LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty.
Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Dee v CA, Atty Mutuc Sam
FACTS:
Petitioner and his father went to the residence of private respondent Atty Mutuc to seek his
advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother, Dewey
Dee, to Caesar's Palace, a well-known gambling casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.
Petitioner's father was apprehensive over the safety of his son, Dewey, having heard of a link
between the mafia and Caesar's Palace.
The respondents services were reportedly contracted for P100k. Several long distance
telephone calls and two trips to Las Vegas by him elicited the information that Dewey Dee's
outstanding account was around $1,000,000.00. Further investigations, however, revealed
that said account had actually been incurred by Ramon Sy, with Dewey Dee merely signing
for the chits. Private respondent also assured petitioners father that Caesar's Palace was not
in any way linked to the mafia.
private respondent personally talked with the president of Caesar's Palace at Las
Vegas, Nevada. He advised the president that for the sake and in the interest of the
casino it would be better to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. The president
told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge the obligation, Dewey Dee would
be exculpated from liability for the account. Upon private respondent's return to Manila, he
conferred with Ramon Sy and the latter was convinced to acknowledge the
indebtedness. Atty Mutuc then brought to Caesar's Palace the letter of Ramon Sy owning
the debt and asking for a discount. Thereafter, the account of Dewey Dee was cleared and
the casino never bothered him.
private respondent sent several demand letters to petitioner demanding the balance of
P50k as attorney's fees. Petitioner, however, ignored said letters.
Petitioner denied the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client between
him and private respondent, that Atty. Mutuc offered his services "as a friend of
defendant's family, and the partial payments amounting to P50k were actually just
"pocket money" solicited by the former for his trips to Las Vegas. In an MR, the petitioner
also raised the fact that at the time private respondent was ostensibly rendering services to
petitioner and his father, he was actually working "in the interest" and "to the advantage"
of Caesar's Palace of which he was an agent and a consultant at the time , hence the
interests of the casino and private respondent were united in their objective to collect from the
debtor, and he could not have rendered professional legal services to petitioner and his father
in view of these conflicting interests.
ISSUE: W/N respondent Atty. Mutuc had an attorney-client relationship with the petitioner
despite alleged conflicting interests
HELD: YES.
True, the casino was a creditor but that fact was not contested or opposed by Dewey Dee,
since the latter, as verifications revealed, was not the debtor. Hence, private respondent's
representations in behalf of petitioner were not in resistance to the casino's claim but
were actually geared toward proving that fact by establishing the liability of the true
debtor, Ramon Sy.
Even assuming that the imputed conflict of interests obtained, private respondent's role therein
was not ethically or legally indefensible. Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing
parties with contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it
reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the
parties. A common representation may work to the advantage of said parties since a mutual
lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions,
may well be better situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences, being free
of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and confidence of said parties
Here, even indulging petitioner in his theory that private respondent was during the period in
question an agent of Caesar's Palace, petitioner was not unaware thereof, hence he
actually consented to and cannot now decry the dual representation that he postulates.
The evidence of record shows that the services of respondent Mutuc were engaged by the
petitioner for the purposes herein before discussed. The previous partial payments totalling
P50,000.00 made by petitioner to respondent Mutuc and the tenor of the demand letters sent
by said private respondent to petitioner, the receipt thereof being acknowledged by petitioner,
ineluctably prove three facts, viz: that petitioner hired the services of private respondent
Mutuc; that there was a prior agreement as to the amount of attorney's fees to be given
to the latter; and there was still a balance due and payable on said fees
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
Mercado v Security Bank Gubi
Spouses Jose and Ma. Agnes Mercado failed to appeal on time a decision rendered by the
CA. They filed for petition for annulment of judgement instead. This was denied by the SC
because there was failure to show any reversible error.
They filed an MR for the SCs dismissal, this was denied. They alleged that their counsel
committed gross negligence that constitutes extrinsic fraud, a ground for annulling decisions,
but respondent SBC showed proof to the contrary.
Spouses filed another MR (2nd). This was denied.
Petitioner Mercado wrote Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. that he was informed by his counsel,
Atty Villanueva, that the ponente informed him that she has to deny our petition on the same
ground because of the tremendous pressure from the Chief Justice to favor Security Bank
Corporation (SBC), amongst other things, implying that the court is engaged in bribery.
Davide required Mercado and Atty Villanueva to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt of court. Mercado manifested that he only stated what Atty. Villanueva told him. He
further manifested that during the wake of Atty. Villanuevas mother, he (Atty. Villanueva)
pointed to Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, bragging that she is a very very good, close
and long time friend of his.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Recommendation of the Commission: Mercado guilty of improper conduct tending to bring the
authority and the administration of justice by the Court into disrespect. However, there was no
showing that he acted with malice and/or in bad faith or that he was properly motivated.
Recommended fine: 5k.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether Mercado acted with malice and bad faith in imputing those derogatory and
disrespectful remarks against C.J. Davide Jr. and the ponente.
Mercados addressing such letter to the Chief Justice is a perfect example of bad faith and
malice. It transgresses the permissible bounds of fair comment and criticisms bringing into
disrepute and distrust not only the Chief Justices integrity but that of the entire Judiciary as
well. Mercado repeatedly humiliated him and the Judiciary insolently. Without doubt, Mercados
letter is marked with malice, bad faith, and gross disrespect; it was a character assassination
and honor vilification. They caused intense pain and humiliation on the part of the Chief Justice
and the ponente. Mercados defense of free speech cannot hold, for such right must not be
1.
confused with the abuse of such liberty.
2.
(2) Whether Atty Villanueva should be cited for indirect contempt
The court is inclined to believe that Atty. Villanueva gave such information to Mercado.
Moreover, he also also revealed the name of the ponente; that he and the ponente have
known each other since 1964; and that the ponente would be at the wake of his mother. 1.
It is only through Atty. Villanueva that petitioner could have learned or known the name of the
2.
ponente in the case. Petitioner was also consistent, firm, and candid and detailed in his
testimony. He was able to corroborate his claims, by submitting his diary which contained vital3.
entries and by presenting the testimony of his nephew. Moreover, it was admitted by Atty.
Villanueva that he and Justice Gutierrez have known each other since 1964 and that Justice
Gutierrez was in the wake of his mother.
Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall
not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative
body. Further, Rule 15.07 provides that a lawyer must impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Atty. Villanueva took the forbidden
course. In informing Mercado that he was a very very good, close and long time friend of the
ponente, Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition
of his case. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercados expectation crumbled.
This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and disrespectful accusations against Chief
Justice Davide and the ponente.
Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Atty. Jose P. Villanueva are declared GUILTY of indirect contempt
of court. They are FINED P50,000.00 each and WARNED that a repetition of similar acts will
warrant a more severe penalty.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with
the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity.
Nakpil v Valdez Rae
FACTS
Valdez and Nakpil were friends from La Salle and the Philippine Law School. Valdez eventually
became the business consultant, lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils.
Nakpil wanted to buy a summer residence on Moran St., Baguio but didn't have enough
money, so he asked Valdez to purchase it for him and keep it in trust until the Nakpils could
buy it.
Valdez got 2 loans from the bank to purchase and renovate the property.
Title was named after Valdez, but the Nakpils occupied it.
Nakpil died and Valdez became the legal counsel of his widow.
The ownership of the Baguio property became an issue in the intestate proceedings because
Valdez excluded it in Nakpil's property inventory. Instead, he transferred the property to his
own corporation (Caval Realty Corp.)
Charges against Valdez by widow Nakpil:
Valdez didn't include the Baguio property in Nakpil's estate inventory but transferred it to own
corporation
Valdez's auditing firm excluded Baguio property but included claims against such property (i.e.,
65k and 75k for the loans for the purchase of the same Baguio property)
Valdez and Associates (Valdez's law firm) filed a petition for settlement of the estate when their
partner auditing firm (CJ Valdez & Co., CPAs) was accountant of both the estate and 2 of its
creditors, therefore having conflicting interests.
ARGUMENTS
On ownership:
CFI of Baguio dismissed action for reconveyance. They ruled that Valdez held the property in
trust for the Nakpils, but the Nakpils waived their right over it.
CA reversed this decision, saying that Valdez was the absolute owner of the property.
Pending appeal to the SC, OSG recommended, as per CA decision that Valdez had the right to
transfer the ownership of the land, and that the admin case should therefore be dismissed.
Annexes that prove Valdez's ownership of the property were all prepared by CJ Valdez & Co.,
and none by the Nakpils.
Only part of the scheme to deprive the Nakpils of their rightful property.
On including the claims against the property:
Defense of Valdez is that it was stated in the document that the loan was only probably for the
purchase of the property in Baguio.
He said that such letter from the accounting firm may only be an oversight
On conflict of interest:
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Valdez claimed that there was no conflict of interest in representing the estate and creditors
Angel Nakpil and ENORN Inc.
ENORN is a family corporation of Nakpil, and Angel became the President of such company
after Nakpils death.
Two claimants were the clients of the firm even during Nakpil's lifetime
Representation was with the knowledge and consent of the complainant as administratrix
There was no conflict of interest because they forged a modus vivendi (they would only be
paid after full payment of Nakpil's principal bank creditors)
Work as common auditor redounded to the benefit of the estate.
Valdez resigned from his law and accounting firms, and only rejoined the accounting firm
several years later.
If ever there was misconduct, it was done as an accountant and not as a lawyer.
RULING:
On ownership:
Cannot uphold OSG recommendation because there is a violation of the trust agreement
between Nakpil and Valdez by the transfer of the property to Valdez's corporation.
Valde never repudiated the trust during the lifetime of Nakpil. The transfer is therefore in bad
faith.
On not including the property in the inventory:
This evinces a lack of fidelity to the cause of the client.
If Valdez really believed that it was his, he should have informed widow Nakpil of his adverse
claim and formally presented such claim in the intestate proceedings.
On including the claims against the property:
This, too, was in bad faith. Its charge against the estate of Nakpil could have only been caused
by the respondent, as the loans were in Valdez's name.
On conflicting interests:
The interests of the estate and of its creditors are in clear conflict.
Computing for assets and liabilities of estate, and for claims of creditors are conflicting.
Valdez's claim that he resigned is not supported by evidence.
Moreover, when he transferred the property to his corporation, the intestate proceedings was
still pending in court.
Although there is an exemption to the conflict of interest rule (i.e., if the lawyer was able to get-
the well-informed consent of the party), this case does not fall within such exemption as the
records show nothing that Valdez explained the legal situation and its consequences to widow-
Nakpil.
It also doesn't matter that the claims were valid and did not prejudice the estate. The set-up
itself is undesirable.
The test is only the probability of conflict, and not its certainty.
This is against his duty as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
covers even acts as an accountant-lawyer.
Valdez has long been the Nakpils consultant, lawyer and accountant.
DISPOSITION: GUILTY of misconduct and therefore SUSPENDED FOR 1 YEAR.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code
The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them,
unless the consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or
of any government-owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration of
which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government
experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights
in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory
they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
Berbano v Barcelona Mat
Facts:
Petitioner filed a disbarment case against respondent for Malpractice and Gross Misconduct
Unbecoming a Lawyer, Dereliction of Duty and Unjust Enrichment
The following are the petitioners allegations:
o The petitioner is one of the heirs of Hilapo, owner of a 244 hectare land in
Alabang Muntinlupa which is likewise being claimed by Filinvest Dev Corp in
a case pending
o The heirs of Hilapo appointed Porfirio Daen as their attorney-in-fact giving
him authority to prosecute the case for and in their behalf
o However, Mr Daen was arrested on the strength of an expired warrant of
arrest
Since Mr Daen is in need of a lawyer, the petitioner sought the help of Atty Barcelona who
went in the prison to talk to Mr Daen
o Atty Barcelona told them that they need to produce P50,000 to secure the
release of Mr Daen from prison. The petitioner then asked from her relatives
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
who were with them at that time and was able to collect P 15,700. She
handed this amount to Atty Barcelona who waited for them at the Chowking Also, The act of respondent in not filing his answer and ignoring the hearings set by the
restaurant. Investigating Commission, despite due notice, emphasized his contempt for legal proceedings.
- He thereafter left because according to him, he would go and see somebody, (a justice) from
the Supreme Court who could help the release of Mr. Daen. RULING: Wenceslao C. Barcelona is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
o The following day, petitioner met with Atty Barcelona at Maxs Restaurant per DIRECTED TO RETURN (P64,000.00) within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision.
their agreement. He even told petitioner that he just came from the Supreme
Court where he fixed the case of Mr. Daen.
Licuanan v Melo Ice
- Petitioner handed a check for 24,000 pesos as part of the payment for the release of Mr Daen
FACTS:
(Atty Barcelona said SC Justice doesnt accept checks)
- Respondent and petitioner had an attorney-client relationship when Atty. Melo was
o The following day, the lawyer asked again another 5,000 pesos. The
able to obtain a judgment in Licuanans favor against Aida Pineda (tenant) whereby
petitioner went to the agreed meeting place (Maxs Restaurant), but since
the latter was directed by the City Court of manila to pay the monthly rentals from Oct
hes not there, the wife of the lawyer communicated to them to go to their
1978 and succeeding months thereafter.
house which they did and handed 10,000 pesos instead of the agreed 5,000
- Tenant paid to respondent at his office after receiving demand letters from him
pesos.
- Leonila Licuanan (petitioner) filed a complaint against her lawyer Atty. Manuel Melo
o When they returned to the City Jail, they met Atty Barcelona who told them
(respondent) for breach of professional ethics
that he cannot encash the check (24,000) so a nephew of Mr Daen (the one
- Petitioner alleged that respondent, her counsel, failed to inform and remit to her the
in prison) gave another 15,000 pesos.
rentals collected over a 12-month period. Respondent only turned over the collections
o The lawyer promised that Mr Daen will be released on Feb4,1999
to petitioner after about a year when petitioner had learned about the payment and
- however when the day came, the petitioner learned that the lawyer left for Mindanao early that
had demanded it.
morning.
o Petitioner only learned about the payments when her new lawyer Atty.
o After a week has passed, petitioner met the respondent and confronted him
Ponciano Jacinto filed an administrative case against Aida Pineda before the
about the case, but the lawyer only told not to worry since he will return the
Philippine Tuberculosis society accusing her of moral turpitude for failing to
amount of 64,000 which he never did.
pay the rent of her apartment.
- He never attended the IBP hearing despite due notice.
o Aida Pineda in turn filed an action for damages (suffered mental anguish,
IBP Commissioner: GUILTY of malpractice. Recommended that he be DISBARRED and
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation) against
ordered to return the amount of 64,000.
petitioner because she had been religiously paying her obligation to Atty.
IPB Governor: GUILTY of malpractice. Recommended that he be SUSPENDED for 6 YEARS
Melo.
and ordered to return the amount of 64,000.
- Respondent said he kept the information about the payment from petitioner for the
purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting the rentals
ISSUE: WON the IBP Board of Governors erred in reducing the penalty from disbarment - SOLGEN Recommendation: Suspended from the practice of law for a period not
to suspension? - YES less than one year and that he be strongly admonished to strictly and faithfully
- Under the facts established by complainant, respondent should not only be suspended, observe his duties to his clients
but disbarred from practice.
ISSUES:
- Respondent has demonstrated a penchant for misrepresenting to clients that he has the - WON respondent violated the lawyers oath (not to delay any man for money or malice
proper connections to secure the relief they seek, and thereafter, ask for money, which and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients)
will allegedly be given to such connections. - WON he violated paragraph 11 of the Canons of Legal Ethics (obligated to report
promptly the money of client that has come to his possession and should not
o In this case, respondent misrepresented to complainant that he could get the commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purpose without his
release of Mr. Porfirio Daen through his connection with a Supreme Court clients consent)
Justice. Not only that, respondent even had the audacity to tell complainant - WON he violated paragraph 32 of the Canons of Legal Ethics (requires a lawyer to
that the Justices of the Supreme Court do not accept checks. maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust)
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
HELD:
YES. Respondent is guilty of breach of trust reposed in him by his client. SC
Disbarred Atty. Melo.
RATIO:
- Relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary. SC found him guilty
of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. He has displayed lack of
honesty and good moral character and besmirched the name of an honorable
profession.
1. It was a BREACH of the lawyers oath: Withholding rentals and depriving her of its
use; and withholding information despite her inquiries. Was not honest and candid
towards his client
11. DEALING WITH TRUST PROPERTY
The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit
or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by
his client.
Money of the client or collected for the client of other trust property coming
into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for
promptly, and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his
own or be used by him. *(substantially reiterated in rule 16.01)
2. He has shown himself unfit for the confidence and trust which should characterize an
attorney-client relationship and the practice of law.
3. Licuanan was compelled to file a groundless suit against her tenant for non-payment
of rentals thereby exposing her to jeopardy.
4. She was further compelled to engage the services of another counsel in order to
recover the amount rightfully due her.
Sison v Camacho David
Atty Sison (petitioner) filed case against respondent Atty Camacho for violating Rule 1.01, and
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Camacho was the counsel of Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings, Inc. (MDAHI) against
Paramount Insurance with an initial insurance claim of P14,863,777.00.
March 4, 2011, Camacho met with Atty Dimaano, corporate secretary of MDAHI and proposed
to increase their claim to P64,412,534.18 by taking into account the interest. Camacho
however clarified that the increase in claim would mean payment of additional docket fees in
the amount of P1,288,260.00. MDAHI agreed, which was evidenced by a Payment
Request/Order Form.
May 27, 2011, Dimaano gave to Camacho the docket fees, who promised to issue a receipt
(he never did)
May 26, 2011, RTC Makati already rendered a decision in favor of MDAHI, granting insurance
claim + interest for approximately P65M.
Camacho then sent a letter to MDAHI recommending to settle with Paramount Ins for P15M
allegedly to prevent a protracted appeal. MDAHI REFUSED the compromise offer.
Surprisingly, even without written conformity from MDAHI, Camacho filed for Satisfaction of
Judgement, dated August 15, 2011 before the RTC, stating the parties has entered into
agreement.
Aug. 18, Sison met with Camacho to clarify the events that happened. He asked about the
P1.2M docket fees, and the latter replied he simply gave it to the clerk of court since time has
lapsed.
Answer dated Oct. 30, 2012, Camacho denied allegations, stating he had authority to enter the
Compromise Agreement, and that the docket fees are actually part of his attorneys fees. He
even filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Pay Attorneys fees before the RTC, which was
granted on April 12, 2012, stating the P1.2M was part of his attorneys fees.
IBP-CBD submitted report and recommendation, finding Camacho guilty of violating Rule 1.01
and Rule 16.01 and recommending 1 year suspension. Board of Governors of IBP adopted
said report and recommendation.
Camacho filed for reconsideration, reiterating compromise agreement was valid, since MDAHI
did not reject the same, and that the amount P1.2M was part of his attorneys fees.
Sison countered that respondent never denied filing satisfaction of judgement without written
authority from MDAHI, and that there was a pending estafa case against respondent regarding
the P1.2M
Board of Governors then granted MR, that accounting for the money should be dismissed
since it was premature to act on it due to the pending estafa case, and reduced penalty from 1
year to 6 months.
Issue: W/N Camacho entered into a compromise agreement w/o written consent - YES
YES. It was clear as daylight that MDAHI never consented to the compromise settlement for
15M, as can be gleaned that MDAHI did not sign the conforme regarding the compromise
agreement. Despite MDAHI receiving the P15M award, this did not erase the transgression
committed by Camacho in reaching for the compromise without consent from his client.
W/N Camacho violated Rule 16.01 for failing to account for the money - YES.
It is clear with the Payment Request/Order Form that the money was intended for docket fees.
Instead, he claims based on the order of the RTC that the amount formed part of his attorneys
fees. The Board also opined that the case is premature to be decided due to the pending
criminal case. The Supreme Court states that transgression as an administrative complaint is
separate from the criminal charge, and that the findings in the case will have no material
bearing on other judicial action which the parties may file against each other.
Delving into the substance of the allegation, the Court rules Camacho violated 16.01 when he
requested for the docket fees, but when confronted by Sison, he merely stated that he gave it
to the clerk of court. Whether the money was pocketed by Camacho or given to the clerk as a
bribe, it was unmistakably clear that Camacho did not apply the money for its intended legal
purpose. Also, he even failed to issue a receipt.
Worse, the RTC already rendered the decision in favor of MDAHI prior to the handing of the
money of Dimaano to Camacho (May 27 vs May 26). Despite the decision already being
rendered, Camacho did not reject nor return the said amount to his client.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Court then cites multiple cases the same as the one at bar, where the one who abridged the
law was disbarred.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 16.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. For reasons above stated, he is DISBARRED from
the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Furthermore, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is ORDERED to return to Marsman-Drysdale
Agribusiness Holdings, Inc. the money intended to pay for additional docket fees which he
received from the latter in the amount of P1,288,260.00 within ninety (90) days from the finality
of this decision
Malangas v Zaide Astrid
FACTS:
Malangas figured in an accident when two vehicles hit him while he was crossing the street,
and pinned him in between them
He was brought to the hospital and was confined for 4 months and underwent major
operations, spending more than 1.5 M
He engaged Zaides services to prosecute complaint for damages against therein defendants
(Alfeche and NEMA)
He gave Zaide 20K as acceptance fee and 50K as filing fees; Zaide made him believe that the
50K was needed as filing fees in order to commence a 5M damage suit
Malangas later discovered that the Complaint was dismissed by the RTC because of Zaides
failure to attend two hearings in the case and because of his failure to submit an Opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss filed by therein defendants
Zaide also did not file the Motion for Reconsideration Malangas asked him to file; instead he
filed a Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel, leaving Malangas without counsel to prosecute
his case
He then discovered that the amount of damages sought in the Complaint filed by Zaide was
only 250K and not 5M (contrary to the copy of the Complaint given to Malangas)
Malangas instituted complaint for disbarment against Zaide before the Commission on Bar
Discipline
Zaides claims:
Malangas is a client of the law firm Zaide belongs to, and that as junior associate in the firm,
he only received appearance fees in attending to complainants civil case
Zaide denied receiving an acceptance fee of 20K
He was even reluctant to ask for the 250K in damages because he knew the hospital bills of
Malangas did not reach this amunt, and that the complaint with the prayer for 5M in damages
was clearly maneuvered to create an impression that Zaide defrauded complainant
Proceedings before IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a recommendation, finding Zaide guilty of dishonesty
and breach of trust
Recommended 2 years suspension
Action of IBP Board of Governors
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the CBD
HELD: (Relevant part)
Guilty of violating Canon 16 (and Canons 1 and 18).
Zaide claimed that because he was a mere associate in the law office, he had no participation
regarding the fees complainant was giving the office. But Zaide himself admitted he received
7K for docket fees and the rest were advance fees for his services. Further proof is the
complainants demand letters, asking Zaide to return 20K acceptance fee and to account for
the docket fees paid to the RTC. Zaide did not deny he received such amount. Upon further
investigation by complainant, it was discovered that of the 50K alleged filing fees given to
Zaide, only 2,63.60 was paid by the lawyer to the RTC. Finally, the lawyers former law
partners stated that the payment was not made to the firm, but to Zaide himself.
Zaides refusal to account for the funds given to him, especially his refusal to return the amount
paid in excess of what was required as docket fees, clearly violated rules 16.01 and 16.03 of
the CPR.
RULING:
Given the gravity of the offenses, and considering this is his 2nd administrative case, Zaide is
hereby SUSPENDED for two years and is ordered to return to complainant the sums given to
him as acceptance fee and docket fees in the amount of 70K minus the amount of 2, 623.60
paid as docketing fees.
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.
Hernandez v Go Marco
FACTS:
Complainant now deceased
Complainants husband abandoned her and their son. Husbands numerous creditors went
after them to demand payment of his debts.
Complainant hired Atty. Go.
Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and
social humiliation.
He advised her to give him her land titles so he could sell it to pay the creditors and persuaded
her to execute deeds of sale in favor of him without any monetary consideration.
When her mortgaged land titles fell due, she redeemed them and Atty. Go also persuaded her
to execute deeds in favor of him.
She later learned that he did not sell these lands as per their agreement.
Instead, he kept the lands and paid the creditors out of his own pocket.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
IBP Report and Recommendation: Respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his
obligation and duty as complainants legal adviser and counsel when he took advantage of the
trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant in ultimately putting complainants
properties in his name and possession in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Recommended 6 months suspension. Board of Governors modified to 3
years.
COURT HELD:
Respondent violated Canon 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession.
Act of acquiring complainants lots entrusted to him for himself constitute gross misconduct
Violated 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.
Had he sold the lots, he couldve gotten a higher price. Instead, he dealt with the matter
deceitfully.
THUS liable under Rule 138 Sec 27 (3) gross misconduct in office
Citing similar cases and their penalties, the court found the recommended penalty too light.
RULING: DISBARRED
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a 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.
Busios v Ricafort Shiella [ROY: Online digest only]
FACTS
Atty. Francisco Ricafort is the counsel of Lourdes Busios (complainant) for civil case involving
the properties of the late Pedro Rodrigo.
Atty. Ricafort informed Lourdes that she needed to deposit Php 2,000 for a bond but it was
reported that this was not required and it appears respondent merely pocketed the amount.
RTC of Ligao, Albay ordered the release and all deposits of rentals made with the civil case.
TheRTC informed the Lourdes that Atty. Ricafort already received the rental deposit of Php
25,000 and a sum of Php 5,000 as payment for rental of school site (OAS Standard High
School).
Complainant filed a case for estafa and administrative complaint on Atty. Ricafort.
Respondent paid the complainant with the aforementioned amounts. Therefore, Lourdes
withdrew the estafa case but still pursued the disbarment case at hand.
HELD
DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his
clients without their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor
of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them
Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their
consent , and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00
purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by
his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched
the fair name of an honorable profession.
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded
he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
Quilban v Robinol Aira
Antecedent Facts:
Colegio de San Jose, a Jesuit Corporation sold a parcel of land to the Government of Quezon
CIty. The land was for a construction of a hospital but a certain portion of land was to be
reserved as a possible development ste. The Colegio gave their permission to Congressman
Taruc to build his house and a Christian Social Movement training center on the reserved site.
However since squatters have settled in the area since 1965 or 1966, Taruc suggested to
Colegio that the land be sold to the squatters at a cheap price and thereafter advised the
squatters to form a Samahan.
Bernabe Martin, President of the Samahan tasked in the negotiating on behalf of the
members, connived with one Maximo Rivera (a relator) to exclude the other Samahan
members in the sale of the land. Thus Rivera obtained a TCT of the property in his name alone
(for P15 per square meter instead of the prevailing price of 100-120 per square meter.)
32 heads of the family of the Samahan filed a civil case praying that Rivera be ordered to
execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the Samahan after reimbursement of the
corresponding amount paid by Rivera to Colegio but CFI of QC dismissed the case.
On appeal, they hired Atty Robinol as their counsel paying him 2 000 as attorneys fees and
that he was also to be given a part of the subject land equal to the portion of a member. CA
ruled in favor of the Samahan.
To raise the amount needed for the conveyance of the land, five officers of the Samahan
collected 2 500 from each head of the family and a total of 75 000 was turned over to Atty
Robinol to pay Rivera.
After almost a year, the five officers discovered that no payment had been made to Rivera so
they asked Atty. Robinol. Robinol replied that a motion for intervention was filed and a writ of
execution had not been issued when in reality, the motion for intervention had already been
dismissed.
21 out of the 32 heads of families arrived at a first consensus to change their counsel and
approached Atty. Montemayor. Consequently, they sent a letter to Atty Robinol informing him of
their decision to terminate his services and asking for the return of the 75 000.
Atty. Montemayor filed a Motion for execution and at the hearing, Atty. Robinol manifested that
he had no objection to the appearance and hs substitution by Atty. Montemayor.
Atty Robinol still questioned the first consensus to a second consensus was signed by the 21
plaintiffs.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Administrative Case No 2144
The Samahan filed an Administrative Complaint against Atty. Robinol for refusal to return the
75 000 and praying the Court to exercise its power of discipline over him.
Administrative Case No. 2180
A disbarment case was filed by atty Robinol against Atty Monteayor for alleged gross unethical
conduct by accepting the case of the Samahan without Robinols formal withdrawal and
knowing that there was no consensus of all plaintiffs to discharge his as their counsel.
The administrative cases were forwarded to the Solicitor General. After investigation, Solgen
recommended that Atty Robinol be suspended for 3 months and ordered to returned the 75
000. With regards to Atty, Montemayor, the disbarment case was dismissed since he has not
committed any misconduct.
Issues:
W/N Atty. Robinol is guilty of ethical infractions and grave misconduct?
Held: Yes. Because he heartlessly took advantage of his clients who were mere squatters
when after receiving the Samahans payment, he didnt deliver the money to Rivera and
decided to convert the payment of his fees from a portion of land to the monetary value of that
area. Further, Atty. Robinol had no right to retain possession of the money on his claim that he
was unjustly dismissed. There was justifiable ground for his discharge as counsel since his
clients had lost confidence in him and the money that was given to him was for a specific
purpose.
W/N Atty. Montemayor should be disbarred for agreeing to be the counsel of the
Samahan?
Held: No. because there was a signed consensus made by 21 out of the 25 heads of families
who paid discharging Atty. Robinol of his services and Atty. Robinol is estopped from
questioning his discharge since 2 letters were sent to him regarding the matter. In addition, he
passed a Memorandum to the lower court satting that he had no objection to Atty.
Montemayors appearance.
Dispositive:
Atty. Santiago R. Robinol - DISBARRED for having violated his lawyer's oath to delay no man
for money, broken the fiduciary relation between lawyer and client, and proven himself
unworthy to continue in the practice of law. By reason of his unethical actuations, he is hereby
declared to have forfeited his rights to attomey's fees and is ordered to return the amount of P
75,000.00 to the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-16433 through the complainant in the
aforementioned Administrative Case
Atty. Ancleto R. Montemayor- Disbarment case dismissed
Rayos v Hernandez Cherith
Facts:
Petitioner hired respondent as counsel in a case he filed against NAPOCOR. P sued
NAPOCOR for negligently opening the three floodgates of Angat Dam which killed 10
members of his family. 15 years after the complaint was filed, Petitioner was awarded by Sc
the ff:
Actual damages of Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P520,000.00)
Moral Damages of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); and
Litigation Expenses of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
NAPOCOR issued a check (P1,060,000.00) in favor of the petitioner. Said check was turned
over to Respondent. Petitioner demanded the delivery of the check, but R refused
On 24 January 1994 , petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to direct respondent to deliver to
him the check issued by NAPOCOR, corresponding to the damages awarded by the Court of
Appeals. Petitioner sought to recover the check in the amount of P1,060,800.00 from
respondent, claiming that respondent had no authority to receive the same as he was already
dismissed by petitioner as his counsel on 21 November 1993. Respondent, on the other hand,
justifies his retention as a means to ensure payment of his attorneys fees.
RTC issued an Order directing respondent to deliver the check to the Sheriff of the court who
will subsequently deliver it to petitioner. A Writ of Execution was subsequently issued. Despite
the Court Order, respondent refused to surrender the check.
However, on 4 July 1994, respondent deposited the amount of P502,838.79 with Farmers
Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., Norzagaray, Bulacan, in the name of petitioner which was
eventually received by the latter.
P filed disbarment complaint against R for the latters failure to return the remaining
P557,961.00
Respondent Atty replied:
Rayos allegedly agreed to a contingent basis fee on a 40-60 (client-lawyer) sharing:
40% attorneys fees
20% litigation expenses
The Court referred the case to Commission on bar discipline of IBP for investigation.
Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case
IBP adopted ^
Issue: WON respondent is justified in retaining the amount awarded to petitioner to assure
payment of his attorneys fees.
Held:
Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of his client constitute trust
funds and must be immediately paid over to the client. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides as follows:
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.
In the case at bar, when respondent withheld and refused to deliver the NAPOCOR check
representing the amount awarded by the court, which he received on behalf of his client
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
(petitioner herein), he breached the trust reposed on him. It is only after an Order was issued Respondent argued the following:
by the RTC ordering the delivery of the check to petitioner that the respondent partially1. The fund was intended to cover for actual and incidental expenses for the transfer of the CTC
delivered the amount of P502,838.79 to the former, but still retaining for himself the amount of and not for legal services
P557,961.21 as payment for his attorneys fees. The claim of the respondent that petitioner2. He failed because his diabetes and loss of sight in one eye made it difficult for him to perform
failed to pay his attorneys fees is not an excuse for respondents failure to deliver the amount his task
to the petitioner. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for3. He was actually a real estate and insurance broker
4. He gave up his legal practice for an insurance underwriting practice
himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him attorneys fees. The failure of an
5. He only helped to facilitate the transfer because Barnachae made her willingness to consider
attorney to return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has
the insurance proposal contingent on his help. So he did, but on the condition that he wont
misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and violation of the general morality, as well
study, prepare, or verify any of the documents (non-lawyer procedure)
as of professional ethics; it also impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves6. He discovered that the original was lost in a fire and at that time he severed his ties with his
punishment. In short, a lawyers unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client, as in partners
this case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. 7. He did not have a landline and his phone was stolen; thats why he cant be contacted
It is true that under Canon 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, an attorney has
the following rights; The court agrees on disciplinary measures but argues that Boards recommendation (warning+
Rule 16.03- A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
refund in full) is incommensurate. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may
existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may be removed or otherwise
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to
disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession but also for gross
his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
misconduct not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
But the fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his
client, as above-stated, does not relieve him of his duty to promptly account for the moneys
In the two months, he could have contacted the complainant if his excuses (re: phones) were
received; his failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. Thus, what respondent
true. His other excuses did not also have proof. The court notes that what can be clearly
should have properly done in the case at bar was to provide the petitioner with an accounting
inferred is that he used Barnacheas money to alleviate his financial woes. That was dishonest
before deducting his attorneys fees and then to turn over the remaining balance of the award
conduct that hurt the fiduciary nature of attorney-client relationship.
collected to petitioner. The Court notes that respondent represented petitioner from the time of
filing of the complaint before what is now the RTC and of the appeal of the same case to the
The court SUSPENDED Quiocho and DIRECTED him to restitute to Barnachea the full
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. But respondent was not justified to hold on the entire
amount within 10 days
amount of award collected by him until his fees had been paid and received by him.
SUSPENDED FOR 6 months + STERN WARNING, ENTITLED TO 35% ONLY, must return
Yu v Dela Cruz Linelle
290k to petitioner
FACTS:
Petitioner Paulina Yu had availed of the services of respondent Atty. Berlin for multiple cases.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest are Petitioner had already paid for respondents acceptance fees, but it turns out respondent had
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer abandoned the cases.
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.
While the lawyer-client relationship was still subsisting, respondent atty borrowed jewelry from
Yu and pledged said pieces with Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for a certain amount. When the
Barnachea v Quicho Les time came for the redemption of the jewelry, respondent gave a check to complainant, but the
Facts: check bounced.
Barnachea engaged Quiochos legal services after he had revived it from a hiatus from private
practice. Her sister sold a property to Barnachea under an unauthorised deed of sale, for Complainant asks for a refund of the acceptance fees paid and the return of the value of the
which the latter issued checks worth Php 41,280.00 and the defendant enchased them. pledged jewelry.
Because 2 months already lapsed and Quiocho was unsuccessful in trying to secure a title,
Barnachea demanded a refund. Quiocho issued a check but he was unable to fund it.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Upon review of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, they hold that respondent attorney
should be disbarred for violating Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
proscribed the borrowing of money from a client.
ISSUE: WON he is guilty of violating the Code
HELD: Yes. Complainant blatantly disregarded Rule 16.04 when he borrowed jewelry from
petitioner to pawn for proceeds he intended to use personally. The Court noted that
complainant's acquiescence to the "pawning" of her jewelry, as well as his intent to pay his
client back, becomes immaterial; he had abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him
by his client.
The CPR is clear in that lawyers are proscribed from borrowing money or property from clients,
unless the latter's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent
advice.
Court also ruled that apart from Rule 16.04, he is guilty of violating Canons 1, 16, 17 and Rule
1.01.
RULING: Three-year suspension against respondent lawyer, with a stern warning.
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.
Cantiller v Potenciano Mikee R
Facts:
The petitioner is a sister of one Peregrina Cantiller, who was a defendant in an action for
ejectment and a plaintiff in a separate action for reconveyance with damages. Both cases were
decided against her, and such prompted the sisters to consult a sheriff on the matter. The
sheriff introduced the complainants to the defendant, who was supposed to represent them.
The complainant was made to sign a hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly
composed petition for annulment of judgment. The defendant told the complainant that the
restraining order would be secured because he was friends with the judge who was to
hear the matter.
When the petition was filed with the RTC, the defendant demanded 1K as attorneys fees.
When the case was raffled, the presiding judge asked Potenciano to withdraw as counsel
because of their friendship.
Defendant asked for 2K from the complainant, alleging that it will be given to another
judge who will issue the restraining order in the ejectment case.
Also, both parties met up in Maxs and the defendant ordered 2 bags of food allegedly for
the judge who will issue the restraining order.
After some time, the defendant informed the complainant that there was a need to file another
case to retain possession of the apartment, and such will need 10K as purchase price (to be
deposited with the Treasurers Office) and 1K to cover suit expenses.
Contrary to the promise of securing the temporary restraining order, the respondent withdrew
his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to find a replacement,
so there was no restraining order. The order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.
Issue & Holding: Was there a violation of Canon 17 of the CPR? Yes.
His actions point to his personal interest and gain, making the most out of the complainant who
was in a hopeless situation. (his bragging about being friends with the judge and the
subsequent collection of 10K as alleged deposit)
He failed to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a clients cause makes such lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed on him (as evidenced by the poorly drafted
petition and his withdrawal as counsel without asking the complainant to look for another
lawyer).
His duty as a lawyer was not even to file such cases; he was to represent the complainant until
the termination of the cases that were existing prior to his representation.
Ruling:
Suspension for an indefinite period. He is hereby ordered to return the 11K with legal
interest.
In re Maquera Raf [ROY: Online digest only]
FACTS
In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this Court of the
suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam. He was
suspended from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired his client's
property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an
unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an
attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign
court's action is by reason of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyer's oath.
The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation report and recommendation. In its decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated
that Maquera was the counsel of a certain Castro. Benavente, the creditor OF Castro,
obtained a judgement against Castro, thus Castros property was to be sold at a public auction
in satisfaction of his obligation to Benavente. However, Castro retains the right of redemption.
In consideration of Maqueras legal services, Castro entered into an oral agreement with
Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of the latter. On January 8, 1988,
Maquera exercised Castro's right of redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in
satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property transferred
in his name.And after, sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred
Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).
The Guam Bar Ethics Committee filed a Petition in the Superior Court of Guam praying that
Maquera be sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.5 and 1.8(a) of the Model Rules of
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in force in Guam. In its Petition, the Committee claimed
that Maquera obtained an unreasonably high fee for his services. The Committee further
alleged that Maquera himself admitted his failure to comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8
(a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or
knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the transaction and the terms
governing the lawyer's acquisition of such interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are
fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in writing.
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that although
the said court found Maquera liable for misconduct, "there is no evidence to establish that
Maquera committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines."However, the IBP still resolved to
suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP since
1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not Maquera, who was suspended from the practice of law in Guam, be
suspended as member of the Philippine Bar on the same ground of his suspension in Guam.
HELD
The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in a
foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended
by Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney
is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts
hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima
facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension
In the case at bar such transaction made by Maquera falls squarely under Article 1492 in
relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article
1491 prohibits the lawyer's acquisition by assignment of the client's property which is the
subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article 1492, the prohibition extends to
sales in legal redemption. This is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an
attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client30 and unduly
enrich himself at the expense of his client.
Such acts are violative of a lawyer's sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients.
They are also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which
states that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and
confidence reposed in him;" and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The requirement of good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to
maintain one's good's standing in the legal profession.
The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence on his
behalf regarding the charges of unethical behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain
that he did receive the Notice of Hearing earlier sent by the IBP's Commission on Bar
Discipline. Thus, there is a need to ascertain Maquera's current and correct address in Guam
in order that another notice, this time specifically informing him of the charges against him and
requiring him to explain why he should not be suspended or disbarred on those grounds
(through this Resolution), may be sent to him.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended from the
practice of law for non-payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the
present. Under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court, non-payment of
membership dues for six (6) months shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP, and
default in such payment for one year shall be ground for removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys.
Solatan v Inocentes Haf
FACTS:
Respondents, Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes, were both engaged in the practice of law
under the firm name of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office. Atty. Inocentes held office
in his home in Central District, QC, while Atty. Camano in Quirino District, QC.
The Law Office was retained by Sps. Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the
Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG on July 9, 1986. The Law
Office represented the Sps. Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan, and
subsequently, with authority from the PCGG, in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants
occupying the apartments.
Complainants sister, Gliceria Solatan, was a tenant of a unit in the complex. Gliceria left for
the US in 1986, and since then, the apartment was either intermittently used by members of
her family or placed under the charge of caretakers.
In 1987, a complaint for ejectment against Gliceria for non-payment of rentals was filed. In
1988, the court ordered Gliceria to vacate the premises of the apartment, pay the Sps. Genito
the amount of 30,600 as unpaid rentals from Feb. 1986 to Aug. 1987 with interest of 24% per
annum from Aug. 20, 1987 until the premises are vacated, 10K as attorneys fees and costs
of the suit.
Complainant, George Solatan, was occupying the unit when he learned about the judgment
rendered against his sister. Prior to the writ of execution, George and his mother, Elvira,
approached Atty. Inocentes with the intention to arrange the execution of a lease contract by
virtue of which complainant would be the new lessee of the apartment and thus make possible
his continued stay therein. Atty. Inocentes referred complainant and his mother to his
associate, Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of the ejectment cases against tenants of the
Genito apartments.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which complainant
and his mother agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of Gliceria Solatan, including fifty
percent of the awarded attorneys fees and One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P1,600.00) as
costs of suit provided that Atty. Camano would allow complainants continued stay at Door 10,
Phase B of the Genito Apartments. As partial compliance with the agreement, complainant
issued in the name Atty. Camano a check for Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) representing
half of the P10,000.00 attorneys fees adjudged against complainants sister.
Complainant and his mother failed to make any other payment. Thus, the sheriff in
coordination with Atty. Camano and some policemen, enforced the writ of execution on 22
June 1988 and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. An attempt at
renegotiation took place at the insistence of complainant, resulting in Atty. Camanos
acquiescence to release the levied properties and allowing complainant to remain at the
apartment, subject to the latters payment of costs incurred in enforcing the writ of execution
and issuance of postdated checks representing installment rental payments. Complainant
issued 4 PDCs for a total amount of P3,400 (half as monthly rental, half as payment for
judgment debt.)
On 28 June 1988, acting on the advice of Atty. Camano, complainant presented an Affidavit
of Ownership to the sheriff who then released the levied items to complainant. However, a
Northern Hill 3-burner gas stove was not returned to complainant. The stove was in fact kept
by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments wherein he temporarily stayed[12] and,
thereafter, turned over the same to a certain Recto Esberto, caretaker of the Genito
Apartments.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Mison found that Atty. Camano accepted from complainant
attorney's fees and the costs of Implementing the writ of execution, possession of
complainant's levied gas stove, and advice to complainant on how to recover the latter's levied
items #ShooktSiMison (6-month suspension for Camano, reprimand for Inocentes)
The IBP Board of Governors recommended the SUSPENSION of Atty. Camano from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, and the REPRIMAND of Atty. Inocentes who was liable for
the aforementioned acts of his associate, under the principle of command responsibility.
The IBP held that Atty. Camanos act of giving unsolicited advice to complainant is a culpable
act because the advice conflicted with the interest of his clients, the spouses Genito. The rule
on conflicting interests, established in Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
deals with conflicts in the interests of an attorneys actual clients among themselves, of
existing and prospective clients, and of the attorney and his clients. It states that a lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. (Essentially, the IBP branded the acts as bordering on technical
extortion #BigWord, accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party, and
casting doubts as to the procedure of levy.)
ISSUE: W/N respondent-attorneys betrayed the trust and confidence of their clients - NO, but
the IBP recommendation is affirmed based on the other culpable acts by respondents
RATIO:
The act of informing complainant hat the levied properties would be returned to him
upon showing proof of his ownership may hint infidelity to the interest of the Sps.
Genito. BUT!!! In this case, such act lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal
of the latter's confidence so as to deserve outright categorization as infidelity or
disloyalty to his client's cause
On Atty. Inocentes
Atty. Inocentes is administratively held liable because he referred the complaint to his
associate lawyer who did unethical acts. #CommandResponsibility
Law firm practitioners are not given a free hand to assign cases to seasoned attorneys
and conveniently forget about the case. To do so would be a disservice to the profession.
The firm name behooves Atty. Inocentes to exert ordinary diligence to find out what was
going on in his law firm. It placed in Atty. Inocentes the active responsibility to inquire further
into the circumstances affecting the levy of complainant's property
As name practitioner of the law office, he is tasked with responsibility to make reasonable
efforts to ensure that all lawyers in his firm should act in conformity to the CPR
Based on the finding that he received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter's
dealings with complainant, it can be said that there is an actual existence of Atty. Inocentes
supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano.
In Rheem of the PH, Inc. v Ferrer, the partners in a law office were admonished for the
contemptuous language in a pleading submitted to court despite, and even due to, the fact
that the pleading was not passed upon by any of the partners of the office. Partners are duty
bound to provide for efficacious control of court pleadings and oher court papers that carry
their names or the name of the law firm.
Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert
ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled
by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting
necessary efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the CPR by person under their
charge.
However, it has been the practice of Atty. Inocentes' practice to allow wide discretion for
Atty. Camano to practice on his own. It does constitute indifference and neglect for Atty.
Inocentes to fail to accord even a token attention to Atty. Camano's conduct which could
have brought the then impending problem to light. Atty. Inocentes is a former judge and a
lawyer who, as of yet, is in good standing and it is the first time in which Atty. Inocentes has
been made to answer for the misconduct of a person under his charge
(The Court didn't say anything abt the sanction on Atty. Camano.)
RULING: The petition is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution dated 16 April 2004 is AFFIRMED
in respect of the sanction meted out on Atty. Camano (SUSPENSION FOR 1 YEAR). Atty.
Inocentes is hereby ADMONISHED to monitor closely the activities of his associates to make
sure that the same are in consonance with the CPR with the WARNING that repetition of the
same or similar omission will be dealt with more severely.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Somosot v Pontevedra Anj
FACTS:
Complainant Florencia M. Somosot (now deceased) filed a verified complaint against
respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra (her counsel of record in a civil case for reconveyance
and recovery of possession) for neglect of duty and for professional misconduct for unlawfully
keeping money belonging to her.
The trial court ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda since the case that
had been pending for already twenty-three years. However, both of the parties counsels did
not comply with the order.
The trial court then reiterated the order, giving the parties a fresh period of 15 days within
which to comply.
Complainant repeatedly reminded respondent about the deadline, but respondent still failed to
file a memorandum. Instead, respondent allegedly entered into an oral agreement with the
opposing counsel that they would both forego with the filing of the memorandum.
After almost two years, Somosots daughter sent respondent a money order for P1,000 as
payment for the preparation of the memorandum.
When complainant learned that the case had been submitted for decision without any
memoranda, she asked respondent to return the money. Pontevedra ignored her request. She
then filed the instant case.
Respondent argued that his failure to prepare the memorandum was justified. He said he had
nothing to aid him in the preparation of the memorandum since another lawyer, Atty.
Raymundo Ponteras, handled the prosecution of the case and the presentation of witnesses.
Atty. Ponteras died after the presentation of the last defense witness and his notes were lost.
Complainant could not produce copies of the transcripts of stenographic notes while
respondents case folder were also lost by Atty. Ponteras who borrowed but failed to return it.
Instead, respondent allegedly entered into an oral agreement with the opposing counsel that
they would both forego with the filing of the memorandum.
The Court referred the case to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for investigation,
report and recommendation. Before the case could be heard, however, complainant died.
Thus, the case was submitted for decision based on the records.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility in failing to file the required
memorandum in Civil Case No. X-98 and for keeping the money order despite complainants
request for its return?
HELD:
YES. Canon 17 provides that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and must
therefore be always mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Under Canon 18,
they are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence. Before admission to
the bar, lawyers subscribe to an oath to conduct themselves "with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to their clients." Failure to comply with these abiding precepts of ethical conduct
renders counsel liable for violating the canons of his profession.
In this case, respondent failed to exercise that degree of diligence required of him in the
performance of his duties. While it was impossible for him to prepare a memorandum without
the transcripts of stenographic notes and his case folder, and while respondent may have been
constrained simply to enter into an agreement with the opposing counsel to submit the case for
decision without memorandum, respondent failed to inform the trial court of said agreement.
He should have filed a manifestation before the trial court informing it of the agreement instead
of leaving the trial court waiting and wondering whether said memoranda will be filed at all. His
omission not only gave complainant much anxiety, it also needlessly compounded the long
delay in the resolution of the 23-year-old case. Worse, respondent did not inform complainant
that the case had been submitted for decision without memorandum despite complainants
repeated requests for information regarding the status of her case.
Moreover, respondent should have accounted for the money order. Having received the money
order as payment for professional services that he was unable to render, respondent should
have returned it when complainants daughter demanded it from him.
Pontevedra is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that the commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. He is ordered to return the postal money
order in the amount of P1,000.00 to complainants heirs. BUT no damages was awarded
because of absence of any showing that respondent had acted with malice, bad faith, or other
evil motive in failing to inform the trial court of the agreement to submit the case for decision
and in failing to account for the money order.
Angalan v Delante Pau
FACTS:
Complainants were illiterate and belonged to the Samal Tribe. They owned a parcel of land in
Davao del Norte. They secured a loan from Spouses Eustaquio by using such land as
mortgage and surrendering the OCT to the Spouses.
The document prepared by the Spouses and signed by complainants with their thumb marks
was not a Real Estate Mortgage but a Deed of Absolute Sale. A new TCT was issued in the
name of one of the Spouses Eustaquio.
Complainants engaged the services of Atty. Delante for the purpose of recovering the property.
A receipt was issued as payment for his professional services so he filed a complaint with the
RTC.
Complainants and Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement, offering a
repurchase price of P30,000. But, since complainants at that time did not have the money, Atty.
Delante advanced the payment for them. In return, complainants allowed Atty. Delante to
possess and gather the produce of the land until he is paid.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
When complainants were ready to repay the repurchase price and recover the property, Atty.
Delante refused. He has transferred the title of the land in his name and cancelled the title
previously issued to the Spouses Eustaquio.
ISSUE:
Whether or not he violated Canon 17 when he bought the property of his client without
their knowledge, consent and against their will? YES.
RULING:
Violation of Canon 17 is a grave misconduct. Atty. Delante is DISBARRED.
RATIO:
Atty. Delante should have been mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Complainants were illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them so they
engaged his services in the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of
protecting the interests of complainants, Atty. Delante took advantage of them and
transferred the title of their property to his name.
A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of
telling the truth is unfit to be a lawyer.
A lawyer who takes advantage of his clients financial plight to acquire the latters properties for
his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the legal profession.
ADDITIONAL INFO IF MAAM GETS INTO THE DETAILS:
Atty. Delantes Defense: Complainants only went to his office to ask advice regarding the
borrowing of money and that it is a client of his from New York that bought the property from
the Spouses Eustaquio.
IBP did not give credit to this, calling his excuses too flimsy because:
He issued a receipt stating that he received 1, 200 for full payment of professional services for
recovery of original title
In a letter addressed to the barrio captain, he acknowledged that he was the counsel of the
complainants and that the complainants repurchased the property back from the Spouses and
that he was the owner of the money redeeming their property.
There was no proof to substantiate (no affidavit, passport, forms of correspondence) the
existence of the New York client
1.
IBP Board only recommended 6 months suspension but Court found that his case merits2.
disbarment
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know
that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent
of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the
matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Sanchez v Aguilos Mike
FACTS:
Sanchez hired Aguilos as her counsel for her annulment case against her husband.
Aguilos fixed his fee at P150,000, plus the appearance fee of P5,000/hearing. Sanchez initially
paid him P90,000.
When Sanchez visited Aguiloss residence to ask for updates, she found out that Aguilos
thought that he was being hired to file for legal separation, not annulment. Aguilos proceeded
to ask for a higher fee for the annulment of her marriage.
She requested a refund but Aguilos refused, arguing that he already began his work on the
case.
Sanchez hired another lawyer and demanded the return of the amount she paid, less the
payment for the work already done by Aguilos. He refused, prompting Sanchez to file the
present case.
In his answer, respondent arrogantly claimed that the demand letter shouldve been addressed
to the MMDA urinal where it rightfully belonged.
Respondent:
Initial agreement was to file for legal separation citing psychological incapacity, but petitioner
changed her mind and opted to go for annulment of marriage instead.
IBP investigation:
respondents insistence that he could have brought a petition for legal separation based on the
psychological incapacity of the complainants husband was sanctionable because he himself
was apparently not conversant with the grounds for legal separation
Respondent is only entitled to P40,000 for his partial work and must return P30,000.
Statement re: mmda urinal was uncalled for and constitutes violation of Rule 8.01 which
prohibits offensive and improper language uttered against a fellow lawyer.
Recommendation: warning for offensive language + return of P30,000
ISSUES:
WON respondent is administratively for misconduct
WON attorneys fees should be returned
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Respondent is liable for misconduct and must return the entire amount received from Finally, Legarda hired new counsel and appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that she was
client deprived of her property without due process of law through the gross negligence of Coronel.
Facts show respondents glaring incompetence, which has led to transgressions of rules 18.01 The SC granted the appeal, and in the same decision required Coronel to show cause within
and 18.02. 10 days why he should not be held administratively liable.
The client wanted to get married to someone else, yet respondent argued that the appropriate
remedy is for legal separation. Respondent shouldve known that legal separation does not Coronel asked for and was granted an extension, on the excuse that he was under extreme
give a married person the capacity to get married again. work pressure "consisting of daily hearings in several forums and preparations of pleadings in
Psychological incapacity is not a ground for legal separation, yet respondent insisted that equally urgent cases, such as the more than 80 civil and criminal cases against the Marcoses".
agreement between him and client was to file for legal separation under such ground. However, he still failed to meet the extended deadline. A day after the deadline lapsed, he
Since respondent is not competent enough to handle the clients case, he had no basis to filed a second motion for extension, alleging that he was confined at St. Luke's due to
accept any amount of money for attorneys fees. "ischemic cardiamyopathy, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure class IV and brain
Disposition: Fined P10,000 for misrepresenting competence, reprimanded for offensive infarction, thrombotic." The court refused to grant the second motion for extension.
language, ordered to return P70,000 in fees plus interest
HELD: Atty. Coronel violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in guilty of GROSS NEGLIGENCE. He is suspended from the practice of law for SIX
connection therewith shall render him liable. MONTHS.

Legarda would not have suffered material prejudice had Coronel exercised even the ordinary
Legarda v CA and New Cathay House Aian
diligence of a member of the Bar. By neglecting to file the answer to the complaint against
FACTS:
petitioner, he set off the events which resulted in the deprivation of petitioner's rights
Victoria Legarda signed a five-year lease contract with New Cathay House (Cathay). Although
over her house and lot.
respondent deposited P72,000 as downpayment, Legarda eventually refused to allow Cathay
to occupy her property. As a result, Cathay filed a case for specific performance and damages
Coronel is a well-known practicing lawyer and dean of a law school. It is to be expected that he
against her. Legarda engaged Atty. Antonio Coronel of Coronel Law Office to defend her.
would extend the highest quality of service as a lawyer to the petitioner. Unfortunately, counsel
appears to have abandoned the cause of petitioner.
Atty. Coronel first asked the RTC for a 10-day extension to file Legarda's reply, which was
granted. Coronel failed to file a reply despite the extension, and Legarda was declared in
Also, this is not the only case wherein, in dealing with this Court's orders, Atty. Coronel
default. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Cathay, ordering Legarda to pay P388,000 in
appears to exhibit a pattern of negligence, inattention to his obligations as counsel, sloppiness
damages. Coronel received a copy of the RTC's decision but failed to appeal, causing
and superciliousness. In G.R. No. 97418, "Imelda R. Marcos, et al. v. PCGG, et al., the Court
the decision to become final.
en banc, in its Resolution of May 28, 1992, imposed upon Atty. Coronel a fine of Five Hundred
Pesos (P500.00) after he was found guilty of inexcusable negligence in his failure to comply
[Context: Coronel was formerly a dean of the Philippine Law School (wtf is this school) and
with this Court's resolutions.
was also a lawyer for the Marcoses. Legarda did not know that Coronel was negligent because
she was overseas the entire time the civil case was being litigated.]
Moreover, a lawyer owes fealty, not only to his client, but also to the Court of which he is
an officer. Atty. Coronel failed to obey this Court's order even on a matter that personally
Legarda's property was then seized and sold at a public auction to satisfy the judgment.
affects him, such that one cannot avoid the conclusion that he must be bent on professional
Cathay was the lowest bidder. The one-year redemption period expired without an appeal from
self-destruction. Be that as it may, Atty. Coronel cannot escape this Court's disciplinary action
Legarda. Sixteen months after the auction, Legarda moved to annul the sale in the Court of
for gross negligence which resulted in depriving petitioner of her property rights.
Appeals, allegedly due to fraud. Coronel remained her counsel in this motion for annulment.
Endaya v Oca Tres
The Court of Appeals refused to annul the sale, holding that there was no fraud Legarda was
bound by the negligence of her counsel. Coronel again failed to appeal this decision.
Carandang v Obmina Alayza
CASE: a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang (Carandang) against Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina
(Atty. Obmina). Atty. Obmina was counsel for Carandang in a Civil Case [entitled Sps. Emilia A.
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Carandang and Carlito Carandang v. Ernesto Alzona]. Carandang brought suit for Atty.
Obminas failure to inform Carandang of the adverse decision in Civil Case No. B-5109 and for
failure to appeal the decision.
FACTS
Based on the sworn statement of Carandang from the IBP report and recommendation
Carandang filed a suit against Alson regarding their house and lot
Atty. Obmina was his Kababayan from Quezon and at bilang kababayan ako ay
nagtiwala sa kanyang kakayahan upang maipagtanggol sa naturang kaso, ngunit
taliwas sa aking pananalig sa kanya ang nasabing kaso ay napabayaan said
Carandang Atty. Obmina did not inform Carandang that the case was already lost.
Carandang only learned of the status of his case after 6 months when the RTC
informed her daughter Rosemarie. When he asked Atty. Obmina why he wasnt
informed of the status of the case, Atty. Obmina only replied that Carandang did
not even have the money to pursue the appeal. sa RTC ay binati (si
Rosemarie) at tinatanong kung saan kayo nakatira at ang sagot [ng] aking anak
BAKIT? At ang sagot naman [ng] taga RTC, HINDI MO BA ALAM NA ANG INYONG
KASO AY TAPOS NA. Nang marinig yon ay umuwi na siya at sinabi agad sa akin.
Tapos na daw yung kaso [ng] ating bahay at ako ay pumunta sa opisina ni ATTY.
OBMINA at aking tinanong BAKIT DI MO SINABI SA AKIN NA TAPOS NA ANG KASO?
At ang sagot niya sa akin AY WALA KANG IBABAYAD SA ABOGADO DAHIL WALA
KANG PERA PANG-APILA dahil sa sagot sa akin ay para akong nawalan [ng] pag-asa
sa kaso.
Carandang went to Malacanang and was informed by another lawyer that he is not able to
appeal because 6 months have already lapsed. He was given a letter addressed to the IBP (to
change lawyers perhaps)
Carandang was asked nasaan ATTORNEYS WITHDRAWAL NYO. Carandang immediately
went to Atty. Obminas office to get the withdrawal only to learn that Atty. Obmina was already
in America.
Step by Step process: IBP (ordered respondent to answer Carandangs complaint)
Atty. Obminua-Muaa (filed a manifestation) IBP (scheduled hearing) Atty.
Obmina-Muaa (filed a manifestation again, reiterating her claims) IBP (ordered
Atty. Obmina-Muaa in place of her father) Atty. Obminua-Muaa couldnt appear in
first hearing but submitted US passport and residence card of her dad IBP gave
Atty. Obmina-Muaa time to file a verified answer IBP received Respondents
Memorandum and complainants Position Paper
Obminas defense:
Commission was in receipt of a Manifestation dated December 11, 2006 filed by a certain Atty.
Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaa. Allegedly, she is the daughter of respondent Atty. Gilbert S.
Obmina.
She further alleged that [her] father is already a permanent resident of the United States of
America since March 2001 (6 years) and had already retired from the practice of law.
IBP ordered her to attend the hearing in place of her father and to furnish proof of her claims.
She made an excuse about not going (counsel in another election client, busy with
canvassing) and likewise submitted copies of her fathers Passport and US Permanent
Residence Card. That with respect [to] the Withdrawal of Appearance, Atty. Muaa alleged that
copies of the same were all given to complainant Carlito P. Carandang.
IBP Report and Recommendation: Atty. Obmina was counsel of Carandang. Although
Commissioner De La Rama observed that complainant is partly to blame for his loss for failure
to maintain contact with Atty. Obmina and to inform himself of the progress of his case,
Commissioner De La Rama nonetheless underscored the duty of Atty. Obmina to notify his
client as to what happened to his case. Penalty: 1yr suspension
ISSUE: W/N Obmina violated the CPR. YES.
RULING:
we sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendations. Atty. Obmina violated
Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty.
Obmina Failed to Serve Complainant with Competence and Diligence
Canon 18 states that [a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rules
18.03 and 18.04 provide that [a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable and [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.
In his Memorandum, Atty. Obmina admitted that he was counsel for Carandang in Civil
Case No. B-5109. Atty. Obmina blamed Carandang for the adverse decision in Civil Case
No. B-5109 because Carandang did not tell him that there was a Compromise Agreement
executed prior to Atty. Obminas filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. B-5109. Carandang, on
the other hand, stated that Atty. Obmina made him believe that they would win the case. In
fact, Carandang engaged the services of Atty. Obmina on a contingent basis. Carandang shall
pay Atty. Obmina 40% of the sale proceeds of the property subject matter of the case. Atty.
Obmina promised to notify Carandang as soon as the decision of the court was given.
Contrary to Atty. Obminas promise, there is no evidence on record that Atty. Obmina
took the initiative to notify Carandang of the trial courts adverse decision. Atty. Obmina
again put Carandang at fault for failure to advance the appeal fee. Atty. Obminas version of
Carandangs confrontation with him was limited to this narrative:
Sometime in the year 2000, complainant went to respondents law office. He was fuming mad
and was blaming respondent for having lost his case. He asked for the records of the case
because according to him, he will refer the case to a certain Atty. Edgardo Salandanan.
Respondent gave complainant the case file. Complainant did not return to pursue the appeal
or at least had given an appeal fee to be paid to Court in order to perfect the appeal
Atty. Obminas futile efforts of shifting the blame on Carandang only serve to emphasize his
failure to notify Carandang that the trial court already promulgated a decision in Civil Case No.
B-5109 that was adverse to Carandangs interests. Atty. Obmina cannot overlook the fact that
Carandang learned about the promulgation of the decision not through Atty. Obmina himself,
but through a chance visit to the trial court. Instead of letting Carandang know of the adverse
decision himself, Atty. Obmina should have immediately contacted Carandang, explained the
decision to him, and advised them on further steps that could be taken. It is obvious that
Carandang lost his right to file an appeal because of Atty. Obminas inaction. Notwithstanding
Atty. Obminas subsequent withdrawal as Carandangs lawyer, Atty. Obmina was still counsel of
record at the time the trial court promulgated the decision in Civil Case No. B-5109
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need
for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments
affecting the clients case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the
lawyer is defending the clients interests.
The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of the IBP to suspend Atty. Gilbert S.
Obmina from the practice of law for one year. In the cases of Credito v. Sabio and Pineda v.
Macapagal, we imposed the same penalty upon attorneys who failed to update their clients on
the status of their cases. Considering Atty. Obminas advanced age, such penalty serves the
purpose of protecting the interest of the public and legal profession.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
approving and adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Accordingly, Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina is found GUILTY of violation of
Canon 18 and of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
Court SUSPENDS Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina from the practice of law for one year, and
WARNS him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.

END FOR 18 APR MEETING

 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
Montano charged Atty. Juan Dealca with misconduct and prays that he be sternly
Agot v Rivera dealt with administratively.
The complaint is summarized as follows:
Francisco v Flores Montano hired the services of Atty Dealca s his counsel in collaboration with Atty.
Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals
Blanza v Arcangel The parties agreed upon attorneys fees in the amount of P15,000.00, fifty percent
(50%) payable upon acceptance of the case and balance upon the termination of the
Abay v Montesino
case.
Accordingly, complainant paid respondent the amount of P7,500.00 representing
Ramiscal v Orro
50% of the attorneys fee.
Atty. Dealca demanded an additional payment from complainant.
Enriquez v Lavadia
Complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4,000.00.
Prior to the filing of the appellants brief, respondent counsel again demand payment
Chua v De Castro
of the remaining balance of 3,500.00.
When complainant was unable to do so, respondent lawyer withdrew his appearance
Quirante v IAC
as complainants counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity.
Returning the case folder to the complainant, respondent counsel attached a Note
Tanhueco v De Dumo
dated February 28, 1993 [For breaking your promise, since you do not want to fulfill
Albano v Coloma your end of the bargain, heres your reward. Henceforth, you lawyer for yourselves.
Here are your papers.]
Metrpolitan Bank v CA Complainant claimed that such conduct exceeded the ethical standards of the law
profession and prays that the latter be sternly dealt with administratively. He prayed
Roxas v de Zuzuarregui for the imposition of max penalty of disbarment.
The Investigating Commissioner of IBP found respondent counsel guilty of
Masmud v NLRC unprofessional conduct and recommended that he be severely reprimanded.
However, in a Resolution by the IBP Board of Governors it was resolved that the
Aquino v Casabar penalty recommended by the Investigating Commissioner meted to respondent by
amended to three (3) months suspension from the practice of law for having been
Urban Bank v Pena
found guilty of misconduct, which eroded the public confidence regarding his duty as
a lawyer.
Pena et al
Atty Dealca sought reconsideration of the said IBP Resolution
alleges that the IBP Board misapprehended the facts and that, in any case, he did
Corpus v CA
not deserve the penalty imposed
Averred that complainants refusal to pay the agreed lawyers fees, measly as it was,
Hilado v David
was deliberate and in bad faith; hence, his withdrawal as counsel was just, ethical
Genato v Silapan and proper.
concluded that not only was the penalty of suspension harsh for his act of merely
Domingo v Aquino trying to collect payment for his services rendered, but it indirectly would punish his
family since he was the sole breadwinner with children in school and his wife
Montano v IBP Shiella terminally ill with cancer.
FACTS: The IBP denied Atty. Dealcas motion for reconsideration
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
The IBP issued another Resolution referring the above-entitled case to
Commissioner Vibar for evaluation, report and recommendation in view of the Motion Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyer shall
for Reconsideration granted by the Supreme Court. withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
The Investigating Commissioner, after referring the case, recommended that his circumstances.
original recommendation of the imposition of the penalty of reprimand be maintained, Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to pay the
noting that respondent counsel had served the IBP well as President of the Sorsogon fees for the services,under the circumstances of the present case, Atty. Dealcas
Chapter withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the
Accordingly, the IBP Board of Governors, issued the following resolution: attorneys fees.
the Motion for Reconsideration be granted and that the penalty of REPRIMAND In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondents
earlier recommended by the Investigating Commissioner be imposed on Atty. Juan S. contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a member of the bar considering that
Dealca. the amount owing to him was only P3,500.00.
Rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with
Montano asked the IBP to reconsider the foregoing resolution but the motion was clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to
denied. prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
Montano filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari in connection with Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by complainant, respondent lawyer failed
Administrative Case No. 4215 against the IBP and respondent counsel to act in accordance with the demands of the Code.
averred that the IBP Board of Governors committed grave abuse of discretion when it
overturned its earlier resolution and granted respondent counsels motion for The Court, however, does not agree with complainants contention that the maximum
reconsideration penalty of disbarment should be imposed on respondent lawyer. The power to disbar
ISSUE: Given the above circumstances, was Atty. Dealcas conduct just and proper? must be exercised with great caution. It should never be decreed where a lesser
penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. In the
RULING: Reprimand with warning. present case, reprimand is deemed sufficient.

RATIO: NO. We find Atty. Dealcas conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal Obando v Figueras
profession.
Chang v Hidalgo
We affirm the findings made by the IBP that complainant engaged the services of
Sps. Santuyo v HIdalgo
respondent lawyer only for the preparation and submission of the appellants brief
and the attorneys fees was payable upon the completion and submission of the Sicat v Ariola
appellants brief and not upon the termination of the case.
There is sufficient evidence which indicates complainants willingness to pay the Mondejar v Rubia
attorneys fees.
And while the remaining balance was not yet due as it was agreed to be paid only Lee v Tambago
upon the completion and submission of the brief, complainant nonetheless delivered
to respondent lawyer P4,000.00 as the latter demanded. Samson v Caballera
This, notwithstanding, Atty. Dealca withdrew his appearance simply because of
complainants failure to pay the remaining balance of P3,500.00, which does not SC BM 1755
appear to be deliberate.
The situation was aggravated by respondent counsels note to complainant Yuchico v Gutierrez
withdrawing as counsel which was couched in impolite and insulting language.
Maniago v De Dios
 LEGAL PROFESSION BLOCK REVIEWER 2 - Atty. Myrna Feliciano - Block D2020
Link to Reading List Tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmxMNUVgymmEZyIyPsrHtXzVzFef2tr_QjjqRvn1HYM/edit#gid=0
COVERAGE: MEETINGS STARTING 18 APRIL ONWARDS
In re Undated Letter of Luis Biraogo
Ibana-Andrade v Paita-Moya
Allegations Made under Oath at the SBRC
Re In the Matter of Petition for Reinstatement
People v Veneracion
Llanar v Ricafort
Jorda v Judge Bitas
Libaros v Dabalos
Marcos Sr. v Arcangel
Tan v Rosete
Lorenzana v Austria
Ramirez v Corpus-Macandog
Tan v Pacuribot
In re Complaint of Mrs. Rotilla Marcos
Guanzon v Rufon
Dela Cruz v Bersamira
Castro v Malazo
Re Letter of Pres Justice Vasquez
OCA v J. Floro