GEORGE C. SOLATAN v. ATTYS. OSCAR A.

INOCENTES and JOSE C. CAMANO

A.C. No. 6504, 9 August 2005, SECOND DIVISION (Tinga,
J.)
Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm
of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and
Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito,
owners of an apartment complex when the Genito
Apartments were placed under sequestration by the
PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the
PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases
against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito
Apartments.
Solatans sister was a tenant of the Genito
Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan and other
members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for
non-payment of rentals was filed against her and a
decision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering
her to vacate the premises. Solatan was occupying said
apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed
Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a
new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the
new lessee of the apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him
to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment
cases against tenants of the Genito Apartments.
During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal
agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay
the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded
attorneys fees and costs of suit. Complainant issued a
check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of
the attorneys fees.
Complainant failed to make any other payment.
The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano enforced the
writ of execution and levied the properties found in the
subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and Atty.
Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow
complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty.
Camanos advice, complainant presented an affidavit of
ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items.
However, a gas stove was not returned to the
complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of
the Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying.
Complainant filed the instant administrative case
for disbarment against Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes.
The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty.
Camano from the practice of law for 1 year and to
reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command
responsibility.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
2) Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility
HELD: All lawyers must observe loyalty in all
transactions and dealings with their clients.
1. An attorney has no right to act as counsel or
legal representative for a person without being retained.
No employment relation was offered or accepted in the
instant case.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all
transactions
and
dealings
with
their
clients.
Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party
with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be
held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by
Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was

the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was

in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It
should not be construed as being in conflict with the
interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest
over the properties. The act of informing complainant that
his properties would be returned upon showing proof of
his ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks
the essence of double dealing and betrayal.
2.
Atty. Inocentes failure to exercise certain
responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law
firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner
of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the
responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all
lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from
Atty. Camano on the latters dealings with complainant.
This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty.
Camano and liability by virtue thereof. Partners and
practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally
responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising
themselves of the comings and goings of the cases
handled by persons over which they are exercising
supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to
foreclose violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by persons under their charge.
RULE 18.03
Villaflores v Atty. Limos AC No. 7504, Nov 23,2007
(TABAG)
FACTS:
Complaint for disbarment filed by Virginia
Villaflores against Atty. Sinamar Limos because of
Gross Negliegence and Dereliction of Duty
Atty. Limos was the counsel of Villaflores in
another case filed before the RTC where the latter
is a defenadant. Before this, Atty. Limos handled
a case for Villaflores son.
In the original case where Villaflores was a
defendant, the RTC rendered a judgment
unfavorable to Villaflores. She wanted to appeal.
She initially sought PAOs (Public Attorneys
Office) services but decided to solicit the services
of Atty. Limos.
Villaflores initially paid her 10,000 (on Sept 8,
2004) , then another 10,000 (on Sept 9, 2004),
then another 2,000 for miscellaneous expenses
(on Sept 21, 2004). Atty. Limos was paid a total
of 22,000 duly receipted and acknowledged by
the latter.
Subsequent to the payments, on Sept 21, 2004,
an Employment Contract was signed by Atty.
Limos and VIllaflores to formally engage the
lawyers professional services.
However, Villaflores appeal (the original case)
was dismissed because Atty. Limos was not able
to file an appellants brief within the required
reglementary period.
After knowledge of this, there have been many
unsuccessful attempts by Villaflores to see Atty.
Limos, the lawyer refusing to talk to Villaflores.
Villaflores filed a complaint with the IBP, the
Comission of Bar disciplined that Atty. Limos
should be declared guilty of gross negligence in
failing to file the required appellants brief and
should be suspended for 1 year and must return
the 22,000 paid by Villaflores. The IBP Board of
Governers adopted this resolition and modified it,
suspending Atty. Limos for 3 months instead.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in
handling complainants case as would warrant disciplinary
action.
HELD: Yes.
-

The relation of attorney and client begins from

the time an attorney is retained. To establish the
professional relation, it is sufficient that the
advice and assistance of an attorney are sought
and received in any manner pertinent to his
profession.
THUS, as early as Sept 8 (first payment was
made), respondent was already considered as
counsel and not merely on Sept 21 when the
Employment Contract was signed. The acceptance
of payment and the records of the case bars the
attorney from disclaiming the existence of the
attorney-client relationship.
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person
who may wish to become his client, but once he
agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer
owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes an
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case becomes final
and executory.
Respondents defense that complainant failed to
inform her of the exact date when to reckon the
45 days within which to file the appellants brief
does not inspire belief or, at the very least, justify
such failure. If anything, it only shows
respondents cavalier attitude towards her clients
cause.
CANOY vs ORTIZ, Court ruled that failure to file a
position paper by the counsel is to be considered
a violation of Rule 18.03. Same is true in this
case. It was the lawyers duty to inform the client
of the status of the case.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers states: A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
Failure of respondent to file the appellants brief
for complainant within the reglementary period
constitutes gross negligence in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility