CASE 125: Ma. Libertad SJ Cantiller v. Atty. Humberto V.

Potenciano
FACTS: Complainant lost an ejectment case and was issued to
vacate the
rented premises. Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they
consulted a
certain Sheriff Pagalunan, on the matter. Pagalunan, in turn,
introduced
them to herein respondent. After such introduction, the parties
"impliedly
agreed" that respondent would handle their case.
In the afternoon of October 9,1987, the complainant was made to
sign by
respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly
conceived, and haphazardly composed 3 petition for annulment of
judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that
the
necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the
judge
who would hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close friend).
However,
when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the
presiding
judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the
ground of their friendship.

Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the

latter
which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will
issue
the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in
locating the judge.
Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent
informed
complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another
case
with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain possession
of the
apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant to
prepare the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00) allegedly to be
deposited
with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the
apartment
and another one thousand pesos (P 1,000.00) to cover the
expenses of
the suit. Respondent stressed to the complainant the need and
urgency
of filing the new complaint.
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No.
55118 on
October 30, 1987, respondent, contrary to his promise that he
would

secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as counsel

for
complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction
was
obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in Civil Case No.
6046
was eventually enforced and executed.
Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant's knowledge that
there was
really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P
l0,000.00)
relative to Civil Case No. 55210. After further inquiry, she found
out that in
fact there was no such deposit made. Thus, on December
23,1987,
complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the
return of
the total amount of eleven thousand pesos (P 11,000.00) which
the former
earlier gave to the latter. However, this letter was never answered
and the
money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this
administrative complaint against herein respondent.
ISSUE/S: WON Respondent lawyer violated the Code of
Professional

Responsibility.
HELD: Yes, this Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be
guilty of the
charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice
of law
for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that
he has
rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.
RATIO: When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby
covenants that
he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion.
The failure
to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause
makes
such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on
him.
The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary
principles
of professional ethics.
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
beforehand
that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case No.
55118 to
withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship.
Despite

such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a

replacement nor
did he inform complainant of this fact
Santiago v. Fojas: Once he agrees to take up the cause of a
client, the
lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust
and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he
owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost
learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his
client, save by
the rules of law, legally applied.
The fact that, as claimed by him, he is a member of the IBP
commission
investigating complaints against members of the bar all the more
should
have impressed on him his duty of fidelity to his client's cause.
That he
returned the money paid to him does not diminish his
responsibility but

only mitigates the penalty.

On the other hand, there is no merit in Carino's claim that, as a
result of
Atty. Delos Reyes' failure to file the complaint for threats,
prescription set
in. Pursuant to Art. 90, in relation to Art. 283 of the Revised Penal
Code, the
prescriptive period for filing a complaint for threats is five years.
In any
event, the interests of Carino and that of her father are not
altogether
without legal protection as they can controvert the charges
against them
in the proceedings before the trial court
CASE 130: Victoria Legarda vs CA, New Cathay House
FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land and the
improvements thereon. Petitioner entered into a leased
agreement with
the respondent thru its representative, Roberto Cabrera, Jr. of the
property for a period of five years that the rental is 25K per month
with 5%
escalation per year. Respondent deposited the down payment but
petitioner failed and refused to execute and sign the same
despite
demands of the respondent. Respondent suffered damages due to
the

delay in the renovation and opening of its restaurant business.

Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for specific
performance.
Petitioner engaged the services of the counsel to handle her case.
But her
counsel failed to take any action for the case. So the property was
sold by
the sheriff thru public auction. After one year redemption period
expired
w/out the petitioner redeeming the property and the sheriff issued
a final
deed of sale. Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events,
petitioner
prevailed upon her counsel to seek the appropriate relief.
ISSUE/S: Was her counsel negligent of the case? If he was, should
she be
bound by such negligence?
HELD: Judged by the actuations of said counsel in this case, he
has
miserably failed in his duty to exercise his utmost learning and
ability in
maintaining his client's cause. The gross negligence of the late
Dean
Coronal in handling, nay mishandling, petitioner's case, docketed
as Civil
Case No. Q-43811 in the court a quo, is actually beyond question
as this

Court had declared in a per curiam Resolution dated June 10,

1992, 34
where Coronel was meted a six (6)-month suspension from the
practice of
law, which suspension order was renewed for another six (6)
months in
another Resolution dated March 31, 1993.
RATIO: A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client,
warmth
and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the
exertion of
his utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing can be
taken or
withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He
should
present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support
of his
client's cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full
discharge of
his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the
possibility that
he may displease the judge or the general public.
It is not only a case of simple negligence as found by the
appellate court,
but of reckless and gross negligence, so much so that his client
was

deprived of her property without due process of law. The Court

finds that
the negligence of counsel in this case appears to be so gross and
inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact, that after
petitioner gave
said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by
asking him to
file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate
court, again
counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he received
a
copy of the adverse judgment of the appellate court, he did not
do
anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment.
He
allowed the judgment to lapse and become final.
She should be bound by the decision because neither Cathay nor
Cabrera should be made to suffer for the gross negligence of
Legardas
counsel. The common law maxim finds application in this case,
between
two parties innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the
wrong
to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.
CASE 133: Natividad Uy vs. Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin

FACTS:Natividad was the defendant in an ejectment case filed

with the Metropolitan Trial Court to defend her rights, Natividad
engaged the services of Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin who timely filed
an Answer to the complaint for ejectment. Required to file a
Position Paper, respondent, however, failed to file one for and on
behalf of Natividad. Eventually, a decision was rendered by the
MTC against Natividad. Natividad, through Atty. Braulio RG
Tansinin, elevated the case to the RTC by filing a Notice of Appeal.
In an Orderdated May 25, 2004, the RTC dismissed the appeal
solely because of the failure of Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin to file a
memorandum on appeal. The motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied for having been filed out of time. Realizing that
she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel,
Natividad initiated the disbarment case against respondent,
before the IBP. Natividad averred that she gave her full trust and
confidence to Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin, but the latter failed
miserably in his duty as a lawyer and advocate. She also claimed
that respondents failure to file the required position paper and
memorandum on appeal constituted gross incompetence and
gross negligence, which caused grave injury to Natividad.Lastly,
Natividad alleged that not only did Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin fail to
file the required pleadings, he also was remiss in informing her of
the status of the case. For his part, Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin
admitted that Natividad obtained his legal services, but no legal
fee was ever paid to him. Respondent explained that he could not
submit an intelligible position paper, because the contract
between Natividad and her lessor had long expired. He added that
he failed to file the position paper and memorandum on appeal,
because Natividad told him that she would work out the transfer
of ownership to her of the land subject matter of the ejectment
case. In effect, Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin said that he did not
submit the required pleadings, because he knew that the law
favored the plaintiff as against Natividad in the ejectment
WON the lawyer violated canon 18 section 3.

HELD: YES, he violated it.

RATIO:Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin failure to file the required
pleadings and to inform his client about the developments in her
case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication
and commitment to their clients cause. Every case a lawyer
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and
competence, regardless of its importance, and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer should serve his client in a
conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he should
provide a quality of service at least equal to that which he,
himself, would expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation. By
agreeing to be his clients counsel, he represents that he will
exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and
skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to
do, to protect the clients interests and take all steps or do all acts
necessary therefor; and his client may reasonably expect him to
discharge his obligations diligently. It must be recalled that the
MTC required the parties to submit their respective position
papers. However, respondent did not bother to do so, in total
disregard of the court order. In addition Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin
failed to file the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC
where complainants appeal was then pending. The case was
dismissed on that ground alone. Respondents failure to file the
required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Resposibility.
CASE 134: Spouses Garcia vs. Atty. Rolando S. Bala, A.C. No.
5039,
November 25, 2005
FACTS: Complainants Spouses Garcia engaged the services of
respondent
Atty. Bala to appeal to the CA the adverse Decision of the
Department of

Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB). Instead, Atty. Bala

erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB. Under Rule
43 of the
Rules of Court, appeals from the decisions of the DARAB should be
filed
with the CA through a verified petition for review. Because of Atty.
Balas
error, the prescribed period for filing the petition lapsed, to the
prejudice
of his clients.Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed before this
Court a
Letter-Complaint against Atty. Rolando S. Bala.
The Court required Atty. Bala to comment on the Complaint. He
failed to
comply; thus, he was presumed to have waived his right to be
heard. In
its Resolution, the Court referred the case to the IBP for
investigation,
report, and recommendation.
Investigating IBP Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa found Atty.
Bala guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board of
Governors
of the IBP passed a Resolution which adopted with modification
the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating commissioner. It

recommended that Atty. Bala should be reprimanded and

suspended
from the practice of law for six months; and that he should return,
within
thirty days from his receipt of the Decision, the amount of P9,200,
with
legal interest from the filing of the present Complaint with this
Court.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Bala should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. He should be disciplined. Atty. Rolando S. Bala is found
guilty of
negligence and conduct unbecoming a lawyer; he is suspended
from the
practice of law for six months.
RATIO: Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render
him liable.
Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe
fidelity to
the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in them. A client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every
remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on
the

lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

Evidently, respondent failed to champion the cause of his clients
with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Despite adequate time,
he did
not familiarize himself with the correct procedural remedy as
regards their
case. Worse, he repeatedly assured them that the supposed
petition had
already been filed.
Since he effectively waived his right to be heard, the Court can
only
assume that there was no valid reason for his failure to file a
petition for
review, and that he was therefore negligent.
Under the present factual circumstances, respondent should
return the
money paid by complainants.
CASE 135: Felisa Joven-De Jesus vs. PNB, et. al., G.R. No. L-19299,
November 28, 1964
FACTS: The case at bar presents a procedural question on the
dismissal of
in appeal as perfected out of time. On September 15, 1956, Feliza
Joven
De Jesus filed a civil case against Philippine National Bank (PNB),
Del

Carmen Branch at the CFI of Pampanga. The Court rendered a

decision
ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P3,274.98 with
legal
interest thereon at the rate of 6% a year from the date of the
filing of the
complaint. until the principal shall have been fully paid, plus the
other sum
of P500.00 as attorney's fees of the said plaintiff. On March 16,
1961
defendant PNB filed its notice of appeal and a motion for
extension of
time to file record on appeal. On March 17, 1961, it filed its record
on
appeal and appeal bond. However, its appeal was dismissed on
that day
by the court on plaintiff Joven De Jesus motion as filed out of time
because the registry return card showed receipt by PNB of its
copy of the
decision on February 13, 1961.
PNB filed a "motion for reconsideration and relief from, and/or to
set aside
the order of March 17, 1961." It alleged that movant's failure to
appeal on
time was due to "accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence,"
as

supported by affidavits annexed to the motion. The Court denied

the
motion on May 18, 1961. Defendant bank has appealed from the
orders
of March 17, 1961 and May 18, 1961.
The record will show that copy of the decision sent to appellant's
counsel
in its legal department was received on February 13, 1961. In its
motion
filed, it stated that the registered mail containing said copy was
received
from the post office on February 13, 1961 by Eugenio Magpoc.
Although
the latter is postal mail and delivery clerk of appellant's cashier
department, his affidavit states that "as such, one of my duties is
to get
and receive from the Post Office all registered mail matters
addressed to
the Philippine National Bank, its personnel and different
departments"
PNB admitted having filed its notice of appeal, record on appeal
and
appeal bond beyond the 30-day period, but contended in its
motion of
March 22, 1961, that the delay was due to "accident, mistake
and/or

excusable negligence." In support of such contention, it is alleged

that on
February 13, 1961 the registered letter was given by the bank's
postal mail
clerk Eugenio Magpoc to Feliciano Jimenez, Jr., registered mail
clerk of
appellant's cashier department. Due to volume of work, Feliciano
Jimenez, Jr. delivered it to the receiving clerk of appellant's legal
department only on February 15, 1961 and failed to inform the
latter that it
was received two days before. Thereupon, it was stamped by said
receiving clerk as received on February 15, 1961. On the basis of
this date,
appellant's counsel computed the period to appeal.
ISSUE/S: WON the counsel of the appellant neglected the period
for
appeal in the case at bar.
HELD: Yes, appellants counsel carelessly took for granted that the
date of
receipt stamped on the letter. He violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of
the
Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there
with shall
render him liable.

RATIO: According to Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of

Professional
Responsibility: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection there with shall render him
liable.
The lower court did not find excusable the negligence in the
circumstances of the case. Appellant's counsel carelessly took for
granted
that the date of receipt stamped on the letter by the legal
department's
receiving clerk was the date of receipt from the post office. It was
known
or at least should have been known to him that letters addressed
to
appellant's legal department were taken from the post office by
Eugenio
Magpoc and sorted out by Feliciano Jimenez, Jr. Thus, from
appellant's
system of handling and receiving correspondence for its legal and
all
other departments, it was clear that the date of receipt by the
receiving
clerks of its several departments could not be relied upon as the
very
same date of receipt from the post office. Counsel for appellant
could

have easily found out the latter date had he inquired from
Eugenio
Magpoc or Feliciano Jimenez, Jr. and in the circumstances, we find
no
excuse for his having failed to do so.
The Court cited, Bello vs. Fernando, Section 3, Rule 41 of the
Rules of
Court requires that the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the
record on appeal be all filed in court, and served on the adverse
party,
within thirty days from notice of judgment. ...; and compliance
with this
period for appeal is considered absolutely indispensable for the
prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy
discharge of
judicial business, so that if said period is not complied with, the
judgment
becomes final and executory.
Such circumstances do not exist in this case. We may also add
that
appellant, while invoking the interest of justice, has not shown
how it
would stand to be prejudiced from the loss of its right to appeal.
From the
record no such prejudice can be gathered, especially because the

judgment provided for reimbursement in appellant's favor by

third-party
defendant Jacobo Lampa and the latter has not appealed
therefrom.
CASE 136: Agravante v. Patriarca
FACTS: A case was set for pre-trial but before it was held, a fire
broke out
on June 26, 1976 in the capitol building. The records of the court
were
burned, including the present case. The record was reconstituted
and was
rescheduled for pre-trial on January 25, 1978. The defendants
counsel
move for the cancellation of this setting. The Court reset the pretrial to
February 27, 1978. But again, the defendants counsel pleading
illness,
sought this be cancelled and rescheduled again. This motion was
dated
February 14, 1978 but was only filed on February 22, 1978. This
motion
contained no notice of hearing, but a photocopy of a medical
certificate
dated January 30, 1978 stating that Atty. Pacamarra has headache
and is
advised to take a rest. The motion filed was denied for being not
in

accordance with the rules because of lack of notice to the adverse

party,
lack of setting of the date of hearing, and the attached medical
certificate was only a photocopy. At the scheduled pre-trial on
February
27, neither the counsel nor the defendants appeared. The Court
declared
them in default. On March 4, the Court was informed of Juana
Patriarcas
death and her heirs requested that she be substituted which was
granted.
The heirs of Juana moved for reconsideration of the three orders
dated
February 22, February 27, and March 4. But this was denied by
the court.
Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari to the SC contending that
they
had been denied their day in court.
ISSUE/S: W/N Atty. Pacamarra violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes. He neglected his duties to legal matters. His petition
for the
rescheduling of the pre-trial set on Feb 27, 1978 is untenable. A
party or
counsel desiring a postponement of a pre-trial must comply with
the

requisites set out in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. It shall be made

in writing.
It shall state the grounds upon which it is based, and if necessary,
be
accompanied by supporting affidavits or papers. It shall specify
the date
of hearing. It shall be served by the applicant on all parties
concerned 3
days before the said hearing. These requisites were not complied
with by
the defendants. The SC also noted that the character of illness of
Atty.
Pacamarra is not so severe as to render his non-attendance
excusable.
The notice of the denial of his motion for postponement was
served to him
in Feb 24, 3 days before the pre-trial date. The SC also held that
defendants contention that the demise of Juana Patriarca
prevented
the trial courts acquisition of jurisdiction over her is untenable.
The death
of Juana does not affect the Courts jurisdiction. She was
substituted. The
defendants actuations give rise to the conclusion that they were
motivated by a desire to delay the disposition of the case. Petition
for
certiorari dismissed.

CASE 137: Tomas Alcoriza vs. Atty. Alberto Lumakang, A.M. No.
249,
November 21, 1978
FACTS: An administrative complaint for disciplinary action was
filed
against Respondents Attys. Pablo Salazar and Alberto Lumakang.
This
case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General, for
investigation,
report and recommendation. Since the respondents were
residents of
Davao, the case was referred to the City Attorney of Davao City.
The
latter submitted that the whole case emanated from the decision
of the
MTC for sum of money, between Juana V. Antonio vs. Tomas
Alcoriza. The
trial was conducted in the absence of the defendant and or his
counsels
despite the fact that they have been duly notified.
Atty. Lumakang explains his failure to appear in the trial:
Early in the morning as usual as I used to, I reported to the
office at 7:30
believing that Tomas Alcoriza would come to the office. I waited
for him
until 9:00. I know that the hearing of Judge Hofilea will be 9:00
and that

as I said if he will not appear in my office I will not appear for him
as I
would be going there without any preparation, so that on that day
though I was jittery I did not go to the court. I stayed in the office
waiting
for Alcoriza.
Atty. Lumakang contended that when he asked Alcoriza why he
did not
go to the office or to the Court to attend to the trial of his case,
Alcoriza
merely answered that he is busy. He then told Alcoriza that the
Judge has
become impatient because of the many postponements, that an
order
was issued giving him last postponement and that if he will be
absent
again on the day of the trial, the Court will proceed to try the case
ex
parte. Alcoriza assured that he will go and Atty. Lumakang told
him that if
he will not come to the office on the date of the trial, Atty.
Lumakang will
not appear in Court as his appearance would only be useless.
Atty. Lumakang suspected that Alcoriza had already lost his
interest in the
case. This suspicion came true because on the date set for
hearing of his

case as Alcoriza did not appear at the office of the respondent

neither to
the Court. Such being the case, it is the honest belief of Atty.
Lumakang
that a lawyer cannot be more interested in his client's case than
the client
himself.
ISSUE/S: WON Respondent Atty. Lumakangs failure to appear in
the trial
constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. The Court finds the report and recommendation of the
Solicitor
General to be in order and amply justified by the circumstances
on
record.
RATIO: Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him
liable.
The Solicitor General reported and recommended that the reason
of Atty.
Lumakang for his failure to appear in representation of his client,
Tomas
Alcoriza, in the trial of his is not wholly laudable. The undersigned
believes
that although Atty. Lumakang was not prepared to enter into trial
on that

day, still he could do things to protect the interest of his client by

appearing for him in court. However, it is not considered that this
inaction
of Atty. Lumakang would constitute so serious a ground as to
warrant
disciplinary action in view of the lack of interest which his client
has shown
in the premises. Instead, Atty. Lumakang should be reprimanded
for his
inaction as it would tend to diminish trust and confidence which
the
public is supposed to repose in the office of a lawyer. In order to
be free
from any complaint from his client, he should have appeared
primarily to
protect the interest of his client and secondarily, to explain to the
court
the predicament he was in.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is dismissed insofar
as Atty.
Pablo Salazar is concerned, and Atty. Alberto Lumakang is hereby
reprimanded and admonished to be more careful in attending to
the
cases of his clients so as to avoid any similar incident as that
complained
of

CASE 138: Emilio Capulong, et. al. vs. Manuel G. Alino, A.M. No.
381,
February 10, 1968
FACTS: Respondent Manuel G. Alio a member of the bar, is
charged by
his former clients, the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong, with
alleged
"gross negligence tantamount to malpractice and betrayal of his
clients'
trust and confidence."
On August 21, 1957, respondent received from the complainants,
as their
counsel in Civil Case No. 2248 of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija
the decision in which, adverse to said complainants, had been
appealed by them to the Court of Appeals the sum of P298.00,
for the
specific purpose of applying the same to the payment of the
"appellate"
docket fees (P24), appeal bond (P15), (printing of) the record on
appeal
(P150) and appellants' brief (P100), and that said appeal was
dismissed
because of respondent's failure to pay the docket fee and to
deposit the
estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal.

Respondent alleged that complainants had authorized him to

exercise his
judgment and discretion in determining whether or not he should
prosecute the appeal, and to regard said sum of P298.00 as
compensation for his services in connection with said case, should
he
consider it advisable to desist from said appeal.
After due hearing, the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija who,
having
been deputized therefor by the Solicitor General, received the
evidence
for both parties considered respondent's uncorroborated
testimony, in
support of his answer, unworthy of credence and found the
charge
against him duly proven, and, accordingly, recommended
disciplinary
action against respondent.
Concurring in this finding and recommendation, the Solicitor
General filed
the corresponding complaint charging respondent with "deceit,
malpractice or gross misconduct in office as a lawyer," in that,
owing to his
"negligence and gross bad faith in unduly and knowingly failing to
remit to

the Court of Appeals the docket fee and the estimated cost of
printing
the record on appeal," said Court dismissed the aforementioned
appeal.
ISSUE/S: WON respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 18.03 of
the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. Respondent Alino is guilty of such.
RATIO: A misappropriation of funds held by respondent in trust for
his
clients and a breach of such trust, the foregoing acts and
omissions
indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of respondent herein
and his
unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession.
Under Canon 18.03 which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall
render him liable.
The evidence on record fully confirms the finding of guilt made by
the
Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija and the Solicitor General and their
conclusion to the effect that respondent's uncorroborated
testimony is

unworthy of credence. Indeed, had complainants authorized him

to
decide whether or not to prosecute their appeal or desist
therefrom, and,
in the latter alternative, to keep the P298.00 in question as his
fees,
respondent would have retrieved the receipt issued by him for
said sum,
stating specifically that it would be used for docket fees, the
record on
appeal, the appeal bond and the (printing) of their brief.
Moreover, if his
failure to pay said docket fees and to deposit the estimated cost
of
printing of the record on appeal was due to his decision
pursuant to the
aforementioned authority he had allegedly been given to desist
from
prosecuting the appeal and to apply the money to the payment of
his
professional fees, why is it that he filed a motion for
reconsideration of the
resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in
consequence
of said failure, thereby securing, in effect, an extension of over
five (5)

months, to make said payment and deposit, which, eventually, he

did not
make?
Respondent Manuel G. Alio is, accordingly, disbarred. His name
is
ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and his certificate of
Membership of the Philippine Bar, which he is directed to
surrender to the
Clerk of Court, within ten (10) days after this judgment has
become final,
hereby revoked. It is so ordered
CASE 139: Escudero, et al., v. Judge Dulay CPR 18.03
FACTS: On 18 July 1979, petitioner Araceli D. Escudero, wife of
petitioner
Paterno D. Escudero, executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale under
Pacto de
Retro" in favor of private respondents, the Amistad spouses, over
a parcel
of residential land in Lapu-Lapu City covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title
No. 9223 of the Register of Deeds of that city. The consideration
stated in
the document was P42,350.00. Redemption was to be made by
the
vendors within three (3) months after the execution of the Deed
of Sale, at

the same price of P42,350.00.

On 28 October 1979, or ten (10) days after the expiration of the
redemption period, private respondent spouses filed a petition for
consolidation of title over the parcel of land in question. This was
opposed
by petitioner wife in an Answer, duly verified by her, where she
alleged as
an affirmative and special defense that the transaction between
her and
private respondents was actually one of loan of P 35,000.00, as
principal,
with 7% monthly interest, thus totalling P 42,350.00, with the land
mortgaged as collateral or security. That the transaction was an
equitable
mortgage can be gleaned, according to her, from the gross
inadequacy
of the purchase price and the fact that she, the alleged vendor,
remained in possession of the land and continued to enjoy the
fruits
thereof.
On 16 November 1979, or nearly a month after the expiration of
the
redemption period, and upon advice of petitioners' then counsel,
Atty.
Emmanuel Seno, petitioner wife deposited P42,350.00 in the form
of a

bank manager's check, as redemption money, with the Clerk of

Court of
respondent trial court. Atty. Seno then manifested at the pre-trial
conference held on 10 March 1980 that he was moving for a
judgment on
the pleadings after agreeing to the characterization of the
transaction
between the parties as a sale with pacto de retro, because under
Article
1606 of the New Civil Code, the vendors (petitioners) may still
exercise
their right of repurchase within thirty (30) days from the time final
judgment
is rendered in a civil action, if the contract is a true sale with right
to
repurchase.
ISSUE/S: WON violated Canon 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. The respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RATIO: While this Court is cognizant of the rule that, generally, a
client will
suffer the consequences of the negligence, mistake or lack of
competence of his counsel, in the interest of justice and equity,
exceptions may be made to such rule, in accordance with the
facts and

circumstances of each case. Adherence to the general rule would,

in the
instant case, result in the outright deprivation of their property
through a
technicality. The Court cannot close its eyes to the petitioner
wife's
affirmative and special defense, under oath in her Answer before
the
respondent trial court that her transaction with private
respondents was
not a pacto de retro sale but an equitable mortgage. The Court
cannot
also but take note of petitioners' evidence to support such verified
defense, notably the incriminating note signed by the agent of
both
parties in which the real nature of the questioned transaction is
revealed
CASE 96: Antonio Blanza, et al. vs. Atty. Agustin Arcangel
FACTS: Blanza and Pasion complain that way back in April, 1955,
respondent Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective
pension
claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands, both P.C.
soldiers,
and for this purpose, they handed over to him the pertinent
documents
and also attached their signatures on blank papers. However,
they

noticed that since then, Arcangel had lost interest in the progress
of their
claims and when they finally asked for the return of their papers
six years
later, Arcangel refused to surrender them.
Arcangel admitted having received the documents from
complainants
but argued that it was for photostating purposes only. His failure
to
immediately return them was due to complainants Blanza and
Pasion's
refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photostating costs
which
prevented him from withdrawing said documents from the
photostat
service. Nonetheless, he had already advanced the expenses
himself and
turned over, on December 13, 1961, the documents, their
respective
photostats and the photostat service receipt to the fiscal.
ISSUE/S: WON Arcangel violated Rule 18.04 wherein a lawyer
must inform
the client on status of case
HELD: The court is compelled to dismiss the charges against
respondent
Arcangel for being legally insufficient because of the affidavit of
Mrs.

Blanza pardoning respondent and because of the non appearance

of
Complainant Pasion nor her counsel to substantiate her charges in
the
hearing set
RATIO: The courtcannot but advise against his actuations as a
member of
the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the
community
than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the
statute. As a
man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, looked
up to as a
model citizen. His conduct must be par excellence, especially
when
he volunteers his professional services. Arcangel has not lived up
to that
ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants Blanza
and
Pasion wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims.
Upon
their refusal to co-operate, respondent Arcangel should have
terminated
their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging
indefinitely. And although the court decided he not be
reprimanded, in a

legal sense, this should serve as a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of

what the
high standards of his chosen profession require of him