Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs Atty.

Eduardo De Vera
Legal Ethics Canon 21 Clients Confidence and Secrets
Atty. Eduardo De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado. De Vera
garnished the bank account of the opposing party but he did not
remit the same to Mercado, instead he claimed that he used the same
to pay off the judge and whats left was for his attorneys fees.
Mercado filed an administrative complaint and eventually De Vera
was suspended from the practice of law for one year. In obvious
retaliation, he filed various complaints against Mercado and her
family, the IBP officers who suspended and several others. He
attempted to re-open the case of her client in an attempt to collect
more attorneys fees. He also instigated the opposing party in the
case he won for Mercado to file lawsuits against Mercado. The
complaints were dismissed but he re-filed them nonetheless.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Vera should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with ill-motive.
It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove from the profession a
person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with
the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney,
and thus to protect the public and those charged with the
administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.
Further, De Vera is in violation of Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In filing cases against Mercado, De Vera
used matters and information acquired by him when he was still the
counsel for Mercado. A lawyer owes loyalty and fidelity to his client
even if the lawyer-client relationship has already terminated. A
lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

Urban Bank, Inc. vs Atty. Magdaleno Pea

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Unconscionable Attorneys Fees
Quantum Meruit
In 1994, Isabel Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI) sold a parcel of land to
Urban Bank, Inc. (UBI). The land was sold for P240 million. As the
land was occupied by unauthorized sub-tenants, ISCIs lawyer, Atty.
Magdaleno Pea had to negotiate with them for them to relocate.
But the said occupants, knowing that the land was already
transferred to UBI, refused to recognize Pea. ISCI then
communicated with UBI so that the latter may authorize Pea to
negotiate with the tenants. Pea had to barricade himself inside the
property to keep the tenants out who were forcing their way in
especially so that the local cops are now sympathetic to them. Pea
then had a phone conversation with Teodoro Borlongan, president
of UBI, where Pea explained to him the situation. In said
conversation, Pea asked authorization from Borlongan to negotiate
with the tenants. Pea also asked that he be paid 10% of the
purchase price or (P24 million) for his efforts. Borlongan agreed
over the phone on the condition that Pea should be able to settle
with the tenants otherwise he forfeits said 10% fee. Pea also asked
that said authorization be put into writing.
The authorization was put into writing but no mention was made as
regards the 10% fee, (in short, that part was not written in the
written authorization released by UBI). Pea was able to settle and
relocate the tenants. After everything was settled and the property
is now formally under the possession of UBI, Pea began sending
demands to UBI for the latter to pay him the P24 million fee agreed
upon, plus his expenses for the relocation of the tenants and the
hiring of security guards or an additional P3 million. But UBI
refused to make payment hence Pea filed a complaint for recovery
against UBI.
The trial court ruled in favor of Pea as it found there indeed was a
contract of agency created between and UBI and that Pea is

entitled to the 10% fee plus the expenses he incurred including

litigation expenses. In sum, the trial court awarded him P28
million.
The Court of Appeals however reversed the order of the trial court.
It ruled that no agency was formed but for his legal services, Pea
is entitled to payment but applying the principle of unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit, Pea should only be paid P3
million.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Magdaleno Pea is entitled to receive
the P28 million.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that said amount is
unconscionable. Pea is entitled to payment for compensation for
services rendered as agent of Urban Bank, but on the basis of the
principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. In the first
place, other than the self-serving testimony of Pea, there was no
other evidence presented to support his claim that Borlongan
agreed to pay him that 10% over the phone. The written
authorization later issued merely confirms the power granted him
to negotiate with the tenants. The written authorization proved the
existence of agency but not the existence of any agreement as to
how much Pea should be paid.
Absent any such agreement, the principle of quantum meruit
should be applied. In this case, Pea is entitled to receive what he
merit for his services, or as much as he has earned. In dealing with
the tenants, Pea didnt have to perform any extraordinary acts or
legal maneuvering. Hence, he is entitled to receive P1.5 million for
his legal services. He is also entitled to reimbursement for his
expenses in securing the property, to wit, P1.5 million for the
security guards he had to hire and another P1.5 million for settling
and relocating the 23 tenants. Total of P4.5 million.
The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyering is not a business; it
is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration.

Petition for Leave to Reclaim Practice of Law of Benjamin

Dacanay
40 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private International Law Nationality
Theory Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical
help. In order for him to take advantage of Canadas free medical aid
program he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006 however,
he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act
9225 of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.
In the same year, he returned to the Philippines and he now intends
to resume his practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his
practice of law.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in
the Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens.
Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. So
when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he ceased to
have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. However, under
RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he
reacquires his Filipino citizenship in accordance with RA 9225.
Hence, when Dacanay reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006,

his membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to have never

been terminated.
But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his
practice of law right after reacquisition?
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he can
resume his practice of law, to wit:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership
dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory
continuing legal education; this is especially significant to refresh
the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws and update
him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind
him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer
of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as
a member of the Philippine bar.

Marjorie f. Samaniego,complainant Vs.Atty. Andrew v.

Ferrer, respondent
Facts: early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a
potential client andthe latter agreed to handle her case and soon
their lawyer-client relationship becameintimate.subsequently,they
cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about ayear
from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born.the affair ended in
2000 and sincethen,respondent failed to supprot his daughter.ms.
Samaniegao,filed a complaint againstthe respondent before the ibp
commission on bar discipline. A member of the bar?
Issue: is the act of the respondent,constitute lacked of degree of
morality required of themember of the bar?

Ruling:yes,the court finds the respondents illicit affair as

disgraceful and immoralconduct subject to disciplinary actions.rule
101 of the code of professional conduct aswell as the canon 7
explicitly
prohibits
acts
which
discredit
of
the
legal
profession,thusthe court sustaining the recommendation of the bar
confidant that the respondent besuspended for 6 months in the
practice of law

Espinosa v. Atty. Omana, A.C. No. 9081, October 12,

2011
FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena
Marantal sought Omanas legal advice on whether they could
dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana prepared a
document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and
Marantal started implanting the conditions of the said contract.
However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took
possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the
advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who
informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not valid.
They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against
Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the
contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested
for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was
illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while
she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-time
office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her
signature and notarized the contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the
Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. W/N the Kasunduaan ng
Paghihiwalay is valid.

HELD: SC has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the

conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The Court
has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the
disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal
partnership, which is exactly what Omaa did in this case.

Elpidio Tiong vs Atty. George Florendo

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Pardon Does Not Bar Sanction
Against an Erring Lawyer Moral Depravity Grossly Immoral
Conduct
Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses
Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times

away. For two years, he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo
were having an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a
telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo mention
amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and
both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo
and Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which was
later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship;
that they are seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse.
Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio
filed a disbarment case against Florendo.
Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was
already pardoned.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.
HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a
sui generis case. This class of cases is meant to protect the public
and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. As
such, pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does
not operate to offset the ground for disbarment or suspension.
Florendos act of having an affair with his clients wife manifested
his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own
marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low
regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed
upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional
Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a
disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary
action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an
attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct, among others. It cannot be also said, as he
claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion
considering that their affair went on for more than two years.
Florendo was suspended for 6 months.

Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No.

9000.
October
5,
2011.Legal
Ethicsvillarama
doctrinesThursday, December 15, 2011

Attorney; grave misconduct. Respondent attorney was found to

have violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondents actions clearly show that she deceived
complainant into lending money to her through the use of
documents and false representations and by taking advantage of
her education and complainants ignorance in legal matters. As
manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan to
respondent were it not for respondents misrepresentation that she
was authorized to sell the property and that complainant could
register the open deed of sale if respondent fails to pay the loan.
By her misdeed, respondent has eroded not only complainants
perception of the legal profession but the publics perception as
well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may be
disciplined. Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No.
9000. October 5, 2011.

SPOUSES MANUEL C. RAFOLS, JR. and LOLITA B. RAFOLS vs.

ATTY. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR[A.C. No. 4973. March 15,
2010.]
FACTS:The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General SantosCity, wherein they
sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to
Judge Dizon, Jr.The complainants were represented by the
respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as acceptance fee.
On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at
their residence and informedcomplainant Manuel that the judge
handling their case wanted to talk to him. The respondent
andManuel thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where
Judge Dizon, Jr. was already waiting. Therespondent introduced
Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their case was
pending in hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve
the case in their favor, assuring their success up tothe Court of
Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct
HELD: YES

Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of

the OBC (Office of the Bar Confidant)but imposed the supreme
penalty of disbarment.Respondent's act of introducing the
complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent
wasaware of the illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with
the respondent's clients. Thus, the courtunqualifiedly accepted the
aptness of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report
andRecommendation, viz.:. . .
Being the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting
litigants outside the court issomething beyond the bounds of the
rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overtact
in arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainantslitigants in the Coffee Shop of theEast Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear
that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge
Dizon'sdesire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a
favorable decision of their case which waspending before the sala of
Judge Dizon.
The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions.
The attorney is a vanguard of ourlegal system, and, as such, is
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a very
highstandard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in
order that the people's faith and confidencein the legal system are
ensured. Any violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifiesthe imposition on the attorney of the appropriate
penalty, including suspension and disbarment.Specifically, the Code
of Professional Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in
unlawful,dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Corollary to this
injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all timesuphold the
integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.

A.C.

No.

4955

September

12,

2011

Antonio

Conlu

Complainant vs. Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr., - Respondent

FACTS
This case is a Disbarment case with prayer for damagesagainst Atty.
Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. on grounds of gross negligencefiled by Antonio
Conlu, his client in a case for Quieting of Title. Thecomplainant
secured the services of Atty. Aredonia to representhim. The Court
rendered a Decision against the complainant. TheDecision was
appealed to the Court of Appeals, however the samewas dismissed
for failure of Atty. Aredonia to file the appeallantsbrief. The
dismissal

of

the

appeal

learned

only

after

the

wife

of

thecomplainant verified the status of the appeal. Atty. Aredonia

seekreconsideration on the resolution alleging that he did not
receivedcopy of the resolution, but the same was denied because of
thelate filing of the motion. The private complainant personally
filedanother motion for reconsideration but the same was denied
forthe reason that the belated filing of Atty. Aredonias first motion
forreconsideration
theSupreme

binds

Court

but

Antonio.
said

Antonio

appeal

then,

was

appealed

denied

by

to
the

Court.Thereafter, Antonio filed the disbarment case before the

Office

of the

Bar

Confidant

who

rendered

Report/Recommendation to theCourt. The Court in its resolution

imposed among others the filingof an administrative case against
Atty. Aredonia before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline.
ISSUES

:1. Whether or not there is gross negligence on the part of

Atty.Aredonia.2. Whether or not res ipsa loquitur applies in this
case.3. Whether or not complainant is entitled for damages.
RULING
:On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to file a
brief resulting

to

the

dismissal

of

an

appeal

constitutes

inexcusablenegligence. This default and his failureto inform his

client of thestatus of the casetranslates to a violation of Canon 18 of
the Codeof Professional Responsibility, which states,

MANUEL C. YUHICO v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

A.C. No. 8391, 23 November 2010,
EN BANC
(Per Curiam) Atty. Fred Gutierrez asked for a cash loan of
P30,000.00 from Manuel Yuhico. Gutierrez thenclaimed that he
needed money to pay for the medical expenses of his mother who
was seriously ill. Yuhicoimmediately handed the money. In turn,
Gutierrez

promised

to

pay

the

loan

very

soon,

since

he

wasexpecting to collect his attorney's fees from a Japanese

client.Gutierrez again asked Yuhico for a loan, in the amount of
P60,000.00, allegedly to pay the medicalexpenses of his wife who
was also hospitalized. Again, Yuhico readily issued to Gutierrez a
check amountingto P60,000.00. Again, Gutierrez promised to pay
his two loans totalling to P90,000.00 "within a shorttime." Yuhico
asked Gutierrez to pay his loans. Gutierrez failed to pay and in a
text message he asked foran extension of time to pay. Later, thru a
text

message,

Gutierrez

attempted

Yuhicoagain.

Gutierrez

claimed

P70,000.00

to

the

pay

fees

to

that

borrow
his

required

money

daughter
to

from

needed

take

the

licensureexamination in the U.S. Medical Board. Gutierrez assured

him that he will pay all his debts within a month.However, this
time, Yuhico refused to lend Gutierrez any amount of money.
Instead,

he

demanded

fromGutierrez

the

payment

of

his

debts.Gutierrez then sent another text message to Yuhico and

requested him to give him another week topay his debts. Gutierrez
failed to make the payment. Yuhico's counsel sent a demand letter
to Gutierrez topay his debts, but to no avail. Thus, Yuhico filed the
instant complaint against Gutierrez before theIntegrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).On January
12, 2006, the IBP-CBD directed Gutierrez to submit his Answer on
the

complaintagainst

him. In a Resolution,

IBP-CBD found

Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and ordered himto

return the amount of P90,000.00 to Yuhico, with interest until full
payment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and
likewise guilty of grossmisconduct
HELD:Lawyers must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include
prompt payment of financial obligations
Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for
which a lawyer may besanctioned with suspension from the practice
of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice
and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain
not only legal proficiency, but alsoa high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples faith and
confidence inthe judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times,
faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar,the courts and
to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations. They must conductthemselves in a manner that reflects
the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.In the instant case, there is no
question as to Gutierrez's guilt. His admission of the loan
hecontracted and his failure to pay the same leaves no room for
interpretation. Neither can he justify his act of non-payment of debt

by his dire financial condition. Gutierrez should not have contracted

loans which are beyond his financial capacity to pay.Likewise, it
cannot be overlooked Gutierrez's propensity of employing deceit
andmisrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining debts without
the intention of paying them. Records show Gutierrez's pattern of
habitually making promises of paying his debts, yet repeatedly
failing to deliver. Theseries of text messages he sent to Yuhico
promising

to

pay

his

loans,

while

simultaneously

giving

excuses without actually making good of his promises, is clearly

reprehensible. Undoubtedly, his acts demonstrate lack of moral
character to satisfy the responsibilities and duties imposed on
lawyers as professionals and asofficers of the court.Supreme Court
also noted that in