Case Digests

Reyes vs. Vitan AC 5835

April 15, 2005
Facts:
Complainant, Carlos Reyes, hired the services of respondent, Atty. Jeremias Vitan, to file
a charge against his sister-in-law, Estelita Reyes, and latters niece, Julieta Agonza, for refusing
to abide with the decision of Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., RTC Manila, ordering the partition of
properties left by complainants brother.
After receiving the amount of P 17, 000.00, the respondent did not take any action on
the case.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, and
it issued orders directing respondent to file his answer, but he failed to do so. He only sent his
secretary to represent him in the proceedings.
It was later found out by the IBP Commissioner that the supposed letters to Estelita
Reyes and Julieta Agonza were submitted by the complainant but then, there were no proof as
to when it was sent and whether or not it was received by the addressee.
Moreover, what was submitted was only a format; it was not signed by the respondent.
The RTC No. was left blank, no Civil Case No. was indicated, and there were no proof that the
said pleading was filed. It only amounted as a mere scrap of paper rather than an authenticated
document.
An administrative complaint was filed by the complainant against the respondent for
gross negligence.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed a violation of the Canon 18 of the Official
Code of Professional Responsibility
Held:
Yes. Respondent violated Canon 18 of the Official Code of Professional Responsibility
for having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and for his failure to inform the complainant
of the status of his case. He also disregarded the orders of the Commission without reasons
which equated to disrespect of authority and unethical conduct in the practice of his profession,
thus, he should be sanctioned.
When he received the amount of P17, 000.00 from complainant, it is understood that the
attorney-client relationship has commenced and that he had agreed to take up the case. He was
expected to serve his client with competence and attend to his case with fidelity and devotion.

Decision of IBP Commissioner:

The respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years from receipt thereof; and refund the complainant with the amount of P17, 000.00 for not
having rendered his legal services on a lawyer-client relationship within six (6) months from the
receipt thereof.
Decision of Third Division:
The recommended penalty of the IBP was too harsh. Lighter sanctions have been
imposed for violations of such nature, taking into consideration the gravity of offense and the
necessity of preserving the integrity of the legal profession.
Respondent is hereby declared guilty of violation of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months and is ordered to return to complainant the sum of P17, 000.00 with interest of 12% per
annum. The decision is to be entered in the respondents personal records as an attorney and
as a member of the Philippine Bar.
Relevance to the Course:
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence. 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.
Failure to exercise the degree of vigilance and attention expected from a good father of
a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him
answerable not just to his client, but also to his legal profession and society (Santos vs Lazaro).
A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest,
warm and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights.
Respondent also violated his oath as a lawyer: that he will not delay any man for money
or malice and will conduct himself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with
all good fidelity to the courts and the client.

Hernandez vs Go AC 1526
January 31, 2005
Facts:
Complainant, Nazaria Hernandez (deceased; substituted by her son, Luciano
Hernandez, Jr.), engaged in the services of the respondent, Atty. Jose C. Go. She entrusted the
respondent to sell her lots believing that the proceeds would be used to pay her deceased
husbands numerous creditors.
Respondent instilled in the complainant the feeling of fear and helplessness. He abused
the complainants trust by convincing her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any
monetary or valuable consideration.
Complainant came to know that he did not sell her lots as agreed. Instead, he paid her
creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her
real properties worth millions.
If he had sold the lots to other buyers, the complainant could have earned more. The
records also show that she did not receive any payment from the respondent.
A letter of disbarment was filed by the complainant against the respondent.
Respondent denied the allegations and that he averred that he sold the lots in good faith
to various buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration. Moreover, he ascertained that
he extended financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live with his family. He
prayed that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed a violation of Canon 16 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Held:
Yes. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as the source of ethical rules
for lawyers, provides: a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession. The respondents act of acquiring for himself the complainants
lots entrusted to him are acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a dereliction in
duty, implies a wrongful intent and not merely an error in judgment. Such conduct degrades not
only himself but the name of his legal profession.
Furthermore, Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Complainant placed a high
degree of trust to him however he abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell the
properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay for the obligations.
Decision of IBP:
The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. It was found out from the records that
it was the respondent who notarized the documents involving the said properties repurchased
by the complainant from her creditors which ended up in the respondents name.

Instead of selling to buyers at a higher price, he paid them out of his own funds; then
later on admitted that he was one of the purchasers of the complainants properties and no
evidence was submitted concerning the value of the said sale of properties.
The respondent is to be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months. However, it was modified in the sense that the recommended penalty was increased
from six (6) months to three (3) years.
Decision of Supreme Court En Banc:
The penalty recommended by the IBP is too light considering the depravity of the
offense. Respondent is found guilty of gross misconduct and is disbarred from the practice of
law. His name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys.
Relevance to the Course:
The respondents conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has
fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful and grossly immoral acts.
Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best effort and ability to protect
the interests of his clients. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential in remaining in the legal
profession.
It is a privilege to be a member of the legal profession. But when an attorney is no longer
worthy of trust of the public, the Court may withdraw such privilege. He has blemished not only
his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.