Canon 12

RODOLFO MILLARE VS. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO MONTERO

A.C. no. 3283
July 13, 1995
Facts: Respondent Montero was rendered guilty of
malpractice by the IBP and recommend that he be
suspended from the practice. This was from his unethical
actions of filling six appeals to frustrate the execution of
the MTC judgment where his client was ordered to vacate
the premises of the complainant.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Attorney violates Canon
12 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes. Canon 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer is required to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. Under Rule 12.02- A lawyer shall
not file multiple actions arising from same cause. Also,
rule 12.04 provides that a lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of judgment or misuse court
processes.
The court explained that, it is unethical for a lawyer to
abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, such as the
filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation and
frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and
delaying the execution of a judgment. And such filling of
multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Court's
processes and improper conduct that tends to impede,
obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will
be punished as the contempt of court.
As noted by the Committee of Bar Discipline, in filling a
number of pleadings, actions and petitions, respondent
has made a mockery of the judicial processes and
disregarded canons of professional ethics in intentionally
frustrating the rights of a litigant in whose favor a
judgment in the case was rendered, and thus abused
procedural rules to defeat ends of substantial justice.

CRAIG L. FORD VS. ATTY. ESCOLASTICO DAITOL

A.C. no. 3736
November 16, 1995
Facts: In this case, respondent Attorney seeks the
reconsideration of IBP for his suspension from the practice
of law for a period of one month after he was found to
have been remiss in the performance of his duties as
counsel of Craig Ford, the complainant.
Complainant Ford rendered the service of the respondent
in 1987. While After learning that the CA had issued a
resolution on April 4, 1991 stating that the case had been
submitted for decision without appellees brief and not
failing to remind respondent to submit such brief,
complainant filed a letter-complaint praying for a
disciplinary action against respondent. During the
hearings, respondent did not show up and did not submit
any explanation for his failure to submit the Appellee's
brief and twice move to postpone the schedule of the
hearings. Furthermore, respondent was given a last
opportunity by the Commision to submit evidence in his
own behalf but still failed to comply. Therefore, the court
finds that the suspension of respondent from the practice
of law is proper.
Issue: Whether or not respondent attorney in failing to file
the appellee's brief of his client violates rule 12.04 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held. Yes. Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of Code of Professional
Responsibility promulgates, that a lawyer shall not unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of judgement or
misuse court processes. As the court held in previous
cases, it considers a lawyers failure to file brief for his
client constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part
(People v. Villarreal) and has indeed committed a serious
lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to

the court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy

administration of justice (People v. Daban). Respondent
Attorney was suspended from practice of law for a period
of three months and also directed to return to complainant
the fees he had received.
EDRIAL VS. QUILAT-QUILAT
G.R. No. 133625. September 6, 2000.
CANON NUMBER: CANON 12 (Rules 12.03 and 12.04)
FACTS:
Respondents Pedro, Gabriela, Isidra and Estanislao all
surnamed Quilat-Quilat filed an action for recovery of a
parcel of land against Petitioners Remedios, Mauro Jr.,
Marylene, Idelfonso, Rosalind, Mary Jean all surnamed
Edrial and Susan Edrial-Valenzuela.
Atty. Gerardo Lituanas, a lawyer of the LAPIL (IBP) Negros
Oriental, who was also an election registrar of the
COMELEC, filed the complaint in 1975. Atty. Lituanas was
able to present evidence on the following dates:
First witness of plaintiffsAtilano Ramirez, 73 years old, was
presented (July 10, 1981). Continuation of the testimony of
Atilano Ramirez (July 16, 1981, August 21, 1982 and
November 20, 1984). Direct Examination of 2nd Plaintiffs'
witness Ignacio Tomias. Cross-examination was waived
(February 28, 1984).
Plaintiff Pedro Quilat-Quilat was presented on direct
examination (August 21, 1985).
On 1986, the Citizen Legal Assistance Office (CLAO)
entered its appearance as new counsel of private
respondents after Atty. Gerardo Lituanas has filed his
withdrawal. The subsequent events are as follows:
The case was set for hearing on April 21, 1987 (February
23, 1987). The hearing was reset due to the projected
amendment
of
the
complainant
to
implead
PrimitivaTorrecampo (April 21, 1987). The third amended
complaint was admitted (June 19, 1987). Hearing was

postponed at the instance of the defendants [herein

petitioners] (September 9, 1987). The hearing was
suspended for the reason that the Court would require the
private respondents to submit a certification from the
Bureau of Forest Development that the land involved in
this case was not a part of the public forest (October 22,
1987). The hearing was postponed at the request of
thecounsel of the private respondents for the reason that
she would be attending a conference in Cebu City
(December 17, 1987).
The hearing was aborted due to the fact that the Bureau
of Forest Development report had not yet been finished
(March 18, 1988). The hearing was reset upon agreement
of both counsel (July 5, 1988). The hearing was reset upon
the instance of the Court (September 15, 1988). No
hearing was held as the certification from the Bureau of
Forest Development was being awaited (December 8,
1988 March 16, 1989).
The testimony of Private Respondent Pedro Quilat-Quilat
was suspended after a question was propounded that
would require him to use reading eyeglasses which he did
not have at the moment (May 25, 1989). Hearing was
reset due to the illness of the counsel of private
respondents. (December 14, 1989).
Atty. Eleccion, counsel of petitioners did not appear
despite due notice. The private respondents rested their
case (September 20, 1990). Atty. Eleccioncounsel of
private respondents did not appear (October 15, 1990).
Hearing was reset during which Atty. Eleccion did not
appear (October 16, 1990). Hearing was reset to
December 10 - 12. Atty. Eleccion asked for postponement
(December 10, 1990). Hearing was reset during which
Atty. Eleccion did not appear. The case [was] submitted for
decision as of that day (December 11, 1990).
The transcript of stenographic notes which was taken
down by stenographer Alexander Yberley, was missing. He
was ordered to produce the transcript (August 21, 1992).
Witness Atilano Ramirez was recalled for cross-

examination since stenographer Yberley manifested that

the record was burned. Despite due notice, nobody
appeared for the [petitioners]. So as of this day, the crossexamination of Atilano Ramirez was considered waived
and the case was finally submitted for decision (October
30, 1992). Court granted the prayer of Atty. Sedillo and the
case [was] set for hearing on March 22, 29 and April 5,
1993 (December 11, 1992).
Atty. Sedillo did not present evidence but instead moved
for a resetting of the hearing to April 12, 1993. He [was]
advised by the Court to be prepared on the next
scheduled hearing (March 22, 1993). Judge was on leave.
Hearing was reset to July 2, 1993 (June 4, 1993).
FlavianoUmbac was presented as first witness of
petitioners. Hearing was scheduled for August 27, 1993
(July 2, 1993). Petitioners moved for a resetting October 7,
1993 (August 27, 1993). Atty. Bongaciso was presented as
second witness for the petitioners. His testimony was
terminated and hearing was reset to December 13, 1993
(October 7, 1993). Judge was on leave. Hearing was reset
to February 14, 1994 (December 13, 1993).
Hearing was reset at the instance of Atty. Sedillo who
wanted to recall his witness Atty. Bongaciso. Hearing was
reset to March 23, 1994 (February 14, 1994). Hearing was
postponed to May 6, 1994 to find avenue for settlement
(March 24, 1994). Due to the conflict of schedule by Atty.
Sedillo and due to the absence of recalled 2nd witness of
petitioners Bongaciso, hearing was reset to June 17, 1994
(May 6, 1994). Atty. Sedillo asked for postponement. He
would attend a Kiwanis Training Conference. Hearing was
reset to July 4, 1994 (June 17, 1994).
Atty. Sedillo was present but Atty. Rosalinda Ybanez was
available at 10:00 a.m. so the case [was] reset to August
15, 1994 (July 17, 1994). Judge was on leave. Hearing was
reset to October 3, 1994 (August 15, 1994). The hearing
was reset to November 17, 1994 due to non-availability of
the witness of petitioners Atty. Roque Bongaciso who was
on recall (August 15, 1994). There was talk about a
proposed settlement, hearing was held in abeyance

(November 17, 1994).

Since no settlement was realized a motion of private
respondents to set the case for hearing was filed and the
case was reset to February 27, 1995 (January 6, 1995).
Earlier, counsel of petitioners, Atty. Sedillo filed a motion
for postponement as he would be appearing in a case in
Manila. Atty. Ybanez manifested that on February 26, 1995
Atty. Sedillo was in Dumaguete and further that this case
had been delayed by the failure of the petitioners to
complete the presentation of their evidence. The Court
then ordered the case submitted for decision for the third
time (February 27, 1995). The Court issued an order
reconsidering the February 27, 1995 order upon motion of
Atty. Sedillo and set the case for the petitioners for June
16, 1995 with a stern warning to the petitioners (March
16, 1995). The hearing set for this daywas cancelled as
the Judge was on leave and reset to September 8, 1995
(June 16, 1995). The counsel of petitioners did not appear.
Hearing was reset to November 16, 1995 (September 8,
1995). The counsel of petitioners did not appear. Neither
did his client. The hearing [was] reset to February 13,
1996 (November 16, 1995).
The counsel of petitioners filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel. The Court granted the withdrawal. The petitioners
were directed to immediately engage the services of a
new counsel The Court issued an order setting the case
[for] April 26, 1996. This order was received by the wife of
the [Petitioner] Mauro Edrial, Jr. (February 1996). There
was no appearance from the petitioners. Hence, the case
was submitted for decision for the fourth time (April 26,
1996). Atty. Sedillo filed a motion to reopen the case and
in effect reentered his appearance (July 8, 1996). Private
respondents thru counsel filed opposition to motion of the
petitioners (August 20, 1996). The Hon. Judge issued an
order denying the motion to reopen hereby affirming the
April 26, 1996 order submitting the case for decision.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (September
1996). The Court denied the motion for reconsideration
(October 1996).

The CA dismissed the appeal of petitioners because, in

issuing the questioned Orders, the trial judge committed
no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. In giving petitioners more than ample time to
complete their presentation of evidence and in granting
their Motions for Postponement, the judge was
accommodating them more than they actually deserved.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the reversal of the CA ruling would have
allowed petitioners to have more time to complete their
evidence.
2. Whether or not the CA violated the right to due process
of the petitioners.
HELD: No.
The Code of Professional Responsibility
requires that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, shall not let the
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for their failure to do so (Rule 12.03).
Moreover, they should avoid any action that would unduly
delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse court processes.
True, respondents also asked for continuances, but
petitioners were ultimately to blame for the inexcusable
delay. The case was submitted for decision three times.
After having failed to take advantage of opportunities to
ventilate their claims below, parties may no longer be
accorded the same chances, in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Counsel
for petitioners further avers that he had difficulty in
presenting Atty. Roque Bongaciso because of prior
commitments of the latter which conflicted with the
scheduled trial dates. The last witness was Mauro Edrial Jr.,
but counsel had the wrong address on file. He should just
have adjusted the order of presentation of witnesses and
called Edrial Jr. later. Such move could have prevented the
postponement. Besides, finding an available date in his

calendar would not have taken Atty. Bongaciso three

years.

VILLASIS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-34369. September 30, 1974.
CANON NUMBER: CANON 12 (Rule 12.01)
FACTS:
On 1970, petitioners as appellants received notice through
their counsel Benjamin M. Valente to submit the brief of
appellants within the reglementary forty-five (45) day
period to expire on August 9, 1970. On August 10, 1970
(the last day of the reglementary period, August 9 being a
Sunday), Atty. Valente, led a motion to withdraw as
counsel due to his having been employed as technical
assistant in the Supreme Court, with a prayer that the
newly engaged counsel of appellants be given sufficient
time to file their brief. Said new counsel, Atty. Esdras F.
Tayco, filed on August 18, 1970 his appearance with the
appellate court.
On September 1970, the appellate court required both
counsels of appellants, Atty. Valente (whose withdrawal it
held in abeyance until he led a proper motion in verified
form with the signed conformity of the clients as per its
resolution of August 18, 1970) and Atty. Tayco to comment
on the dismissal motion. Withdrawing counsel Valente led
his manifestation dated September 28, 1970 alleging inter
alia that he had not received a copy of the dismissal
motion and could not therefore comment thereon and
submitting therewith the signed conformity of his clients
to his withdrawal and reiterating his prayer for the court to
grant his withdrawal and to grant appellants sufficient
time to file their brief. New counsel Tayco led no comment
whatsoever.
The appellate court granted withdrawing counsel's motion
to withdraw per its resolution of October 9, 1970 but
meanwhile issued no resolution on the motion of appellees

to dismiss the appeal.

On June 25, 1971 or eleven months later, without
appellants having led their brief at all, the appellate court
issued its resolution granting the dismissal motion and
dismissing the appeal on the ground stated by appellees
in their motion that appellants had failed to file their brief
within the reglementary45-day period. It was only then
that new counsel Tayco apparently stirred from almost a
year of inaction and led a motion dated July 13, 1971 for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal on the
ground that he as new counsel had not received the notice
to le brief. The appellate court per its resolution of August
17, 1971 denied the motion for reconsideration, pointing
out that the appearance of Atty. Taycowas entered on
August 18, 1970 after the period for filing brief had
already expired on August 10, 1970. New counsel Tayco
led a second motion for reconsideration which the
appellate court denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not Canon 12, Rule 12.01, of the Code

of Professional Responsibility has been violated.

HELD:
Yes. The appellate court committed no error in dismissing
the appeal. Petitioners -appellants have shown no valid
and justifiable reason for their inexplicable failure to file
their brief and have only themselves to blame for the
inaction and gross indifference and neglect of their
counsel in not having filed their brief for a year since
receipt of due notice to file the same. They could not even
claim ignorance of the notice of the appellate court to file
brief since it had required withdrawing counsel Valente to
secure their written conformity before granting his
withdrawal as counsel, and certainly they must have
ascertained from him as well as new counsel the status of
their appeal which accounts for the repeated prayers of
Atty. Valente in his two motions for withdrawal for the

granting of sufficient time for new counsel to file the brief.

They had almost a year thereafter to make sure that their
new counsel did attend to their appeal and did file the
brief.
SIY LIM V. ATTY. CARMELITO MONTANO
A.C. NO. 5653
FACTS:
This is a complaint filed against Atty. Carmelito Montano
by John Siy Lim for gross misconduct in filing a recycled
civil case (Civil Case No. C-19928 entitled Spouses Tomas
See Tuazon and Natividad See Deecho v. John Siy Lim and
the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City) which has already
been decided and is final and executory. The latter is the
defendant in the Civil Case No. C- 14542 then pending
before the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 131, for
reformation of contract, quieting of title, with damages.
After trial, the RTC, ruled in favor of John Siy Lim, the
defendant in the said civil case, and declared that the
deed of sale executed by the parties on July 15, 1987 was
an absolute and unconditional conveyance of subject
property by the plaintiff in favor of John Siy Lim. On motion
for reconsideration, the trial court reversed itself. The case
was appealed to Court of Appeals, to which the appellate
court reversed the ruling of the RTC and reinstated its
original ruling. Undaunted, the aggrieved party elevated
the case to the Supreme Court to which it affirmed the
decision of appellate court and denied the petition on
October 3, 2000.

Come January 4, 2002, Atty. Carmelito Montano filed a

Notice of Appearance as counsel for Tomas See Tuazon
(the losing party) in Civil Case No. C- 14542 before the RTC
of Caloocan City, Branch 131. Consequently, Atty.
Carmelito Montano in behalf of his clients filed a complaint
against John Siy Lim. This prompted the latter to file a
disbarment case against the counsel for gross misconduct.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the elements of res judicata are present in
the case as to bar the filing of Civil Case No. C- 19928,
thereby making the respondent guilty of misconduct?

HELD:
YES. By the principle of res judicata: (a) the judgment in
Civil Case No. C-14542, upholding the validity of the
absolute deed of sale, had attained finality; (b) the court
which rendered the decision had the required jurisdiction;
and (c) the disposition of the case was a judgment on the
merits. The counsel is guilty of forum shopping, which is
tantamount to misconduct. Forum shopping is the filing of
multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for
the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists
when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a
favorable decision. The filing of another action concerning
the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his
actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule
12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer's mandate "to delay
no man for money or malice."

SPOUSES ALEJANDRINO V. CA
G.R. NO. 114151

FACTS: The late spouses Alejandrino left their six children

named Marcelino, Gregorio, Ciracio, Mauricia, Laurencia,

and Abundio a lot in Cebu City. Upon the death of the
spouses, the property should have been divided among
their children, however, the estate of the Alejandrino
spouses was not settled in accordance with the
procedures. Petitioner Mauricia (one of the children)
allegedly purchased portion of the lots from the shares of
her brothers: Gregorio, Ciracio, and Abundio. It turned out,
however, that a third party named LicerioNique, the
private respondent in this case, also purchased portions of
the property from Laurencia, Abundio, and Marcelino.

However, Laurencia (the alleged seller to Nique) later

questioned the sale. The trial court resolved the matter in
favor of LicerioNique and declared him the rightful owner
of the lots. Likewise, the appellate court dismissed the
petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner argues that partition of the property cannot be
effected because private respondent is also a defendant in
Civil Case No. CEB-11673. She asserts that Exhibit 16, the
extrajudicial settlement of estate referred to in the
questioned order of the lower court, was not discussed in
the decision of the lower court and even if it were, she
could not be bound thereby considering that she was not a
party litigant in Civil Case No. CEB-7038. On the contrary,
the private respondent retorts that the instant petition is a
qualified forum shopping. He charges counsel for
petitioner with exhibiting "unethical conduct and practice"
in appearing as counsel for petitioner in Civil Case No.
CEB-11673 after he had appeared for complainant
Laurencia in CA-G.R. CV No. 33433 or Civil Case No. CEB7038.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a qualified violation of

Circular No. 28-91 on forum shopping?

HELD: NO. Forum shopping exists where the elements of

litispendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other. 17 Because
the judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-7028 is already final
and executory, the existence of res judicata is
determinative of whether or not petitioner is guilty of
forum shopping. For the principle of res judicata to apply,
the following must be present: (1) a decision on the
merits; (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the
decision is final; and (4) the two actions involve identical
parties, subject matter and causes of action. The fourth
element is not present in this case. The parties are not
identical because petitioner was not impleaded in Civil
Case No. CEB-7028. While the subject matter may be the
same property of the Alejandrino spouses, the causes of
action are different. Civil Case No. CEB-7028 is an action
for quieting of title and damages while Civil Case No. CEB11673 is for redemption and recovery of properties.

LI KIM THO V. SANCHEZ

G.R. No. L-2676. January 31, 1949
FACTS: The petitioner Li Kim Tho, lessee of a building
administered by Fernandez Hermanos, Inc., sublet the
ground floor of said building to the respondent Go Siu Kao,
who, during the Japanese occupation, had been deprived
of his own house by the military. Needing the entire
building for himself after liberation, the petitioner required
the said respondent to vacate the portion sublet to him,
and the demand having been refused, he brought suit in
the Municipal Court of Manila to have him ejected from the
premises. Judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner;
but respondent appealed to the Court of First Instance
and, having again lost in that court, took an appeal to the
Court of Appeals. After an adverse judgment in that court,
he took the case to the Supreme Court, but met with
failure when his petition for certiorari was dismissed.
Undaunted, respondent sought to prevent his ouster when
the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance for
execution. As a means to that end, he then filed an action

to have himself declared as the direct lessee of the

premises in question by virtue of an alleged contract with
Fernandez Hermanos, with a petition for a writ of
preliminary injunction to suspend the execution of the
decision of the Court of Appeals in so far as his ouster was
concerned. Defendants in said action are Li Kim Tho, the
Sheriff of Manila, and Fernandez Hermanos, Inc. The
preliminary injunction was granted but was, upon a motion
for reconsideration, lifted, with the result that the
respondent was ejected from the premises by the sheriff
of Manila. Upon a motion for reconsideration, however,
filed by said respondent, the same court, now acting
through another judge, issued a writ of mandatory
injunction to restore him in the possession of the
premises, thereby putting into effect again the writ of
preliminary injunction which another judge had ordered
lifted. That writ of mandatory injunction is now the subject
matter of the present petition for certiorari.|
ISSUE: WON the Judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the writ of mandatory injunction?
HELD: Yes. It is, of course, settled that the stay of
execution of a final judgment may be authorized whenever
it is necessary to accomplish the ends of justice as, for
instance, where there has been a change in the situation
of the parties which makes such execution inequitable. But
we are persuaded that such is not the case here. The filing
by respondent Go Siu Kao of a new action to litigate again
his right to continue in the possession of the premises in
controversy as an alleged basis for suspending the
execution of a final judgment which denies him such right,
savours of a mere scheme to delay or frustrate the
execution of the judgment in question. Obvious is the fact
that the issue raised in the new case is something that has
already been passed upon by the Court of Appeals in
connection with the denial of respondent's motion for new
trial based on an alleged contract of lease between him
and Fernandez Hermanos.|
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and

somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and

efficient administration of justice that once a
judgment has become final, the winning party be
not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the
fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard
against any scheme calculated to bring about that result.
Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies,
courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them|||

BERGONIA V. MERRERA
Adm. Case No. 5024, February 20, 2003
A motion for extension to file an appellant's brief
carries with it the presumption that the applicantlawyer will file the pleading within the period granted.
Failure to so file the brief without any reasonable
excuse is a violation of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility. For such violation, a lawyer may be
administratively sanctioned, especially if it results in
damage to the client.|||
FACTS: Complainant, together with her relatives, filed a
case for the quieting of title (docketed as Civil Case No. U4601) against her niece Josephine Bergonia, as well as
Spouses Rodolfo and Remedios Parayno and their minor
daughter Gretchen. After due trial, the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 49, promulgated
its Decision in favor of the Parayno spouses and their
daughter. On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the
trial court and the Decision became final and executory.
Since the disputed land was still in the possession of
complainant, the Paraynos instituted Civil Case No. U-6061
to recover possession. After the Answer was filed,
respondent became her counsel of record. After due trial,
Branch 48 of the same RTC rendered its Decision ordering
her to vacate the premises and to surrender possession
thereof to the Parayno spouses.
Thereafter, complainant appealed the RTC judgment to the

CA. Respondent, as counsel, received a Notice to File

Brief on December 17, 1997. Acting on his Motion for
extension to file the appellant's brief, the CA in its
February 18, 1998 minute Resolution granted hire until
March 17, 1998 to do so. Even before the first extension
had lapsed, however, he again filed an Urgent Second
Motion for extension to file brief, praying that he be given
until April 16, 1998 to submit the required pleading. The
CA again granted his Second Motion. Eventually, the
deadline, which had already been extended twice, lapsed
without his filing the appellant's brief. Hence, the CA, upon
motion of the appellees, dismissed the appeal in its June
25, 1998 Resolution. Thus, this administrative case
seeking the disbarment of Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera for
violating Canons 12 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complainant alleged that his inexcusable
negligence, while acting as her counsel, caused the
unceremonious dismissal of her appeal.|
ISSUE: WON Atty. Arsenio A. Merrera is
disbarment for violating Canon 12?

subject

to

HELD: No, but Atty. Merrera is suspended for 6 months.

Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, requires all the members of the bar to
observe the following:
"A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions
of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs,
let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure
to do so."
Expressly stated is the requirement to show good and
sufficient cause for requests of extension of time to file
appellate briefs. Section 12 of Rule 44 of the Rules of
Court provides that an extension of time for the filing of a
brief shall not be allowed, except when there is good and
sufficient cause, and only when the motion is filed before
the expiration of the extension sought.

From time to time, a request for extension becomes

necessary when an advocate needs more time to study
the client's position. Generally, such request is addressed
to the sound discretion of the court. Lawyers who, for one
reason or another, decide to dispense with the filing of the
required pleading, should promptly manifest this intent to
the court. It is necessary for them to do so in order to
prevent delay in the disposition of the case. Those who file
motions for extension in bad faith misuse the legal
process, obstruct justice, and thus become liable to
disciplinary action.

A lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good

faith and with a genuine intent to file the required
pleading within the extended period. In granting the
request, the court acts on the presumption that the
applicant has a justifiable reason for failing to comply with
the period allowed. Without this implied trust, the motion
for extension will be deemed to be a mere ruse to delay or
thwart the appealed decision. The motion will thus be
regarded as a means of preventing the judgment from
attaining finality and execution and of enabling the
movant to trifle with procedure and mock the
administration of justice.
Further discussion: Respondent claims that he never
planted false hopes in the mind of complainant. Upon
receiving the Decision in Civil Case No. U-6061, he
purportedly advised her that her chances of winning in the
appellate court were slim, because the ownership of the
disputed land had already been adjudicated to the other
party in Civil Case No. U-4601. He avers that he tried to
persuade her to accept her defeat "like a good soldier."
We are not persuaded. If, indeed, respondent failed to
convince complainant to drop her appeal, he should have
just withdrawn his appearance. Based on his arguments in
his Opposition to the Motion for Execution and Demolition,
however, we do not believe that he even tried to convince

her, to withdraw the appeal. We are inclined to believe

that this excuse was merely an afterthought to justify his
negligence.
Moreover, respondent claims that after filing the Motions
for Extension, he surmised that the appeal would be
useless, because he could not show sufficient cause to
reverse the Decision.
This justification is even more inexcusable. Respondent
should have checked first if there was a good ground to
support the appeal. If there was none, he should have
been forthright in his evaluation of the case. THIASE
Lawyers should fully familiarize themselves with the
causes of their clients before advising the latter on the
soundness of litigating. If they find that the intended suit
is devoid of merit or that the pending action is
defenseless, they should promptly inform and dissuade
their clients accordingly.

SEBASTIAN V. BAJAR
A.C. No. 3731, September 7 2007
Facts: The respondent is the lawyer of Fernando Tanlioco
and Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. As an agricultural lessee
of the complainant Manuel Sebastian an ejectment case
was filed against Fernando Tanlioco in order to convert the
land use from agricultural to residential.
A judgment was rendered by Regional Trial Court making
Tanliocos ejectment subject to the payment of
disturbance compensation as it was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Atty. Emily Bajar (respondent) filed a
case for Specific Performance to produce the conversion
order and eventually it was dismissed by the RTC due to
res juridicata and lack of cause of action. After which a

subsequent case was filed for Maintenance of Possession

with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board.
Petitioner then filed a disbarment case against respondent
on the reason of obstructing, disobeying, resisting,
rebelling, and impeding final decisions of the Supreme
Court and for submitting those final decisions for review
and reversal of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Emily Bajar be disbarred due to
obstruction, disobedience and resistance to the decisions
of the Court?
Held: The court finds sufficient evidence to the support the
IBPs findings that: respondent appealed a case for
purposes of delay which amounted to an obstruction of
justice and Atty. Bajar abused her rights of recourse to the
courts by her filing of multiple suits that should have been
avoided and her acts where tantamount to forum
shopping.
Atty. Bajars acts constitute gross misconduct and
willful disobedience of lawful orders of the superior court.
Wherefore, she was ordered for suspension for three
years.
SALOMON JR. VS. FRIAL
AC no. 7820, September 12, 2008
Facts: Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon Jr. charged respondent
Atty. Joselito C. Frial with violating his Lawyers Oath and
gross misconduct arising from his actuations with respect
to two attached vehicles. Complainant, owner of the
vehicles in question asked that respondent be disbarred.
In the case of Lucy Lo vs. Ricardo Salomon et al, in which a
writ of preliminary attachment was issued in favor of Lucy
Lo, the respondents client. The writ was used to attach
two cars of complainant.

According to Atty. Salomon, instead of depositing the

attached cars in court premises, it was turned over to Atty.
FrialLos counsel. Petitioner further alleged, when in
misuse of the car was reported, paving for Liquigans
apprehension, Atty. Frial, in a letter acknowledged having
authorized Liquigan to bring the car in custodial legis to a
mechanic.
In his response, respondent Atty. Frial admitted
taking custody of the cars thru his own undertaking,
without authority and knowledge of the court. He then
denied personally using or allowing others the use of cars.
Issues: Whether or not Atty. Frial used the cars for his
personal benefit? Whether or not Atty. Frial was guilty of
infidelity in the custody of the attached properties?
Held: On the basis of the foregoing premises, the
Commission concluded that Atty. Frial committed acts
clearly bearing on his integrity as a lawyer, adding that he
failed to observe the diligence required of him as
custodians
of
the
cars.
The
Commission
thus
recommended that Atty. Frial be suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year.
A writ of attachment issues to prevent the defendant from
disposing of the attached property, thus securing the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the
plaintiff or any proper party.
A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As
such, he is expected to respect the courts order and
processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his duties as
such officer.

Canon 13
CESAR L. LANTORIA VS. ATTY. AIRINESS L. BUNYI
A.C. No. 1769
June 8, 1992
Facts:
Complainant Lantoria seeks a disciplinary action
against respondent Attorney Bunyi on the ground that the
said respondent allegedly committed acts of graft and
corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
corruption of the judge and bribery in connection with
respondent's handling civil case prescribed over by
Municipal Judge Galicia. The administrative case immersed
from the cases for ejectment of squatters in Constacia
Mascarinas land, where respondent Bunyi was the counsel
and was allegedly one who prepared the decisions.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Attorney is guilty of
unethical conduct.

Held: Yes. The court explained that the subject letters

attached in the case indicate that respondent had
previous communication with Judge Galicia regarding the
preparation of the draft decision in his handling civil case
and which he actually prepared. The mere fact that
Attorney Bunyi prepared the decision is a conclusive
conduct of unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the
court.
A lawyers attempt to influence the court is rebuked and
prohibited in canon 13 and rule 13.01 of the new Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 13 provides that a

lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain
from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives
the appearance of influencing the court and Rule 13.01
that a lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating
familiarity with judges.
Respondent Attorney is hereby
practice of law for a period of one year.

suspended

from

ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 159486-88
November 25, 2003
Facts:
Attorney Alan Paguia, as counsel for petitioner Estrada,
asserts that the inhibition of the members of the Supreme
Court from hearing the petition is called for under Rule
5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such rule prohibits
justices from participating in any partisan political activity
which prescription was violated by Chief Justice Hilario
Davide when he attended the EDSA 2 rally and authorized
the assumption of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the
presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. Atty.
Paguia contends that the justices have thereby prejudged
a case that assails the legality of the act taken by
President Arroyo.
Atty. Paguia did not limit his negotiations to the merits of
his clients case within the judicial forum, and instead
repeatedly assault on the court in both broadcast and
print media.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Paguia is guilty of unethical
conduct under Canon 13.
Held:

Yes. Atty. Paguia has violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. The above
provision empowers the prohibition of the members of the
Bar from making public statements in the media on a case
that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a
party. Furthermore, the attention of petitioners counsel
Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule
13.02 but regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in
ignoring the Court's well-meant admonition. Wherefore,
Atty. Paguia is hereby suspended from practice of law.

RAU SHENG MAO V. VELASCO

FACTS: Complainant Rau Sheng Mao is a Taiwanese
national who went to the Philippines to invest in a beach
resort for leisure and recreation. He engaged the services
of Atty. Velasco both as a legal consultant and as a
retained counsel. However, he now seeks respondents
disbarment for alleged deceit in the conduct of business,
immorality
and
implying
influence
over
judges.
Unfortunately during the investigation of the IBP,
complainant was not able to present evidence to support
his claims of being deceived by respondent in the
business. On the other hand he was able to present
sufficient evidence of his immorality and implying
influence over judges. Respondent was alleged to be living
with a woman not his wife and has produced three
children, which he denied. He also wrote letters to
complainant asking money in favor of judges holding the
cases of complainant, which he neither denied nor claimed
to be true.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Velasco should be punished

for the complaints against him.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Velasco should be held responsible for

two out of the three complaints against him. There being

no evidence presented for his alleged deceit, this
complaint was dismissed. However, for his immorality,
evidences were presented. The evidences showed the
other woman using his surname in some transactions,
while all the children born of said illicit relationship were
all acknowledge by respondent as shown by their
surnames, which they use in their records. Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. Keeping of mistress is considered as a defiance
of the mores and sense of morality of the community.
Canon 13 states that a lawyer shall rely on the merits of
his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or give appearance of influencing court.
Respondents written letters which complainant presented
as evidence gave the impression that the decision of the
judge can be influenced, by certain amounts of money.
Thus he was sentenced to for a 2 year suspension.
BUENO V. RAESES
[Adm. Case No. 8383, December 11, 2012]

FACTS: Complainant hired Atty. Raeses to represent her

in Civil Case No. 777. Complainant paid respondent his
retainer fee, for which she was not issued a receipt aside
from this she agreed to pay him 800 pesos for every
hearing that he will attend. However, he was sometimes
absent or late. On november14, 1988, respondent asked
for 10,000 pesos from complainant, for a supposed fee to
be divided by him and Judge Nidea in order to win the
case. Sometime in December 1988, respondent asked for
another 5000 pesos, because the initial amount was
insufficient. Complainant later found out that respondent
failed to comply with the courts directive regarding the
case, a development she alleged to have been concealed
from her. Complainant confronted respondent regarding
the matter, but he simply told her that he did not receive
any decision. He even denied knowledge of the decision

even after complainant showed him a court -issued

certification that he was able to receive the decision.
Raeses failed to attend the following hearings and
answer Buenos complaint. The court asked Bueno to
present her evidence and file a formal offer, which she
was not able to do. Meanwhile, the IBP- CBD received a
Time Motioned request for copies of the complaint and
supporting papers filed by Atty. Raeses. He claimed that
he was not furnished with the copies of the complaint,
however it was later found out that the registry return
card refutes his claim.

ISSUE: Whether respondent is liable for the following

charges against him: 1. negligence, 2. soliciting money.

HELD:
1. No. Respondent is not liable for negligence. The
complainant was not able to file a formal offer and
present evidences which were stated in her affidavit.
Although the said evidences can be procured easily.
2. Yes. Respondent is liable for the charge of soliciting
money. Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that lawyers are instructed to
refrain from any impropriety tending to influence or
from any act giving appearance of influencing, the
court. Respondent did not only do the former
impropriety but also engaged himself in fraudulent act,
tarnishing the reputation of the judge and of the justice
system itself, by soliciting money from complainant
several times claiming that it is for the judge. The
sentence was to disbar him and remove him from the
roll of attorneys.
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, FORMER
SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
ADM. CASE NO. 7006

FACTS: The administrative case has its roots from the

case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard before the sala
of Judge Jose Manuel Tan, Regional trial court of Surigao
City, Branch 29. Luis Bucalon, was found to be guilty of
homicide and not murder with the evidence as basis.
Counsel of the defense thereafter filed a motion to fix that
amount of bail bond, with which Senior state prosecutor
and deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z.
Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is non-bailable.
Atty.
Bagabuyo
thereafter
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration which was consequently denied. Hence,
instead of resorting to his available judicial remedies,
respondent caused the publication of an article in the
August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Atty.
Bagabuyo again resorted to the media, after he was
ordered arrested and put up a bail of P100,000.00 this
time at Radio Station DXKS. He attacked once again Judge
Tan and his disposition on the proceedings of People v.
Luis Bucalon Plaza.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated the Code of
professional conduct.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating the

code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule 13.02 which
states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party. That instead of
resorting to the available judicial remedies before him,
Atty. Bagabuyohas degraded the dignity and authority of
the court and the presiding judge, as well as promoted
distrust in the administration of justice when he resorted
to media and declared his complaints there. Atty.
Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11, when he
disrespected the courts and the judicial officers and Rule

11.05 when he did not submit grievances against a judge

to proper authorities only.

FOODSPHERE, INC. V. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR

A.C. NO. 7199
CANON NUMBER: Canon 13
FACTS:
Foodsphere, a corporatation engaged in the business of
meat processing and manufacture of canned goods of
CDO filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for violation of the code of
professional responsibility. The case at hand involved a
certain Alberto Cordero who purportedly found a colony of
worms inside the can of liver spread by CDO and
Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The Cordero
family sued the company for P150,000 for damages, but
the companies did not agree to the demands. The
Corderos thereafter threatened to resort to the media, if
their demands are not met. Consequently, Atty. Mauricio
the counsel of the Corderos, was involved in various
media productions such as being a writer/columnist of
tabloids including BalitangPatas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK,
TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a television program
KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio
program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty.
Mauricio, in many cases utilized these media outlets to
place the said company in a bad light by declaring to the
masses the liver spread of worms; even after his receipt of
the Order addressed to him to desist from further
publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter
subject of the Complaint in the instant case more
specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on
plaintiff and its products. Even after the parties have
performed an agreement, signed by the Corderos and
Atty.Mauricio himself resulting in the dismissal of the
Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still inexplicably launched a
media offensive to the companies.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional
responsibility. His recourse to the Media, even after being
told to desist from such was a clear violation of Rule 13.03
of Canon 13, A lawyer shall not make public statements
in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party. His action has put
not only the company Foodsphere and CDO in a bad light,
but has also degraded the dignity and authority of the
legal system. Besides the above, he has also violated
Canon 1.01 by engaging in deceitful conduct taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his
own interests, and Canon 8, when he used abusive and
offensive language in his dealings.

CRUZ V. SALVA
G.R. No. L-12871, July 25, 1959
CANON NUMBER: Canon 13
FACTS: Manuel Monroy was killed in 1935. Subsequent to
appeals and reinvestigation, counsel for Oscar Castelo
(accused) and his co-defendants wrote to respondent
Fiscal Salva to conduct a reinvestigation of the case

presumably on the basis of the affidavits and confessions

obtained by those who had investigated the case at the
instance of Malacaang. Consequently, respondent Salva
proceeded to conduct such reinvestigation. In connection
with said preliminary investigation, herein petitioner was
subpoenaed by Salva to appear at his office. Atty. Baizas,
appearing for petitioner, questioned the jurisdiction of the
committee, particularly Salva, to conduct preliminary
investigation in view of the fact that case involving the
killing of Monroy was pending appeal.
ISSUE/S:1) WON respondent had the authority to conduct
a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation of the case
pending appeal; 2) WON the manner in which the
respondent conducted the investigation was proper.
HELD:
1) Yes. Ordinarily, when a criminal case in which a fiscal
intervened though nominally, is tried and decided and it is
appealed to a higher court, the functions and actuations of
said fiscal have terminated; usually the appeal is handled
for the government by the Solicitor General. However in
this case, the court ruled in favor of Salva for having
established a justification for his reinvestigation to
protect the innocent.
2) No. The investigation was conducted not in the
respondents office but in the session hall of the Municipal
Court of Pasay City, accommodating the big crowd that
wasted to witness the proceeding, including members of
the press. Furthermore, Salva accorded the unusual
privilege of asking questions to newspapermen and
newsmen against the accused. Despite refusal, the
newspapers certainly played up and gave wide publicity to
what took place during the investigation; the case
seemingly being retried and redetermined in the press.
Members of the Court, greatly disturbed and annoyed by
such, hold that respondent be publicly reprehended and
censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and
sensationalism that he had given and allowed in
connection with his investigation, which they consider and
find to be contempt of court.
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. SANCHEZ

G.R. No. 75209, September 30, 1987

CANON NUMBER: Canon 13
FACTS: Intermittent pickets in front of the Padre
Fauragate of the Supreme Court continued to occur even
after the union leaders have been received by Justices
Pedro L. Yap and Marcelo B. Fernan as Chairmen of the
Divisions where their cases are pending. Atty. Jose C.
Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, had
been called in order that the pickets might be informed
that the demonstration must cease immediately for the
same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the
Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as the
pickets were maintained. Atty. Espinas, along with other
union leaders were required to appear before the Court on
July 14, 1987 at 10:30 A.M. and then and there to show
cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.
Atty. Espinas was further required to show cause why he
should not be administratively dealt with.
ISSUE:WON Atty. Espinas should be administratively dealt
with.
HELD:No. The court realizes that the individuals
conducting the pickets are non-lawyers and thus are not
knowledgeable of the intricacies of substantive and
adjective laws. They are not aware that even as the rights
of free speech and of assembly are protected by the
Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts
of justice through the exercise of either right amounts
abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit of
constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any
such efforts to influence the course of justice constitutes
contempt of court. The responsibility and duty of advising
them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the
shoulders of their counsel of record, Atty. Espinas, which
he did not fail to do. He has well-apprised his clients on
matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of
justice through explaining to the picketers why they
actions were wrong and that any delay in the resolution of
their cases is usually for causes beyond the control of the
Court and that the SC has always remained steadfast in its
role as the guardian of the Constitution.

IN RE LOZANO
54 Phil 801, July 24 1930
Facts:
On April 29 1930, El Pueblo, a newspaper published
in Iloilo and edited by Severino Lozano, printed an account
of the investigation written by AnastacioQuevedo, said to
be an employee in the office of the Judge under
investigation.
The article then suffices evidence of the different
witnesses of the investigation of the Judge. Quevedo
alleges that the facts therein contained are false,
malicious, and untrue and that said report took sides
with the respondent judge. The Solicitor General was
designated to conduct the investigation of the charges,
and pursuant to said designation, and investigation was
conducted secretly as in customary in cases of this
character.
In the same connection, the Solicitor General states
that the newspaper report does not contain a fair and
true account of the facts disclosed at the investigation.
Under the following circumstances, the observations
of the Solicitor General must be necessarily be accepted
and true.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
Severino
Lozano
AnastacioQuevedo are guilty of contempt of court?

and

Held:
Yes, the Court ordered each to pay a nominal sum of P20
within 15 days. The rule is well established that the
newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct,
embarrass, or influence the courts in administering justice
in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal
contempt, which is summarily punishable by the courts.
Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had if persons are
privileged to scorn a resolution of the court adopted for

good purposes, and if such persons are permitted by

subterranean means of diffuse inaccurate accounts of
confidential proceedings to the embarrassment of the
parties and the courts.

IN RE: ABISTADO
557 Phil 668, December 1, 1932
Facts:
On October 20 1932, Paz Luzan filed a charge of
malpractice against Atty. Ramon Sotelo, and attached to
her complaint 13 exhibits.
Atty. Ramon Sotelo called then the attention of the
court to the fact that there had been published in the
weekly newspaper, The Union on October 24th, a
statement as to the filing of the charges, with the notice
that in the subusequent issues the complete charges and
the exhibits attached thereto would be published. Sotelo
requested that it was contrary to a resolution of the court
providing that administrative charges against attorneys
and judges of first instance should be confidential until
finally disposed of.
The motion of Atty. Sotelo by the resolution of the
court was referred to the Attorney General for proper
action. Notwithstanding the resolution of the court and the
fact that Sotelo had brought the matter personally to the
attention of the respondent who is also an attorney and
published in the issue of October 31st the charges against
Sotelo.
Respondent then filed an explanation wherein he
stated that he assumed the duties of editor of The Union
on November 1 and had nothing to do with the articles in
question published prior to that date that the publication
of the new referred to does not constitute contempt
against the court and freedom of the press be recognized
under the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not respondent guilty of contempt of

court?
Held:
Yes, First, that the respondent is an attorney-at-law and as
member of the bar it was peculiarly incumbent upon him
to respondent and obey the rules and resolutions of the
court and secondly the respondent did not try to purge
himself of his contempt but sought to justify his
contemptuous conduct and lastly respondent was
contumacious, and in open and utter disregard of the
action of the court persisted in publishing the charges and
the exhibits in question after he had been cited for
contempt.
Canon 14
VERONICA SANTIAGO ET. AL VS. ATTY. AMADO FOJAS
A.C. no. 4103
September 7, 1995
Facts:
Complainants herein are former clients of the
respondent Attorney Fojas. They prayed that the latter be
disbarred for malpractice, neglect and other offenses
which may be discovered from the actual investigation of
their complaint. They alleged that they lost their case to
Judge Capulong and other appeals because of the
respondents malpractice of law and negligence. However,
the respondent denies the above allegations and explain
that the unfavorable judgment was not imputable of his
mistakes but to the merits of the case.
Herein complainants, as officers of FEUFA were found
guilty for illegal dismissal of Paulino Salvador from the
union. The DOLE favors Salvador. Subsequently, Salvador
filed a complaint against the complainants for actual,
moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees, which
respondent Fojas filed a motion to dismissed the case.

However, the case was reinstated upon Salvadors motion

for reconsideration and the complainants were ordered to
file their answer. However, respondent Fojas as counsel of
the complainants, instead of filling an answer just keep on
filling a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of the
case.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed a culpable
negligence under the Canon 14.
Held:
Yes. The court ruled that Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility empowers, once a lawyer
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. That a lawyer must
serve his client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latters cause with wholeheartedly fidelity,
care and devotion. In relation to the above case, this
simply means that the complainants are entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and they may expect
him to assert such remedy or defense. And respondent
Fojas failure to file an answer is also his failure to comply
with his duty.

ATTY. AUGUSTO
MENESES III

NAVARRO

VS.

ATTY.

ROSENDO

A.C. no. 313

January 30, 1998
Facts:
Atty. Navarro, the complainant, in behalf of Pan-Asia
International Commodities, Inc. (Pan-Asia) charges
respondent Atty. Meneses III with the following offenses:
malpractice and gross misconduct unbecoming a public
defender; derelict dereliction of duty, by violating his oath

to do everything within his power to protect his clients

interest; willful abandonment; and loss of trust and
confidence, due to his continued failure to account for the
amount of P50,000.00 entrusted to him to be paid to a
certain complainant for the amicable settlement of a
pending case.
Pan-Asia engaged the legal services of respondent Atty.
Meneses. While serving as counsel, Atty. Meneses handled
various cases; one of the litigations handled by him was
the case of People vs. Lai Chan Kow and Arthur Bretaa.
On December 24,1993, respondent received P50,000
from Arthur to be given to Gleason as consideration for an
out-of-court settlement and with the understanding that a
motion to dismiss the case would be filed by respondent.
Despite of repeated requests, respondent failed to show to
his client the receipt acknowledging that Gleason received
such amount. As verified in RTC Makati, his client
discovered that no motion to dismiss or any appeals had
been filed, and the supposed amicable settlement was
also not concluded. Despite of repeated demands for an
explanation, as well as the turnover of all documents
pertaining to the aforementioned case, respondent
Meneses consciously ignored the pleas of herein
complainant.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed an unethical
conduct under Canon 14.
Held.
Yes. Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
endows that once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of
a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to him.
Respondent Attorney Meneses had the obligation to
present to his client the status of the case and to respond
within a reasonable time to his clients request for
information. A lawyers failure to communicate with his
client by consciously ignoring its request is an unjustifiable

denial of its right to be fully informed of the developments

and status of its case.

FRANCISCO V. PORTUGAL
Adm. Case No. 6155, March 14, 2006
FACTS:
On March 21, 1994, complainants were involved in a
shooting incident, which resulted to the death of two
individuals and the injury of another. Informations were
filed against the accused for murder and frustrated
murder at Sandiganbayan. Accused plead not guilty,
but was found guilty of homicide and attempted
homicide. This is where respondents services were
employed.
Respondent
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration and with the Sandiganbayan, but was
denied. Due to this he filed an urgent motion for leave
to file Second Motion for Reconsideration, pending
resolution from sandiganbayan respondent also filed a
petition for review on certiorari (Ad Cautelam) on May
3, 2002. That was the last that the complainants heard
from him. After more than a year, the complainants
were shocked to find out that the court already has a
decision dated July 3, 2002, denying the petition for
late filing and non-payment of docket fees. Due to this,
a warrant of arrest was already issued against them.
They believe that respondent did nothing to prevent
the reglementary period seeking reconsideration from
lapsing.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed gross
negligence or misconduct in handling the case of
complainants.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is guilty of gross negligence or
misconduct in handling the case complainants. In
criminal cases similar to the one handled by
respondent, he has higher duty to circumspect in
defending accused, because their right to liberty and
life are at stake. The results of the investigation of the
IBP shows that respondent was negligent in the
conduct of his work. In Armin v Bonavil, it was ruled
that once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of the
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him.
In addition to this he also committed a misconduct
in his offensive appalation which respondent called the
shooting incident, this was not appreciated by the
court. Rule 14.01 of the Code states that lawyers are
not to discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt
of the latter. It was deemed unprofessional to call the
incident as salvage, where in the case in pending. Thus
he was sentenced to six months of suspension of
license to practice law.

TELAN V. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 95026, October 4, 1991
FACTS:
Spouse Pedro and Angelina Telan, herein petitioners,
rented a lot owned by Luciano Sia for 50.00 pesos per
month. Due to its strategic location the petitioners
decided to set up businesses along the way. This action
was followed by private respondents. Petitioners were
asked to leave the place because it was already sold to
private respondents by Sia. Private respondents
executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage
with Sia. Soon after the mortgagee of Sias lot
foreclosed the mortgage. Private respondents alongside

mortgagee filed a suit to evict petitioners, however it

was dismissed. On September 22, 1986 one of the
private respondents secured a certificate title under his
name, over the contested lot. Due to this, respondents
were able to file an AccionPubliciana against
petitioners. Petitioners hired Atty. Paguiran, for the
case, which they were not able to win. Thus petitioners
filed an appeal, however their counsel was disposed to
do so.
Petitioners, asked another person to defend them.
Ernesto Palma, who was an acquaintance of Angelina
and introduced himself as a lawyer to sign in for them.
However he was later found to be a fake, after they
have come to know the dismissal of their appeal and
the courts resolution in May 1990. Petitioners asked
Atty. Barot to help them with the case. He filed a
motion for reconsideration with motion to admit
attached appelants brief.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the representation of the petitioners
by a fake lawyer, amounts to a deprivation of right to
counsel and hence lack of due process.

HELD:
Yes. The representation of the petitioner by a fake
lawyer has resulted to their deprivation of right to
counsel and hence a lack of due process. Like in a
criminal case the right of an accused to be assisted by
a member of the bar is immutable. This right maybe
invoked at all times and does not only exist in the trial
courts but also on appeal. Rule 14.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibilities prohibits a lawyer from
declining to represent a person solely on account of the
latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of
his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person. Thus

insisting that the petitioners have no right to appeal

since the reglementary period has elapsed due to the
negligence of a fake counsel is preposterous. Since
Palma was a fake, he cannot be considered as a
counsel.
OLEGARIABLANZA V. ATTY. AGUSTIN ARCANGEL
A.C. NO. 492
FACTS:
Complainants OlegariaBlanza and Maria Pasion complain
that way back in April, 1955, respondent Atty. Agustin
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
affixed their signatures on blank papers. But subsequently,
they noticed that since then, respondent had lost interest
in the progress of their claims and when they finally asked
for the return of their papers six years later, respondent
refused to surrender them. He admitted before the
Solicitor general having received the documents from
complainants but explained that it was for photostating
purposes only. His failure to immediately return them, he
said, was due to complainants' refusal to hand him the
money to pay for the photostating costs which prevented
him from withdrawing said documents from the photostat
service. Anyway, 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. The fiscal found the
respondent's explanation satisfactory and recommended
the former's exoneration, on at most, that he be
reprimanded only. The Solicitor General, however, feels
that respondent deserves at least a severe reprimand
considering (1) his failure to attend to the complainants'
pension claims for six years: (2) his failure to immediately
return the documents despite repeated demands upon
him, and (3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion,
allegedly, all of her documents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Agustin Arcangel may be held
administratively liable for his actuation?

HELD:
NO. The court ruled that there is no clear preponderance
of evidence substantiating the complaint. However, since
the respondent counsel volunteered his professional
services, he was not legally entitled to recover fees.
Moreover, this absence of agreement of compensation as
the counsel for Blanza and Pasion does not strip him of the
duty to attend to complainants claims with all due
diligence. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his
professional services. It was unnecessary to have
complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their
pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate,
respondent should have forthwith terminated their
professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging
indefinitely.

PEOPLE V. GAUDENCIO INGCO

G.R. NO. L-32994
FACTS:
Respondent Alfredo R. Barrios, a member of the Philippine
Bar, who was appointed counsel de oficio for the accused
in this case, Gaudencio Ingco, sentenced to death of
September 28, 1970 for the crime of rape with homicide,
was required in a resolution of this Court on September 9,
1971 to show cause within ten days why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for having filed
fifteen days late a motion for the extension of time for
submitting the brief for appellant Ingco. The explanation
came in a manifestation of September 11, 1971. It was

therein stated that respondent "was then busy with take

preparation of the brief of one Benjamin Apelo" pending in
the Court of Appeals; that while he had made studies in
preparation for the brief in this case, during such period
he had to appear before courts in Manila, Quezon City,
Pasay City, Bulacan and Pampanga; and that likewise he
did file, on July 27, 1971, motions for extension in the
aforesaid case of Benjamin Apelo with the Court of
Appeals, which motions were duly granted. He would
impress on this Court then that he was misled into
assuming that he had also likewise taken the necessary
steps to file a motion for extension of time for the
submission of his brief in this case by the receipt of the
resolution from the Court of Appeals granting him such
extension.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Barrios violated Canon 14 of
Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
YES. The respondent counsel is woefully negligent
considering that the accused is fighting for his life, the
least that could be expected of a counsel de oficio is
awareness of the period within which he was required to
file appellant's brief. The counsel has exhibited sheer
inattention tantamount to grave neglect of duty deserving
of severe condemnation. It is clearly unworthy of
membership in the Bar which requires dedication and zeal
in the defense of his client's rights, a duty even more
exacting when one is counsel de oficio.

ABAQUETA v. FLORIDO
A.C. No. 5948, January 22, 2003
CANON NUMBER: Canon 14 (Rule 14.03)

FACTS: On November 28, 1983, Gamaliel Abaqueta,

engaged the professional services of respondent.
Accordingly, respondent entered his appearance as
counsel for herein complainant in Special Proceedings No.
3971-R. Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed
an action for sum of money against complainant docketed
as Civil Case No. CEB-11453. Herein respondent signed
the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Abaqueta.
The "parcels of land" referred to as conjugal property of
complainant and Milagros Yap- Abaqueta are the very
same parcels of land in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R
which respondent, as lawyer of complainant, alleged as
the "sole and exclusive properties" of complainant. In
short, respondent lawyer made allegations in Civil Case
No. CEB-11453 which were contrary to and in direct
conflict with his averments as counsel for complainant in
Special Proceedings No. 3971-R.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Florido had sufficient and serious cause
to decline rendering legal service to Milagros Yap
Abaqueta.
HELD: Yes. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act
either as adviser or advocate for every person who may
wish to become his client. He has the right to decline such
employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the
cause of the 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. A lawyer may
not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act
as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that
of his former client.
Respondent, indeed, had sufficient and serious cause
in declining to render his professional services to Milagros
Abaqueta. However, he asserted that the lapse of 8 years
resulted in the oversight of his memory that complainant
was a former client. This justification, nevertheless, does
not excuse respondent from his violation of Rule 14.03,
further, Rule 15.03 against the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests.

IN RE: ATTY. LOPE E. ADRIANO

G.R. No. L-26868, February 27, 1969
CANON NUMBER: Canon 14
FACTS: RemegioEstebia was convicted of rape by the CFI
of Samar, and sentenced to suffer the capital punishment.
On December 14, 1996, Lope E. Adriano, a member of the
Bar, was appointed as Estebias counsel de officio. He was
required to prepare and file his brief within thirty days
from notice. However, despite extensions given to him, no
brief was filed. On September 25, 1967, Adriano was
ordered to show cause within ten days from notice thereof
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for
failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapse of the time
therefor. Adriano did not bother to give any explanation.
ISSUE:WON Atty. Adriano, being appointed as counsel,
may decline to render professional aid to Estebia.
HELD:No. By specific authority, this Court may assign an
attorney to render professional aid to a destitute appellant
in a criminal case who is unable to employ an attorney.
Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so
assigned "to render the required service" (Section 31, Rule
138, Rules of Court). A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for
an indigent prisoner," our Canons of Professional Ethics
demand, "should always exert his best efforts and
professional ability in behalf of the person assigned to his
care. His is to render effective assistance. In this case, no
excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of
appellants brief
The accused defendant expects of him due diligence,
not mere perfunctory representation. We do not accept
the paradox that responsibility is less where the defended
party is poor. It has been said that courts should "have no
hesitancy in demanding high standards of duty of
attorneys appointed to defend indigent persons charged
with crime." For, indeed, a lawyer who is a vanguard in the
bastion of justice is expected to have a bigger dose of
social conscience and a little less of self- interest. Because

of this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties

to the indigent he defends.

LAMES VS. LASCIERAS

89 SCRA 186, 1979
Facts:
Respondent was admitted to the bar in 1972, was charged
by Carmen Lames with negligence in handling the defense
of her son in a criminal case of the municipal court of
Sariaya Quezon.
In the case of Petitioners son was accused of
qualified theft and she faulted that respondent Atty.
Lascieras for not appearing at the promulgation of the
judgment although she gave him ten pesos for
transportation expenses.
Respondent lawyer in his answer to the charges
alleged that as counsel de oficio he secured a bail bond for
the accused and he has acted as one of the sureties and
presented three witnesses for the defense and he
submitted a memorandum in behalf of Lames after telling
his mother that he need the transcript of stenographic
notes and could not attend to the promulgation of the
judgment because he had a hearing in the Circuit Criminal
Court.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be taken into
disciplinary actions?
Held: No, there is no basis for taking disciplinary action
against the respondent. His conduct as counsel de oficio
was not characterized by deceit, malpractice or gross
misconduct and incompetence.
The possibility that a lawyer, more experienced and
competent that the respondent could have been defended
complainants son with more skill and ability is not ground
for holding that respondent is not fit to be a member of
the bar. Respondent absence at the promulgation of
judgment is not sufficient ground subjecting him to

disciplinary actions.
PEOPLE V. DAENG
49 SCRA 221
Facts:
The defendants were indicted for the crime of murder
before the Circuit Criminal Court holding sessions in Pasig,
Rizal. They were accused of killing another inmate hence
they were charged for murder.
Atty. Jose Galvan was appointed by the court as their
counsel de oficio. Guilty plea was initially pleaded by the
by the three accused. The trial court judge then issued a
soul searching which implies that the accused should
have changed their plea. Ultimately, the accused changed
their plea from not guilty to guilty as they were
convicted and sentenced to death.
Issue:
Whether or not the conviction should be set aside?
Held: Yes, the accused were not afforded due processes
and their conviction is attended by dubious circumstances.
A judge must refrain from accepting with alacrity an
accused plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy
administration, judges are duty bound to be extra
solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads
guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and
the the import on an inevitable conviction.
On the other hand, the court noticed that Atty.
Galvan has been repeatedly assigned as counsel de oficio
by the same trial judge in other cases therein. The
Supreme Court cautioned against frequent appointment of
the same attorney as counsel de oficio.

Canon 15
LETICIA
GONZALES,
CABUCANA

vs.

ATTY.

MARCELINO

A.C. No. 6836

January 23, 2006
Facts:
On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that: she
was the complainant in a case for sum of money and

damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities

(MTCC) of Santiago City, she was represented by the law
firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA
LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling the case
and herein respondent as an associate/partner. A decision
was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to
pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest and
P6,000.00 as attorney's fees. Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco,
failed to fully implement the writ of execution issued in
connection with the judgment which prompted Gonzales
to file a complaint against the said sheriff with this Court;
in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to
the house of Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked
her to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her
complaint before this Court; Gonzalesthereafter filed
against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust
vexation; notwithstanding the pendency of the civil case,
where respondent's law firm was still representing
Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in
the cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses;
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law
since respondent's acceptance of the cases of the
Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between
complainant and respondent's law firm and renders
respondent liable under the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01, 15.02,
15.03, 21.01 and 21.02. In his Answer, respondent
averred: He never appeared and represented complainant
in Civil Case No. 1-567 since it was his brother, Atty.
Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales
in said case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff
Gatcheco and his wife in the cases filed against them but
claimed that his appearance is pro bono and that the
spouses pleaded with him as no other counsel was willing
to take their case. He entered his appearance in good faith
and opted to represent the spouses rather than leave
them defenseless. The civil case filed by Gonzales where
respondents brother served as counsel is different and
distinct from the criminal cases filed by complainant
against the Gatcheco spouses, thus, he did not violate any

canon on legal ethics. Gonzales filed a Reply contending

that the civil case handled by respondents brother is
closely connected with the cases of the Gatchecos which
the respondent is handling; that the claim of respondent
that he is handling the cases of the spouses pro bono is
not true since he has his own agenda in offering his
services to the spouses; and that the allegation that she is
filing the cases against the spouses because she is being
used by a powerful person is not true since she filed the
said cases out of her own free will. Commissioner
Demaree Raval of the IBP-CBD then directed both parties
to file their respective verified position papers.
Commissioner
Reyes
submitted
his
Report
and
Recommendation, portions of which are quoted hereunder:
The Undersigned Commissioner believes that the
respondent made a mistake in the acceptance of the
administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco, however, the
Commission (sic) believes that there was no malice and
bad faith in the said acceptance and this can be shown by
the move of the complainant to unilaterally withdraw the
case which she filed against Atty. Marcelino C. Cabucana,
Jr. However, Atty. Cabucana is reminded to be more careful
in the acceptance of cases as conflict of interests might
arise. It is respectfully recommended that Atty. Marcelino
C. Cabucana, Jr. (be) sternly warned and reprimanded and
advised to be more circumspect and careful in accepting
cases which might result in conflict of interests.
Respondent did not only represent the Gatcheco spouses
in the administrative case filed by Gonzales against them.
As respondent himself narrated in his Position Paper, he
likewise acted as their counsel in the criminal cases filed
by Gonzales against them.

Issue:
Whether or not Cabucana violated 15.03 of Canon 15 of
the CPR.

Held:

YES. Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting

interest except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. It is well-settled that a
lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of
the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only to keep
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice. The claim of respondent that
there is no conflict of interests in this case, as the civil
case handled by their law firm where Gonzales is the
complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales
against the Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no
merit. The representation of opposing clients in said cases,
though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests or, at
the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which
this Court cannot allow. Respondent further argued that it
was his brother who represented Gonzales in the civil case
and not him, thus, there could be no conflict of interests.
We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was their law
firm which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such
being the case, the rule against representing conflicting
interests applies. His claim that he could not turn down
the spouses as no other lawyer is willing to take their case
cannot prosper as it is settled that while there may be
instances where lawyers cannot decline representation
they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest
between a present client and a prospective one. We shall
consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact
that he is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro bono
and that it was his firm and not respondent personally.

LIM-SANTIAGO v. ATTY. SAGUCIO

A.C. No. 6705,
March 31, 2006
Facts:
Ruthie Lim-Santiago (complainant) is the daughter of
Alfonso Lim and Special Administratrix of his estate.
Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the former President of
Taggat Industries, Inc. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio (respondent)
was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel
of Taggat Industries, Inc. until his appointment as Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992.
Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat (Taggat
employees) filed a criminal complaint alleging that
complainant withheld payment of their salaries and wages
without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997.
Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was
assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation.
Respondent is now charged with violation of Rule 15.03 of
the CPR. Complainant contends that respondent is guilty
of representing conflicting interests. Respondent, being
the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of
Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well.
Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing,
investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat
employees. Furthermore, complainant claims that
respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even
harassed and threatened Taggat employees to accede and
sign an affidavit to support the complaint. Respondent
refutes complainants allegations and counters that
complainant was merely aggrieved by the resolution of the
criminal complaint which was adverse and contrary to her
expectation. IBP Commissioner Funas Report and
Recommendation (Report) finding respondent guilty of
conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former clients
interest, and violating the prohibition against the private
practice of law while being a government prosecutor. The
IBP Board of Governors recommended the imposition of a

penalty of three years suspension from the practice of law.

Issue:
Whether or not Respondent violated rule 15.03 of the
CPR.
Held:
NO. The Court exonerates respondent from the charge
of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In Quiambao v. Bamba, the Court
enumerated various tests to determine conflict of
interests. One test of inconsistency of interests is whether
the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client
any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.[ In essence, what a
lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the
clients confidence or to refrain from doing anything which
will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he
previously represented him. In the present case, we find
no conflict of interests when respondent handled the
preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed by
Taggat employees in 1997. The issue in the criminal
complaint pertains to non-payment of wages that occurred
from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. Clearly, respondent was
no longer connected with Taggat during that period since
he resigned sometime in 1992. Evidence must be
presented to prove that respondent used against Taggat,
his former client, any confidential information acquired
through his previous employment. The fact alone that
respondent was the former Personnel Manager and
Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as
government prosecutor was labor-related is not a
sufficient basis to charge respondent for representing
conflicting interests. A lawyers immutable duty to a former
client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond
the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the
law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the
clients interests only on matters that he previously
handled for the former client and not for matters that
arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.

Further, complainant failed to present a single iota of

evidence to prove her allegations. Thus, respondent is not
guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY INC. V. ARQUILLO

[Adm. Case No. 6632, August 2, 2005]
FACTS:
In a consolidated case before the National Labor
Relations Commission, herein respondent has been
alleged to have engaged in conflicting interests.
Complainant alleges that respondent represented and
acted as counsel for both complainants and respondent
in the same consolidated case. In the evidence
presented by the complainants it was shown that on
August 12, 1997 as a counsel for one of the
respondents in a consolidated case a Motion to dismiss
was submitted by him before the NLRC of San
Fernando, La Union. After 16 days, respondent filed a
Complainants
consolidated
position
paper
as
representative and counsel for some of the
complainants.
Respondent both failed to file his answer to the
complaint and attend the hearings. However he tried to
justify his acts in his motion for reconsideration, citing
the judgment of the labor arbiter, on the consolidated
cases, wherein the respondent that he represented was
absolved from the case. Thus leading him to believe
that both complainant and the respondent that he was
representing were on the same boat.

ISSUE:

Whether or not
conflicting interests.

respondent

has

engaged

in

HELD:
Yes. Respondent has engaged in conflicting
interests. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilities requires a lawyer to observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
transactions with their clients. Rule 15.03 states that
they shall not represent conflicting interests, except
with the concerned clients written consent given after
a full disclosure of facts. In this case respondent has
acted as counsel for opposing parties and protected his
other client in the position paper of the other party,
violating rule 15.03.

BERGONIA V. MERRERA
[Adm. Case No. 5024, February 20, 2003]
FACTS:
Merrera was complainants counsel in a civil case
which she appealed to the Court of Appeals. This was
for the quieting of title against complainants niece,
spouses Parayno and their minor child. The Regional
Trial Court of UrdanetaPangasinan favored the
Paraynofamily, upon appeal the CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC. Since the land was still in
complainants possession, another civil case was filed
by Parayno in order to recover possession.
Complainant, herein, was ordered to vacate said lot.
Complainant appealed the judgment of RT. Respondent,
herein, was asked to file a Brief on December 17, 1997.
Respondent failed to do so, despite the extended time
given by the court due to the two motions for extention
of time to file brief and Opposition to the Motion for the
Execution and Demolition. During the investigation,
respondent said that he tried to convince complainant

not to file an appeal, but she did not heed him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was negligent in the
performance of his duties as counsel.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent was negligent in the performance
of his duties as a counsel. Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires all members of the
Bar to observe the following: a lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so. His claims of trying to persuade
complainant from not filing an appeal was
unacceptable, since he filed two motions for extension
of time and an opposition to the motion for execution.
His actions belie his claims.
Rule 15.05 requires that a lawyer when advising his
client shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
He should have dissuaded her accordingly.
Rule 18.03 requires that a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith, renders him liable.

JULIAN PENILLA vs. ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID, JR.

A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013
FACTS:
Complainant Julian Penilla entered into an agreement with
Spouses Rey and Evelyn Garin (the spouses) for the repair

of his Volkswagen automobile. Despite full payment, the

spouses defaulted in their obligation. Thus, complainant
decided to file a case for breach of contract against the
spouses where he engaged the services of respondent as
counsel. Respondent sent a letter demanding a refund of
complainants payment. When the spouses failed to do so,
respondent advised that complainant would file a criminal
case of estafa against the spouses. Complainant asserts
having made numerous and unsuccessful attempts to
follow-up the status of the case and meet with respondent
at his office. He admits, however, that in one instance he
was able to talk to respondent who told him that the case
was not progressing because the spouses could not be
located. In the same meeting, respondent asked
complainant to determine the whereabouts of the
spouses. Complainant returned to respondents office on
January 24, 2005, but because respondent was not
around, complainant left with respondents secretary a
letter regarding the possible location of the spouses.
Respondent explained that it was not a matter of
indifference on his part when he failed to inform petitioner
of the status of the case. In fact, he was willing to return
the money and the documents of complainant. What
allegedly prevented him from communicating with
complainant was the fact that complainant would go to his
office during days and times that he would be attending
his daily court hearings.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15 of
the Code of Prof. Responsibility?

HELD:
NO.Complainant was only able to prove respondents
violation of Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the
Lawyers Oath. Complainant failed to substantiate his
claim that respondent violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.06 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility when respondent

allegedly instructed him to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I

to Asst. City Prosecutor Fortuno in order to get a favorable
decision. Similarly, complainant was not able to present
evidence that respondent indeed violated Rule 16.01 of
Canon 16 by allegedly collecting money from him in
excess of the required filing fees.
Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr, respondent, is hereby found
GUILTY of gross misconduct for violating Canons 17 and
18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as the Lawyers Oath. This Court
hereby imposes upon respondent the penalty of
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of SIX
(6) MONTHS to commence immediately upon receipt of
this Decision.

ALMIRA C. FORONDA, vs. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR.

A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014 [Formerly CBD Case No. 092539]
FACTS:
The complainant (FORONDA) is an overseas Filipino worker
in Dubai. In May 2008, she returned to the Philippines to
institute a case for the nullification of her marriage. The
respondent (ALVAAREZ) was referred to her and the
complainant agreed to engage his services for a fee of
P195,000.00 to be paid as follows: 50% or P100,000.00
upon the signing of the contract; 25% or P50,000.00 on or
before June 10, 2008; and 25% or P45,000.00 before the
filing of the case.3The complainant paid the amounts as
agreed. After being informed by the respondent that the
petition for the annulment of marriage was ready for filing,
the amount of P45,000.00 was paid. The complainant
averred that the respondent promised to file the petition
after he received the full payment of his attorneys fee, or
on June 11, 2008. After a series of updates regarding the
said case, complainant found out that it was only filed on
July 16, 2009.

In June 2008, respondent obtained [P]200,000.00 from

complainant with the promise to pay the same with
interest at 4% per month starting July 2008 until June
2009. Respondent issued complainant eleven (11) checks
for [P]8,000.00 each postdated checks monthly from 10
July 2008 until 10 May 2009 plus a check for
[P]108,000.00 payable on 10 June 2009 and another check
for [P]100,000.00 payable on 8 June 2009. When
presented for payment, the first two (2) checks were good
but the rest of the checks were dishonored for being
drawn against a closed account. When complainant
demanded payment, respondent issued to her eight (8)
new replacement postdated checks dated 25th of every
month from June 2009 to January 2010. All of the
replacement checks, however, were likewise dishonored
for being drawn against a closed account. When
respondent was unable to pay respondent, complainant
filed a criminal complaint against him for violation of BP
22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa.
The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed after
complainant executed an affidavit of desistance after she
was paid a certain amount by respondent.
ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of violating canon 15, 17 and 18
of the code of prof. responsibility?
HELD:
YES."[a] lawyer, by taking the lawyers oath, becomes a
guardian of the law and an indispensable instrument for
the orderly administration of justice." It was established
that the complainant engaged the professional services of
the respondent. She expected the immediate filing of the
petition for the nullity of her marriage after the full
payment of attorneys fees on June 10, 2008. However,
the respondent filed the said petition only on July 16,
2009. The respondent gave out different reasons for the
delay in an attempt to exculpate himself. At the end, the
respondent admitted the delay and apologized for it. It
cannot be gainsaid that the complainant through her

agent was diligent in following up the petition. The

different excuses proffered by the respondent also show
his lack of candor in his dealings with the complainant.
The respondents act of issuing worthless checks is a
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires that "a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.". "[T]he issuance of checks which were later
dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and
confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal
honesty and good moral character as to render him
unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground
for disciplinary action.

This Court finds that the respondent is liable for violation

of Canons 15,17, Rule 18.04, and Rule 16.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Respondent Atty. Jose L.
Alvarez, Jr. is SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS from the
practice of law with a stem warning that a repetition of
any of the offenses involved in this case or a commission
of similar acts will merit a more severe penalty.

ROSACIA v. BULALACAO
A.C. No. 3745, October 2, 1995
CANON NUMBER:Canon 15 (Rule No. 15.01)
FACTS:On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement,
respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as
retained counsel of a corporation by the name of
TacmaPhils., Inc.
On October 31, 1990, the lawyer-client relationship
between the respondent and TacmaPhils., Inc. was severed
as shown by another agreement of even date.
On July, 1991, or after almost nine (9) months from
the date respondent's retainer agreement with Tacma,
Phils., Inc. was terminated, several employees of the

corporation consulted the respondent for the purpose of

filing an action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed
to handle the case for the said employees as against
Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National
Labor Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf.
ISSUE:WON respondent breached his oath of office for
representing the employees of his former client,
TacmaPhils., Inc., after the termination of their attorneyclient relationship.
HELD: Yes. The Court reiterates that an attorney owes
loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has
represented him but also after the relation of attorney and
client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit
him afterwards to defend in another case other person
against his former client under the pretext that the case is
distinct from, and independent of the former case. The
relationship of attorney and client is one of confidence and
trust in the highest degree.
Respondents plea for leniency cannot be granted. A
lawyer starting to establish his stature in the legal
profession must start right and dutifully abide by the
norms of conduct of the profession.

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION v. FUNK

A.C. 9094, August 15, 2012
CANON NUMBER: Canon 15 (Rule 15.03)
FACTS: Atty. Richard V. Funk used to work as corporate
secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of
Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation from 1983 to 1985.
He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil
cases.
On November 25, 2006, Atty. Funk filed an action for
quieting of title and damages against Hocorma Foundation
on behalf of Mabalacat Institute, Inc. Atty. Funk did so,
according to the foundation, using information that he
acquired while serving as its counsel in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and in breach of
attorney-client relationship. As a defense, Atty. Funk

contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by

Don Teodoro Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal
counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the attorneyclient relationship was always between Santos and him.
He was more of Santos personal lawyer than the lawyer of
Hocorma Foundation. Santos left for America to get
medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that
the latter would be paid for his legal services out of the
properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma
Foundation. After Santos died, respondent was elected
President of Mabalacat Institute. However, the foundation
later refused to pay Atty. Funks fees, thus he severed his
ties with Hocorma. Four year later, he filed a suit against
the foundation.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence
of a former client in violation of the CPR when he filed
several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.
HELD:Yes. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that
a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty.
Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma
Foundation. Years after terminating his relationship with
the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of
another client, the Mabalacat Institute, without the
foundation's written consent. An attorney may not,
without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of
his present or former client. This rule is so absolute that
good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer's part
does not make it inoperative.
NAKPIL VS. VALDES
A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998
Facts:
Jose Nakpil was the husband of the complainant,
became interested in purchasing a summer residence in
Moran St. Baguio City. Due to the reasons of insufficient
funds, he then requested Valdes, respondent to purchase

the Moran Property for him. They agreed that respondent

would keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the
latter could buy it back .
In respect to their agreement, Atty. Valdes obtained
two loans from a bank which he used to purchase and
renovate the said summer residence and the title was
then issued on respondents name.
When Jose Nakpil died the ownership of the Moran
estate became an issue in the intestate proceedings.
Respondent then acted as legal counsel and accountant of
his widow. Atty. Valdes then excluded the property from
the inventory of the deceased and transferred his title to
his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.
Issue: Whether or not there was conflict of interest
between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the complainant?
Held: Yes, the respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for one year. There is clearly a conflict of
interest between the interest of the estate which stands as
the debtor and that of the two claimants who are creditors
of the estate.
Respondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a
position where his loyalty to his client could be doubted. In
the intestate proceedings the duty of the respondents law
firm was to contest the claims of these two creditors which
claims were prepared by respondents accounting firm. It
was respondents duty to inhibit either of his firms from
said proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict of
interest.
MATURAN VS. GONZALES
AC no. 2597, March 12 1998
Facts:
Petitioner was instituted as an attorney in fact
through an SPA by his mother and father in law to file
ejectment cases and criminal cases against illegal settlers
occupying a certain lot. Respondent, Atty. Gonzales
prepared and notarized the SPA and engaged respondent

as counsel for the ejectment cases.

The said lot was registered in the name of a a certain
CelestinoYoukingko, Antonio Casquejo had however,
instituted a case for reconveyance of property and
declaration of nullity against the former and respondent
filed a case of Forcible Entry and Damages and judgment
was rendered on their favor as a writ of execution was
issued.
While the writ of execution was pending and without
withdrawing as counsel for Maturan, Atty. Gonzales filed in
behalf of Yokingko an action to annul the judgment
rendered in the previous case due to lack of authority on
the part of Maturan to represent Casquejo couple.
An administrative complaint was filed against
respondent Atty. Gonzales for immoral, unethical, and
anomalous acts and asked for his disbarment.
Respondent denied allegations and he contended
that he was on the belief that filing a motion for issuance
of a writ of execution was the last and final act in the
lawyer-client relationship between himself and petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Gonzales is guilty of
representing conflicting interests?
Held: Yes, respondent was suspended for 2 years. It is
improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party
against the adverse party who is his client in a related
suit, as a lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting
interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the
part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition
inoperative.

CANON 16
MENESES v. MACALINO
A.C. No. 6651
February 27, 2006

FACTS:
Complainant Eduardo P. Meneses alleged that
sometime in March 1993, respondent Atty. Rodolfo P.
Macalino offered his legal services to complainant to help
secure the release of complainants car from the Bureau of
Customs. Respondent proposed to handle the case for a
package deal of P60,000. Complainant agreed and initially
gave respondent P10,000 for processing of the papers. In
June 1993, respondent asked for P30,000 to expedite the
release of the car. In both instances, respondent did not
issue a receipt but promised to furnish complainant with a
receipt from the Bureau of Customs. Since then,
respondent failed to give complainant an update on the
matter. Complainant repeatedly went to respondents
house to inquire on the status of the release of the car.
Complainant was always told that respondent was not
around and to just return another day. This went on for
more than a year. In April 1994, complainant went to the

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to file a complaint

for estafa against respondent. On 22 January 1996, the
NBI, through Director Mariano M. Mison, found insufficient
evidence
to
prosecute
respondent
for
estafa.
Nevertheless, the NBI advised complainant to file a
complaint
for
disbarment
againstrespondent.
Commissioner Funas Report and Recommendation finding
respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors recommended
the imposition on respondent of a penalty of one year
suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 16 of the
CPR.
HELD:
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon
16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Code mandates that every lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession. The Code further states
that [a] lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client. Furthermore,
[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due and upon demand. When a lawyer receives
money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer
is bound to render an accounting to the client showing
that the money was spent for the intended purpose.
Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the money for
the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return
the money to the client. Respondent specifically received
the P40,000 for his legal services and for the processing
fee to facilitate the release of complainants car. Since
respondent failed to render any legal service to
complainant and he also failed to secure the cars release,
respondent should have promptly accounted for and
returned the money to complainant. But even after
demand, respondent did not return the money. Again,
respondent waited until complainant filed a complaint with

the NBI before he refunded the P20,000. Even then,

respondent failed to return the balance of P20,000 as he
promised. Respondents failure to return the money to
complainant upon demand is conduct indicative of lack of
integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust reposed
on him. Respondents unjustified withholding of money
belonging to the complainant warrants the imposition of
disciplinary action.

CELAJE v. SORIANO
A.C. No. 7418
October 9, 2007
FACTS:
Complainant Andrea Balce Celaje alleged that
respondent Atty. Santago C. Soriano asked for money to
be put up as an injunction bond, which complainant found
out later, however, to be unnecessary as the application
for the writ was denied by the trial court. Respondent also
asked for money on several occasions allegedly to spend
for or to be given to the judge handling their case, Judge
Milagros Quijano. When complainant approached Judge
Quijano and asked whether what respondent was saying
was true, Judge Quijano outrightly denied the allegations
and advised her to file an administrative case against
respondent. In his Answer, respondent denied the charges
against him and averred that the same were merely
concocted by complainant to destroy his character. He
also contended that it was complainant who boasted that
she is a professional fixer in administrative agencies as
well as in the judiciary; and that complainant promised to
pay him large amounts of attorneys fees which
complainant however did not keep. In the Report and
Recommendation dated January 24, 2006, IBP-Commission
on Bar Discipline Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa found
respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct in his relations with

his client and recommended that respondent

suspended for three years from the practice of law.

be

ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 16 of the
CPR
HELD:
YES. The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
particularly Canon 16 thereof, mandates that a lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession. He shall account for all
money or property collected or received from his client
and shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. it was established that respondent
could not account for P5,800.00 which was part of the sum
given by complainant to him for the purpose of filing an
injunctive bond. Respondent admitted having received
from complainant P17,800.00 on April 19, 2002 for the
preliminary injunction and admitted to having a balance of
P9,000.00 in his promissory note to the Manila Insurance
Co., Inc. dated April 23, 2002, which was reduced to
P5,800.00 by reason of an additional payment of
P4,000.00, leaving an amount of P5,800.00 unaccounted
for. Respondents failure to return the money to
complainant upon demand gave rise to the presumption
that he misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice
of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client.

BAUTISTA V. GONZALES
Adm. Case No. 1625, February 12, 1990

CANON 16-a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and

properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.04- a lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the clients interest are fully protected by the

nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall

a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses
in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

FACTS:
Complainant charged herein respondent Atty.
Gonzales with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct
and violation of lawyers oath. The court required
respondent to answer the charges against him, and on
June 19, 1976 a motion for a bill of particulars asking
the court to order complainant to amend his complaint
by making his charges more definite. On July 15, 1976
complainant submitted an amended complaint for
disbarment.
Among the alleged charges by complainant against
respondent are the accepting of a case with his clients
and him agreeing to a contingent fee of 50% of the
value of the property in litigation and filing of various
cases to harass complainant and acting as counsel to
defendants of civil case no. Q-15143 in Civil Case No.
Q-15490, while he acted as counsel for the
complainants in Case No. Q-15143.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the agreement on the contingent fee
between the respondent and his previous clients
amount to a contradiction of one the Rules of the
Canons of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The court finds the agreement made by
respondent with his client regarding the contingent fee,
contrary to rule 16.04 of the code. A lawyer shall not
borrow money from his client unless the clients

interests are fully protected by the nature of the case

or by independent advise. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for his client. However, this is
subject to reimbursement, in the agreement made by
respondent and his client, the reimbursement was not
provided. Thus violating said rule.
AGOT V. RIVERA
[Adm. Case No. 8000, August 5, 2014]
CANON 16- a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.01- a lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from client.
Rule 16.03- a lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand. However,
he shall have lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.

FACTS:
Complainant hired respondent Atty. Rivera to
facilitate the issuance of her United States Visa
because the latter represented himself as an
immigration lawyer. On November 17, 2007, they
entered into a contract of legal services. Complainant
paid respondent 350,000 pesos as a down payment for
the service. As a part of their agreement, if ever
complainants application was denied for reasons other
than her absence on the day of the interview or records
for criminal action or any court issued hold departure
order, respondent is obliged to return said down
payment.

Respondent failed to perform his undertaking within

the agreed period and complainant was not even
scheduled for interview. Complainant demanded the
refund of the down payment, but respondent was not
able to do so. Thus this administrative case. During the
investigation it was found that respondent was not a
immigration lawyer and his failure to comply with his
obligation can be attributed to the pretenses of a
certain Rico Pineda, who believed to be a consul for
U.S. embassy.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is liable for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is liable for violating several canons
and rules of the Code. Canon 1- a lawyer shall uphold
the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 states
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral
or
deceitful
conduct.
Respondent
misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer,
resulting to complainant seeking his assistance in the
facilitation of the issuance of her U.S. visa. Canon 18- a
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Rule 18.03- a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. Once a
lawyer takes up a the cause of his client, he is duty
bound to serve him with competence, whether it was
accepted for a fee or for free. Canon 16- a lawyer shall
hold in trust all money and properties of his clients that
may come into his possession. Rule 16.01- a lawyer
shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client. Rule 16.03- a lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of his clients when

due or upon demand.

Respondent violated Canon 16 and its rules when he
failed to refund the amount paid by complainant.
Respondent was suspended for a period of 20years.

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO,

CAPISTRANO
A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012

vs.

ATTY.

ARNEL

C.

FACTS:
On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S.
Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty.
Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of
their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of
PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer
Agreement2 was entered into by and between Suzette and
Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of
PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing
and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty.
Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare amounts for
the following expenses:Php 11,000 for filng fees; Php 5000
for Summons; Php 15,000 for Fiscal; 30,000 for
Psychiatrist; and Php 15,000 for Commissioner.
In
accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty.
Capistrano the total amount of PhP78, 500.00. For every
payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty.
Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the
latter made her believe that the two cases were already
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and
awaiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when
she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she verified her
case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered
that while the case of Tuparan had been filed on January
27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her. on July 28,
2005, where she demanded the refund of the total amount
of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to
return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis
claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of

Tuparans case, to which she agreed. However, Atty.

Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 on
August 15, 2005 and thereafter, refused to communicate
with her, prompting the institution of this administrative
complaint on September 7, 2005.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:
YES.Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his
sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation
and Petition for Review,12 he himself admitted liability for
his failure to act on Suzettes case as well as to account
and return the funds she entrusted to him. He only
pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of
intention to breach his lawyers oath; that this is his first
offense; and that his profession is the only means of his
and his familys livelihood. Commissioner Quisumbing and
the IBP-CBD Board of Governors correctly recommended
the appropriate penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law for violating the pertinent provisions of the
Canons of Professional Responsibility, thus: CANON 16 a
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. RULE 16.01 A
lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client. RULE 16.02 A lawyer shall
keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him. Canon 18 a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. RULE
18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable. RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the clients request for
information.

SPOUSES NICASIO DONELITA SAN PEDRO, vs. ATTY.

ISAGANI A. MENDOZA
A.C. No. 5440, December 10, 2014
FACTS:
On or about November 21, 1996, complainants engaged
the services of respondent to facilitate the transfer of title
to property, in the name of Isabel AzcarragaMarcaida, to
complainants. Complainants then gave respondent a
check for P68, 250.00 for the payment of transfer taxes.
They also gave respondent a check for P13, 800.00 for
respondents professional fee. Respondent failed to
produce the title despite complainants repeated followups. Several letters were sent by respondent explaining
the delay in the transfer of title. However, respondent still
failed to produce the title. On May 8, 2000, respondent
sent another letter to complainants. He promised to settle
the transfer of the land title. However, respondent
reneged on this promise. Complainants were then forced
to obtain a loan from Philippine American Life and General
Insurance Company to secure the transfer of the title to
the property in their names.
Respondent contested the allegations of complainants.
According to him, it was complainants who caused the
three-year delay in the transfer of title to complainants
names. Complainants were not able to furnish respondent
several important documents: (a) original copy of the deed
of extrajudicial petition; (b) affidavit of publication with the
clippings of the published item in a newspaper of general
circulation; and (c) a barangay certificate from the
barangay where the property is located as required by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue.

ISSUE:
WON respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
YES.The administrative case was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. The parties were then called to a
mandatory conference before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline.
On July 8, 2008, the Investigating
Commissioner, Atty. Salvador B. Hababag, submitted his
findings
and
recommendation.
The
Investigating
Commissioner found that respondent violated Canon 16,
Rules 16.01and 16.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyers duty under Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility is clear: The fiduciary nature
of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on
a lawyer the duty to account for the money or property
collected or received for or from the client[,] [thus] . . .
[w]hen a lawyer collects or receives money from his client
for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees,
registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he
should promptly account to the client how the money was
spent. If he does not use the money for its intended
purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His
failure either to render an accounting or to return the
money (if the intended purpose of the money does not
materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent Atty. Isagani A. Mendoza is SUSPENDED from

the practice of law for three (3) months. He is also ordered
to RETURN to complainants the amount of P68,250.00
with 6% legal interest from the date of finality of this
judgment until full payment. Respondent is further
DIRECTED to submit to this court proof of payment of the
amount within 10 days from payment.

MANALANG v. ANGELES
A.C. No. 1558, March 10, 2003
CANON NUMBER: Canon 16 (Rule 16.03)
FACTS: Petitioners HonorioManalang and Florencio Cirillo
filed a case against their employer, Philippine Racing Club
Restaurant, for their overtime and separation pay before
the NLRC and respondent Francisco Angeles as their
counsel. They obtained a favorable judgment and their
employer was asked to pay PhP6,500. However, Atty.
Angeles compromised and was only able to collect
PhP5,500, and it was allegedly obtained without consulting
his clients.
Thereafter, the Office of the Solicitor General
conducted several hearings but the respondent only
appeared three times. It was then transferred to the
Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Either party
appeared despite prior due notice. The Committee issued
a resolution recommending that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Angeles should be suspended from the
practice of law for violating Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the
CPR.
HELD:Yes. The Court found that the respondent breached
Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the CPR when he failed to deliver,
upon demand, the amount intended for his clients.
Respondents act of holding on to his clients money
without their acquiescence was conduct indicative of lack
of integrity and propriety. He was clinging to something
which was not his, and to which he had no right. He
appeared oblivious of the admonition that a member of
the legal fraternity should refrain from an act or omission
which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by
the public in fidelity, honest, and integrity of the legal
profession. This, for grave misconduct, the Court
suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a
period of six months and ordered to return the amount of
PhP2,275.00 each to the two complainants.

CANTILLER V. POTENCIANO
A.M. Case No. 3195 December 18, 1989
CANON NUMBER: CANON 17
FACTS: Complainant is the sister of PeregrinaCantiller who
is a defendant in an action for ejectment. Later on
Peregrina likewise filed an action for reconveyance with
damages. Both actions involved the apartment unit being
rented by complainant and her sister. Peregrina came out
the losing party in both cases. They were served a notice
to vacate. The sisters consulted Sheriff Pagalunan and the
latter introduced them to respondent. The parties
impliedly agreed that respondent Humberto Potenciano
would handle their case.

According to complainant, they were made to sign a

"hastily prepares, poorly conceived and haphzardly
composed petition for annulment of judgement.
Respondent promised for the necessary restraining order
because the judge was his close friend.

Respondent demanded 1000 for attorney's fees. When the

case was raffled, presiding judge asked respondent to
withdraw on ground of their friendship. Respondent asked
for 2000 from complainant to be given to another judge
who will issue the restraining order. Sisters were only able
to raise 1000. Respondent informed complainant that they
needed to file another case of "Specific performance,
Annulment of simulated or spurious sale with damages" to
retain possession and that they needed to prepare 10,000
to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig.
Another 1000 was asked from them to cover the expenses
of the suit. The complaint was filed.

At the hearing for preliminary injunction, respondent

withdrew his appearance as counsel. Complainant was not

able to secure another lawyer. No preliminary injunction
was obtained. The complainant later came to know that
the 10,000 deposit was not needed and despite the
demands of complainant for respondent to return the
amount, the money was never returned.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyer acted with propriety.

HELD: No. The court agrees that the petitions filed by

respondent were poorly prepared and written. The little
time involved is no excuse. Complainant reposed full faith
in him. His first duty was to file the best pleading within
his capability.

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.

Respondent is ordered to return the sum of eleven

thousand pesos (P11,000.00) to complainant with legal
interest from date of resolution until it is actually returned.

ERLINDA R. TAROG vs. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT

A.C. No. 8253
March 15, 2011
CANON 16
Facts: In 1992, the Tarogs went to see Atty. Ricafort
regarding their bank-foreclosed property. Respondent
required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filing fee and
explained the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in
court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by the buyer of
the foreclosed property. On November 7, 1992, the P
65,000.00 was delivered when Arnulfo Tarog said that he
had first to encash the check, respondent persuaded
Arnulfo that he will be the one to en cash it and deposit
the amount in court. The Tarogs visited respondent for
updates but they were informed that he had not deposited
the amount in court, but in his own account. He promised
to return the money, plus interest. Despite several
inquiries about when the amount would be returned
petitioner received mere assurances from respondent.
Arnulfo then demanded in his letter dated December 3,
2002 toreturn the P 65, 000.00 plus interest, and the P 15,
000.00 paid for the filling of the memorandum.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ricaforts act constitutes a
grave violation of the Code of Professional responsibility.
Held: Yes, Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave
misconduct in dealing with the Tarogs by violating Canon
16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and disbar him. As a lawyer he was required to hold in
trust any money and property of his clients that was in his
possession, and is needed to be always mindful of the
trust and confidence his clients reposed in him. Thus,
having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of
his professional employment, he had the obligation to
deliver such funds to his clients. Respondent is ordered to
return to Erlinda R. Tarog the sums of P65,000.00 and
P15,000.00, plus interest of six percent per annum
reckoned from the demand made on December 3, 2002,

within twenty days from notice.

CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO vs. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN
A.C. No. 6051
April 2, 2007
CANON 16
Facts: Celia Arroyo-Posidioalleged that she engaged the
services of respondent for a Special Proceeding and paid
the amount of P20,000.00 for his legal fees. However, on
June 6, 1990, respondent withdrew his appearance as
counsel in the said case. Sometime in August 1996,
respondent contacted complainant to show some
documents, he then convinced the complainant to file
another case and demanded P100,000.00 as legal fees
therefor. After several months, respondent failed to
institute any action. Complainant decided to forego the
filing of the case and asked for the return of the
P100,000.00, but respondent refused despite repeated
demands. OnMarch 31, 1999, the trial court rendered a
decision, in favor of the complainant and against the
respondent ordering the latter to: pay plaintiff the sum of
P100,000.00 with interest of 12% per annum from
September 7, 1996 until fully paid and/or satisfied; pay
plaintiff the amount of P8,000.00 for the attorneys fees;
pay the cost of suit. Atty. Vitanissued a check dated May
31, 2001 in the amount of P120,000.00, upon presentment
for payment, the check was dishonored the account was
already closed.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Vitan violated Rule 16.01,
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes, respondents refusal to return complainants
money upon demand, his failure to comply with the lawful
orders of the trial court, as well as the issuance of a
bouncing check, reveal his failure to live up to his duties
as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of his oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 16.01,
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
requires the lawyer to account for all money or property
collected or received for or from his client. Wherefore,

respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective from
notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

CANON 17
SPOUSES VIRGILIO and
EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA

ANGELINA

ARANDA

v.

ATTY.

A.C. no. 7907

December 15, 2010

FACTS:
Spouses Aranda alleged that Atty. Elaydas handling of
their case was sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure
to follow elementary norms of civil procedure and
evidence. On February 14, 2006 hearing of the said case,
the case was ordered submitted for decision spouses
Aranda and Atty. Elayda did not appear because
respondent failed to inform complainants of the setting.
Despite receipt of the order dated February 14, 2006, Atty.
Elayda never informed them of such order notwithstanding
the follow-up they made of their case to him. Atty. Elayda
did not lift any single finger to have the order dated
February 14, 2006 reconsidered and/or set aside as is
normally expected of a counsel devoted to the cause of
his client. The court naturally rendered a judgment dated
March 17, 2006 adverse to Complainants which copy
thereof was sent only to Respondent and complainants did
not receive any copy thereof, certified xerox copy of the
decision. Complainants were totally unaware of said
judgment as Respondent had not again lifted any single
finger to inform them of such adverse judgment and that
there is a need to take a remedial recourse thereto. On
July 19, 2006, they wasted no time in verifying the status
of their case and to their utter shock, dismay and

disbelief, they found out that they have already lost their
case and worst the decision had already become final and
executory. In his response, Respondent narrated that he
was not at fault that he was not able to file the necessary
pleadings in court because the complainants did not get in
touch with him and that he cannot contact the spouses for
the latter failed to give their contact number to him nor
did they go to his office to leave their contact number and
that the spouses were negligent in their I dont care
attitude towards their case and for this reason that they
alone should be blamed for what happened to their case.
After the submission of the parties position papers,
Investigating Commissioner Jordan M. Pizarras came out
with his Decision[ finding Atty. Elayda guilty of gross
negligence, and recommending his suspension from the
practice of law for a period of six months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Elayda violated Canon 17 of the
CPR.
HELD:
YES. The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from
the findings and the conclusion of the IBP Board of
Governors that Atty. Elayda was negligent and unmindful
of his sworn duties to his clients. In Abay v. Montesino, the
Court held:
The legal profession is invested with public
trust. Its goal is to render public service and secure justice
for those who seek its aid. Thus, the practice of law is
considered a privilege, not a right, bestowed by the State
on those who show that they possess and continue to
possess the legal qualifications required for the
conferment of such privilege. Verily, lawyers are expected
to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency
and of morality which includes honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society,
the legal profession, the courts and their clients in
accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession, as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Any conduct found wanting in these

considerations, whether in their professional or private

capacity, shall subject them to disciplinary action. In the
present case, the failure of respondent to file the
appellants brief was a clear violation of his professional
duty to his client. The Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provide: 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. It is clear that Atty. Elayda is duty bound to uphold
and safeguard the interests of his clients. He should be
conscientious, competent and diligent in handling his
clients cases. Atty. Elayda should give adequate attention,
care, and time to all the cases he is handling. As the
spouses Arandas counsel, Atty. Elayda is expected to
monitor the progress of said spouses case and is obligated
to exert all efforts to present every remedy or defense
authorized by law to protect the cause espoused by the
spouses Aranda.

ANGEL L. BAUTISTA v. ATTY. RAMON A. GONZALES

A.M. no. 1625
February, 12, 1990
FACTS:
Respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of
lawyer's oath. complainant submitted an amended
complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent
committed the following acts: Accepting a case wherein he
agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor
Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as
the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees,
for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of
the property in litigation.Acting as counsel for the
Fortunados wherein Eusebio Lopez, Jr. is one of the
defendants and, without said case being terminated,

acting as counsel for Eusebio Lopez, Jr.. Transferring to

himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which
properties are the subject of the litigation, while the case
was still pending. Inducing complainant, who was his
former client, to enter into a contract with him on August
30, 1971 for the development into a residential
subdivision of the land involved, claiming that he acquired
fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from
the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said
property was already sold at a public auction on June 30,
1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and
registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City.
Submitting to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
falsified documents purporting to be true copies of
"Addendum to the Land Development Agreement dated
August 30, 1971" and submitting the same document to
the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, in connection with the
complaint for estafa filed by respondent against
complainant. Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty
to complainant who was his client. Harassing the
complainant by filing several complaints without legal
basis. Deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance
and the Fiscal's Office by making false assertion of facts in
his pleadings. Filing petitions "cleverly prepared (so) that
while he does not intentionally tell a he, he does not tell
the truth either." The Court referred the case to the Office
of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation. In the investigation conducted by the
Solicitor General.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 17 of the
CPR.
HELD:
YES. A careful review of the record of the case and the
report and recommendation of the Solicitor General, the
Court finds that respondent committed acts of misconduct
which warrant the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary
power. The Court has held that the purchase by a lawyer

of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach

of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice.
However, respondent notes that Canon 10 of the old
Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that "[t]he
lawyer should not purchase any interests in the subject
matter of the litigation which he is conducting," does not
appear anymore in the new Code of Professional
Responsibility. He therefore concludes that while a
purchase by a lawyer of property in litigation is void under
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, such purchase is no longer a
ground for disciplinary action under the new Code of
Professional Responsibility. This contention is without
merit. A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by purchase
the property and rights in litigation because of his
fiduciary relationship with such property and rights, as
well as with the client. And it cannot be claimed that the
new Code of Professional Responsibility has failed to
emphasize the nature and consequences of such
relationship. 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." notwithstanding the
absence of a specific provision on the matter in the new
Code, the Court, considering the abovequoted provisions
of the new Code in relation to Art. 1491 of the Civil Code,
as well as the prevailing jurisprudence, holds that the
purchase by a lawyer of his client's property in litigation
constitutes a breach of professional ethics for which a
disciplinary action may be brought against him.

Anderson, Jr. v. Cardeo

Adm. Case No. 3523, January 17, 2005

FACTS:
Complainant is an American citizen who filed an
action before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, to
recover the title and possession of a parcel of land
against spouses Maybituin, Cessado and Ramos. The

defendants won the case, however complainant filed an

appeal, wherein the previous decision was modified.
The judgment was not appealed and was duly entered.
On February 16, 1985 complainant filed an amended
complaint before the Regional Trial Court of
Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67. His Counsel, at that time,
died. Thus he employed respondent. Complainant
alleged that respondent was responsible for the
adverse ruling against him.
Complainant alleged that when the respondents of
the civil case filed a demurrer to evidence, respondent
did not file an opposition thereto. In addition he also
alleged that respondent did not file a motion for
reconsideration after the court found that the
respondents demurrer to evidence were meritorious.
Respondent on the other hand, stated that the
complainant was not cooperative or helpful to him.
That he only saw him once, and little information was
given to him to work with.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of neglect.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent was guilty of neglect. In the case of
Paguinto citing Gamalinda v Alcantara, Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility- a lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. In view of his
actions towards the case and of his reasons, it was
found that he did not exhaust all his resources, because
he only referred to the information given by the client.
It is his job as counsel, specially that his client is
residing outside of the country to exhaust all means of
research and prepare well for the case.
Canon 18 of the Code- states that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. It is his

duty to prepare the trial, and undertake case that he

can handle. Although the complainant is also to blame
for his little to no participation attitude. Respondent is
sentenced to six months of suspension to practice law.

SAMSON V. ERA
[Adm. Case No. 6664, July 16, 2013]
FACTS:
Complainant Samson was a former client of
respondent Era in a criminal case against Emilia Sison
and other officers of ICS Corporation. Samson and his
relatives were one among the investors who fell prey to
the pyramiding scam perpetrated by Sison and other
officers of the ICS Corporation. After preliminary
investigation, Sison and her other companions were
formally charged with estafa in the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 96 in Quezon City. In April 2003, respondent
convinced complainants to have an amicable
settlement with Sison and her cohorts. A property of of
the ICS Corporation in Antipolo City will be exchanged
for their desistance, to which they agreed.
However, in order to liquidate the said property,
complainants need a deed of sale. They asked
respondent to issue them a deed of sale to which he
obliged. But, respondent also told them that his
obligation and job with the complainants ends there.
Complainants later found out that the title of the
property given to them does not belong to the ICS
corporation anymore. They wrote respondent a letter
reminding him of his promise to settle issues with Sison
and her cohorts, unfortunately they did not hear
anything form respondent. This has prompted them to
find a new counsel, since respondent did not also
appear during hearings. They were shocked to know
that Samson was no representing Sison in her other
criminal cases. Thus this administrative case was filed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibilty by representing Sison in her
other criminal cases.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent Era violated the Code of Professional
Responsibilty by representing Sison in her other criminal
cases. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 provides that a lawyer shall
not represent conflivting interests except by written
condent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
facts. Respondent despite saying that his obligations
towards Samsons group is finished, it was not formal and
his obligations were not yet finished. He still has to take
care of the implementation of the amicable settlement.
Thus, he should have taken the consent of the
complainants first, before acting as counsel to Sison.
Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client. The representation of Sison in her other criminal
cases, should have been consulted with his previous
clients, so as to prevent any sense of betrayal. The court
found respondent guilty of representing conflict of interest.
MARY ANN T.MATTUS vs. ATTY. ALBERT T. VILLASECA
A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013
FACTS:
Complainant, German Bernardo D. Mattus and Dexter
Aligan were the accused in Criminal Case No. 10309-02 a
case for estafa thru falsification of public document filed in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite.
The complainant and her husband, German, engaged the
services of Atty. Villaseca to represent them in the
proceedings. The complainant maintained that she and
German were convicted due to Atty. Villasecas gross and
inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as their

counsel. In her complaint-affidavit, 1 the complainant

alleged, among others, that Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often
absent during court hearings but still collected
appearance fees; (2) frequently sought the postponement
of trial when he was present; (3) failed to ask the RTC to
direct a National Bureau of Investigation expert to
examine the signatures of the spouses Leslie and Zuraida
Porter2 in the special power of attorney (SPA); (4) failed to
file a demurrer to evidence despite having been granted
sufficient time by the RTC to submit one; (5) failed to
present evidence on behalf of the defense, and only filed a
memorandum; (6) did not inform her and German of the
dates of the presentation of defense evidence and the
promulgation of judgment; and (7) erroneously indicated
the wrong case number in the notice of appeal. According
to the complainant, Atty. Villasecas negligence in handling
the case resulted in her own and her husbands conviction.

ISSUE:
WON respondent violated the Code of Prof. Responsibility?

HELD:
YES. A lawyer "is expected to exert his best efforts and
ability to preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering
loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of
justice."8 Once a lawyer 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 owes entire devotion to the interest of the client,
warm zeal in maintenance and defense of his clients
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. A lawyer
who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only
protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends
of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession. Atty.

Villaseca showed a wanton and utter disregard to his

clients cause; his failure to exercise due diligence in
attending to their interest in the criminal case caused
them grave prejudice. Under the circumstances, we find a
five-year suspension from the practice of law to be a
sufficient and appropriate sanction against him. The
increased penalty serves the purpose of protecting the
interest of the Court, the legal profession and the public.
Atty. Albert T. Villaseca is found guilty of negligence, in
violation of Rules 12.03 and 18.03 and Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely.

\
DOLORES C. BELLEZA v. ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA
A.C. No. 7815
FACTS:
On November 10, 2004, complainant went to see
respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua.
Complainant wanted to avail of respondents legal services
in connection with the case of her son, Francis John
Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City
earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA)
9165.[1] Respondent agreed to handle the case for
P30,000.The following day, complainant made a partial
payment of P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend
Chua. On November 17, 2004, she gave him an additional
P10,000. She paid the P5,000 balance on November 18,
2004. Both payments were also made thru Chua. On all
three occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.On
November 21, 2004, respondent received P18,000 from
complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure
the provisional liberty of her (complainants) son. Again,
respondent did not issue any receipt. When complainant
went to the court the next day, she found out that

respondent did not remit the amount to the

court.Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000
from respondent on several occasions but respondent
ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the
case of complainants son and complainant was forced to
avail of the services of the Public Attorneys Office for her
sons defense.

ISSUE:
WON respondent disrespected legal processes; WON
grossly neglected the cause of his client; WON respondent
failed to return his clients money; and WON respondent
failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession?

HELD:
YES.Respondent was given more than enough opportunity
to answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed
indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer
and refute the accusations of professional misconduct
against him. In doing so, he failed to observe Rule 12.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 12.03 A
lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering an explanation for
his failure to do so.

YES.Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case

against complainants son. Such undertaking imposed
upon him the following duties: 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. Canon 18 a
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. Canon 19 a lawyer shall

represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to

devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and
effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be
worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his clients rights and the exertion of his utmost
learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
legally applied

YES.When a lawyer collects or receives money from his

client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees,
registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he
should promptly account to the client how the money was
spent. If he does not use the money for its intended
purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His
failure either to render an accounting or to return the
money (if the intended purpose of the money does not
materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

YES.Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards

of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Public confidence in law and in
lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should
act and comport himself in a manner that would promote
public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

VILLAFUERTE V. CORTEZ
A.M. Case No. 3455 April 14, 1998

CANON NUMBER: CANON 17

FACTS: From the records of the case and the Report
submitted by the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), it would appear
that sometime in January 1987, complainant, upon the
referral of Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag, went to the office of
respondent lawyer to discuss his case for "reconveyance"
(Civil Case No. 83-18877). During their initial meeting,
complainant tried to reconstruct before respondent lawyer
the incidents of the case merely from memory prompting
the latter to ask complainant to instead return at another
time with the records of the case. On 30 January 1987,
complainant again saw respondent but still sans the
records. Complainant requested respondent to accept the
case, paying to the latter the sum of P1,750.00
representing the acceptance fee of P1,500.00 and P250.00
retainer fee for January 1987. Respondent averred that he
accepted the money with much reluctance and only upon
the condition that complainant would get the records of
the case from, as well as secure the withdrawal of
appearance of, Atty. Jose Dizon, the former counsel of
complainant.

Allegedly, complainant never showed up thereafter until

November 1989 when he went to the office of respondent
lawyer but only to leave a copy of a writ of execution in
Civil Case No. 062160-CV, a case for ejectment, which,
according to respondent, was never priorly mentioned to
him by complainant. Indeed, said respondent, he had
never entered his appearance in the aforenumbered case.

In its report, IBP-CBD concluded that the facts established

would just the same indicate sufficiently a case of neglect
of duty on the part of respondent. The CBD rejected the
excuse proffered by respondent that the non-receipt of the
records of the case justified his failure to represent
complainant. The IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Julio C.
Elamparo, recommended to the IBP Board of Governors

the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for

three months with a warning that a repetition of similar
acts could be dealt with more severely than a mere 3month suspension.

Both respondent lawyer and complainant filed with the

IBP-CBD their respective motions for the reconsideration of
the foregoing resolution.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent has acted with fidelity

to his clients cause

HELD: No. The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client

relationship, given the circumstances, has arisen between
respondent and complainant. Respondent lawyer has
admitted having received the amount of P1,750.00,
including its nature and purpose, from complainant. His
acceptance of the payment effectively bars him from
altogether disclaiming the existence of an attorney-client
relationship between them. It would not matter really
whether the money has been intended to pertain only to
Civil Case No. 83-18877 or to include Civil Case No.
062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event, that
respondent lawyer has attended to either of said cases. It
would seem that he hardly has exerted any effort to find
out what might have happened to his client's cases. A
lawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to
be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be
expected of him.

Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a

period of one month from notice hereof, with a warning
that a repetition of similar acts and other administrative
lapses will be dealt with more severely than presently.

CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA vs.

BULALACAO
A.C. No. 3745 October 2, 1995
CANON 17

ATTY.

BENJAMIN

B.

Facts: Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of Tacma, Phils., Inc., a

duly registered corporation, filed a complaint for
disbarment dated October 25, 1991, against Atty.
Benjamin B. Bulalacao.On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a
written Agreement, Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired
as retained counsel of TacmaPhils., Inc. On July, 1991, or
after almost nine (9) months from the date respondent's
retainer agreement with Tacma, Phils., Inc. was
terminated, several employees of the corporation
consulted the respondent for the purpose of filing an
action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle
the case for the said employees as against Tacma, Phils.,
Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor
Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf.
Issue: Whether or not respondent breached his oath of
office for representing the employees of his former client?
Held: Yes. The Court reiterates that an attorney owes
loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has
represented him but also after the attorney-client
relationship has terminated. It is necessary not only in
keeping the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice. The attorney-client relationship is
in the highest degree of confidence and trust. A lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he ought to be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. No
opportunity must be given to attorneys in taking
advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while the
confidential relationship between the lawyer and client
exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the

loss of the confidence of the people. Respondent is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three months.
VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA
EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA
A.C. No. 7907December 15, 2010
CANON 17

vs.

ATTY.

Facts: In 2006, Atty. Emmanuel Elayda was hired by

Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda to be their counsel in
a civil case. However, to their surprise in July 2006, an
adverse judgment was issued against them, thus they lost
possession of their car. Apparently, their counsel never
appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda failed to inform
the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of
judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was
interposed by the lawyer as well. In his defense, Atty.
Elayda said that it was the spouses who never went to
court; that the spouses neglected to check on their case in
court; that one time when their case was scheduled, he
even notified the court stenographer to notify him if the
spouses are in court so that he could be there for them as
he was in another court branch for another case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be sanctioned
by the court.
HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss
and negligent in handling the Aranda case. Although it is
true that the client and their counsel must equally share
the burden of communication, it is the primary duty of the
counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in
court and the orders which have been issued by the court.
He cannot simply wait for his clients to make an inquiry
about the developments in their case. Close coordination
between counsel and client is necessary for them to
adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively
monitor the progress of the case. Also, his excuse that he
did not appear in court because the spouses failed to
appear in court is not tenable. His attendance at the
hearing should not be made to depend on the whether the

spouses Aranda will come or not.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended a 6 month
suspension. This was adopted by the court.

CANON 18
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT v. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA
A.C. no. 7024
January 30, 2009
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she retained the services of
the respondent as her counsel in a Civil Case entitled
Golden Collection Marketing Corporation v. Ofelia
Somosot, et al., filed against her and her co-defendants
for the collection of a sum of money amounting to P1.3
Million. The complainant expected the respondent to
perform his duty as counsel and to defend her interests to
the utmost. She alleged, however, that after filing the
Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully
inform her of further developments in the case. She only
heard about the case when there was already a decision
against her and her co-defendants. Complainant claimed
that the respondent represented her interests in a halfhearted manner, resulting in the grant of the plaintiff's
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Allegedly, the
respondent failed to properly oppose the motion and she
was thereafter deprived of the chance to present her
evidence. She found the respondents excuse that he could
not contact her because she had changed her office
address to be unsatisfactory. She accused the respondent
of miserably failing to comply with his oath as a lawyer
and to discharge his duty of ably representing her.
Respondent denied that he failed to exercise the diligence

required of him as counsel alleging that he pursued the

complainant's case according to his own ability and
knowledge. Complainant maintained that she had never
transferred her residence where she could be reached had
the respondent exerted a meaningful effort to contact her.
She claimed that the respondent was able to do so later
when he was collecting the balance of his legal fees. The
respondent contended that he had good reasons not to
continue as the complainant's counsel. He reasoned out
that under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer may withdraw from a case upon a good cause such
as when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
lawyers services, or fails to comply with the terms of the
retainer agreement, or when the lawyer is elected or
appointed to public office. Two of these possible causes
applied to his situation; he was appointed legal consultant
at the BOI
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Lara violated canon 18 of the CPR.

HELD:
YES. As the IBP did, the court found that the
respondent deserves to be sanctioned for having fallen
short of the standards required of him as defense counsel.
He violated the basic rule, expressed under Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. The
respondent failed to precisely allege in his submissions
how he tried to contact the defendant on or about the
time the interrogatories and request for admission were
pending. It appears that he really had not; by his own
admission, his attempt to contact the complainant came in
December 2001 and only to inform her of his government
appointment and to collect his billings. It was only after
the discovery of the closure of the defendants office did
the respondent try to contact the complainant and her
husband by cellular phone, but they could not be reached.
The interrogatories/admission issue happened in August

2001, which tells us that the respondent at about that

time was already very sensitive about his billing issue
against his client as he had not been paid from May to
August 2001. Assuming the non-payment to be true, such
failure should not be a reason not to inform the client of an
important development, or worse, to withhold vital
information from her. As the court held in Luisito Balatbat
v. Atty. Edgardo Arias, a client must never be left in the
dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and
confidence reposed in the retained lawyer in particular
and the legal profession in general. Respondent failed to
provide details on the developments that led to the
adverse rulings on the interrogatories/admissions and the
judgment on the pleadings. The non-payment of fees is a
factor that we cannot simply disregard. As a rule, law
practice is not a pro bono proposition and a lawyers
sensitivity
and
concern
for
unpaid
fees
are
understandable; lawyers incur expenses in running their
practice and generally depend, too, on their law practice
income for their living expenses. Complainant never made
any effort to contact the respondent to follow up the
status of her case, expecting instead the respondent to
take full and complete initiative in this regard. While the
respondent, as counsel, has the obligation to inform his
client of the material developments in the case,
particularly of the aspects of the case that would require
the clients instructions or participation, this obligation is
balanced by a complementary duty on the part of a partylitigant to remain in contact with his lawyer in order to be
informed of the progress of the case. The court cannot
also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in
light of the complainants own contributory faults.

JULIAN PENILLA v. ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID JR.

A.C. no. 9149
September 4, 2013

FACTS:
Complainant .Julian Penilla entered into an agreement
with Spouses . Rey and Evelyn Garin (the spouses) the
repair of his Volkswagen automobile. Despite full payment,
the spouses defaulted in their obligation. Thus,
complainant decided to file a case for breach of contract
against the spouses where he engaged the services of
respondent as counsel. Respondent advised complainant
that he would file a criminal case for estafa against said
spouses. Respondent charged P30,000 as attorneys fees
and P10,000 as filing fees. Complainant alleges that when
the case was submitted for resolution, respondent told him
that they have to give a bottle of Carlos Primero I to Asst.
City Prosecutor Fortuno to expedite a favorable resolution
of the case. Complainant claims not hearing from
respondent again despite his several letters conveying his
disappointment and requesting for the return of the
money and the documents in respondents possession.
Complainant then sought the assistance of the radio
program Ito ang Batas with Atty. Aga to solve his
predicament. Complainant filed before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
the instant administrative case praying that respondent be
found guilty of gross misconduct for violating the Lawyers
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for
appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed.
Respondent denied charging complainant P10,000 as filing
fees for the estafa case and claimed that he charged and
received only P2,000. He also countered that the payment
of P30,000 made by the complainant was his acceptance
fee for both the estafa case and civil case. Respondent
likewise denied the following other allegations of
complainant: that he assured the success of the case
before the prosecutor; that he asked complainant to give a
bottle of Carlos Primero I to the prosecutor; that he
promised to fix the case; and that he charged P10,000, as
he only charged P5,000, as filing fee for the civil case. He
averred that he should not be blamed for the dismissal of
both cases as his job was to ensure that justice is served
and not to win the case. the IBP-CBD recommended the

suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six

months for negligence within the meaning of Canon 18
and transgression of Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 18, Rule
18.04 of the CPR.
HELD:
YES. The court sustained the findings of the IBP that
respondent committed professional negligence under
Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with a modification that we also find
respondent guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of
the Code and the Lawyers Oath. To be sure, after the
complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent
committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for
specific performance and damages before the RTC. The
errors committed by respondent with respect to the nature
of the remedy adopted in the criminal complaint and the
forum selected in the civil complaint were so basic and
could have been easily averted had he been more diligent
and circumspect in his role as counsel for complainant.
What aggravates respondents offense is the fact that his
previous mistake in filing the estafa case did not motivate
him to be more conscientious, diligent and vigilant in
handling the case of complainant. The civil case he
subsequently filed for complainant was dismissed due to
what later turned out to be a basic jurisdictional error.
Clearly, respondent is not only guilty of incompetence in
handling the cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing
with complainant is also gross and inexcusable.

RASMUS G. ANDERSON JR. VS. ATTY. REYNALDO A.

CARDENO
(A.C. No. 3253, January 17, 2005)
FACTS:

Petitioner filed an administrative case against Atty.

Reynaldo A. Cardeno for malpractice and neglect of duty,
stemming from his alleged neglect or deliberate
mishandling of a case involving herein petitioner, resulting
to the latters prejudice.
Complainant filed an action before the then Court of
First Instance of Rizal to recover possession of a land
against the spouses Juanito Maybituin and Rosario Cerrado
and Fernando Ramos. The case was dismissed by the trial
court which declared the defendants the true and lawful
owners of their respective portions of land in question.
Atty Cesar S. de Guzman, the original counsel of the
petitioner, died. Upon referral by a friend, Anderson Jr.
engaged the services of herein respondent, Atty. Cardeno.
On July 19, 1990, petitioner filed an administrative
complaint before the Court wherein he alleged that
respondent caused the loss or the adverse ruling against
him in the aforementioned case before the RTC, Civil Case
No. 0110-B. Complainant concluded that Atty. Cardeno
abused his clients trust and confidence and violated his
oath as a lawyer in failing to defend his clients cause to
the very end. Complainant prays that Atty Cardeno be
disbarred.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Cardeno should be disbarred due
to neglect of duty as a counsel.
HELD:
No. Clearly, the respondent was guilty of neglect of
duty and this is a violation of Canon 18 of the Code
Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03
thereof which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. He likewise
breached his duty to the Honorable Supreme Court to
report corrupt judges for appropriate disciplinary action
with the aim of improving the quality of justice and
helping restore the peoples faith in our judicial system.

But, the apparent lack of interest on the part of the

complainant to further pursue his case when he failed to
appear personally and present evidence to support his
allegations made the Commission reach the conclusion to
adopt and approve to recommend that Atty. Reynaldo A.
Cardeno be suspended from the practice of law for six
months and that he be warned that a graver penalty
would be imposed should he commit the same offense in
the future.
CHAMELYN A. AGOT VS. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA
(A.C. No. 8000, August 5, 2014)
FACTS:
In her Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that
she was invited as maid of honor in her best friend's
wedding on December 9, 2007 at the United States of
America. To facilitate the issuance of her United States
(US) visa, complainant sought the services of respondent
who represented himself as an immigration lawyer. Thus,
on November 17, 2007, they entered into a Contract of
Legal Services (Contract), whereby respondent undertook
to facilitate and secure the release of a US immigrant visa
in complainant's favor prior to the scheduled wedding. In
consideration therefor, complainant paid respondent the
amount of PhP350,000.00 as downpayment and undertook
to pay the balance of PhP350,000.00 after the issuance of
the US visa. The parties likewise stipulated that should
complainant's visa application be denied for any reason
other than her absence on the day of the interview and/or
for records of criminal conviction and/or any court-issued
hold departure order, respondent is obligated to return the
said downpayment.
However, respondent failed to
perform his undertaking within the agreed period. Worse,
complainant was not even scheduled for interview in the
US Embassy. As the demand for refund of the
downpayment was not heeded, complainant filed a
criminal
complaint
for
estafa
and
the
instant
administrative complaint against respondent.In his

Comment dated December 5, 2008, respondent claimed

that his failure to comply with his obligation under the
Contract was due to the false pretenses of a certain Rico
Pineda (Pineda), who he had believed to be a consul for
the US Embassy and to whom he delivered the amount
given by the complainant. Respondent elaborated that he
had a business relationship with Pineda on the matter of
facilitating the issuance of US visas to his friends and
family, including himself.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be
administratively liable for violating the CPR.

held

HELD:
Yes. Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a
lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to
serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such
client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether
he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client
constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be
held administratively liable, as in this case.
JOSE ALLAN TAN, vs. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE
A.C. No. 7766, August 5, 2014
FACTS:
In 2003, complainant, Jose Allan Tan secured the services
of Atty. Diamante in order to pursue a case for partition of
property against the heirs of the late spouses Luis and
Natividad Valencia-Tan. After accepting the engagement,
respondent filed the corresponding complaintbefore the
RTC of Bacolod City. The complaint was eventually
dismissed by the RTC in an Orderdated July 25, 2007 for
lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence. While
respondent was notified of such dismissal as early as
August 14, 2007, complainant learned of the same only on

August 24, 2007 when he visited the formers office. On

such occasion, respondent allegedly asked for the amount
of P10,000.00 for the payment of appeal fees and other
costs, but since complainant could not produce the said
amount at that time, respondent, instead, asked and was
given the amount of P500.00 purportedly as payment of
the reservation fee for the filing of a notice of appeal
before the RTC. On September 12, 2007, Tan handed the
amount of P10,000.00 to respondent, who on even date,
filed a notice of appeal before the RTC. The RTC dismissed
complainants appeal for having been filed beyond the
reglementary period provided for by law. Respondent,
however, did not disclose such fact and, instead, showed
complainant an Order dated November 9, 2007
purportedly issued by the RTC (November 9, 2007 Order)
directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing to
prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan.

To make some clarification about the technical

requirements for such kind of testing, complainant
proceeded to the RTC and requested for an extension of
the deadline for its submission where he discovered that
the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious, as certified by
the RTCs Clerk of Court he also found out that, contrary to
the representations of respondent, his appeal had long
been dismissed.He filed the instant administrative
complaint for disbarment against respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
respondent
should
administratively liable for violating the
Professional Responsibility?

be
held
Code of

HELD:
YES. Respondent Pedro S. Diamante is DISBARRED for
Gross Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1,

and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an
attorney to inform his client of whatever important
information he may have acquired affecting his clients
case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to
enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate
review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the
developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding
and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. The
lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the
lawyer is defending the clients interests. In this
connection, the lawyer must constantly keep in mind that
his actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding
upon his client. Concomitantly, the lawyer is expected to
be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal
procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to
expect not just a good amount of professional learning and
competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the clients
cause. Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the
lawyers duty to keep his client constantly updated on the
developments of his case as it is crucial in maintaining the
latters confidence. Respondents conduct of employing a
crooked and deceitful scheme to keep complainant in the
dark and conceal his cases true status through the use of
a falsified court order evidently constitutes Gross
Misconduct.His acts should not just be deemed as
unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw that makes
him unfit to practice law.

ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES, JR., vs. ATTY. SANIATA

LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE
Adm. Case No. 9058, November 14, 2012

FACTS:
Atty. Gonzales-Aizate is the legal counsel of Sears Jr. when
he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra
in the May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote

margin to Albert Z. Guzman, she filed in his behalf a

"Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the RTC in Bangued,
Abra; that the petition was dismissed for being "fatally
defective;" that several months later, she insisted on filing
a Petition of Protest in the RTC, but the petition was also
dismissed on the ground that it was already time-barred,
and on the further ground of forum shopping because the
certification against forum shopping was false; that the
RTC declared her as professionally negligentSeares, Jr.
asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon
15, Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for negligently handling his election protest,
for prosecuting him, her former client, and for uttering
false and hurtful allegations against him. Hence, he prays
that she should be disbarred.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the
prohibition against representing conflicting interests when
she assisted Turqueza in his administrative case against
Seares, Jr., her former client?

HELD:
No.The complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate is
unfounded and devoid of substance. For administrative
liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act of the
attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a
result that was highly prejudicial to the clients interest.
Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative
sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable
failure to file a required pleading or for unreasonable
failure to file an appeal, especially when the failure
occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions
to file the pleading and offered several excuses for his
nonfeasance. The Court has found the attendance of
inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a
wrong remedy or belatedly files an appeal or inordinately

delays the filing of a complaint or fails to attend scheduled

court hearings. Gross misconduct on the part of an
attorney is determined from the circumstances of the
case, the nature of the act done and the motive that
induced the attorney to commit the act.
Yet, a reading of the June 8, 2007 order of the RTC (Branch
I) in Bangued, Abra shows that the true cause of the
dismissal of Seares, Jr.s Petition For Protest Ad Cautelam
was its prematurity in light of the pendency in the
Commission on Elections of his Petition to Suspend
Canvass and Proclamation.The RTC cogently held that
(t)he primary objective of this petition is to pray for the
issuance of a Preliminary Precaution Order xxx (but) a
prayer for the issuance of the protection of ballot boxes,
Books and Lists of Voters and other election paraphernalia
in the recently concluded elections is well within the
power of the Commission on Elections. The court see no
trace of professional negligence or incompetence on the
part of Atty. Gonzales-Alzate in her handling of Seares, Jr.s
protest, especially because she even filed in his behalf a
Motion for Reconsideration, a Comment on the Courts
Dismissal of the Protest Ad Cautelam and a Motion to
Withdraw Cash Deposit.Besides, her explanation that it
was Seares, Jr. himself who decided not to pursue the
appeal and who instead requested her to move for the
withdrawal of his cash deposit was very plausible.

Also, the court cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate

professionally negligent in respect of the filing and
eventual dismissal of the subsequent Petition for Protest.
The verification and certification against forum shopping
attached
to
the
petition
contained
handwritten
superimpositions by Atty. Gonzales Alzate, but such
superimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the
corrections of the dates of subscription and the notarial
document number and docket number for the verification
and certification.

SENCIO V. CALVADORES
A.M. Case No. 5841 January 20, 2003
CANON NUMBER: CANON 18
FACTS: Complainant Emily Sencio asked for the legal
services of respondent Atty. Robert Calvadores when the
formers son died in a vehicular accident and she wants to
prosecute the civil aspect of the case. Sencio initially paid
P1,200.00 and then completed the P12,000.00 fee. From
that time on, the complainant has regularly contacted the
respondent to update her on the status of the case. The
respondent said that everything would be alright.

However, the complainant found out that the respondent

did not file a case which the
latter admitted. Calvadores promised that we would return
the money. Sencio returned several times to Calvadores
house to no avail. Sencio filed a disbarment case against
the respondent. The trial has been moved several times
because of the absence of Calvadores even with due
notice.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

HELD:Yes. A lawyer-client relationship existed between

the respondent and the complainant. As such, the
respondent, under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, owed fidelity to the cause of his client.
Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care; less than
that, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty
of violation of Canon 16 for not delivering the funds or
property of the client upon demand and of Canon 18 for

neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.

Calvadores is suspended in the practice of law for six

months and to return the amount of P12,000.00 to Sencia
within 30 days with interest at 12% per annum from the
date of the promulgation of this Resolution until its return.

MOTON V. CADIAO
A.M. Case No. 5169 November 24, 1999
FACTS: Atty. Cadiao was Motons counsel in a civil
complaint against Castillo. It appeared that Atty. Cadiao
failed to present evidence in Motons behalf because he
was handling another case in Antique.

On November 20, 1991, Atty. Cadiao filed with the Court of

Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that the trial court
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when it dismissed the case. On October 23,
1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack
of merit. On January 20, 1993, respondent filed with the
Court of Appeals a Withdrawal of Appearance.

Hence, this complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent lawyer is guilty of

negligence for his failure to present evidence in his clients
behalf

HELD: YES. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of

Professional Conduct provides than a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable. By reason
of Atty. Cadiaos negligence, actual loss has been caused
to his client.

He should give adequate attention, care and time to his

cases, this is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so
many cases that he can efficiently handle otherwise his
clients will be prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a
case, he should undertake the task with dedication and
care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his
oath.

ELPIDIO JAVELLANA VS. NICOLAS LUTERO

G.R. No. L-23956
July 21, 1967
CANON 18
Facts: On March 29, 1963 Archbishop of Jaro, Iloilo filed a
detainer complaint against ElpidioJavellana with the
municipal court of Iloilo City, presided by Judge Nicolas
Lutero. The hearing was postponed several times due to
the reasons given by the defendants lawyer, Atty.
JoseHautea. On July 24, the municipal court already gave a
warning that no further postponement would be
entertained, on the next scheduled hearing neither the
defendant nor his counsel appeared. The plaintiff's counsel
objected the postponement on the ground that the
defendant and his counsel were well aware of the court's
previous admonition that no further postponement of the
case would be granted. The trial proceeded and, on the
basis of the plaintiff's evidence, the court on the same
date rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against the
defendant. A motion to set aside judgment and for new
trial was filled by the defendant but was denied. About 50
days later, the defendant filed a petition for relief with the

Court of First Instance, praying that the decision in

question be set aside, that the detainer case be set for
trial. Counsel for the petitioner averred that his absence
on the date of the trial was excusable and that before his
departure for the latter city, he verbally informed the
respondent judge that he might not arrive on time for the
trial of the case as set, that he exercised utmost diligence
and precaution by calling and sending a telegram, the
municipal court nevertheless proceeded with the trial in
his absence and that of his client, allowed the private
respondent to present his evidence ex parte, and rendered
a decision against the petitioner, thus depriving the latter
of his day in court.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Hautea was negligent in his
duties as a lawyer.
Ruling: A counsel for any party in a judicial controversy, by
mandate of the canons of legal ethics, and with due
regard for the elementary standards of fair play, is duty
bound to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate
speed. This norm of conduct is no less applicable in a
detainer case, such as the one at bar, even if the issues
are essentially simple and uncomplicated. It is obvious
that the counsel for the petitioner-appellant has been
remiss in this respect. The case was reset for hearing
several times, which means that the appellant's counsel
had more time to adjust his schedule of activities as to
obviate a conflict between his business transactions and
his calendar of hearings. His absences was not occasioned
by illness or some other supervening occurrence which
unavoidably and justifiably prevented him from appearing
in court. It was the bounden duty of the said counsel,
under the circumstances, to give preferential attention to
the case. As things were, he regarded the municipal court
as a mere marionette that must ever await his pleasure.
This attitude on his part is censurable as it reveals more
than just a modicum of disrespect for the judiciary and the
established machinery of justice. Accordingly, the decision
appealed from is affirmed. As this appeal is patently
frivolous and dilatory, this Court, under the authority of

section 3 of Rule 142 of the Rules of Court, hereby

assesses treble costs against the petitioner-appellant
ElpidioJavellana, said costs to be paid by his counsel, Atty.
Jose Hautea.

ATTY. ELMER
MACALALAD
A.C. No. 8158
CANON 18

C.

SOLIDON

vs.

ATTY.

RAMIL

E.

February 24, 2010

FACTS: Complainant, asked respondent to handle the

judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by complainants
relatives, he accepted the task to be completed within a
period of eight months and received P50,000.00 as initial
payment; the remaining balance of P30,000.00 was to be
paid when complainant received the certificate of title to
the property. Respondent has not filed any petition for
registration over the property sought to be titled up to the
filing of this case. In the Complaint, Position Papers and
documentary evidence submitted, complainant claimed
that he tried to contact respondent to follow-up on the
status of the case six months after he paid the initial legal
fees. He did this through phone calls and text messages
and through a letter but did not receive any return
communication. Complainant sought the disbarment of
respondent for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule 18.03, and
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
involving negligence in handling a case. Complainant
argued that he had no intention of reneging from his
obligation, as he already had prepared the draft petition,
and he failed to file it because it lacked the needed
documentary requirements that his clients should have
furnished him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 16.01,
18.03 and 18.04.
RULING: Yes, Rule 16.01, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility was violated. A lawyer bears

the duty to serve his client with competence and

diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within
the bounds of the law, the interest of the client. The
records in this case tell us that Atty.Macalalad failed to act
as he committed when he failed to file the required
petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since
it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. He
had been given initial payment and should have at least
undertaken initial delivery of his part of the engagement.
Atty. Macalalad was suspended for six months and was
ordered to return the amount of Php 50, 000 with interest
of 12% per annum.

Canon 19
ESPINA vs. CHAVEZ
A.C. No. 7250
April 20, 2015

FACTS:
Atty. Ricardo M. Espina and his law firm in an ejectment
suit filed against Remedios C. Enguio. Atty. Jesus G.

Chavez represented Enguio. During the pendency of the

ejectment suit, Atty. Chavez committed an act apparently
in his official capacity, endorsing through a letter
(transmittal letter) to the Provincial Prosecutor, the filing
of a criminal complaint for Violation of Article 172
(Falsification by private individual and use of falsified
document) of the Revised Penal Code(RPC) against Atty.
Espina, his wife (who is a partner in his law office) and his
parents.
The criminal complaint was based on Enguios affidavitcomplaint alleging that "in order to fashion a case for
Ejectment, respondents made an untruthful statement in
the narration of facts (par. 4, Article 171)."
This prompted Atty. Espina to file his Complaint for
Disbarment/Suspension with the IBP for violation of Canon
19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Chavez violated Canon 19 Rule
19.01
RULING:
Atty. Espina's position unmeritorious and without basis.
What Rule 19.01 prohibits is the filing or the threat of filing
patently frivolous and meritless appeals or clearly
groundless actions for the purpose of gaining improper
advantage in any case or proceeding, Atty. Espina fails to
substantiate is allegations.
First, the fact that Atty. Chavez endorsed the criminal
complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor was, in itself, not
contrary to Rule 19.01. Second, the criminal complaint
was not patently frivolous and groundless. Finally, unlike in
the cases cited above, there is no clear and concrete proof
that the falsification complaint was filed to ensure
improper advantage to Enguio.

TOLENTINO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 218536

January 26, 2016

FACTS:
Henry Manalo won the 2013 barangay elections the
position of Barangay Captain in Barangay Calingcuan,
Tarlac City and Rolando P. Tolentino, his opponent
immediately filed an election protest. After the revision of
votes, the MTCC proclaimed Tolentino as the winner. The
MTCC also gave due course to Manalo's appeal. Tolentino
filed his answer and moved for the reconsideration of the
TRO which the MTCC denied.
Tolentino, through Atty. Ramon D. Facun, wrote a "Final
Request" to the COMELEC City Election Office demanding
the implementation of the writ of execution pending
appeal with an accompanying threat that he would file
contempt charges if immediate implementation would not
take place.
Respondent Atty. Cristina R. Guiao-Garcia, Election
Officer IV, endorsed the matter to the Commission's Law
Department which, in turn, made its own endorsement to
the First Division where the case was pending.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ramon D. Facun violated Canon 19
Rule 19.01
RULING:
Atty. Ramon D. Facun is WARNED. He already knew that
the MTCC refused to enforce the writ of execution pending
appeal after having lost jurisdiction over the case. Yet in
his zeal to advance the interests of his client, Atty. Facun
threatened an election officer with the filing of a baseless
contempt charge in violation of Canon 19.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility in relation with Section 261
(f) of the Omnibus Election Code. Atty. Facuns threatening
action in this case dangerously lies at the margins of Rule

19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and did

not spill over into a violation of this Rule only because of
the liberality of this Court. Given this warning, any
repetition of this or other similar acts shall not be liberally
dealt with.
FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA VS. ATTY. LOLITO G.
APARICIO
(A.C. No. 7298, June 25, 2007)
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT
WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
FACTS:
Atty. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace
Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National
Labor Relations Commission. Sometime in August 2005,
complainant Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF
Company, Inc. received a notice from the Conciliation and
Mediation Center of the NLRC for a mediation/conciliation
conference. In the conference, respondent in behalf of his
client submitted a claim for separation pay arising from
her alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant thereafter sent
notices to Hufana for the latter to explain her absences
and to return to work. In reply to thus return to work
notices, respondent wrote a letter to complainant
reiterating his clients claim for separation pay. The letter
also contained threats of multiple charges like tax evasion
and falsification of documents in the case that these
claims are not paid on August 10, 2005.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio should be
disbarred because of the threats to file criminal cases
designed to their secure a leverage to compel adversaries
to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyers
client.
HELD:

No. In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what

Canon 19 and its rule proscribe. Through his letter, he
threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay
what they proposed as settlement , he would file and
claim a bigger amounts including moral damages as well
as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of
documents, and cancellation of business license to
operate due to violate of laws. The threats are not only
unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to
blackmail. However, while the writing of the letter went
beyond ethical standards, the court held that disbarment
is too severe a penalty to be imposed on the respondent,
considering that he wrote the same out of his
overzealousness to protect his clients interests.
Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.
RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI)
VS. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO
(A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010)

BOHOL,

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT

WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the
members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of
Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against respondent Atty. James
Benedict Florido (respondent) for 'acts constituting grave
coercion and threats when he, as counsel for the minority
stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in physically taking
over the management and operation of the bank through
force, violence and intimidation.
On 18 April 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for
disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged that
respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code).
According to RBCI, on 1 April 2002, respondent and
his clients,
Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios

Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel

(Nazareno-Relampagos
group),
through
force
and
intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over
the management and the premises of RBCI. They also
forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay (Garay), the bank manager,
destroyed the bank's vault, and installed their own staff to
run the bank.
In his comment, respondent denied RBCI's
allegations. Respondent explained that he acted in
accordance with the authority granted upon him by the
Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly
elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he
was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of
management. Respondent alleged that a termination
notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply. On 1
April 2002, to ensure a smooth transition of managerial
operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos
group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down.
However, Garay reacted violently and grappled with the
security guard's long firearm. Respondent then directed
the security guards to prevent entry into the bank
premises of individuals who had no transaction with the
bank. Respondent, through the orders of the NazarenoRelampagos group, also changed the locks of the bank's
vault.
Respondent added that the criminal complaint for
malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was already
dismissed; while the complaint for grave coercion was
ordered suspended because of the existence of a
prejudicial question. Respondent said that the disbarment
complaint was filed against him in retaliation for the
administrative cases he filed against RBCI's counsel and
the trial court judges of Bohol.
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to
present any evidence to prove their allegations.
Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the
complaint were never identified, affirmed, or confirmed by
the affiants and that none of the documentary exhibits

were originals or certified true copies.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Florido violated Canon 19 and
should be held liable.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer
shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the
law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a
lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law
and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful
and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from
doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Lawyers
are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon
taking their professional oath, they become guardians of
truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before
a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a
party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus,
their duty to protect their clients' interests is secondary to
their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. While they are obliged to present
every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to
their clients must always be made within the parameters
of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law,
and the fair administration of justice. A lawyer's duty is
not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that
end, his client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct
ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of
the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and
honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is
condemnable and unethical.

FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA V. QUISIMBING

A.C. No. 7298, June 25, 2007

FACTS:
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio (respondent) appeared as counsel
for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a
mediation/conciliation conference respondent submitted a
claim for separation pay, however, complainant rejected
the same for being baseless. Complainant thereafter sent
notices to Hufana to explain the latters absences and to
return to work but respondent wrote a letter reiterating
the claim for separation pay which also contained a threat
to the company for multiple charges such as tax evasion,
criminal charges for tax evasion and falsification of
documents and cancellation of business license. Believing
that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted
ethical standards, complainant filed an administrative
complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Aparicio violated Canon 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
YES. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law, reminding legal practitioners
that a lawyers duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his clients success is
wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.

In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a lawyer shall

employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding. Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or
threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or
cases against the adversaries of his client designed to
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or
withdraw their own cases against the lawyers client.

In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19

and its Rule proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened
complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts
they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple
charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents,
and cancellation of business license to operate due to
violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for
violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail.

MARIA CHRISTINA PITCHER V. ATTY. RUSTICO B.

GAGATE
A.C. No. 9532 October 8, 2013
FACTS: Maria Christina Pitcher claimed to be the legal
wife of David B. Pitcher, who passed away on June 18,
2004. Prior to his death, David was engaged in business in
the Philippines and owned, among others, 40% of the
shareholdings in Consulting Edge, Inc. In order to settle
the affairs of her deceased husband, complainant engaged
the services of respondent. On June 22, 2004, complainant
and respondent met with Katherine Bantegui, a major
stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss a settlement.
Prior to the scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed
upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the
company assuring her that it was legal. On the scheduled
meeting, Bantegui expressed disappointment, which

impelled her to just leave the matter for the court to

settle. Respondent thereafter caused the change in the
lock of the companys office door, which prompted
Bantegui to file a complaint against the complainant and
respondent. On November 18, 2004, the Prosecutors
Office issued a resolution finding probable cause to charge
complainant and respondent for grave coercion. Warrants
of arrest were then issued against them. Respondent
advised complainant to go into hiding until he had filed
the necessary motions in court, however, respondent
eventually
abandoned
the
case
and
stopped
communicating with complainant. Thus, this present
administrative case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Gagate violated Canon 19 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
YES. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is
one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this
regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be
ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the
required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For
his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a
high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full
attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of
its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
free. To this end, he is enjoined to employ only fair and
honest means to attain lawful objectives. These principles
are embodied in Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and
Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code.

Complainant's right over the properties of her deceased

husband, David, has yet to be sufficiently established. As
such, the high-handed action taken by respondent to

enforce complainant's claim of ownership over the latters

interest in Consulting Edge was highly improper. Verily, a
person cannot take the law into his own hands, regardless
of the merits of his theory. In the same light, respondent's
act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to
evade arrest in the criminal case can hardly be maintained
as proper legal advice since the same constitutes
transgression of the ordinary processes of law. By virtue of
the foregoing, respondent clearly violated his duty to his
client to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking
justice, in violation of Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code.

FERNANDEZ V. NOVERO, JR.

A.M. Case No. 5394 December 22, 2002
CANON NUMBER: CANON 19
FACTS: Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment
case against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patent
and gross neglect in the handling of their civil case against
the Bacolod City Water District. The complainant imputed
that the respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing
nor seek a postponement, for which reason the trial court
considered
respondent
to
have
waived
further
presentation of his evidence and directed him to formally
offer his exhibits. However, respondent failed to formally
offer his exhibits, prompting the trial court to order the
dismissal of the case.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the
order of dismissal however he did not file his motion within
the reglementary period. He even tried to shift the blame
on complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on
presenting his sister from Manila as their last witness. The
truth was that complainants sister had already testified.
The respondent submitted his Answer and averred that
the complaint filed against him was baseless, purely
malicious and speculative considering the fact that it was
not made under oath. He contended that complainant
engaged his legal services after the first counsel had

withdrawn and he had no knowledge of what had

happened in the case before he handled it because
complainant did not furnish him with the records and
stenographic notes of the previous proceedings despite his
repeated requests. He alleged that he failed to formally
offer the exhibits because complainant tried to take over
the handling of the case by insisting on presenting more
witnesses who failed to appear during trial.

The Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a report finding

respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommending his suspension. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines also submitted a report
and recommendation for the suspension of respondent
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross

neglect in the handling of the civil case.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that a counsel must

constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions,
even malfeasance or nonfeasance would be binding on his
client. A lawyer owes to the client the exercise of utmost
prudence and capability in that representation. The
respondents attempt to evade responsibility by shifting
the blame on complainant due to the latters failure to
turn over to him records and stenographic notes of the
case only highlights his incompetence and inadequacy in
handling the complainants case. The respondent Atty.
Novero is found guilty of neglect of his clients case and is
Suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month with
Warning that repetition of the same negligent act will be
dealt with even more severely.

ONG V. UNTO

A.M. Case No. 2417 February 6, 2002

CANON NUMBER: CANON 17
FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong
against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. It is evident from the
records that he tried to coerce the complainant to comply
with his letter-demand by threatening to file various
charges against the latter. When the complainant did not
heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a
string of criminal and administrative cases against the
complainant. They, however, did not have any bearing or
connection to the cause of his client.
The records show that the respondent offered monetary
rewards to anyone who could provide him any information
against the complainant just so he would have leverage in
his actions against the latter.
ISSUE:Whether
malpractice.

or

not

Atty.

Untos

acts

constitute

HELD: Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients
with zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01
further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate, or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.

VERLEEN TRINIDAD vs. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN

A.C. No. 9310
February 27, 2013
CANON 19
Facts: Sometime in 2003, a complaint was filed with the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by the

buyers of the lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision against

Purence Realty Corporation. The HLURB ordered the owner
and developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the
Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning litigants.
Thereafter, HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. Then
respondent appeared to represent Purence Realty. He then
filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the Decision and to
quash the Writ of Execution for being null and void on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the improper service
of summons on his client. On 4 December 2003,
respondent sent demand letters to complainants he
demanded that they immediately vacate the property and
surrender it to Purence Realty within five days from
receipt. Atty. Villarin filed a complaint for forcible entry
before the Municipal Trial Court against the complainants
herein. As found by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and affirmed by its Board of Governors, complainants
asserted in their respective complaints that the demand
letters sent by Villarin had been issued with malice and
intent to harass them. They insisted that the letters also
against the HLURB Decision ordering his client to permit
the buyers to pay the balance of the purchase price of the
subdivision lots. Villarin denied the allegations of
harassment and claimed that no malice attended the
sending of the demand letters.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
respondent
should
be
administratively sanctioned for sending the demand
letters.
Held: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides
the limitation that lawyers shall perform their duty to the
client within the bounds of law. They should only make
such defense only when they believe it to be honestly
debatable under the law. The factual findings of the IBP
board of governors reveal that in his demand letter, he
brazenly typified one of the complainants, Florentina
Lander, as an illegal occupant. However, this description is
the exact opposite of the truth, since the final and
executory HLURB Decision had already recognized her as a
subdivision lot buyer who had a right to complete her

payments in order to occupy her property. Given that

respondent knew that the aforementioned falsity totally
disregarded the HLURB Decision, he thus advances the
interest of his client through means that are not in keeping
with fairness and honesty. What he does is clearly
proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires that a lawyer shall employ
only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives.
Lawyers must not present and offer in evidence any
document that they know is false. Wherefore, in view of
the foregoing, respondent Atty. AngelitoVillarin is
REPRIMANDED with a warning that a repetition of the
same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
MARY ANNT.MATTUS vs. ATTY. ALBERT T. VILLASECA
A.C. No. 7922
October 1, 2013
CANON 19
Facts: German Bernardo D. Mattus and Dexter Aligan were
the accused in Criminal Case for estafa thru falsification of
public document filed in the RTC in Cavite.
The
complainant and her husband, German, engaged the
services of Atty. Villaseca to represent them in the
proceedings. The complainant maintained that she and
German were convicted due to Atty. Villasecas gross and
inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as their
counsel. The complainant alleged, among others, that
Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often absent during court hearings
but still collected appearance fees; (2) frequently sought
the postponement of trial when he was present; (3) failed
to ask the RTC to direct a National Bureau of Investigation
expert to examine the signatures of the spouses Leslie
and Zuraida Porter2 in the special power of attorney (SPA);
(4) failed to file a demurrer to evidence despite having
been granted sufficient time by the RTC to submit one; (5)
failed to present evidence on behalf of the defense, and
only filed a memorandum; (6) did not inform her and
German of the dates of the presentation of defense
evidence and the promulgation of judgment; and (7)
erroneously indicated the wrong case number in the notice
of appeal. According to the complainant, Atty. Villasecas

negligence in handling the case resulted in her own and

her husbands conviction. On September 10, 2008, Atty.
Villasecadenied the allegations thrown against him.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Villaseca was grossly negligent
in performing his duties as a lawyer.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Villasecas
failure to submit a demurrer to evidence constitutes
inexcusable negligence; it showed his lack of devotion and
zeal in preserving his clients cause. Furthermore, Atty.
Villasecas failure to present any testimonial, object or
documentary evidence for the defense reveals his lack of
diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the
Court; it showed his indifference towards the cause of his
clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his
clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted
efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence. The
Court emphasized that while a lawyer has complete
discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case
entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or
defense within the authority of the law to support his
clients cause.Wherefore, Atty. Albert T. Villasecais hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five years,
effective upon his receipt of the Decision, and sternly
warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.