Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.)
TRIASAMONTE vs. OBIAS, A.C. No. 4945, Oct 8, 2013
(real estate broker and lawyer)
Facts: Sometime in 1997, the spouses Nestor and Pura Tria hired Atty.
Fanny Obias in a package arrangement for a parcel of land they had
bought for P2.8 million: to get the full consideration and deliver it to the
sellers, to get the title and secure the execution of the deed of sale, to pay
all the taxes and other expenses, to transfer the title to the name of the
buyers, and to work for the conversion of the land from agricultural to
residential.
Fanny got the money and the necessary documents. However, after some
time, and despite repeated follow-ups, Fanny failed to comply with her
undertakings. Meantime, Nestor died and his daughter Jennifer, the
complainant, took over. She discovered that Fanny had notarized a deed
of sale with a consideration of P200,000.00 over the same land in favor of
somebody. Jennifer filed an administrative complaint against fanny for
grave misconduct and/or gross malpractice with the Supreme Court. In
defence, Fanny argued that Nestor instructed her not proceed with the
sale and instead to look for another buyer. The case was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1999.
In 2007, the IBP Investigating Commissioner then issued a Report found
that Fanny violated her oath her oath as a lawyer because she
participated in the second sale of the subject property despite the lack of
any lawful termination of the prior sale of the same property to the
Spouses Tria. He recommended that Fanny be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of 5 years.
Issue:
Should respondent be held administratively liable for violating Canons 17
and 18 of the Code?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP but increased the
penalty. Fanny was disbarred from the practice of law.
Citing Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Supreme Court held that the core ethical principle that lawyers owe
fidelity to their clients cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in them. They are duty-bound to observe candor,
fairness, and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their
clients. The Supreme Court found that Fanny transgressed (these) rules
as her actions were evidently prejudicial to her clients interests.
Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the
subject property to her clients, she willfully notarized a deed of sale over
the same property in favor of another person. Accordingly, far removed
from protecting the interest of her clients, Sps. Tria, who had in fact,
already fully paid the purchase price of the subject property, respondent
(Fanny) participated and was even instrumental in bringing about the
defeat of their rights over the said property.
3
properties; and under Canon 18, Rule 18.03 for neglecting a legal matter
entrusted to him.
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 states:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Based on the records, we find substantial evidence to hold the respondent
liable for violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The facts of this case show that the respondent retained
clients who had close dealings with each other. The respondent admits to
acting as legal counsel for Cirilo Arellano, the spouses Ylaya and Reynold
at one point during the proceedings in Civil Case No. 2902.80
Subsequently, he represented only Reynold in the same proceedings,81
asserting Reynolds ownership over the property against all other claims,
including that of the spouses Ylaya.
We find no record of any written consent from any of the parties involved
and we cannot give the respondent the benefit of the doubt in this regard.
We find it clear from the facts of this case that the respondent retained
Reynold as his client and actively opposed the interests of his former
client, the complainant. He thus violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
We affirm the IBP Commissioners finding that the respondent violated
Canon 16. The respondent admits to losing certificates of land titles that
were entrusted to his care by Reynold. According to the respondent, the
complainant "maliciously retained" the TCTs over the properties sold by
Laurentino to Reynold after she borrowed them from his office. Reynold
confirms that the TCTs were taken by the complainant from the
respondents law office.
The respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to "hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Allowing a party to take the original TCTs of properties owned
by another an act that could result in damage should merit a finding of
legal malpractice. While we note that it was his legal staff who allowed the
complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not appear that the
respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the
TCTs, we nevertheless hold the respondent liable, as the TCTs were
entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in
caring for his clients properties that were in his custody.
We likewise find the respondent liable for violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03
for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. Despite the respondents
admission that he represented the complainant and her late husband in
Civil Case No. 2902 and that he purportedly filed a Motion for Leave to
Intervene in their behalf, the records show that he never filed such a
motion for the spouses Ylaya. The complainant herself states that she and
her late husband were forced to file the Motion for Leave to Intervene on
their own behalf. The records of the case, which include the Motion for
Leave to Intervene filed by the spouses Ylaya, support this conclusion.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 requires that a lawyer "shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection [therewith]
shall render him liable." What amounts to carelessness or negligence in a
lawyers discharge of his duty to his client is incapable of an exact
5
formulation, but the Court has consistently held that the mere failure of a
lawyer to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.
In Canoy v. Ortiz, we held that a lawyers failure to file a position paper
was per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Similar to Canoy, the respondent clearly failed in this case
in his duty to his client when, without any explanation, he failed to file the
Motion for Leave to Intervene on behalf of the spouses Ylaya. Under the
circumstances, we find that there was want of diligence; without sufficient
justification, this is sufficient to hold the respondent liable for violating
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we set aside Resolution No.
XVIII-.2007-302 dated December 14, 2007 and Resolution No. XIX-2010545 dated October 8, 2010 of the IBP Board of Governors, and find
respondent Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15, Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As a penalty, he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
5.) SAMSON v. ERA, A.C. No. 6664, JULY 16, 2013 (conflicting
interest)
FACTS: Samson and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey
to the pyramiding scam. Samson engaged Atty. Era to represent and assist
him and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of ICS Corporation.
Pursuant to the engagement, Atty. Era prepared the demand letter dated
July 19, 2002 demanding the return or refund of the money subject of
their complaints. Having entered into a settlement agreement with the
scammers, Samson and his relatives later demanded from Atty. Era that
they be given instead a deed of absolute sale to enable them to liquidate
the property among themselves. Era had accomplished his professional
responsibility towards them upon the amicable settlement of the cases
between the parties. Samson and his co-complainants verified the title of
the property but it was no longer registered under the name of ICS
Corporation but was already under the name of Bank Wise Inc. During the
hearings in the RTC, Atty. Era did not anymore appear for Samson and his
group. They were shocked to find out later on that Atty. Era had already
been entering his appearance as the counsel ICS Corporation had
perpetrated.
Samson executed an affidavit alleging the foregoing antecedents, and
praying for Atty. Eras disbarment on the ground of his violation of the
trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel. To which
the the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBPCBD) found Atty. Era guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests, for failing to serve his clients with competence and
diligence, and for failing to champion his clients cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion.
Issue: WON Atty Era violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard the clients
confidential information
xxx. 1 Preventing use of confidential client information against the
interests of the client, either to benefit the lawyers personal interest, in
aid of some other client, or to foster an assumed public purpose is
facilitated through conflicts rules that reduce the opportunity for such
abuse.
Fourth, conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients,
such as by inducing a client to make a gift to the lawyer xxx.
6.) TENOSO VS. ECHANEZ, A.C. No. 8384, APRIL 11, 2013 (8384
notary without proper commission)
About: Notary without proper commission
10
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client
before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a
secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon
9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In the case of Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, the court held that public
policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals
found duly qualified in education and character. Thus, the canons and
ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services
or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes
it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman
in the unauthorized practice of law.
In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, we held that the
preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the
practice of law which is reserved exclusively for members of the legal
profession. Atty. Bancolos authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to
another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer.
8.)
PESTO VS. MILLO, ADM. CASE NO. 9612, MAR. 13, 2013
(bungling of client's money)
Facts: Johnny Pesto (Johnny), a Canadian national, charged Atty. Marcelito
M. Millo with conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his
client, bungling the transfer of title, and incompetence and negligence in
the performance of his duty as a lawyer.
In May 1990, his wife Abella Pesto (Abella) retained the services of Atty.
Millo to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land to her name, and
the adoption of her niece, Arvi Jane Dizon. Johnny and Abella gave to Atty.
Millo the amounts of P14,000.00 for the transfer of title and P10,000.00
for the adoption case. Atty. Millo thereafter repeatedly gave them false
information and numerous excuses to explain his inability to complete the
transfer of title and made them believe that the capital gains tax for the
property had been paid way back in 1991, but they found out upon their
return to the country in February 1995 that he had not yet paid the tax.
When they confronted him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had already paid
the same, but he could not produce any receipt for the supposed
payment. Atty. Millo then further promised in writing to assume the
liability for the accrued penalties.
11
Ruling: Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his
clients. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him by the clients. His duty to safeguard the clients interests commences
from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by the
clients. In that time, he is expected to take every reasonable step and
exercise ordinary care as his clients interests may require.
Without doubt, Atty. Millo had the obligation to serve his clients with
competence and diligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, expressly so demanded of him, to wit:
Atty. Millo claimed that his belated response to the charge was due to the
assurances of Abella that she would be withdrawing the complaint. The
Court disbelieves him, however, and treats his claim as nothing but a
belated attempt to save the day for himself. He ought to remember that
the withdrawal of an administrative charge for suspension or disbarment
based on an attorneys professional misconduct or negligence will not
furnish a ground to dismiss the charge. Suspension or disbarment
proceedings that are warranted will still proceed regardless of the lack or
loss of interest on the part of the complainant. The Court may even
entirely ignore the withdrawal of the complaint, and continue to
investigate in order to finally determine whether the charge of
professional negligence or misconduct was borne out by the record. This
approach bespeaks the Courts consistent view that the Legal Profession is
not only a lofty and noble calling, but also a rare privilege reserved only
for the deserving.
12
10.) JINON, VS. JIZ, A.C. No. 9615, MAR. 5, 2013 (9615 duty
to client and assigning another lawyer)
FACTS: The complaint alleged that Gloria, after the death of her brother
Charlie in July 2001, entrusted two (2) land titles covering properties
owned by their deceased parents to her sister-in-law, Viola J. Jinon (Viola).
Eventually, Gloria sold the Sta. Barbara Property, which resulted in
disagreements between her and Viola regarding their respective shares in
the proceeds. Consequently, Viola refused to return to Gloria TCT No. T119598, prompting Gloria to engage the services of Atty. Jizon on April 29,
2003 to recover the said title, for which she immediately paid an
acceptance fee of P17,000.00.3 In their subsequent meeting, Atty. Jiz
assured the transfer of the title in Glorias name.
On August 13, 2003, Gloria, upon Atty. Jizs instructions, remitted the
amount of P45,000.004 to answer for the expenses of the transfer.
However, when she later inquired about the status of her case, she was
surprised to learn from Atty. Jiz that a certain Atty. Caras was handling the
same. Moreover, when she visited the Leganes Property, which has been
leased out to one Rose Morado (Rose), she discovered that Atty. Jiz has
been collecting the rentals for the period June 2003 up to October 2004,
which amounted to P12,000.00. When she demanded for the rentals, Atty.
Jiz gave her only P7,000.00, explaining that the balance of P5,000.00
would be added to the expenses needed for the transfer of the title of the
Leganes Property to her name.
The foregoing incidents prompted Gloria to terminate the legal services of
Atty. Jiz and demand the return of the amounts of P45,000.00 and
P5,000.00 through a letter5 dated September 22, 2004, which has
remained unheeded.
To date, Atty. Jiz has not complied with his undertaking to recover TCT No.
T-119598 from Viola and effect its transfer in Glorias name, and has failed
to return her money despite due demands. Hence, the instant
administrative complaint.
13
1. The sole issue before the Court is whether Atty. Jiz should be
held administratively liable for having been remiss in his
duties as a lawyer with respect to the legal services he had
undertaken to perform for his client, Gloria.
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the findings
of Commissioner Villanueva and the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Jiz
was remiss in his duties as a lawyer in neglecting his clients case,
misappropriating her funds and disobeying the CBDs lawful orders
requiring the submission of his pleadings and his attendance at hearings.
He should thus be suspended from the practice of law in conformity with
prevailing jurisprudence.
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on
those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal
qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty
to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance
with the values and norms embodied in the Code.12
Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the
above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity.
Undeniably, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he
will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to
exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father
of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his
client and makes him answerable not just to client but also to the legal
profession, the court and society.
Moreover, money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for
the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose,
should be immediately returned.15 A lawyers failure to return upon
demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Such act is a gross
violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs
public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.
In this case, Atty. Jiz committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a
member of the bar. Aside from the demand letter17 dated April 29, 2003
which he sent to Viola, he failed to perform any other positive act in order
to recover TCT No. T-119598 from Viola for more than a year. He also
failed to return, despite due demand, the funds allocated for the transfer
of the title that he received from her.
11.) GARRIDO VS. GARRIDO, A.C. No. 6593 (Gross Immorality)
FACTS: Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a
supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel
E. Garrido (Atty. Garrido) and Atty. Romana P. Valencia (Atty. Valencia)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline
charging them with gross immorality. She alleged in her affidavit that she
was married with her husband sometime in 1962. Later she found out that
her husband was with another woman and a child identified as Atty.
Ramona Paguida Valencia and Angeli Ramona Valencia Garrido,
respectively. She also found out that her husband and the woman were
14
12.)
ANONYMOUS VS. ACHAS, MTJ-11-1801, FEB. 27, 2013
(judge immorality)
Facts: The Court received an anonymous letter-complaint alleging
immorality and conduct unbecoming of a judge against Judge Rio C.
Achas. The letter calls on the Court to look into the morality of respondent
Judge Achas and alleges that: (1) it is of public knowledge in the city that
Judge Achas is living scandalously with a woman who is not his wife; (2) he
lives beyond his means; (3) he is involved with illegal activities through
his connection with bad elements, the kuratongs; ( 4) he comes to court
very untidy and dirty; (5) he decides his cases unfairly in exchange for
material and monetary consideration; and (6) he is involved with
16
Issue
Is Judge Austria bias or impartial?
Ruling
18
We likewise find the allegations of bias and partiality on the part of the
respondent baseless. The truth about the respondents alleged partiality
cannot be determined by simply relying on the complainants verified
complaint. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed, in light especially of a
judges sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice
without respect to the person, and to give equal right to the poor and rich.
There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge; mere
suspicion of partiality is not enough.
In the present case, aside from being speculative and judicial in character,
the circumstances cited by the complainant were grounded on mere
opinion and surmises. The complainant, too, failed to adduce proof
indicating the respondents predisposition to decide the case in favor of
one party. This kind of evidence would have helped its cause. The bare
allegations of the complainant cannot overturn the presumption that the
respondent acted regularly and impartially. We thus conclude that due to
the complainants failure to establish with clear, solid, and convincing
proof, the allegations of bias and partiality must fail.
19