1. Heirs of Rey Romero versus Venancio Reyes, Jr., AC No.

6192, June 23, 2005

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/ac_6192.htm

Facts: Atty. Venancio Reyes is counsel for Heirs of Herman Rey for which they are intervenors in a civil
case involving multiple sale of a piece of land. There were three buyers however, and to settle the case, they
had agreed to a Compromise Agreement. The Compromise Agreement, dated June 16, 1995, was signed in
three stages, first by Elizabeth Reyes and her husband, then by complainants and their counsel, Atty. Renato
Samonte Jr., and last, by Antonio Gonzales, Veronica Gonzales for and on behalf of V.R. Credit Enterprises,
Inc. and by herein respondent. Later, the RTC which houses the records of the case was destroyed by fire,
thus The complainants filed a motion for reconstitution of the records of the case, which was granted by the
RTC of Bulacan. The documents attached to the motion were the basis for the reconstituted records. Because
of the circumstances of signing of the Compromise Agreement, the copy submitted to the RTC bore only the
signatures of Elizabeth Reyes, her husband, complainants, and that of their counsel, Atty. Renato Samonte.
After a lapse of two (2) years from the date of the Compromise Agreement, V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. still
has not complied with its obligation toward complainants. Hence, complainants filed a motion for issuance of
writ of execution against V.R. Credit Enterprises, Inc. for such failure. Atty. Reyes filed a motion for the case
was premature. Later he raised the issue that the Compromise Agreement was not valid since it was not
signed by Veronica Gonzales. Hence, the RTC rued that the Compromise as unenforceable. Thus, herein,
complainants filed this administrative case against Atty. Venancio Reyes Jr. charging him with willful and
intentional falsehood, in violation of his oath as a member of the Philippine bar. IBP investigating commissioner
found him guilty of violation of his oath.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Venancio Reyes is administratively liable.

Held: 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 the parties representatives 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. In assailing the legality of the Compromise Agreement, he claims good faith. He maintains that he
should not be faulted for raising an allegedly valid defense to protect his clients interests. The records show,
however, that his actions bear hallmarks of dishonesty and doublespeak. Atty. Reyes is one of negotiating
panel in the compromise agreement. He impressed upon the parties and the trial judge that his clients were
bound to the Compromise Agreement. Then, suddenly and conveniently, he repudiated it by falsely alleging
that one of his clients had never signed it. True, lawyers are obliged to present every available remedy or
defense to support the cause of their clients. However, their fidelity to their causes must always be made
within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth and justice. In Choa v. Chiongson this
principle was explained thus: While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to
his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law Thus, herein, Atty. Venancio
Reyes, was ordered suspended for 1 year.

2. Arsenio Villafuerte versus Dante Cortez, AC No. 3465, April 14, 1998

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm


3. Ruby Mae Barnachea versus Edwin Quiocho, AC No. 5925, March 11, 2005

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm


[A.M. No. 5925. March 11, 2003]RUBY MAE BARNACHEA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
EDWIN T. QUIOCHO, respondent.Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent for the
latter to cause the transfer under hername of the title over a property previously owned by her
sister. Complainant was able to pay respondent for legal fees.Respondent failed. Complainant
demanded that respondent refund to her the legal fees and returnthe documents which she earlier
entrusted to him. However, respondent failed to comply with saiddemands.

Held: SUSPENDED for 1 year; repetition of violation will be dealt severely. PAY the
complainant.Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case
law has it that anattorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and
dishonesty in theprofession but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties, making himunfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the
law confer upon him. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that
may come to his possession.The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a
gross violation of professionalethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession.The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very
delicate, exacting andconfidential character. A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all hisdealings and transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore,
demands of an attorney anabsolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any
way, directly or indirectly, withthe interest of his client. In this case, respondent miserably failed
to measure up to the exactingstandard expected of him.

4. Resolution of GR No. 72954, Atty. Victor Avecilla, AC No. 6683, June 21, 2011

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/6683.htm

5. Jaime Curimatmat versus Felipe Gojas, AC No. 4411, June 10, 1999

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jun99/4411.htm

6. Raul Sanchez versus Salustino Somoso, AC No 6061, October 3, 2003

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/ac_6061.htm

7. Republic of the Philippines versus Kenrick Development Corporation, GR No. 149576, August 8, 2006

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html

8. Romer Almojuela, Jr. versus Revelino M. Ringor, et al, AM No. MTJ-04-1521, July 27, 2004

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jul2004/am_mtj_04_1521.htm

9. Elmer Canoy versus Jose Max Ortiz, AC No. 5485, March 16, 2005

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/ac_5485_2005.html


Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz deigned to represent. He claims having prepared
the position paper of Canoy, but before he could submit the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the
order dismissing the case. Atty. Ortiz admits though that the period within which to file the position paper had
already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as
Councilor because he was too busy. Eventually, he withdrew from his other cases and his free legal services.
Complainant filed this complaint but later on withdrew .

Held: SUSPENDED: (1) month, with WARNING that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more
severely.

Still, the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a
manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon
the adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave
complainant in the cold unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged
shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he
took no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the services of another
counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and this new
counsel.

There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst
of litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his
legal practice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not
mitigate the dereliction of professional duty. Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no
reason to deviate from the norm in this case.

10. Jessie R. De Leon versus Eduardo R. Castelo, AC No. 8620, January 12, 2011

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/8620.htm

1. Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Dishonesty; To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the
highest value, for a lawyer must be a disciple of truth.

2. Same; Same; A lawyers reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object, and the Court, whose
officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous
and the malicious.

3. Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; Their being officers of the Court extends to
attorneys not only the presumption of regularity in the discharge of their duties, but also the
immunity from liability to others for as long as the performance of their obligations to their
clients does not depart from their character as servants of the Law and as officers of the
Court.

11. Erlinda A. Tarog versus Romulo Ricafort, AC No. 8253, March 15, 2011

The Tarogs engaged the services of Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on accountregarding their bank-foreclosed
property located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filingfee, which
they gave to him. He explained the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter theP60,000.00
deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property. 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 check) in court, but in his own account.He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite
several inquiries about when the amount would bereturned, however, the Tarogs received mere assurances
from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in goodhands.The Tarogs furthered delivered P15,000.00 to Atty.
Ricafort for making a memorandum, but he didnot file the memorandum. When it became apparent to the
Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make goodhis 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 thememorandum. Yet, they did not receive any reply from Atty. Ricafort.In
his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited in court,insisting that the
amount was payment for his legal services under a "package deal. Findings of the IBPCommissioner:

Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort be DISBARRED and be ordered to return the amount of P65,000and P15,000 which
he got from his client.

Commissioner Reyes concluded that Atty. Ricafort violated Canon15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of
Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
by takingadvantage of the vulnerability of his clients and by being dishonest in his dealings with them by
refusing toreturn the amount of P65,000.00 to them.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Resolution resolving to return the matter to CommissionerReyes for a
clarification of whether or not there was evidence to support the claim that the P65,000.00 had been in
payment of attorney's fees and other expenses. Commissioner Reyes issued a second Report
andRecommendation, in which he declared that Atty. Ricafort did not present any retainer agreement or
receiptto prove that the amount of P65,000.00 had been part of his attorney's fees; that Atty. Ricafort had
willfully ignored the demand of Arnulfo by not replying to the demand letter; that, instead, Atty. Ricafort
hadinsisted that the househelp who had received the demand letter had not given it to him; and that in
his(Commissioner Reyes) presence, Atty. Ricafort had also promised to the complainant that he would settlehis
liability, but Atty. Ricafort did not make good his promise despite several resettings to allow him to settlehis
obligation.The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner Reyes and recommended the disbarment of Atty. Ricafort and the order for him to return
theamounts of P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 to Erlinda. Atty. Ricafort moved for reconsideration, maintaining
that a retainer agreement was immaterial because he had affirmed having received the P65,000.00 and having
issued a receipt for the amount; that hehad not kept the receipt because "the practice of lawyers in most
instances is that receipt is issued withoutduplicate as it behooves upon the client to demand for a receipt and
considering that the Tarogs hadproduced a photocopy of the receipt he had issued for the P30,000.00 in
connection with their appeal, itfollowed that a similar receipt for attorney's fees had been made at the time
when the case had been about to be filed in the RTC. Acting on Atty. Ricafort's
motion for reconsideration
, the IBP Board of Governors downgraded thepenalty from disbarment to indefinite suspension. Atty. Ricafort
filed a second
motion for reconsideration,
assailing the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors for violating Section 12, Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court
requiring the decision of the IBP Board of Governors to be in writing and to clearly and distinctly state the facts
and reasons on which the decision was based. Hence, the administrative case is now beforethe Court for
resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ricafort may be disbarred based on the grounds mentioned
HELD:
SC affirmed the findings of the Commissioner Reyes, because they were supported by substantialevidence.
However, SC imposed the penalty of disbarment instead of the recommended penalty of indefinitesuspension
considering that Atty. Ricafort committed a very serious offense that was aggravated by hishaving been
previously administratively sanctioned for a similar offense on the occasion of which he was warned against
committing a similar offense.Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
states thatRule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
theclient. Atty. Ricafort explained that he had no copies of the receipts for the P65,000.00 and
P15,000.00issued to the Tarogs because "the practice of lawyers in most instances is that receipt is issued
withoutduplicate as it behooves upon the client to demand for a receipt." But such explanation does not
persuadethe Court. Ethical and practical considerations made it both natural and imperative for him to issue
receipts,even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own records. He was all too aware
that he was accountable for the moneys entrusted to him by the clients, and that his only means of
ensuringaccountability was by
issuing
and
keeping
receipts. Atty. Ricafort's acts and actuations constituted serious breach of his fiduciary duties as an
attorney.Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his clients that
cameinto his possession, and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed
inhim.Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his professional employment, he
hadthe 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 thepositive obligation to keep all funds of his client separate and apart from his own
and from those of otherskept by him, to wit:Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
and apart from his ownand those of others kept by him
.
Atty. Ricafort's plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients rendered him liable for violation of
Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01,
supra
, and Canon 17, all of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
.Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of thetrust and confidence
reposed in him.His acts and actuations constituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional
ethicsthat impaired public confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.

12. Angelita Orcino versus Josue Gaspar, AC No. 3773, September 24, 1997

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/ac_3773.htm


Facts: Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against
several suspects in the slaying of her husband. Complainant paid respondent his fees as stipulated. Forthwith,
respondent entered into his duties and performed them religiously from the preliminary investigation with the
office of the prosecutor until the case was thereafter filed with the RTC of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

Respondent however failed to attend the bail hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at this nearing that the
court, over complainant's objections, granted bail to all the accused. After the hearing, complainant
immediately went to respondent's residence and confronted him with his absence. Respondent explained that
he did not receive formal notice of the hearing. Complainant became belligerent and started accusing him of
jeopardizing the case by his absence. Respondent said that her suspicions were based on rumors and intrigues
fed to her by her relatives. Complainant, however, continued accusing him belligerently. She asked for the
records of the case saying that she could refer them to another lawyer. Stung by her words, respondent gave
her the records.

Subsequently, respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel" but it did not bear the
consent of complainant. The court issued an order directing respondent to secure complainant's consent to the
motion "and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this consent."
Complainant refused to sign her conformity to respondent's withdrawal. Meanwhile, the hearings in the
criminal case continued. Respondent did not appear at the hearings nor did he contact complainant.
Complainant was thus compelled to engage the services of another lawyer. Hence, this complaint.


Issue: Whether or not a lawyer is excused from his duty to represent his client if said client refuses to give his
consent to the lawyers motion to withdraw his appearance.


Held: No. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his
client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. Should the client refuse to give his
consent, the lawyer must file an application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and adverse
party, shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire. The application for withdrawal must be based
on a good cause. In the instant case, respondent did not file an application with the court for it to determine
whether he should be allowed to withdraw.


Corollary Issue: Granting that the Motion to withdraw appearance filed by respondent is sufficient as to form,
is it based upon a good cause?

No. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer may withdraw his
services from his client only in the following instances: (a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral
conduct of his case; (b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could not get
along to the detriment of the case; (d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him
incapable of handling the case effectively; (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees
agreed upon; (f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar cases.

Respondent's withdrawal was made on the ground that "there no longer exist[ed] the . . . confidence" between
them and that there had been "serious differences between them relating to the manner of private
prosecution." This circumstance is neither one of the foregoing instances nor can it be said that it is analogous
thereof.

13. William S. Uy versus Fermin Gonzales, AC No. 5280, March 30, 2004

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/ac_5280.htm


14. Roland Saa versus IBP, et al, GR No. 132826, September 3, 2009

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_132826_2009.html

n the recent case of ROLANDO SAA vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, et. al., G.R. No. 132826,
September 3, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of oppressive or unethical behavior
against respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida; however, for violation of Canons 1 and 12 and Rules 1.03 and
12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the lawyers oath, Atty. Venida was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective immediately from receipt of the resolution; and she was
further STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let me digest the case for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.

Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Venida in 1991, alleging that
Atty. Venidas act of filing cases against him before the Tanodbayan for violation of Section 3-A, RA 3019 was
oppressive and constituted unethical practice. In said cases, respondent Atty. Venida alleged that complainant
induced and connived with the Postmaster of Capalonga, Camarines Norte, in affixing only P2 worth of stamps
on each of the two pieces of registered mail, instead of P2.20 worth of stamps for each letter as required, to
the damage and prejudice of the public.

The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. In 1997, IBP CBD Commissioner George S. Briones recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit. It found no evidence that the two cases filed by Atty. Venida against Saa were acts
of oppression or unethical practice. The Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the
investigating commissioners report and dismissed the complaint. Saa filed a motion for reconsideration but
was denied. Thus he appealed the matter to the Supreme Court.

Although the Court agreed that the IBP committed no grave abuse of discretion, considering that there was in
fact a dearth of evidence showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Venida or convincing
proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file baseless legal actions against the petitioner,
nonetheless, the Court strongly disapproved of Atty. Venidas blatant refusal to comply with various court
directives. Atty. Venida filed only a partial comment in 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so in a
1992 resolution. He filed his complete comment only in 1995 or a little over three years after due date. In both
instances, he managed to delay the resolution of the case, a clear violation of Canon 12 and Rules 1.03 and
12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court said. The Court further said that Atty. Venida had
failed to file a memorandum within the period required in the Courts 2004 resolution.

(Notes: CANON 12 A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN
THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes).

The Court reminded the Bar that its members may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for
violation of the lawyers oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. (See Sec. 17, Rule 138). Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it, the
Court said. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Public
confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of
the bar, it added. Every lawyer should thus act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, the Court stated.

15. Araceli Sipin-Nabor versus Benjamin Baterina, June 28, 2001, AC No. 4073

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/ac_4073_2001.html


16. Rosauro P. Cordon versus Jesus Balicanta, Ac No. 2797, October 4, 2002

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/oct2002/ac_2797_2002.html

CORDON v BALICANTA
(complaint for disbarment against Balicanta)Facts:

Cordon and her daughter inherited 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City when Cordons husband died.

Sometime after, Balicanta enticed Cordon to organize a corporation to develop the properties. 19
parcels of landwas transferred in the name of the newly formed corporation. Balicanta became the
Chairman of the Board,President, General Manager and Treasurer of the corporation (kupal talaga)

Balicanta was able to transfer some of the land to a certain Tion Suy Ong through an SPA signed by
Cordon.Balicanta was also able to obtain a loan from Land Bank using as collateral 9 parcels of land.

Balicanta did not even try to redeem the properties and even sold the right to redeem to another
person.

Gago talaga to si Balicanta. Cordons ancestral home was demolished and Cordon was detained in a nipa
shack.Buti na lang at nadiscover ni daughter kung ano nangyari. Sabi kasi ni Balicanta na hes just going
to have thehouse remodeled and repainted, tapos dinemolish na niya. Gago talaga.

Cordon and daughter demanded that Balicanta return all the properties given by them to the
corporation butBalicanta is unable to do so (napunta na sa ibang tao eh)

IBP investigation recommended that Balicanta be disbarred. Balicanta fought back and said that the
investigationis prejudiced against him and filed a complaint for disbarment against the people who
investigated his case andthe lawyers of Cordon. Balicantas complaint was dismissed.Issue:

W/N Balicanta should be disbarredHeld:

Hello?! Siyempre he should be disbarred.

Balicanta cannot invoke the separate personality of the corporation (wow, piercing the corporate veil)

Balicanta has perpetuated massive fraud against his client.

Lahat ng ginawa niya against The Code of Professional Responsibility