CASE DIGEST

CANTILLER V POTENCIANO
FACTS
-

Complainant is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, who is a

defendant in an action for ejectment and a petitioner for
reconveyance with damages in another case.
When the two cases were concluded, Peregrina came
out as a losing party. The petition for reconveyance was
dismissed and the ejectment case was decided against
her.
Desperate and at loass on what to do, they consulted
Sheriff Pagalunan. Sheriff Pagalunan them introduce
them to Atty. Potenciano.
The parities impliedly agreed that respondent Atty.
Potenciano would handle their case and a petition
entitiled as Annulment of Judgement, Annulment of
Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injuction
and/or Status Quo was prepared by him.
The complainant was made to sign by respondent on
what she desciribed as a Hastily prepared, poorly
conceived and haphazardly composed petitions.
The respondent also promised her that the restaraining
order would be secured because the judge that will hear
the case is his close friend.
When the case was raffled and assigned, the presiding
judge asked the respondent to withdraw as a counsel on
the ground of their friendship.
The respondent then went to the house of complainant
and ask her to prepare 2K to be given to another judge
for the issuance of the restraining order in the
ejectment case.
Later, the respondent informed the complainant that he
could not locate the judge.
Respondent then after the filing of a Cicil Case informed
the complainant and stressed tthat there was a need to
file another case to enable them to retain the
possession of the apartment and told them to prepare
10K. The complainant obliged with the order of the
respondent.
Then at the hearing of the preliminary injunction, the
respondent withdew his appearance as counsel for
complainant.
Thereafter, it was found out by the complainant that
there was no need to make a deposit of 10 K and found
out that there was no deposit made.

ISSUE: WON the respondent committed deceit, fraud and

misrepresentation, gross misconduct and malpractice
HELD:
-

This court finds that the petitions made by the

respondent to be poorly prepared and written.
- Instead of doing his duty as a counsel of the client to
carefull prepare the pleadings, he was more interested
in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a
hopeless situation.
- The Court finds that the respondent failed to exercise
due diligence in protecting the clients interest.
- The Court stated that it is the duty of attorney to exer
his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense
of his clients cause.
RULING: The court finds that the respondent is guilty of deceit,
fraud,misrepresentation, gross misconduct and malpractice. The court
suspended the respondent for an indefinite period until he can
demonstrate the he has rehablititated himself as to deserve to resume
the practice of law.
ULEP v THE LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:
In 1984, the Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Nogales.
Its aim according to Nogales was to move toward specialization
and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law
firms.
Atty. Ulep files a complaint against the Legal Clinic because of its
advertisement which states undignified phrases like: Secret
Marriage, 560 for a valid marriage, Information on Divorce,
Annulement and VISA
It is alleged that the Legal Clinic published an article in Star Week
of the Philippine Star which stated that the Legal Clinic is
composed of specialist that can take care of clients problem no
matter how complicated it is.
He said in the advertisement that his staff of lawyers are
specialists in various fields such as taxation, crim law, medico
legal probem, labor litigation and family law.
These sepcialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits

the fact of publication of said advertisements at

its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in

the practice of law but in the rendering of legal
support services through paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines.

As for its advertisements, Nogales said it should be allowed citing

the case of John Bates V The State Bar of Arizona. And that the
advertiements are merely for informing the public of the services
of the Legal Clinic.

ISSUE:
WON the Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
Whether such is allowed
Whether or not the advertisement may be allowed
HELD:
1. Yes the legal clinic is engaged in practice of law however such
practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is mostly composed of
paralegals. The various services it offered are beyond their
domain but rather an exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under PhilippineJurisdiction, the services
offered by the Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals.
-Only a person admitted as a member of bar and who is in
regular standing is entitled to practice to law.
2. As to the issue of the legality of The Legal Clinics advertisements,
The Court stated that in Pursuance of the Code of Profssional
Responsibility, lawyer cannot advertise his talent or skills as in a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods.
-In addition, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seems to
peomote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage which are
contrary to morals under the phiilippine laws.
3. The Court also enumerated in the case the allowed forms of
advertisements:
-advertisement in a reputable law list
-Use of ordinary simple professional card
-Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
specialization.
SAMALA V PALAA
DOCTRINE:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that A lawyer

shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of legal
profession.
-Must not lessen the confidence of the public in fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession
Where a lawyer makes representations that cause material
damage to another, he fails to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and lessen the confidence of the public in
the honesty and integrity of the same.
FACTS
Joseph Samala filed a complaint against Atty. Palana for alleged
fraudaulent activities that violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Respondent Atty. Palana assured herein complainant Joseph
Samala that by investing his dollar savings with FIRI, his
investment was in a stable company.
However, it was later discovered that the by-laws of FIRI
prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange
business and its primary purpose is only to act as consultant in
providing professional expertise and reliable data analysis.
Complainant then decided to withdraw his investment but the
checks given to him in the amount of his total investment
bounced
Then, respondent as the legal officer of FIRI gave complainant
250K in cash and 329K in check. He assured that the second
check given to the complainant was a good check that was
even signed by Paul Desiderio(the alleged president of FIRI)
However, the check bounced due to insufficient funds and the
drawer of the check, Paul Desiderio when sought to be served a
warrant of arrest could not be located because his identity was
unknown and the address was found to be non-existent.
Complainant allged that the respondents act of representing
himself as a legal officer of FIRI and his assurance that the check
was signed in his presence by FIRI office Desiderio when no such
person exist is clearly fraudulent and violative of the Canons of
Professional Ethics.
Complainant then requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for a thorough investigation of respondent as a member of the
bar.
In an order of the Director for Bar Discipline required respondent
to submit his answer but the latter failed to do so. Respondent
also failed to appear when the case was set for hearing. Hence,
the respondent was declared in default and the case was heard
EX PARTE

ISSUE: WON Respondent violated the Canons of Professional Ethics.

HELD
The court based on the evidence adduced that the respondent
was instrumental in the issuance of the check. Respondent was
also one of the officers who assured the complainant that his
investemt was directly placed in a reputable company when in
fact such investment is violative of ity by laws.
The Court held that respondent was found to have violated Rule
7.03 of Canon 7 of Code of Professional Responsibility which
states that A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether public
or private life, behave in scandalous manner to the discredit of
legal profession.
Hence, the representation of the respondent caused MATERIAL
DAMAGE to the complainant and failed to uphold the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of
the public in the honesty and integrity of the same.
The court ordered that the respondent shall be suspended from
the practice of law for three years.
SECOND CASE
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BARE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
This case assails the constitutionality of Bar Integration
Specifically, the issue to be resolved are the following:
1. Whether or not the Court has the power to integrate the
Philippine Bar
Held: the Court may integrate Philippine Bar in the
exercise of its power under Article VIII, Sec 13 of the
Constitution, which states that it may promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts and the admission to the practice of law. In view
of said Article it may be inferred that the power to
integrate is an inherent part of the Courts constitutional
authority over the Bar.
2. Whether or not the integration of bar is constitutional
HELD: The court ruled that the constitutionality of Bar
integration is supported by the FF Judicial
Pronouncements:
WON the Court shall ordain the integration of the bar at
this time.

For the resolution of the issues, the Court defined what is Bar
integration. The Commission on Bar Integration defined the tem
as the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the
Philippines.
- This requires MEMBERSHIP and FINANCIAL SUPPORT of
every attorney as conditions to the practice of law and
the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
SC
- The term BAR refers to the collectivity of all persons
whose name appear in the Rolls of Attornerys hence and
Integrated Bar must include all lawyers.
- Also, complete unification is only possible unless it is
decreed by an entity with a power to do so: the State.
Bar integration therefore signifies the setting up by the
Government authority of a national organization of the
legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer
as an officer of the court.
- Bar integration is designed to improve the position of
the Bar as an instrumentality of Justice and the Rule of
Law, it will foster cohesion among lawyer and will
ensure the promotion of the objectives of the Legal
Profession pursuant to the principle of maximum bar
autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by
the SC.
-