Camara vs Atty. Reyes A.C. No.

6121; July 31, 2009 Ponente:

Nachura,J
Sometime in 2003, complainant hired the services of
respondent to handle her case. As partial acceptance fee,
respondent received from complainant P50,000.00 evidenced by a
receipt[2] placed on his calling card. Respondent, however, took no
steps to protect complainants interest. As no service was rendered
by respondent, complainant asked that he return the amount given
him so that she could use it in repairing her house. Respondent
offered that he would take charge of repairing the house. Yet, he
again failed to fulfill his promise, which prompted the complainant
to reiterate her demand for the return of the money. [3] As
respondent failed to give back the amount demanded, complainant
initiated the instant case.
In his Answer, respondent prayed that the case be closed
and terminated, simply because the matter has already been
resolved by all the parties concerned. He added that complainant
went to his office and explained that she signed the lettercomplaint not knowing that it was against respondent, as she was
made to believe that it was a complaint against her neighbor. [4]
Complainant and respondent failed to attend the mandatory
conference; and to submit their respective position papers.
Issue:
Held: When respondent accepted the amount of P50,000.00
from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the
latters case, and that an attorney-client relationship between them
was established. From then on, it was expected that he would
serve his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend
to her cause with fidelity, care and devotion.[12]
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal
services in handling complainants case and subsequently failing to
render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence. [13] Specifically, Rule
18.03 states:
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

A member of the legal profession owes his client entire

devotion to the latters genuine interest, and warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is expected to
exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his clients cause, for
the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client, likewise, serves the
ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law
carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but
also to the court, to the bar and to the public.
Accordingly, Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes is hereby SUSPENDED for a
period of SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.
Parinas v Paguinto A.C. No. 6297; Juky 13, 2004 ponente: Carpio,J
Sometime in October 2001, complainant Parias engaged the
services of respondent Atty. Paguinto to annul her marriage to
Danilo Soriano. They agreed that for the legal services, Parias
would pay Paguinto an acceptance fee of P25,000, the filing fee of
P2,500 and other incidental expenses. On 2 December 2001,
Parias paid Paguinto P10,000 in cash as partial payment of the
acceptance fee. Parias gave Paguinto a diskette containing a
narration of what happened between her and her estranged
husband Danilo Soriano. Parias also furnished Paguinto with a
copy of her marriage contract with Soriano. Before the end of
December 2001, Parias gave Paguinto P2,500 for the filing fee.
Thereafter, Parias inquired from Paguinto on the progress of her
annulment case. Paguinto informed her that the case was filed
with the RTC and that the hearing was scheduled. Before the
hearing, Parias requested for a meeting with Paguinto but the
secretary informed her that the hearing was cancelled. The
secretary further informed Parias that the judge reset the
succeeding hearings because the judge was sick or out of town.
Parinas went to the trial court to inquire about her case but the
court personnel informed her that there was no such case filed in
their court. It turned out that there was no annulment case filed in
RTC-Manila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised to return the money
that Parias paid as down payment. However, Paguinto returned
the P10,000 only after Parias filed with the CBD of the IBP the
present complaint for disbarment.
Issue:
Held: Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the
cause of his client. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is
an implied representation that he possesses the requisite academic
learning, skill and ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the
duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the

case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care

and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case.
Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with
dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his
oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases
as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients interests will
suffer.[9] It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification
to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to
his legal work. Thus, a clear vailation of Canon 18, Rule 18.01,
18.02 and 18.03 of the CPR. He was suspended for 6 months.

CARANDANG v Obmina A.C. 7813; April 21, 2009

Atty.Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he
filed. Carandang brought suit for Atty. Obminas failure to inform
Carandang of the adverse decision in said case and for failure to
appeal the decision. The Commission on Bar Discipline, issued an
Order directing respondent Atty. Obmina to submit his Answer.
However, what the Commission received was a Manifestation by a
certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaa, allegedly daughter
of respondent. She further alleged that her father is already a
permanent resident of the United States of America since March
2001 and had already retired from the practice of law. On the
scheduled Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa
to produceand present before the Court the alleged withdrawal of
appearance filed by her father and proof that her father is now
really a permanent resident of the United States of America.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for violation of Canon
18 of the CPR.
Held : There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina
notified complainant in any manner about the decision. The Court
underscored the duty of respondent to notify his client as to what
happened to his case. However, the respondent who has in his
possession the complete files and address of the complainant,
should have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. Carandang as to
what happened to his case. Whether the decision is adverse to or in
favor of his client, respondent is duty bound to notify the clients
pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics. That as a
result of the respondents failure to notify the complainant, the
latter lost the case leading to his eviction. The Court ordered that
Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year. Although the said respondent is reportedly in
the United States of America and accordingly retired from the
practice of law, the Commission resolved not to close its eyes on
the negligence that respondent has committed while in the active
practice.

Solidon v. Macalalad
[A.C. 8158. February 24, 2010]
Facts: Complainant, through a mutual acquaintance asked
respondent to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned
by complainants relatives. Respondent accepted the task to be
completed within a period of eight (8) months and received Fifty

Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining

balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid
when complainant received the certificate of title to the property.
Respondent has not filed any petition for registration over the
property sought to be titled up to the filing of this case. In the
Complaint, Position Papers and documentary evidence submitted,
complainant claimed that he tried to contact respondent to followup on the status of the case six (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 the respondent. However, he did not
receive any return communication. Complainant sought the
disbarment of respondent for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule 18.03,
and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility involving
negligence in handling a case. Complainant argued that he had no
intention of reneging from his obligation, as he already had
prepared the draft petition, and he failed to file it because it lacked
the needed documentary requirements that his clients should have
furnished him. The Investigating Commissioner of IBP made a
finding negligence on the part of the respondent. This was affirmed
by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.

ISSUE:
Held:
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof
required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has
the burden to discharge. We fully considered the evidence
presented and we are fully satisfied that the complainants
evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum of
proof in proving respondents negligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rule on
negligence and states:
The Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the
mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the
client is considered per se a violation.
The records in this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as
he committed when he 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, the records nevertheless show that 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 follow-up on the status of the registration
application with Atty. Macalalad. Thus, he was suspended for 6
months.

Pena v Aparicio
Facts: Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C.
Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor
Relations Commission(NLRC) against complainant Fernando Martin
Pena.Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay, butPena
rejected the claim as baseless. Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a
letter reiteratinghis client's claim for separation pay. Through his
letter, he threatened complainant that should Penafail to pay the
amounts they propose as settlement ,he would file and claim
bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple
charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and
cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.
Issue: WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR,
enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law?
Held: Yes, under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to
file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the
adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel the
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the
lawyer's client. In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical
for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail
Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of
accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints,
obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from
making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret
calculated to operate to his prejudice."
The letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to
pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against
complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for
separation pay. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely
proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the
respondent was reprimanded.

ATTY. BRIONES V. ATTY. JIMENEZ

FACTS:
The complainant in this disbarment case is Atty. Briones. The
respondent is Atty. Jimenez. Complainant Briones is the Special
Administrator of the Henson Estate, while respondent Jimenez is the
counsel for Heirs of Henson.

The root of herein administrative complaint for Disbarment is an

RTC Order (2002). The RTC Order directed complainant Briones to deliver
the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares.
Complainant Briones did not reply to the demand, so respondent Jimenez
opted to file a criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey
the lawful order of the court.
Complainant Briones now claims that respondent Jimenez is guilty
of violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional responsibility by filing
the unfounded criminal complaint against complainant to obtain an
improper advantage:
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case of proceeding.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Jimenez should be administratively
liable.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED
[since no evidence of malice or bad faith] for violation of Rule 19.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility Fair play demands that 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.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a
lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the same Canon provides
that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client must be within
the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among
others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous
practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to
defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice.
While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and
zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they
are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Licudan v Court of Appeals

Facts: Atty. Teodoro Domalanta was the counsel of his sister and
brother-in-law. He represented them in two civil cases and in both,
he obtained judgment in favor of his clients. He filed a petition for
Attorneys Lien with Notification to his Clients which provided that:
He is entitled to own 97.5 sq.m of his clients share of the lot in
question; He shall have usufructuary right for 10 years of his
clients share of the lot in question; All the damages accruing to his
client if for the undersigned counsel.
A series of hearings were made and the trial court ruled in favor of
the lawyer. 10 months after, the heirs of the lawyers (deceased)
clients filed a motion to set aside the orders of the trial court. The
lawyer stressed the fact that the payment of the professional
services was pursuant to a contract which could no longer be
disturbed as it has already been implemented and since then had
become final. CA ruled in favor of the lawyer, dismissing the appeal
of the petitioners. Instant petition: The petitioners now fault the
respondent court for its failure to exercise its inherent power to
review and determine the propriety of the respondents lawyers
fees.
They also accuse their lawyer of having committed an unfair
advantage or legal fraud by virtue of the Contract for Professional
Services devised by him. According to the petitioners, they may
have won the cases (where the lawyer represented them) but
would lose the entire property won in the litigation to their lawyer.
They would be deprived of their house and lot and the recovered
damages since everything would just go to lawyers fees.
Furthermore, a portion of the land that they would recover would
still go to lawyers fees since it pertains to the lawyers son by way
of usufruct for 10 years.
Issues:
Held: The attorneys fees in this case is unconscionable and
unreasonable. The instant petition is granted, and the Court of
Appeals decision reversed and set aside. Under Canon 20 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall charge only fair
and reasonable fees. Considering the extent of the services
rendered, the case the lawyer handled was just a simple case if
partition and no special skill nor any unusual effort was required.
There is no doubt, then, that Atty. Domalanta took advantage of the

situation to promote his own personal interests. There should never

be an instance where a lawyer gets as attorneys fees the entire
property involved in the litigation. It is unconscionable for the client
to lose everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. The
practice of law is a profession rather than a trade. The Courts have
the responsibility to guard against the charging of unreasonable
and excessive fees by lawyers for their services as counsels. A
lawyer shall at all times uphold integrity and dignity in the legal
profession.
[A.C. No. 5798. January 20, 2005]
ALEX B. CUETO vs. ATTY. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, JR.
CORONA, J.:
Engr. Alex Cueto engaged the services of respondent as notary
public, the latter being the father of the owner of the building
subject of the Construction Agreement[2] to be notarized. After
notarizing the agreement, respondent demanded P50,000 as
notarial fee. Complainant informed respondent that he only
had P30,000 in cash. Respondent persuaded complainant to pay
the P30,000 and to issue a check for the remaining P20,000. He
issued a Far East Bank check for the balance. Before the maturity
date of the check, complainant requested respondent not to
deposit the same for lack of sufficient funds. Still, respondent
deposited the check which was consequently dishonored for
insufficient funds. Subsequently, Atty. Jimenez lodged a complaint
for violation of BP 22 against Cueto. In the meantime, Cueto filed
his own administrative complaint against Jimenez. He alleged that
Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons
of Professional Ethics when he filed the criminal case against Cueto
so he could collect the balance of his notarial fee.
Held: Complainants claim that respondents P50,000 notarial fee
was exorbitant is debatable. As confirmed by the IBP, it is a
recognized legal practice in real estate transactions and
construction projects to base the amount of notarial fees on the
contract price. Based on the amount demanded by respondent, the
fee represented only 1% of the contract price of P5,000,000. It
cannot be said therefore that respondent notary demanded more
than a reasonable recompense for his service.
However respondents conduct in filing a criminal case for
violation of BP 22 against complainant was highly improper. Canon

20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates

that [a] lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning
his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in
this case to justify the legal action taken by respondent. As borne
out by the records, complainant Cueto had already paid more than
half of respondents fee. Respondent therefore should have been
more tolerant of the delay incurred by complainant Cueto.
Although we acknowledge that every lawyer must be paid what
is due to him, he must never resort to judicial action to recover his
fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby SEVERELY
REPRIMANDED for violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
G.R. No. 169079

February 12, 2007

FRANCISCO RAYOS, Petitioner,

vs.
ATTY. PONCIANO G. HERNANDEZ, Respondent.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Respondent was the counsel of petitioner in a Civil Case entitled,
"Francisco Rayos v. NAPOCOR,. The complaint alleged, among
other things, that the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR)
recklessly, imprudently and negligently opened the three
floodgates of the spillway of Angat Dam at midnight of 26 October
1978 causing the release of a great volume of stored water, the
resultant swelling and flooding of Angat River, and the consequent
loss of lives of some of petitioners relatives and destruction of his
familys properties, for which he sought damages. The complaint
was dismissed. The case was subsequently appealed to the Court
of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision. The case was
appealed to this Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals
Decision.

Thus, a Writ of Execution 7 was issued by the RTC. As a

consequence, NAPOCOR issued Check No. 014710 in the amount
of P1,060,800.00 payable to petitioner. Thereafter, the check was
turned over to respondent as counsel of petitioner. Petitioner
demanded the turn over of the check from respondent, but the
latter refused. Petitioner filed with the RTC a motion 8 to direct
respondent to deliver to him the check issued by NAPOCOR.
Respondent, on the other hand, justifies his retention as a means to
ensure payment of his attorneys fees. The RTC issued an Order
directing respondent to deliver the check to the Sheriff of the court.
A Writ of Execution was subsequently issued. Despite the Court
Order, respondent refused to surrender the check. Respondent
deposited the amount of P502,838.79 in the name of petitioner
which was eventually received by the latter. Thus, petitioner
initiated this complaint for disbarment for the failure of respondent
to return the rest of the award in the amount of P557,961.21.
Respondent averred that petitioner had a verbal contract for
attorneys fees on a contingent basis and that the said contract was
only reduced in writing on 6 October 1991, duly signed by both of
them. Respondent contended that the petitioners complaint was
without basis and was meant only to harass and put him to shame.
issue: whether respondent is justified in retaining the amount
awarded to petitioner in Civil Case No. SM-951 to assure payment
of his attorneys fees.
Held: Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in
favor of his client constitute trust funds and must be immediately
paid over to the client.
In the case at bar, respondent retained the amount of P557,961.21
out of the P1,060,800.00 award for damages paid by NAPOCOR to
petitioner. Under the said scheme, respondent actually collected
fifty-three percent (53%) or more than half of the total amount due
the petitioner; indeed, he appropriated for himself more than the
amount which he had already turned over to and actually received
by his client. We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here
claimed was, under the facts obtaining in this case, grossly
excessive and unconscionable. Such a fee structure, when
considered in conjunction with the circumstances of this case, also

shows that an unfair advantage was taken of the client and legal
fraud and imposition perpetrated upon.
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity and good demeanor, renders him unworthy to the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him,

Respondent is guilty of violation of the attorneys oath and of

serious professional misconduct and shall be SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months and WARNED that repetition of
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely;