atty. Gomez after deducting his share.

was agreed a 50-50 sharing between Cerdan and the children of Rufino, as proposed by the FCB counsel. But such agreement was replaced by the Compromise Agreement entered into by Atty. Gomez, wherein the heirs of Rufino got 60% of the share while she only received 40%. He also included in the Compromise Agreement the savings account in; when the scope of the SPA WAS ONLY the account in FCB-Quezon branch. Atty. Gomez took her bank book for the FCB account in Narra Branch containing deposits in the amount of more or less P165,000.00 and never returned it to her. He also withdrew from her FCB accounts and thereafter gave the amount of P290,000.00 and uttered, ITO NA LAHAT ANG PERA MO AT ANG SA AKIN NAKUHA KO NA.

Atty. Gomez has no right to unilaterally retain his lawyers lien. Having obtained the funds in the course of his professional employment, Atty. Gomez had the obligation to account and deliver such funds to his client when they became due, or upon demand. Moreover, THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT between him and complainant that he could deduct therefrom his claimed attorneys fees. '

Atty. Gomez was her counsel in a case against a certain Romeo Necio (Necio) and paid him attorneys fees and judicial fee in the amount of P15,000.00, and P8,000.00, respectively. The parties agreed to settle amicably and decided that Atty. Gomez would collect from Necio the amount agreed upon - and that as of the filing of the complaint, Atty. Gomez has yet to remit to complainant the amount of P12,000.00.

Facts:

Cerdan and widower Benjamin Rufino (Rufino) lived together as husband and wife. During their cohabitation, they bought several real properties and had savings accounts at First Consolidated Bank (FCB), (at the Quezon and Narra branches in Palawan)-- all of which were IN RUFINO's NAME. When Rufino died on December 28, 2004, Cerdan sought the legal advice of Atty. Gomez as to what to do with the properties left by Rufino, and paid Atty. Gomez attorneys fees in the amount of P152,000.00 (but only the amount of P100,000.00 was reflected in the receipt).

She authorized Atty. Gomez, thru a special power of attorney (SPA), to settle Rufinos savings account . It

CANON 18 CASES FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, - versus - ATTY. MANUEL G. SAN JOSE

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months Respondent fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer entrusted with a case. He was hired by the De Enriquez on August 28, 1989, and that San Jose sent the notice-to-vacate to the lessee before the unlawful detainer case could be filed. However, after nine months, respondent had done nothing further in connection with the case. A lawyer who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. San Jose in this case failed to file the civil case after sending a demand letter. The failure to file a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent. SECONDLY, this Court finds reprehensible respondents failure to heed the request of his client TO RETURN THE CASE DOCUMENTS. Respondent also relies on complainants letter, informing him of her decision to withdraw the case. According to the complainant, she resorted to the letter so she could retrieve the records she previously handed over to the respondent, but he continued to refuse to return them. It may be noted that the letter was sent to respondent a few days BEFORE the lapse of the one-year prescriptive period. If HE HAD earlier filed a case, there would have been no need for complainant to resort to that letter to get the records - in line with her plan to have the Public Attorneys Office assist in filing the appropriate case. Because of the respondents failure to file the appropriate case, and his refusal to return the documents, time ran out and the action for unlawful detainer case was barred by prescription.

payment of monthly rentals on her property in Taban, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. San Jose failed to file the appropriate civil case, despite payment to him of P2,000 attorneys fees, so she decided to withdraw the case from respondent. She demanded the return of the pertinent documents but despite repeated demands, respondent refused and failed to return the documents. As a result, the action for unlawful detainer prescribed. Her daughter who worked for respondent was not paid her salary. Complainant prayed that Atty. San Jose be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law. Respondent denied being negligent. He alleged that he received a letter from the complainant informing him that the lessee had already agreed to vacate the premises, and thus, the filing of an unlawful detainer case had become unnecessary. Respondent also explained that he did not file the case even before receiving complainants letter because there was a vacancy in the sala of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of LibmananCabusao, Camarines Sur. He claimed that he informed complainant that the case could not be filed until a new judge was appointed, but he promised to file the case before the action prescribed. Respondent claimed further that the attorneys fee was P3,000 and that he had paid complainants daughter P700 per month.

Facts:

De Enriquez alleged that on August 28, 1989, she hired the services of respondent Atty. San Jose for the purpose of filing an unlawful detainer case against one Rugerio Alipante, who defaulted in the

LUISITO BALATBAT, Complainant, vs ATTY. EDGARDO ARIAS Y SANCHEZ, Respondent.

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act Atty Sanchez received a notice of hearing for the setting of the case for trial. He went to the City Court on the appointed day. However, finding that plaintiff and defendant (complainant herein) therein had not yet arrived, he requested the clerk of court to cancel the hearing on the ground that he had two (2) criminal cases pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branches 17 and 29 which he had to attend to. He then failed to verify the next hearing date with the court. When asked why he failed to do so, respondent declared that he forgot it and took the word of the Clerk of Court that notices would be sent to both parties. The hearing was re-scheduled, the day plaintiff presented his evidence ex parte and eventually judgment was rendered based solely thereon; after which, execution started. Respondent should have, at the very least, MOVED TO HAVE THE HEARING postponed on the ground of conflict in his scheduled hearings in other cases.

not attend the scheduled hearings because respondent told him that there was no need to be present. But when he verified the status of the case from the then City Court of Manila, he was surprised to learn that a Decision had already been rendered. Complainant alleged that the enforcement of the decision caused him and his family "untold miseries, embarrassment and public ridicule."

The city court declared complainant in default for failure to appear during the hearing. Plaintiff (opposing party) was, thereafter, allowed to present evidence ex parte. After three days, a judgment adverse to complainant was rendered, prompting the plaintiff to move for execution ex-parte; Two days thereafter, a Writ of Execution was issued.

Indeed, the negligent failure of respondent to act accordingly under the circumstances clearly negates not only his claim that he "appeared in court always mindful of his duties," but also his vow to serve his client WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE and not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

Respondent claimed that the notice of the hearing of the June 18, 1976 trial was "made to appear as though signed by him." He insisted that it was not his signature. He, likewise, asserted that contrary to complainants allegations, he always tried to take the complainant with him to the city court for all the scheduled hearings; it was always the complainant who, for one reason or another, could not go with him.

SC Ruling on Canon 18.04 He violated it because it mandates that a lawyer keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable time to a clients request for information. A client must never be left in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal profession in general.

Respondent further alleged that complainant had filed a Manifestation in the City Court terminating his (respondents) legal services, and a new counsel for complainant entered an appearance. Respondent claimed that he could not have possibly opposed the Ex Parte Motion for Execution filed in the civil case since he was not furnished a copy thereof.9 Respondent prayed that complainant be punished for contumacy for being motivated by ill will and malice in filing the instant administrative complaint against him.

The Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation.

Facts: Luisito Balatba engaged the services of respondent to undertake his defense in the said civil case. He did

Complainant testified that he had gone to the City Court to make a follow-up on the status of the case since respondent had not been communicating nor collecting fees from him for two months. He then

discovered that a decision had already been rendered.10 He went to respondents office to inquire the status of his case, and respondent told him that "they were on the loss." He asked respondent to show him the copy of the decision, and respondent replied that "it was already in default." Complainant then demanded that the records of the case be shown to him but again, respondent refused.11

Respondent, for his part, claimed that it was complainant who notified him of the adverse decision and promised that he would verify this with the city court.12 Respondent then requested the complainant to return the next day. He insisted that unlike the notices of previous hearings in the case, he did not receive any notice from the City Court of the supposed hearing that was reset on June 18, 1976;13 that the signature appearing therein was not his; and that he did not know who had affixed the same.14 Thereafter, he informed the complainant that he had already prepared a draft pleading; that he would file it to have the decision set aside; and that it could easily be proven that "the signature appearing in the records was not his signature."15

HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA, Respondent.

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 Atty. Bautista attributes his delay in filing the appropriate criminal case to the absence of conciliation proceedings between complainant and her siblings before the barangay as required under Article 222 of the Civil Code and the Local Government Code. However, this excuse is belied by the Certification to File Action by the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, Office of the Barangay Council, Barangay Daanghari, Navotas. The Certification to File Action was issued on 1 July 2002, which was MORE THAN 4 MONTHS before complainant engaged respondents legal services on 25 November 2002. Respondents allegation that complainant failed to inform him about the existence of the Certification to File Action is INVALID considering complainants determination to file the case against her siblings. Clearly, respondent has been negligent in handling complainants case.

entrusted to respondent. Complainant claimed that she was dissatisfied with the way respondent handled her complaint considering that during the six months that elapsed, respondent ONLY SENT A LETTER to the City Engineers Office in Navotas City concerning her complaint.

On 8 March 2004, complainant sent a letter to respondent, reiterating that she was terminating the services of respondent and that she was asking for the refund of P 14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee. Complainant stated in her letter that due to respondent's "failure to institute the desired complaint on time" against her brothers and sisters, complainant was compelled to hire the services of another counsel to file the complaint. Respondent failed to refund the P 14,000, prompting complainant to file on 10 May 2005 her complaint dated 29 March 2005 with the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court. Complainant charged respondent with violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, violation of the lawyers oath, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public.

In this case, complainant is asking for the refund of P 14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee considering that, apart from sending a letter to the City Engineer of Navotas City, respondent did nothing more to advance his clients cause during the 6 months that complainant engaged his legal services.

Facts: On 25 November 2002, Voluntad-Ramirez engaged the legal services of Bautista to file a complaint against her siblings for encroachment of her right of way. For his legal services, respondent demanded P 15,000 as acceptance fee, plus P 1,000 per court appearance. Complainant then paid respondent the P 15,000 acceptance fee. On 29 May 2003, or 6 months after she hired respondent, complainant stopped the legal services of respondent because respondent failed to file a complaint within a reasonable period of time as requested by complainant. Complainant then retrieved from respondent the folder containing the documents and letters pertaining to her case which complainant had

In his defense, respondent alleges that complainant initially wanted him to file an injunction case against her siblings but later [changed her mind when she was apprised of the expenses involved]. Respondent then advised complainant that since her case involves family members, earnest efforts toward a compromise should be made in accordance with Article 222 of the Civil Code and that since the parties reside in the same barangay, the case must be referred to the barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code. Respondent also suggested filing a criminal action instead of an injunction case. The day after he was hired by complainant, respondent wrote a letter to the City Engineer of Navotas City pertaining to complainants case. Respondent made several follow ups with the City Engineers Office and even filed a case against the City Engineer for nonfeasance under Republic Act No. 6713. ALSO, when complainant voluntarily withdrew her case from respondent, complainant also retrieved the folder containing the documents relevant to her case. It was ONLY AFTER 10 MONTHS from severing respondents legal services that complainant sent a letter dated 8 March 2004

demanding the refund of P 14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee. Respondent explains that THE ACCEPTANCE FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE because it covers the time and cost of research made immediately before and after acceptance of the case. Nevertheless, respondent alleges that he did not ignore complainants request for a refund. Respondent claims that he sent a letter dated 17 March 2004, which stated that although it is their law firms policy not to entertain requests for refund of acceptance fee, they were willing to grant her a fifty percent (50%) discount and for complainant to contact them for her refund. In fact, respondent stated that he sent text messages to complainants lawyer, Atty. Bartolome, signifying respondents willingness to refund the amount of P 9,000.

In her Reply-Affidavit, complainant stated that even before she engaged respondents legal services, her case was already referred to the barangay for conciliation proceedings. However, complainants siblings failed to appear which resulted in the issuance on 1 July 2002 of a Certification to File Action by the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, Office of the Barangay Council, Barangay Daanghari, Navotas.Respondent countered in his Position Paper that complainant did not inform him of the existence of the alleged Certification to File Action and that the said certification was not part of the case folder which respondent turned over to complainant when his services was severed.

ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, versus MACALALAD,

ATTY. RAMIL E. Facts:

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION from the practice of law

Atty. Macalalad failed to file the required petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. At any rate, we reject Atty. Macalalads defense that it was his clients who failed to contact him. Although no previous communication transpired between Atty. Macalalad and his clients, Atty. Solidon, who contracted Atty. Macalalads services in behalf of his relatives, tried his best to reach him prior to the filing of the present disbarment case. Atty. Solidon even enlisted the aid of Ms. Cabo-Borata to followup on the status of the registration application with Atty. Macalalad.

Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of the DENR in Tacloban City. Although he is in public service, the DENR Secretary has given him the authority to engage in the practice of law.

Ms. Cabo-Borata succeeded several times in getting in touch with Atty. Macalalad and on those occasions asked him about the progress of the case. To use Ms. Cabo-Boratas own words, she received no clear-cut answers from him; he just informed her that everything was on process.

While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October 2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz CaboBorata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the JUDICIAL TITLING of a parcel of land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and owned by HIS (Atty. Solidons) relatives. For a consideration of P80,000.00, Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to be completed within a period of 8 months. Atty. Macalalad received P50,000.00 as initial payment; the remaining balance of P30,000.00 was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the certificate of title to the property.

Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over the property sought to be titled up to the present time.

The monetary consideration and the fixed period of performance should have made it more imperative for Atty. Macalalad to promptly take action and initiate communication with his clients. He had been given initial payment and should have at least undertaken initial delivery of his part of the engagement.

Atty. Solidon tried to contact Atty. Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case 6 months after he paid the initial legal fees. He did this through phone calls and text messages to their known acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a letter sent by courier to Atty. Macalalad. However, he did not receive any communication from Atty. Macalalad.

We further find that Atty. Macalalads conduct refutes his claim of willingness to perform his obligations. If Atty. Macalalad truly wanted to file the petition, he could have acquired the necessary information from Atty. Solidon to enable him to file the petition even pending the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline investigation. As matters now stand, he did not take any action to initiate communication.

Atty. Macalalad responded posited that the delay in the filing of the petition for the titling of the property was caused by his clients FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE with him. He also explained that he had no intention of reneging on his obligation, as he had already prepared the draft of the petition. He failed to file the petition simply because he still lacked the needed documentary evidence that his clients should have furnished him.

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA, - versus - ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA,

SC Ruling on Canon 18.02, 03, 18.04 Atty. Elayda even admitted that the spouses Aranda never knew of the scheduled hearings because said spouses never came to him and that he did not know the spouses whereabouts. It is the counsels primary duty to inform his clients of the status of their case and the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the case. Besides, it is elementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients to exchange contact details at the initial stages in order to have constant communication with each other. Again, Atty. Elaydas excuse that he did not have the spouses Arandas contact number and that he did not know their address is simply unacceptable.

of the outcome of the case. The spouses Aranda came to know of the adverse RTC judgment, which by then had already become final and executory, only when a writ of execution was issued and subsequently implemented by the sheriff.

Facts:

On February 14, 2006 hearing of the said case, the case was ordered submitted for decision [the spouses Aranda] and [Atty. Elayda] did not appear. The order setting this case for hearing on February 14, 2006 was sent only to [Atty. Elayda] and no notice was sent to [the spouses Aranda] that is they were unaware of said hearing and [Atty. Elayda] never informed them of the setting. Also, despite receipt of the order dated February 14, 2006, [Atty. Elayda] never informed them of such order notwithstanding the follow-up they made of their case to him.

Atty. Elaydas explanation is invalid, that he cannot be faulted for missing the February 14, 2006 hearing of the spouses Arandas case because he was just at the other branch of the RTC for another case and left a message with the court stenographer to just call him when [the spouses Aranda] come. In the first place, the counsel should not be at another hearing when he knew very well that he has a scheduled hearing for the *spouses Arandas+ case at the same time. His attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend on the whether [the spouses Aranda] will come or not. The Order submitting the decision was given at the instance of the other partys counsel mainly because of his absence there.

Atty. Elayda did not act upon the RTC order submitting the spouses Arandas case for decision. Thus, a judgment was rendered against the spouses Aranda for a sum of money. Notice of said judgment was received by Atty. Elayda who again did not file any notice of appeal or motion for reconsideration and thus, the judgment became final and executory. Atty. Elayda did not also inform the spouses Aranda

[Atty. Elayda] did not lift any single finger to have the order dated February 14, 2006 reconsidered and/or set aside as is normally expected of a counsel devoted to the cause of his client. In view of the inaction of [Atty. Elayda] the court naturally rendered a judgment dated March 17, 2006 adverse to [the spouses Aranda] which copy thereof was sent only to [Atty. Elayda] and [the spouses Aranda] did not receive any copy thereof, certified xerox copy of the decision is attached. They were totally unaware of said judgment as [Atty. Elayda] had not again lifted any single finger to inform them of such adverse judgment and that there is a need to take a remedial recourse thereto. [Atty. Elayda] did not even bother to file a notice of appeal hence the judgment became final and executory hence a writ of execution was issued upon motion of the plaintiff [Martin Guballa] in the said case. Sheriff IV Leandro R. Madarag implemented the writ of execution and it was only at this time that [the spouses Aranda] became aware of the judgment of the Court. They found out that they have already lost their case and worst the decision had already become final and executory.

Also, despite their plea for a reasonable period to take a remedial recourse of the situation (the Sheriff initially gave them fifteen (15) days), Sheriff Madarag forcibly took possession and custody of their Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. 529.

Atty. Elayda filed his Answer[5] dated September 1, 2006, in which he narrated: Thi case also referred to [Atty. Elayda] sometime December 2004 after the [spouses Aranda] and its former counsel failed to appear in court on February 7, 2005. From December 2004, the [spouses Aranda] did not bother to contact [Atty. Elayda] to prepare for the case and in fact on May 30, 2005, [Atty. Elayda] had to ask for postponement of the case for reason that he still have to confer with the [spouses Aranda] who were not around. The [spouses Aranda] from December 2004 did not even bother to follow up their case in court just if to verify the status of their case and that it was only on July 19, 2006 that they verified the same and also the only time they tried to contact [Atty. Elayda]. During the scheduled hearing of the case on February 14, 2006, [Atty. Elayda] was in fact went to RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City and asked Mrs. Edith Miano to call him in Branch 73 where he had another case if the [spouses Aranda] show up in court so that [Atty. Elayda] can talk to them but obviously the [spouses Aranda] did not appear and Mrs. Miano did not bother to call [Atty. Elayda].

CANON 19 CASES

ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.

SC Ruling on Canon 19.01 - Reprimanded Even if the Court agrees with the that Atty Jimenez is not guilty of forum shopping (as counsel for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, filed a special civil action assailing the Order that [appoints the accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as auditor]; and, a regular appeal that [assails the Order that directed the payment of commission to complainant.] It is evident that there is identity of parties but different causes of action and reliefs sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty of forum shopping) However, respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Before Atty Jimenez assisted the heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein Atty Briones, he sent demand letters to the Briones to comply with the Order of Judge Tipon [to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson]. Considering that Briones did not reply to the demand letters, Jimenez filed said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. Facts:

Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson. Respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is the counsel for the Heirs of the late Luz J. Henson (Heirs). On April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the RTC a notice of appeal from the Order [commanding the payment for Briones' commission], questioning the payment of commission to Atty. Briones. On April 29, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, dassailing the Order dated March 12, 2002 [that appoints the firm of Alba, Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit at the expense of the late Luz J. Henson], as well as the Order commanding payment, insofar as it denied their motion for recommendation.

The Order referred to is the third part of the assailed Order(direc payment to complainant) which [directs complainant to deliver the residue to the Heirs in proportion to their shares]. TO BE MORE ETHICAL, Jimenez should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said Order INSTEAD of immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against him. The filing of the criminal complaint was EVIDENTLY PREMATURE because the RTC would still have to determine and define the residue referred to in the subject Order.

On July 26, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the CA a Petition for Mandamus alleging that the respondent Judge therein unlawfully refused to comply with his ministerial duty to approve their appeal which was perfected on time. Atty. Briones, in his Comment, contends that the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, represented by Atty. Jimenez, are guilty of forum shopping for which reason, the petition should be dismissed. 6

Jimenez claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein Briones after the Briones ignored the demand letters sent to him; and that a lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. The Court is not convinced. Fair play demands that

On February 11, 2003, the CA without touching on the forum shopping issue, granted the petition and ordered the respondent Judge to give due course to the appeal taken by Atty. Jimenez from the Order dated April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of commission to Atty. Briones. Atty. Briones then filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari praying for the dismissal of the appeal from the Order dated April 3, 2002, insofar as it ordered the payment of commission to him, as the

Special Administrator of the estate of the deceased Luz J. Henson.

VALERIANA U. DALISAY, -versus- ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., Facts: SC Ruling on Canon 19.02 On October 13, 2001, Valeriana U. Dalisay, engaged Atty Melancio's services as counsel in Civil Case entitled Lucio De Guzman, etc., complainants, v. Dalisay U. Valeriana, respondent, pending before the Municipal Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorneys fees in the total amount of P56,000.00 from complainant, respondent never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents, but respondent refused.

In an ironic twist of fate, Atty. Mauricio became the accuser of complainant. In his fourth argument, he accuses Dalisay of offering falsified documentary evidence in the civil case, prompting him to file falsification cases against her. He thus justifies his inability to render legal services to complainant.

Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence in Civil Case No. 00-044, will it be sufficient to exonerate respondent? We believe not. First, Canon 19.02 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. As a lawyer, instead of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her.

Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No.00-044 (TOTOO NA KAYA LANG SIYA NAGRENDER NG ADVICE AY DAHIL SA GANUNG REASON). He learned of the alleged falsification LONG AFTER complainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in the Civil Case. He verified the authenticity of complainants title only after the news of his suspension spread in the legal community. Obviously, in filing falsification charges against complainant, respondent was motivated by vindictiveness.

Ffor the amount of P56,000.00 paid by the complainant, no action had been taken nor any pleadings prepared by the respondent except his alleged conferences and opinions rendered when complainant frequented his law office. The respondent is required to refund the amount of P56,000.00 to the complainant, and surprisingly, that the complaint be dismissed.

Respondent went to the MTC Binangonan, Rizal to verify the status of Civil Case. There, he learned of the trial courts Decision holding that the tax declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official records of the Municipal Assessor and the Registry of Deed. Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant charging her with fraud. He alleged that complainant offered tampered evidence.

In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his or her retainer. It gives rise to a relationship between an attorney and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith.

In this motion for reconsideration, respondent raises the following arguments: Complainant did not engage his services as counsel in Civil Case but only for purpose of filing two new petitions, a petition for declaration of nullity of title and a petition for review of a decree.

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL, BENEDICT FLORIDO, - versus - ATTY. JAMES

SC Ruling on Canon 19

clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.[11] 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.[12]

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.[8] It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.[9]

Facts:

We agree with Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.s conclusion:

Atty. Florido and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel (Nazareno-Relampagos group), 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 (Garay), the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank.

Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. 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.[10]

A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his

In his comment, respondent denied RBCIs allegations. Respondent 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. On 1 April 2002, 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. Respondent, through the orders of the

Nazareno-Relampagos group, also changed the locks of the banks vault.