University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

College of Law

Case Presentation

In Partial Fulfillment of the Course

Legal Profession
Sat 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM
1st Semester AY 2016 - 2017

Submitted by:
Sabdullah, Jabar
Samad, Azisa
Samson, Frances
Suan, Christia Sandee

Submitted to:
Atty. Amy Rose Rellin

September 2, 2016

Chapter IV. The Lawyer and The Client

CANON 14
A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's race,
sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said
person. He shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment
as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid. He may not refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client if he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively, labors under a conflict of interest between him and the clients, accepts the
cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard
of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.

CANON 15
A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits
and probable results of the client's case He shall not state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. He shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. He shall make clear to
his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity of profession or
occupation concurrent with practice of law.
Case 1:
WINFRED ANGLO, complainant vs.
ATTY. JOSE MA. VALENCIA, et.al., respondent
[A.C. No. 10567]
FA C T S
Complainant availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De
La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office (law firm), of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon,
Dabao, Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were partners, for
two consolidated labor cases 2 where he was impleaded as respondent. Atty. Dionela,
a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent complainant. The labor cases were
terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both parties.
On September 18, 2009, a criminal case 4 for qualified theft was filed against
complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting
through a certain Michael Villacorta. Villacorta, however, was represented by the law
firm, the same law office which handled complainant's labor cases. Aggrieved,
complainant filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of
the pertinent provisions of the CPR.
HELD
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest in this
wise: There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two
or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the

lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other
client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when
he argues for the other client.
As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of
public policy and good taste.
WHEREFORE, respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Lily UyValencia, Joey P. De La Paz, Cris G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Rodney K.
Rubica, and Wilfred Ramon M. Pealosa are found GUILTY of representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and are therefore REPRIMANDED for said violations, with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with
more severely.

CANON 16
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client. He shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and
those of others kept by him.

CANON 17
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.

Case 2:
PEDRO RAMOS, complainant vs.
ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN, respondent
[A.C. No. 11128]
FA C T S
Pedro Ramos was charged of criminal case of murder before the Sandiganbayan. Atty.
Mandagan demanded from Ramos the amount of P300,000.00 which shall be used as
bail bond in the event that his petition for bail in the said criminal case is granted.
However, the petition for bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, Atty.
Mandagan withdrew as his counsel without returning the amount of P300,000.00
despite the demand sent by Ramos' counsel.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and for failure to render an
accounting of funds to his client.
HELD
Atty. Mandagan's failure to make an accounting or to return the money to Ramos is a
violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty. Mandagan should be
scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to her in her professional capacity
because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from members of the bar.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan GUILTY
of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year.

CANON 18
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
A lawyer shall render service only when qualified to do so. He shall not handle a case
without adequate preparation. He shall not neglect the case assigned to him. He shall
inform the client of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable period of
time.

CANON 19
A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.
A lawyer shall be fair and honest in attaining objects for the case of his client. He shall
promptly rectify the information that his client has. He shall not allow his client to dictate
the procedure in handling the case.

Case 3:
ADELITA B. LLUNAR, complainant vs.
ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT, respondent
[A.C. No. 6484]
FA C T S
Adelita Lunar, as attorney-in-fact of Severina Baez, filed a case against the father and
son Ricardo and Cervantes for the recovery of parcel of land alleged owned by the
Baez family but was fraudulently registered under the name of Ricardo and transferred
to Cervantes.
The property was mortgaged with the Rural Bank and was subject of foreclosure
proceedings at the time the respondent was hired. He received amounts of (a) Php
70,000 as partial payment for the redemption of property; (b) Php 19,000 to cover the
filing fees, and (c) Php 6,500 as attorneys fees.
Three years later, the complainant learned that there was no case filed ever so she
demanded to return to her the amount of Php 95,000. Respondent then refused to
return the whole amount for he argued that a complaint for annulment of title has been
filed not by him, but by another lawyer, Atty. Edgar Abitria. He was only willing to return
what was left of the amount after paying Atty. Abitria his acceptance fee of Php 50,000.
Complainant refused to recognize the complaint for annulment of title filed by Atty.
Abitria for she had no knowledge of his engagement as counsel and was filed 3 years
late so the property could no longer be redeemed form the bank, and later discovered
that respondent was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law which was the
suspected reason why another lawyer filed the complaint of annulment of title in court.
The complainant then filed against Atty. Romulo Ricafort for gross and inexcusable
negligence and serious misconduct.

ISSUE
Whether or not, the respondent, Atty. Romulo Ricafort, is guilty for gross and
inexcusable negligence and serious misconduct
HELD
Yes. The court found the respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct in his dealings with his
client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and
thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.
First, the respondent did not exert due diligence in handling the complainant's case.
He failed to act promptly in redeeming the complainant's property within the period of
redemption. He violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
which states that, A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Second, the respondent failed to return, upon demand, the amounts given to him by
the complainant for handling the latter's case. After the complainant discovered three
years later that the respondent had not filed any case in court, she demanded that the
respondent return the amount of P95,000.00, but her demand was left unheeded.
These facts confirm that the respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which
mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession and to account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Third, the respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the
complainant that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. Canon
15 of the CPR states that, A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients.
Lastly, the respondent was effectively in the practice of law despite the indefinite
suspension imposed on him. This infraction infinitely aggravates the offenses he
committed. The respondent is not an ordinary violator of the profession's ethical rules;
he is a repeat violator of these rules.

CANON 20
A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
A lawyer shall at all times be guided by the factors mentioned in Rule 20.01 of Canon
20 in determining his fees. He shall be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the
work performed and responsibility assumed. He shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.

CANON 21
A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the
attorney-client relationship is terminated.
A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except as mentioned
in Rule 21.01 of Canon 21. He shall not use information acquired in the course of
employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person,
unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto. He shall
not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an outside
agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting,
data processing, or any similar purpose.

CANON 22
A lawyer may withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
A lawyer may withdraw his services in those cases mentioned in Rule 22.01 of Canon
22. He who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn
over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with
his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary
for the proper handling of the matter.

Case 4:
VALENTIN, C. MIRANDA, complainant vs.
ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, respondent
[A.C. No. 6281]
FA C T S
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Macario D. Carpio filed by Valentin C. Miranda.
Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land located at Las
Pias, Metro Manila.
Sometime in 1994, complainant initiated the registration of the aforesaid property.
During the course of the proceedings, complainant engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case.
In complainant's Affidavit, complainant and respondent agreed that complainant was
to pay respondent Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and
Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee.
Complainant paid respondent the amounts due him, as evidenced by receipts duly
signed by the latter.
During the last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the additional amount of
Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a memorandum, which he
said would further strengthen complainant's position in the case, plus twenty percent
(20%) of the total area of the subject property as additional fees for his services.

Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was contrary to their
agreement. As a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands, the
latter became furious and their relationship became sore.
In 1998, a Decision was rendered by the court granting the petition for registration,
which Decision was declared final and executory in an Order dated June 5, 1998.
On March 24, 2000, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant a copy of
the letter addressed to the Register of Deeds (RD) of Las Pias City, which transmitted
the decree of registration and the original and owner's duplicate of the title of the
property.
On April 3, 2000, complainant went to the RD to get the owner's duplicate of the
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) bearing No. 0-94. He was surprised to discover that
the same had already been claimed by and released to respondent on March 29,
2000.

OnMay 4, 2000, complainant talked to respondent on the phone and asked him to turn
over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which he had claimed without complainant's
knowledge, consent and authority.
Respondent insisted that complainant first pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the 20%
share in the property equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for which,
respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate of the OCT.Once again, complainant
refused the demand, for not having been agreed upon.
In a letter datedMay 24, 2000, complainant reiterated his demand for the return of the
owner's duplicate of the OCT. OnJune 11, 2000, complainant made the same demand
on respondent over the telephone. Respondent reiterated his previous demand and
angrily told complainant to comply, and threatened to have the OCT cancelled if the
latter refused to pay him.
ISSUE
WON the Complainant is guilty of Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
RULING
Respondent's claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally give him the
right to retain the property of his client until he receives what is allegedly due him has
been paid has no basis and, thus, is invalid.
There was no proof of any agreement between the complainant and the respondent
that the latteris entitled to an additional professional fee consisting of 20% of the total
area covered by OCT No. 0-94. The agreement between the parties only shows that
respondent will be paid the acceptance fee and the appearance fees, which the
respondent has duly received. Clearly, there is no unsatisfied claim for attorney's
fees that would entitle respondent to retain his client's property. Hence,
respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client absence a clear and
justifiable claim.

Further, in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, respondent violated Canon 20

of theCode of Professional Responsibility,which mandates that a lawyer shall charge
only fair and reasonable fees. It is highly improper for a lawyer to impose additional
professional fees upon his client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the
time of the engagement of his services. At the outset, respondent should have
informed the complainant of all the fees or possible fees that he would charge before
handling the case and not towards the near conclusion of the case.This is essential in
order for the complainant to determine if he has the financial capacity to pay
respondent before engaging his services.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Carpio isSUSPENDEDfrom the practice of lawfor a

period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is ordered to
RETURNto the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 immediately upon
receipt of this decision.He isWARNEDthat a repetition of the same or similar act shall
be dealt with more severely.